Public Procurement Review Service referrals: lessons from recent cases

The public procurement landscape is particularly complex at present. With procurements continuing under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, new procurements being conducted under the Procurement Act 2023, and healthcare services subject to the Provider Selection Regime, there are different rules, procedures and terminology to navigate. For contracting authorities and bidders alike, keeping on top of which regime applies, what it requires and how those requirements operate in practice can sometimes feel overwhelming.

Yet, despite that complexity, many of the fundamental issues that arise in procurement remain remarkably consistent. Fairness and transparency, clear communication, robust and consistent evaluation, adherence to the published process and effective engagement between contracting authorities and suppliers continue to be at the heart of good procurement practice. They are also themes we see regularly in our work advising both contracting authorities and bidders.

The latest results published by the Public Procurement Review Service (PPRS) in September 2026, covering cases up to July 2026, provide a timely opportunity to look at some of those recurring themes. The PPRS gives suppliers a route to raise concerns about public procurement practice, including concerns arising during procurement processes and issues relating to late payment. Its published cases provide useful insight into the issues that continue to cause difficulties in practice and the lessons that can be learned from them.

Here, Trainee Miriam Berlyne takes a closer look at some of the issues emerging from recent PPRS cases and considers the key takeaways for contracting authorities and bidders.

Transparency, communication and notice compliance

Transparency and communication have been among the most prominent themes, with supplier concerns arising at different stages of the procurement process. Concerns included inadequate assessment summaries, missing information about winning bidders, unclear comparative scoring and feedback that lacked sufficient detail. During procurement processes, suppliers noted that queries remained unanswered, there were unclear timelines or unexplained delays. At the end of the process, suppliers raised complaints suggesting there was no debrief, no assessment summaries and no procurement outcome notifications.

Issues were also raised linked to transparency and compliance relating to notices. Suppliers reported that they had not known opportunities existed, they had not been informed of outcomes, and the procurement routes were unclear. Earlier concerns related to conflicting dates, incomplete notice information and missing publication obligations.

One example of problems with transparency is shown through a concern raised against the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in May 2026. A supplier complained about the procurement for the Board and Committee document sharing system for G-Cloud 14. The supplier stated they had been involved in the procurement which included preparing a tender and participating in a demonstration, but the supplier alleged that they had not received any feedback, nor had they been informed of the procurement outcome or the name of the winning bidder. This complaint was not upheld. The CMA acknowledged the request for information from PPRS but did not share information regarding the procurement. PPRS based its review on the information provided by the supplier. PPRS noted that the route to market for this procurement was G-Cloud 14. This was a direct award catalogue-based framework and as there is no statutory requirement to provide feedback to unsuccessful bidders the complaint was not upheld.

PPRS did set out recommendations that the contracting authority should follow the transparency requirements and log the outcome of the G-Cloud search on the Digital Marketplace. It noted that for any Central Government contract awarded over £12,000, the contracting authority must publish the contract award notice on Contracts Finder.

For contracting authorities, the broader lesson is to distinguish between what is strictly required by the applicable procurement regime and what nevertheless represents good procurement practice. Clear and timely communication can reduce the scope for uncertainty and subsequent complaints. For suppliers, the absence of information should not necessarily be assumed to indicate non-compliance, and it is important to consider what transparency obligations actually apply to the procurement concerned.

Changes to requirements, clarifications and document process integrity

Going slightly further back, a key concern raised by suppliers linked to requirements changing during procurement processes such as amendments to evaluation methods, alterations to pricing models after submission and tender requirements changing. Other concerns included problems surrounding reopening competitions and pricing being resubmitted after bids had been opened. Suppliers also raised complaints that suppliers were treated differently after tenders were received.

In July 2026, a complaint was raised against Staffordshire University Academies Trust concerning the transparency and fairness of its procurement process. Following the initial award notification, bidders were asked to resubmit prices for only one of three lots. It was alleged that this allowed the competition to be manipulated as unsuccessful bidders now had prior knowledge of target pricing required to win. Concerns were also raised regarding pricing evaluation, the shortened second standstill period and the procurement of items outside of the relevant framework.

PPRS upheld four of the seven parts of the complaint. It found that reopening the process and requesting revised pricing, together with the disclosure of the previous best price would enable them to calculate this so there was a lack of transparency and equality to all bidders. PPRS also found changes to the award process were inconsistent with the process described in the ITT document.

PPRS recommended that when a contracting authority becomes aware that they need to change their recommendations after issuing an intent to award letter, they should consider if restarting the procurement is more appropriate. If this were a lotted procurement, it may have been appropriate to re-run the affected lots.

The key lesson for contracting authorities is to consider carefully whether a clarification or proposed change affects the basis on which bidders are competing and, if so, how that change should be communicated and managed. From a bidder perspective, apparent differences between the published requirements and the approach ultimately adopted should be identified and raised as early as possible.

Evaluation quality, moderation and scoring consistency

A frequent concern raised by suppliers related to scoring and evaluation. Recurring concerns included insufficiently evidenced evaluation rationale, inadequate justification for scores and weak audit trails. Suppliers also reported similar answers were scored differently, highlighting concerns about the consistent application of evaluation and the adequacy of moderation records. Going back to earlier cases some complaints related to evaluators scoring on points not disclosed in the tender documents.

Importantly, not every challenge to evaluation resulted in PPRS finding that the scoring itself was defective. A complaint against Shropshire Council in February 2026 was upheld in part. A supplier raised multiple concerns, two of which looked at evaluation. PPRS requested feedback letters and moderation/evaluation notes from the contracting authority. PPRS found that the contracting authority undertook a light touch open procurement under PA23 which included a voluntary standstill. Nevertheless, the assessment summaries did not include a copy of the information provided to the successful supplier to explain how it was scored against the criteria. The supplier therefore did not have the information required for transparency, so this part of the concern was upheld. PPRS, however, found that the bids were scored consistently against the specification. PPRS recommends that contracting authorities include any formulas used and worked examples in the evaluation guidance. This would help make it clearer for suppliers to understand how a mark for a question would be converted to a final score.

For contracting authorities, this reinforces the importance not only of following the published evaluation methodology but also of maintaining a clear audit trail showing how it has been applied. Bidders should ensure that they understand any minimum thresholds and the consequences of failing to meet them and should use the clarification process where the procurement documents leave this unclear.

Framework and G-Cloud direct award compliance

From 2025 onwards, the operation of G-Cloud has emerged as one of the most prominent framework-specific themes in PPRS cases. There are recurring issues that arise namely that authorities were using supplier-specific search terms, product codes and catalogue references which in some cases resulted in only one supplier being returned from a G-Cloud search. This prompted concerns that authorities narrowed searches unnecessarily, failed to consider alternative suppliers, or proceeded directly to award without sufficiently broad market testing. Other concerns highlighted the incorrect use of G-Cloud processes such as awarding services not matching the original search methodology.

One example that demonstrates this concern was raised in April 2026 regarding the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Gartner Research Services tender. The supplier raised concerns about DWP’s use of keywords and whether the search terms aligned with the awarded services. This complaint was upheld. DWP realised their error, which they attempted to correct via a contract variation. However, the ’wrong’ services had already been paid for on a 12-month subscription basis. DWP decided to terminate the contract early.

The practical takeaway is that contracting authorities should be able to demonstrate how their G-Cloud search methodology relates to the services ultimately being purchased and should retain a clear record of the search and selection process. Suppliers should similarly consider whether the published award appears consistent with the applicable framework and procurement route where concerns arise.

SME participation and proportionality

In terms of SME participation, this has been an ongoing concern over the years. Earlier concerns focused on turnover thresholds such as a high minimum turnover requirement which suppliers felt placed a barrier for smaller firms. Suppliers challenged experience requirements relating to previous public sector contracts and requirements that could prevent new market entrants from competing. Recently, suppliers also raised concerns that certain framework structures could favour large suppliers and concentrate awards potentially limiting SME opportunities as well as ensuring that SMEs were considered in timelines.

In June 2025, a complaint was raised regarding Birmingham City Council. The complaint focused on the procurement not encouraging SME participation as the supplier believed the intended procurement strategy was to award the framework to four main suppliers. The PPRS did not uphold the complaint. PPRS did however recommend that, if possible, the contracting authorities must promote SME participation as set out in the National Procurement Policy statement.

Authorities should therefore consider proportionality and barriers to participation when designing financial, experience and framework requirements. SMEs and new market entrants should, in turn, scrutinise those requirements at the outset and raise concerns during the procurement where they consider them to be disproportionate.

Contract management and prompt payment

The recurring themes identified by PPRS do not end with contract award. Prompt payment continued to generate a significant number of supplier concerns, with delays arising for a range of reasons including processing delays or funding issues which continue to cause significant problem for suppliers. Broad contract management concerns also arose, including questions about the operation of contractual obligations and responsibilities. Some cases also highlighted the importance of clearly defined contractual responsibilities and appropriate mechanisms for addressing issues during the life of a contract.

In April 2026, a supplier raised a concern regarding an outstanding invoice against Berneslai Homes Ltd. Delays in internal processes had resulted in the invoice being missed after the supplier changed their bank account. PPRS reminded the authority that where public sector invoices are not paid within 30 days interest becomes liable as set out in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. In addition, under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, public sector buyers must publish annually the amount of interest paid to suppliers due to late payment.

The practical takeaway is that procurement compliance does not end when the contract is awarded. Contracting authorities should ensure that appropriate contract management arrangements are in place, including processes for dealing promptly with invoices, disputes and issues affecting subcontractors. Suppliers should ensure that payment issues are raised and documented at an early stage and that they understand the contractual and other routes available for escalation where payment is delayed.

Portal and technical system issues

Although not as prominent as some of the other themes, technical issues remained an important concern with a focus on accessibility and bid submission. Suppliers reported that difficulties in locating tenders, accessing procurement portals, completing registration as well as missing access codes. Submission failures were also reported due to portal incorrect links, system errors or firewall locks.

In June 2026, a supplier raised a concern regarding the University of Greenwich and problems with e-tendering. The supplier raised concerns that they were unable to submit a bid due to not having an access code for the Delta e-sourcing platform. PPRS upheld the complaint and found that the supplier had followed instructions set out in the ITT document regarding reporting issues with the Delta e-sourcing platform. PPRS recommended that the contracting authority seek to resolve the firewall issues that prevent escalation emails reaching them. PPRS also recommended that the contracting authority have more reliable contact details to support suppliers reporting issues when participating in a live procurement.

This highlights that apparently administrative aspects of a procurement can have significant consequences. Authorities should make submission instructions as clear as possible, while bidders should allow sufficient time for submission and promptly record and report any technical difficulties encountered.

Final observations

The public procurement landscape may be increasingly complex, but the PPRS cases demonstrate that many of the issues arising in practice remain familiar. Whether a procurement is being conducted under a new or established regime, clear requirements, transparent decision-making, consistent evaluation, good record keeping and effective communication remain fundamental to a well-run procurement.

For contracting authorities, the cases provide useful reminders of the importance of getting the basics right throughout the procurement lifecycle, from designing and communicating the requirements, through evaluation and award, to effective contract management and prompt payment. A clear and contemporaneous audit trail can also be invaluable in demonstrating how decisions have been reached where concerns are subsequently raised.

For bidders, both upheld and non-upheld PPRS referrals provide useful lessons. Careful scrutiny of the procurement documents, effective use of the clarification process and raising concerns at an early stage can help identify and resolve issues before they become more difficult to address. Equally, the cases demonstrate the importance of understanding what the applicable procurement rules actually require and distinguishing between dissatisfaction with an outcome and a potential failure in the procurement process.

Perhaps the clearest message from the PPRS cases is that, while the rules and terminology may change, the foundations of good procurement remain much the same. Fairness, transparency, consistency and effective engagement between contracting authorities and suppliers continue to play an important role in reducing procurement risk and supporting effective competition.

For more information about our Procurement expertise, contact us today to find out more.

This article was co-authored by Trainee Solicitor, Miriam Berlyne.