Frameworks account for a huge amount of the UK’s procurement activities.
This article is taken from March's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
Frameworks account for a huge amount of the UK’s procurement activities. Most routine purchasing in the NHS is done through frameworks. Local government buys most of its basic supplies through its purchasing consortia. The Government’s Crown Commercial Services (and in Wales, Sell2Wales) has the stewardship of many nationwide frameworks for use by most of the public sector.
The aggregation of demand, economies of scale and the avoidance of repetitive procurement costs is recognised as being beneficial for most authorities. However, the concentration of procurement activity also challenges the basic principles of transparency and competition, might suppress the opening up of markets (especially to SMEs) and might even help cultivate a culture of collusion in certain circumstances.
Contracting authorities therefore need to be particularly vigilant both in putting together the frameworks in the first place and then in the processes that they apply for calling off purchases from the framework.
Two particular aspects of frameworks frequently arise:
A contracting authority may procure a framework simply on its own behalf, but frequently it will also procure on behalf of others. Central purchasing bodies’ whole rationale is to purchase for multiple authorities. Whenever a multiple authority framework is procured, the issue of entitlement to use it raises its head.
Under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (Regulation 33(5)), it is made explicit that those entitled to use the framework must be clearly identified (either individually named or clearly identifiable for example through a class of particular authority). There is no exception to this where the framework is procured by a central purchasing body (although direct purchases from the central purchasing body do not require this identification). It is not possible for an authority not otherwise named or identified to make the choice to join a framework at a later date.
With regard to the value and volumes of purchasing under a framework, although Regulation 33 is silent on the requirements, the OJEU Contract Notice provides no exemption for frameworks from the requirement to clearly state the value of the procurement.
Together, these requirements can be quite difficult to manage, especially where, in the case of central purchasing bodies, the actual requirements of individual authorities are probably a matter of some guess work. By way of example, some of the CCS frameworks are available to just about the whole of the public sector in the UK and in terms of the volumes quoted, eye wateringly large numbers are commonly inserted into the value section of the OJEU.
However a recent case has addressed both of these issues and provides some clarity on what must be done by those forming a framework in the first place and indeed for those who choose to use those frameworks.
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato – Antiturst, Coopservice Soc. coop. arl (Case C-216/17) deals with a framework set up under the 2004 procurement directive, which did not contain the explicit requirement for the naming of entitled authorities, something which is now clear. It involved a framework for refuse collection services put in place by a regional health authority. A different regional health authority called off a contract under the framework. It was not a signatory to the framework, but the original notice and documents anticipated that the framework was available to other regional health authorities.
The European Court was asked to confirm whether the authority was entitled to use the framework and, if so, to what extent its requirements (in terms of value and/or volumes) should have been made known at the inception of the framework.
On the first issue, the court confirmed what is now in the rules. There was no need for the authority to be a signatory, so long as it was clearly named or identified.
However, the case is still important in addressing how the purchasing requirements (in terms of value or volumes) of those entitled authorities are taken into account and implies that more than guess work may be required. It confirmed that the overall value of the framework needed to be stated, but also endorsed the view of the Commission and the Advocate General that the contracting authority must use ‘best endeavours with regard to the value and frequency of each of the subsequent contracts to be awarded’.
The implication of this is that whilst the procurer of the framework can and must state the overall values to be procured under the framework, it would not be enough to passively ignore the requirements of individual authorities.
For central purchasing bodies, this could be a bit of a headache. It is seems unlikely that CCS, for example, will canvas the procurement needs of all individual public bodies, before placing their frameworks. However, where a framework is more local and perhaps more bespoke, it is suggested that authorities would have no excuse for not addressing this when putting the framework together. It would fail a test of best endeavours, if it simply ignored the requirements of those it purports to allow to use the framework.
Finally, one must address whose risk this is. Although the obligations appear to be addressed to the putting together of the framework, practically the problem will arise at the point of call off. The framework itself will have the benefit of a standstill notice having been issued and is likely to be too far beyond normal time limits for challenge. However, the call off without entitlement gets no such protection and risks being subject to the remedy of ineffectiveness. Therefore the contracting authority seeking to use someone else’s framework, must be clear that it has the entitlement and that best endeavours have been used in addressing its requirements, when the framework was first put together. If it cannot point to both of these, then it may be at risk should it still use the framework.
Law firm Browne Jacobson has collaborated with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School on the launch event of The Council Company Best Practice and Innovation Network, a platform which brings together academic experts and senior local authority leaders, allowing them to share best practice in relation to council companies.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
Announced in September but scrapped on 17 November the investment zone proposals were very short lived. The proposal has now morphed into the proposal for a smaller number of clustered zones earmarked for investment.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.
Across the UK, homelessness is an urgent crisis, and one that is set to grow amid the rising cost of living. Local authorities are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, but with a lack of properties that are suitable for social housing across the UK, vulnerable individuals and families are often housed in temporary accommodation.
Updates include UK Shared Prosperity Fund, contracts, Subsidy Control Bill, data controller liability, Government Covid-19 procurement and Highway Code revisions.
The complex and rather nebulous transitional subsidy control regime set out in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the UK’s wider international commitments has made it difficult for public authorities and those working with them to proceed with certainty where subsidies are involved.
Investment zones have been introduced by the Conservative party to get the United Kingdom (UK) ‘working, building and growing’. They are to be designated sites which provide time-limited tax incentives, streamlined planning rules and wider support for local growth to encourage investment and accelerate the development of housing and infrastructure that the UK needs to drive economic growth. Processes and requirements that slow down development will be stripped back with the intention of attracting new investment.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
It is clear that the digital landscape, often termed cyberspace, is a man-made environment, in which human behaviour dominates and where technology both influences and aids our role in it — through the internet, telecoms and networked computer systems, which are often interdependent. The extent to which any organisation is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack depends on how well these elements are aligned.
Three months on from the commencement of the new statutory Integrated Care Systems (ICS) Anja Beriro and Gerrard Hanratty reflect on the main themes and issues that have come from the new relationship between local government and health.
The Procurement Bill (the Bill) has now been with us for about four months, during which time there have been a huge number of amendments proposed in the House of Lords (circa 320). Lately, there has been less mention of it — unsurprising, really, given everything else going on in politics recently — but here’s a summary of some of the key issues and themes so far.
Browne Jacobson has been named as a supplier on Crown Commercial Service’s (CCS) Public Sector Legal Services Framework on Lot 1a – full-service provision (England and Wales) and Lot 2a – general service provision (England and Wales).
Browne Jacobson has been ranked as a Top Tier law firm in 25 key practice areas in Legal 500 UK 2023, the independent directory of comparative law firm performance. The firm also continues to underpin its status as one of the leading law firms in the East Midlands region with 16 Tier 1 rankings.
