NHS Provider Selection Regime: Panel finds multiple PSR breaches in direct award of audiology contract and provides guidance on record keeping

On 12 November 2025, the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel (“the Panel”) published its advice following a review of NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board’s (“NCL ICB”) provider selection process for Community Audiology Services in Barnet. The review was initiated at the request of Scrivens Limited and Specsavers Optical Superstores Limited, both of whom raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of the procurement.

This article summarises the Panel’s findings and practical guidance for providers and commissioners under the NHS Provider Selection Regime (“PSR”).

Further updates and resources on the NHS PSR are available here.

Background

Audiological Science Limited has provided community audiology services in Barnet since 2019. In April 2024, NCL ICB undertook a strategic review of audiology services across North Central London, aiming to address variation in service models and contracting approaches. The ICB decided to move towards a single point of access model for each borough from April 2026, and in the interim, renewed contracts for existing providers until March 2026.

In November 2024, NCL ICB opted to award new one-year contracts to five independent sector providers, including Audiological Science, using Direct Award Process C under the PSR. The contract for Barnet was valued at approximately £920,000. Following the announcement of the intention to award, Scrivens and Specsavers made representations challenging the process. NCL ICB subsequently identified errors in the approval process and abandoned the initial provider selection. A new assessment was undertaken in March 2025, again recommending a contract award to Audiological Science. Scrivens and Specsavers continued to raise concerns, prompting the Panel’s review.

Panel Findings

The Panel identified four key breaches of the PSR regulations by NCL ICB:

1. Use of Direct Award Process C
2. Record Keeping
3. Responses to Information Requests
4. Amendments to Decision Records

NCL ICB concluded that it was eligible to use Direct Award Process C, but the Panel found that the assessment of whether the incumbent provider was likely to satisfy the new contract to a sufficient standard was not sufficiently supported by the evaluation. The scoring methodology and guidance for evaluators lacked coherence, and the documentation did not clearly demonstrate how the decision was reached. While other conditions for using Direct Award Process C were met, there was insufficient contemporaneous documentation to support these conclusions.

The Panel found that NCL ICB’s record keeping did not meet the requirements of Regulation 24. The direct award toolkit, which served as the decision record, lacked detail on key conditions, the rationale for decisions, and the identity of all individuals involved in the decision-making process. The absence of a complete decision log and incomplete records undermined transparency.

NCL ICB failed to provide Scrivens and Specsavers with sufficient responses to their information requests during the representations review process. The Panel noted that some redactions went beyond the exemptions permitted under Regulation 12(5), and that the time taken to respond did not meet the requirement to act promptly. By issuing its further decision only three working days after responding to the information requests, NCL ICB denied the providers the opportunity to make further clarifications.

During the review, NCL ICB supplied the Panel with amended versions of decision-making records without initially clarifying that these documents had been modified after the contract award decision. The Panel found that this breached the obligation to act transparently, as commissioners must keep decision-making records intact and separate from explanatory material provided during a review.

Panel Advice

Although the Panel identified multiple breaches of the PSR regulations, it did not advise on next steps, as NCL ICB had already abandoned the provider selection process and extended the incumbent’s contract via an urgent modification. A new procurement for audiology services in Barnet, Camden, and Enfield is planned to commence in July 2026.

The Panel highlighted several important considerations for Commissioners to take into account. This also provides useful guidance for providers, to check to see if these considerations have been taken into account:

• Firstly, even where contracts are low value or short term, assessment processes must be robust, coherent, and comprehensible to all stakeholders.
• Secondly, the same standards for record keeping apply to Direct Award Process C as to other provider selection processes under the PSR. More generally, record keeping standards are not relaxed simply because a direct award is proposed.
• Decision-making records must remain intact and be clearly distinguished from any explanatory material supplied during subsequent reviews.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of transparency, consistency, and thorough documentation in NHS procurement processes. Commissioners should ensure that all decisions are clearly recorded, that responses to provider representations are prompt and complete, and that any amendments to decision records are fully disclosed. Providers participating in NHS tenders should be aware of their rights to information and the standards expected of commissioners under the PSR.

The full Panel report is available here.

For further discussion or advice on the PSR and healthcare procurement, please contact a member of our Healthcare team.

Article written by Joseph Grosvenor, Burges Salmon.