Procurement in a Nutshell: Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel: CR0050-26 & CR0052-26
18th September, 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell
18th September 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell: Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel: CR0050-26 & CR0052-26
Find out more
11th September 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell: Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel Decision: CR0054-26
Find out more
4th September 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell: Apasen Limited v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWHC 2239 (TCC)
Find out more
28th August 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell: Involve Visual Collaboration Ltd v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026] EWHC 2209 (TCC)
Find out more
21st August 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell: Ecolog International FZE v Secretary of State for Defence for the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland [2026] EWHC 2154 (TCC)
Find out more
14th August 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell: Social value in procurement contracts
Find out more
The Provider Selection Regime (PSR), set out in the Healthcare Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulation 2023, came into force on 1st January 2024.
The PSR removes the procurement of healthcare services from the scope of the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force from 24 February 2025.
The PSR applies to NHS England, Integrated Care Boards, NHS Trusts, NHS Foundation Trusts, local authorities and combined authorities when they are procuring relevant healthcare services.
To access the full decision, please click here.
Background
The Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel (the Panel) provides advice under the PSR to relevant authorities in circumstances where a provider is aggrieved by an award decision, and the provider believes the PSR Regulations have not been complied with.
The role of the Panel is to provide independent expert advice (as referred to in Regulation 23 of the PSR Regulations) and publish this advice for each review it undertakes.
Relevant authorities should note that, while the advice of the Panel is not legally binding, it is highly persuasive.
The facts
On 25 March 2026, Poplar Grove Practice (Poplar Grove) asked the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel (the Panel) to advise on the provider selection process conducted by NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (BOB ICB) for Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) at the Mandeville Practice.
On 30 March 2026, the Panel received a second request for advice, from Primary Care Management Solutions Ltd (PCMS), regarding the same provider selection process.
PCMS’s contract for the Mandeville Practice was due to expire on 31 March 2026. BOB ICB published a Prior Information Notice (PIN) on 18 July 2024, indicating that it was looking to re-procure the contract. BOB ICB said its expectation was that the new contract holder would “continue to build the registered list of patients” in line with the anticipated local population growth. Five providers completed market engagement questionnaires in response to the PIN.
On 15 July 2025, BOB ICB published a notice setting out its intention to follow the competitive process to select a provider for the new Mandeville Practice contract. The contract has an eight year duration, with options to extend by an initial four years and then a further three years. The original start date was intended to be 1 April 2026 and the total value over the full fifteen year duration is approximately £20.4 million (excluding VAT).
By the 22 August 2025 deadline, BOB ICB received bids from nine providers. On 1 December 2025, BOB ICB informed bidders of the outcome of the provider selection process and published an intention to award notice announcing Operose Health as the successful bidder.
The decision
The Panel found that the provider selection process carried out by BOB ICB for the Mandeville Practice gave rise to three breaches of PSR regulations:
- In failing to seek clarification from Poplar Grove and PCMS concerning their representations, BOB ICB breached the PSR Regulation 12(4)(a) which requires commissioners to afford providers further opportunity to explain or clarify their representations.
- BOB ICB did not sufficiently set out its reasons for dismissing Poplar Grove’s and PCMS’s representations, and therefore breached PSR Regulation 4 which requires commissioners to act transparently and fairly.
- In BOB ICB setting a shorter deadline for Poplar Grove’s representations, this breaching PSR Regulation 12(3) which sets the prescribed time for the submission of representations.
The Panel’s view is that the breaches identified above did not have a material effect on BOB ICB’s selection of a provider. The breaches identified all relate to the conduct of BOB ICB’s representations review process, and shortcomings in the local representations review process have been address through the Panel’s own review of Poplar Grove’s and PCMS’s representations.
The Panel did not find any breaches of the PSR regulations in relation to the conduct of the provider selection process in the lead up to the contract award decision. Therefore, the Panel’s advice is that the ICB should proceed with awarding the contract.
For further information please contact Tim Care or Melanie Pears in our Public Sector team.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
Topics:
Contact a specialist
Follow us on LinkedIn
Keep up to date with all the latest updates and insights from our expert team