Procurement in a Nutshell – Provider Selection Regime: Independent Panel: Decision: CR00017-25
11th July, 2025
This Nutshell discusses the Panel's advice following a request from Shropshire Doctors Co-operative Ltd (the incumbent provider) to review NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin Integrated Care Board’s (the ICB) procurement for its GP-led Out of Hours Services (OOH Services).
The Provider Selection Regime (PSR), set out in the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023, came into force on the 1st January 2024.
The PSR removes the procurement of health care services from the scope of the Procurement Act 2023, which came into effect from the 24th 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 note that, while the advice of the Panel is not legally binding, it is highly persuasive.
The facts
The ICB conducted a procurement in late 2024 for a new, consolidated contract covering GP-led OOH services. These services, previously delivered by Shropshire Doctors Co-operative Ltd under multiple separate contracts, were due to expire on 30 June 2025.
In February 2025, the ICB awarded the contract, valued at £36 million over five years, to Medvivo Group Ltd (Medvivo), whose proposal achieved the highest score (86.85%). Shropshire Doctors Co-operative Ltd (the incumbent provider) ranked fifth with a score of 68.52%.
During the Standstill Period, the incumbent provider raised multiple concerns regarding the lawfulness of the procurement including:
- The alleged failure to consult with local GPs during pre-procurement engagement, which Shropshire Doctors Co-operative Ltd said undermined clinical input and transparency.
- The lack of defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the tender documentation, which the incumbent argued prevented a level playing field and impeded fair comparison between bids.
- Concerns that the winning bid’s pricing lacked financial sustainability and had not been subject to sufficient due diligence.
- Allegations that the ICB had misapplied the PSR by choosing the competitive process over a direct award without sufficient justification.
The decision
Pre-procurement engagement
The Panel found no breach by the ICB of the PSR because there is no statutory requirement to consult particular stakeholders during pre-procurement engagement.
The ICB had obtained clinical input from internal officers and a GP outside the locality, and its decision to limit participation due to perceived conflicts of interest was considered reasonable. The Panel concluded that the ICB acted transparently, fairly, and proportionately as required under Regulation 4.
KPI information
The Panel’s view was that the tender documentation contained sufficient information about the service standards that would be expected of the successful bidder, and it was also clear to bidders that the KPIs would be finalised with the successful provider during contract mobilisation.
Despite the lack of detail regarding KPIs, bidders were not expected to make extensive assumptions about KPIs in order to respond to the proposal. For the one possible KPI where bidders had to make an assumption, Medvivo’s and Shropshire Doctors Co-Operative Ltd’s assumptions were substantially similar, providing evidence to confirm that the lack of detail did not disadvantage bidders.
Therefore, the Panel found that while the ICB did provide limited information in the tender documentation on the specific KPIs that would be implemented, it did not breach the PSR regulations, and in particular its obligation under Regulation 4 to act transparently, fairly and proportionately.
Evaluation of financial proposals
The Panel concluded that the ICB had properly assessed financial sustainability using detailed financial templates and guidance. Contrary to the incumbent provider’s claim, the ICB had mechanisms to ensure financial viability and had recorded no concerns with Medvivo’s submission.
The Panel was therefore satisfied that the ICB had taken adequate steps to assess deliverability and had met its obligation under Regulation 4 to act with a view to securing service quality and efficiency.
Choice of procurement process
Finally, the Panel found that the ICB was entitled to use the competitive process under Regulation 6. Even if a direct award had been available, the regulations leave the choice to the discretion of the relevant authority. The ICB’s decision, in the Panel’s view, was well documented, and the Panel saw no evidence that it had misunderstood the legal framework.
As a result, the Panel found that the ICB had not breached the PSR and advised it to proceed with its proposed contract award to Medvivo Group Ltd.
What does this mean?
The Panel affirmed that:
- There is no strict requirement under the PSR to consult particular stakeholders during pre-procurement, though clinical input remains important;
- Relevant authorities have discretion in how they structure the procurement, including decisions to use competitive processes even where direct awards may be available.
Ultimately, the Panel’s decision confirms that defensible procurement documentation, and clear engagement strategies remain central to legal compliance under the PSR.
Relevant authorities should continue to ensure clarity of service specifications, keep transparent records of decision-making, and be prepared to justify key choices.
For further information please contact Melanie Pears or Tim Care 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.
