The Procurement Act 2023: 10 months on, how is it going?

The introduction of the Procurement Act 2023 (the Act) marked the most significant change to the public procurement landscape in the UK in over a decade.

The Act began life as a Cabinet Office Green Paper in December 2020, before ultimately coming into force, following an updated National Procurement Policy Statement from the new Government, on 24 February 2025. 

The Act aims to transform how the public sector purchases goods and services, by delivering better value for money and public benefit through increased flexibility and transparency.

In September 2025, we hosted a webinar reflecting on the emerging themes and initial observations since the Act went live. In advance of the webinar, we invited thoughts, questions and input from  public bodies, utilities and their suppliers, and received a large number of responses.

This article explores these themes and experiences of respondents from the wider public procurement community (from both public and private sector organisations). 

Preserving familiarity

A noticeable proportion of respondents expressed that they have not yet had much interaction with the Act. Before 24 February, there was a noticeable rush of new procurements being commenced before the Act went live. This has meant, due to the transitional arrangements, that these procurements are still covered by the preceding procurement regime (e.g. the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR)), and respondents are naturally more comfortable with that considering the PCR was introduced a decade ago.

There has been an understandable reluctance from some contracting authorities to be the ‘test case’ for procurements under the Act; or to be managing procurements covered by two different regimes. We have witnessed some reliance on contracts procured before the Act went live (e.g. through extensions to their term and scope). In addition, many respondents stated that they have been relying on existing frameworks procured under the preceding procurement regime to call-off works, goods and services since the Act went live. 

It was also clear from responses that there is a disparity in the level of preparation for the Act. Some respondents had proactively updated their templates and internal procedures in advance of the implementation date, whilst others admitted that they are yet to make changes. We encourage contracting authorities and suppliers alike to make the most of the resources available and ensure the Act is embedded into their processes and internal governance procedures as soon as they are able.

Reluctance to embrace the unknown

For those who have conducted a procurement under the Act, a common theme was designing the competitive flexible procedure in a way that mirrors the established procedures under the PCR. For example, structuring their procurement to follow the PCR’s competitive dialogue procedure. 

We would encourage contracting authorities to embrace the flexibility and ‘design-your-own’ approach permitted by with the competitive flexible procedure, even if this starts with small variations or innovations. The competitive flexible procedure empowers authorities to tailor a procurement process to their specific needs, and also best practice recommended by the market.  

Similarly, only a handful of respondents expressed a desire to establish open frameworks or dynamic markets: two new developments in the Act. There was a general sentiment that open frameworks may create additional risk and that this outweighs advantages they may bring.   

What is working well? 

Whilst there was natural hesitance to embrace the full flexibilities and developments of the Act, many did comment that the increased flexibility was a positive. In particular, the light touch regime was cited as an example of significant extra flexibility afforded to contracting authorities.

Other respondents also remarked on the increased transparency and accountability, particularly in regard to post-award contract management. There was a general sentiment that whilst the contract management provisions will increase administrative pressure on contracting authorities, they should result in better supplier performance and value for money for the public sector.

What are the reservations?

Alongside the positives, there have been some areas of the Act that have been more challenging. One example frequently mentioned by respondents was the approach to pipeline notices, where there was an original understanding that such notices would be published annually and comprise a list of all £2m+ contracts a contracting authority expected to procure in the forthcoming 18-month period.

However, guidance later confirmed these notices were required for each particular procurement. This clarification was unpopular and led to a scramble to publish these individual notices before the 26 May 2025 deadline, resulting in notices which were not always particularly insightful or detailed. 

We also noted some respondents had had difficulty with the functionality of the Central Digital Platform, and general concerns around the extra administrative burden created for teams with stretched resource, in light of the Act’s notices and contract management requirements. 

We have also been aware of some uncertainty regarding preliminary market engagement (PME). Although not mandatory, the Cabinet Office strongly encourages contracting authorities to use PME to listen to the market and take soundings on the contracting authority’s intentions with procurement exercises. We support this encouragement completely as PME is often very useful in early engagement with suppliers in respect of proposed contract approaches, KPIs and proposed structures for competitive flexible procedures envisaged by contracting authorities.

We recommend that contracting authorities ensure their procurement timetable allows time for views sought during PME to be thoroughly considered and incorporated into procurement proposals. 

What might be coming next?

The most eagerly awaited next step will be the first case litigated in respect of the Act as we are currently not aware of any litigation conducted under the Act. Our prediction is that this will focus on assessment summaries, the level of obligation required under section 12, or an unlawful direct award of a contract. 

Beyond this, we expect the outcome of the Cabinet Office’s consultation on proposed further reforms to the Act, which closed on 5 September 2025, to be of particular interest. The proposals under consultation include further support for small and medium enterprises and for public procurement to more explicitly contribute towards jobs, opportunities or skills creation. We also look forward to better understanding the role the Procurement Review Unit will play going forward. 

If you would like to discuss anything in this update, or any other aspect of public procurement law and the incoming changes, please contact Bradley Martin or Hannah Bowry-Williams.