Procurement in a Nutshell: Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel Decision: CR0054-26

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 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 not that, while the advice of the Panel is not legally binding, it is highly persuasive.

The facts

On 10 April 2026, HealthHero Integrated Care Limited (HealthHero) asked the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel (the Panel) to advise on the provider selection process conducted by NHS North East London Integrated Care Board (NEL ICB) for its 111 Integrated Urgent Care (111 ICU) services.

NEL ICB is seeking to award a new contract for its 111 IUC service which is currently accessed by more than 73,000 patients each both and is a significant entry point for emergency care in North East London.

The Provider Selection Process for the new 111 IUC contract commenced in October 2024 when two Prior Information Notices (PINs) were published. These notices informed interested providers that NEL ICB was working to develop a new 111 IUC model. Interested parties were invited to engagement events and to complete questionnaires to help inform NEL ICB’s understanding of providers’ views and the provider market.

On 28 April 2025, NEL ICB set out its intention to follow the competitive process when selecting a provider for the new IUC contract. The new contract has a 3 year duration, with options to extend twice, by two years on each occasion. The intended start date was 1 August 2026 and the total value of the contract over the full 7 year duration is approximately £126.8 million (excluding VAT).

Bidders’ responses to the ITT questionnaire were allocated a total weighting of 92%, with the remaining 8% allocated to the provider presentation. Only the bidders that had passed the preliminary compliance review, and had a mathematical chance of winning following evaluation of the ITT questionnaire, were invited to continue and make a presentation to the evaluation panel.

Out of the 5 providers that submitted bids, 3 providers, including HealthHero and London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (LAS) (the incumbent provider), were invited to make presentations to the evaluation panel. LAS was selected as the successful bidder, with a score of 82.85% and HealthHero was ranked second with a score of 77.18%.

On 14 November 2025, NEL ICB informed bidders that LAS was the successful bidder and published an intention to award notice to this effect.

On 25 November 2025, before the end of the standstill period, HealthHero raised concerns with, and requested information from, NEL ICB about the provider selection process.

NEL ICB formed a local representations review panel to consider HealthHero’s representations and on 1 April 2026, communicated its further decision to proceed with LAS.

Stay up to date with:

• Trending Topics
• Latest Insights
• Upcoming Events
• Company Updates

Follow us on LinkedIn

Take Me There

The decision

The Panel’s findings on the provide selection processes carried out by NEL ICB were as follows:

1. In deciding the LAS’s response to Question 2.4 did not include a Transformation Lead but failing to consider the potential application of paragraphs 3.10.6 and 4.1.4 of the ITT Guidance Document, breached the PRS regulations and in particular Regulation 11(5) which requires commissioners to assess offers in accordance with the contract criteria and Regulation 4 which requires commissioners to act transparently and fairly.
2. The Panel found in failing to adequately record its reasonings for awarding LAS a score of 3 (Good) for its response to Questions 2.4 and 5.3 and for awarding a pass for 5.1, breached Regulation 4 and 24(g).
3. When reviewing HealthHero’s representations about whether LAS included a Transformation Lead in response to Question 2.4, breached Regulation 4.
4. In failing to provide a complete response to HealthHero’s request for information during the representations review [process, breached Regulation 12(4)(b) which requires commissioners to provide promptly any information requested by an aggrieved provider where the commissioner has a duty to record that information under Regulation 24.
5. Finally, in taking more than four months to respond to HealthHero’s information request and supplying the information at the same time as its further decision following HealthHero’s representations breached Regulation 12(4)(a) which requires commissioners to “ensure each provider who made representations is afforded such further opportunity to explain or clarify the representations” and Regulation 12(4)(b).

Given these conclusions, three options are open to the Panel. The Panel may advise that:

1. The breaches had no material effect on NEL ICB’s selection of a provider and it should proceed with awarding the contract as originally intended;
2. NEL ICB should return to an earlier step in the provider selection process to rectify issues identified by the Panel; or
3. NEL ICB should abandon the current provider selection process.

The Panel’s view is that the breaches identified have had a material effect on NEL ICB’s provider section. This is because NEL ICB may have selected a different provider had it complied with the PSR regulations. As such, the Panel’s advice is that NEL ICB should return to an earlier step in the provider selection process and at a minimum, re-evaluate bidders’ answers to Questions 2.4, 5.1 and 5.3.

What does this mean?

This case demonstrates that commissioners which are not already keeping records of evaluators’ moderate discussions, carefully consider whether keeping such records might help ensure their compliance with PSR regulations.

For further information please contact Tim Care or Melanie Pears in our Public Sector team.