NHS Provider Selection Regime: Panel advises Commissioner to restart primary care tender process after PSR breaches

On 23 July 2025, the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel (the “Panel”) published its advice following a review of NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board’s (“Sussex ICB”) provider selection process for the Whitehawk Alternative Provider Medical Services (“APMS”) contract. The Panel’s review was initiated at the request of Wellsbourne Healthcare Community Interest Company (“Wellsbourne”) due to concerns about the fairness and transparency of the procurement.

In this article we look at the panel’s findings and any practical guidance that this may provide for providers and as Commissioners.  

You can find out other updates and guides relating to the NHS Provider Selection Regime (“PSR”) here: NHS Provider Selection Regime PSR Hub - Burges Salmon

Background

Prior to December 2023, Wellsbourne held the APMS contract, serving approximately 8,300 registered patients in the Whitehawk area of Brighton and Hove. On 15 December 2023, Sussex ICB initiated a competitive procurement process under the PSR for a new seven-year APMS contract. This contract had potential for a two-year extension and was valued at approximately £10.4 million. 

Following the publication of a contract notice in May 2024, proposals were invited, with the final deadline set for 11 October 2024. On 14 March 2025, Sussex ICB announced One Medicare (trading as One Primary Care LLP) as the successful bidder, with Wellsbourne’s proposal ranked third out of four.

Wellsbourne raised concerns about the selection process through multiple representations between March and May 2025. Despite these, Sussex ICB reaffirmed its decision to award the contract to One Medicare and, on 20 May, stated it would not respond to further representations. On 23 May 2025, Wellsbourne requested the Panel’s advice regarding Sussex ICB’s selection of a provider for the Whitehawk APMS contract, and the Panel accepted this request on 28 May 2025.

Panel Findings

Upon review, the Panel found that Sussex ICB breached the PSR regulations in four key respects:

• Evaluation Process Transparency
  Sussex ICB conducted the evaluation and scoring process in a manner inconsistent with the description provided to bidders. The Panel concluded that this breached Regulation 4, which requires commissioners to act “transparently and fairly”.
• Assessment of Communications Response
  Wellsbourne’s response to Question ITT02 (Communications) was found to have been incorrectly evaluated. The Panel noted that Sussex ICB “erred by concluding that Wellsbourne did not address certain issues when this was not the case,” again breaching Regulation 4.
• Information on Locally Commissioned Services (“LCSs”)
  The Panel identified a lack of clarity and transparency in Sussex ICB’s expectations regarding LCSs. Bidders were asked to estimate income from LCSs without being provided sufficient information, resulting in proposals with “a significant disconnect between the additional revenue estimates and the workforce and costs necessary to deliver this revenue”.
• Record-Keeping of Financial Evaluation
  The Panel found that Sussex ICB failed to adequately document the rationale behind its scoring of Wellsbourne’s financial proposal, breaching Regulation 24(g), which requires commissioners to keep a record of the reasons for decisions.

Panel Advice

The Panel advised that the breaches were sufficiently serious to have had a material effect on the outcome of the procurement. It recommended that Sussex ICB return to an earlier step in the provider selection process, specifically the publication of a new contract notice and revised invitation to tender (“ITT”) documentation. This would allow a new process to be undertaken that addresses the issues identified.

The Panel also advised that future moderation meetings should be documented in greater detail to ensure transparency and traceability of decision-making.

No Breach in Other Areas

The Panel found no breach of the PSR regulations in relation to:

1. Sussex ICB’s pre-procurement public engagement and their obligations under Regulation 4;
2. The formulation of the ITT questions;
3. The weightings of key criteria; and 
4. Composition of the representations review panel and involvement of Healthwatch Brighton.

Conclusion

This case is significant as it marks the rare occasion whereby a commissioner has been advised to re-run a competitive procurement due to multiple breaches of the PSR.

It highlights the importance of transparency, consistency, and robust documentation throughout a procurement process. Healthcare providers considering participation in NHS tenders should take note of the Panel’s findings – particularly around the clarity of evaluation criteria, the handling of financial modelling, and the provision of information on additional income streams. Ensuring that bids are evaluated in line with published methodologies and that moderation processes are properly recorded is essential to maintaining trust and fairness in provider selection.

The full review can be found: here.

If you would like to discuss any of the above, please contact a member of our dedicated Healthcare team.

This article written by Jade Gillett and Patrick Parkin.