A trust has been ordered to re-run part of a procurement process after a watchdog ruled it did not respond promptly to requests for information from an unsuccessful bidder.
Lewisham and Greenwich Trust also failed to provide any feedback from the moderators and evaluators involved in awarding the contract, and did not provide their names and job titles in a timely manner, the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel said, HSJ reports.
The IPCPP was set up in 2024 to adjudicate disputes about commissioning under the Provider Selection Regime, which governs how contracts can be awarded.
One Health Lewisham, an integrated community provider in south east London, asked the IPCPP to advise on LGT’s appointment of Atrumed Healthcare, a private provider, to run GP services at its University Hospital Lewisham urgent treatment centre.
OHL was the incumbent provider and its contract was due to expire on 31 March 2025. LGT issued a contract notice in December 2024, setting out its intention to follow the competitive process to award a new contract.
The contract specified a five-year term, starting on 1 April 2025, with the option of a five-year extension. The total value of the contract – including the extension – was £13.7m.
On 4 March 2025, LGT informed bidders of the outcome of the tender and published a notice announcing Atrumed Healthcare as the successful bidder.
OHL subsequently complained to the panel, raising concerns about the way LGT handled its request for information about the process.
As part of its request for information, OHL asked LGT to provide it with feedback from the moderators and evaluators who were involved in the award of the contract to Atrumed.
LGT declined the request, saying that the information was “not normally disclosed”. The trust said the procurement had been overseen by a “third party” and that it had been “assured [the process] was conducted with due probity”.
However, the IPCPP said the information requested by OHL fell within the record keeping requirements of regulation 24 of the Provider Selection Regime.
OHL also asked for the names and roles of those who marked and moderated its bid. LGT provided role titles for the two moderators and five evaluators, and the names of both moderators and three of the evaluators.
The remaining two evaluators consented to their names being shared with OHL after its representations were submitted to the panel, although they had still not been shared with OHL at the time the panel published its review.
LGT also did not respond promptly to OHL’s request for a “copy of conflict of interest declarations / conflict of interest guidance”.
In each of these instances, the IPCPP said, LGT breached regulation 12(4) of the PSR, which states that relevant authorities must promptly provide information requested by an unsuccessful bidder.
The panel’s view was that breaches of the rules may have had a “material effect on LGT’s selection of a provider”.
As a result, the IPCPP has advised LGT to return to an earlier step in the selection process and provide OHL with the information it had requested.
LGT, OHL and Atrumed were contacted for comment.
Date: 15 June