On 23 September 2026, the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel (the "Panel") published its advice on the provider selection process conducted by NHS South East London Integrated Care Board ("SEL ICB") for Personal Medical Services ("PMS") at Silverlock Medical Centre and Queens Road Surgery in Southwark. The Panel found four breaches of the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 (the "PSR"), one of which - evaluating a bidder against undisclosed criteria - was considered likely to have materially affected the outcome. SEL ICB has been advised to return to the evaluation stage and re-score all bidders' responses to the affected question.

The decision contains observations of wider interest regarding evaluation against disclosed criteria, information disclosure and record-keeping under the PSR.

Background

AT Medics Limited, a subsidiary of Operose Health Limited, has held Alternative Provider Medical Services ("APMS") contracts for Silverlock Medical Centre (approximately 16,500 registered patients) and Queens Road Surgery (approximately 14,500 registered patients) since 1 January 2020. With those contracts reaching the end of their initial five-year term, SEL ICB decided to run a competitive process under the PSR, opting to let PMS rather than APMS contracts on the basis that SEL ICB considered that PMS contracts, which are typically of unlimited duration, could deliver better value for money and support the future stability and continuity of general practice services. 

The procurement comprised two lots (approximate annual values of £2.1 million and £2 million respectively) and was carried out in four stages: compliance review; ITT evaluation (88% weighting); provider presentations (12%); and notification of outcome. Fifteen providers bid for both lots. Woodbridge Hill Surgery ("Woodbridge") was selected as the successful bidder, scoring 87.50% and 86.25%. Chilvers & McCrea Limited ("Chilvers & McCrea") - also part of the Operose Health group - ranked second with 85.00% for each lot, a margin of 1.25 to 2.5 percentage points.

On 31 October 2025, SEL ICB notified bidders of its intention to award to Woodbridge. Chilvers & McCrea raised concerns during the standstill period and, after further correspondence, requested a Panel review on 5 June 2026. 

Panel Findings

The Panel identified four breaches and found no breach in two other areas. 

Breach 1: Inadequate record-keeping on key criteria (Regulation 24(f))

Commissioners must determine award criteria taking into account the five key criteria in Regulation 5, and Regulation 24(f) requires a record of how those criteria were considered. SEL ICB accepted that this rationale was not captured in a standalone record, relying instead on the procurement documents "as a whole". The Panel found that, while the key criteria had in fact been considered, the ICB lacked a clear record linking them to the award criteria or explaining the weightings chosen. SEL ICB itself accepted the rationale should have been consolidated into a formal Step 1 record. 

Breach 2: Evaluation against undisclosed criteria (Regulations 4 and 11(5))

GQ10 asked bidders to detail how they had supported staff understanding and use of digital technology and to evidence steps taken to communicate changes to patients. Chilvers & McCrea scored 2/4; Woodbridge scored 4/4. The moderation feedback criticised Chilvers & McCrea for matters including "limited quantifiable evidence of improved patient outcomes", underdeveloped clinical safety processes, and failure to address cloud telephony and online registration - matters which the Panel considered had not been included in the formulation of the question or sufficiently disclosed in advance. The Panel found that SEL ICB had given weight to matters not included in the question or sufficiently disclosed in advance, breaching Regulation 4 (transparency and fairness) and Regulation 11(5) (assessment in accordance with award criteria). Given the narrow scoring margin, this breach was considered likely to have materially affected the outcome. 

Breach 3: Failure to provide sufficient information (Regulations 4 and 12(4))

SEL ICB shared evaluator comments, but the Panel found the redactions "unnecessarily extensive and inconsistent with information already shared with bidders", going beyond the exemptions in Regulation 12(5). The Panel considered that many of the redactions prevented a reader from following the evaluators' reasoning and that SEL ICB's retrospectively explained rationale for the redactions was not aligned with Regulation 12(5). Separately, the Panel referred to its view in previous cases that evaluator identities are disclosable under Regulation 12(4), subject to the Regulation 12(5) considerations, and observed that the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to refuse to share any information about evaluator identities are likely to be limited. The Panel concluded that SEL ICB had not established a Regulation 12(5) basis for withholding the evaluators' names. Although SEL ICB later provided a separate list of evaluator names and job titles, the Panel found that this did not address Chilvers & McCrea's concern about the lack of transparency surrounding the extent of the redactions and did not meet SEL ICB's obligations under Regulation 12(4).

Breach 4: Delay in responding to information requests (Regulations 12(4)(a) and 12(4)(b))

SEL ICB took approximately three months to respond to Chilvers & McCrea's information request and did so at the same time as communicating its further decision. The Panel found that this failed to meet the "promptly" requirement under Regulation 12(4)(b) and did not afford Chilvers & McCrea a further opportunity to explain or clarify its representations, contrary to Regulation 12(4)(a). 

No breach: procurement design and other evaluations

The Panel found no breach in the design of the procurement or determination of award criteria (Regulation 11(2)), nor in the evaluation of questions GQ9, GQ16 and LSQ3/3.1 (Regulation 4). 

Panel Advice

The Panel advised SEL ICB to return to Step 3 of the competitive process and, as a minimum, re-evaluate all bidders' responses to GQ10 in accordance with the published award criteria, while leaving open the possibility of returning to a different earlier step. 

Implications for Healthcare Providers

• Compare feedback against the published question.  Where feedback indicates that weight may have been given to matters not included in the question or sufficiently disclosed in the evaluation framework, providers may wish to consider raising this during the representations process. 
• Exercise information rights. Commissioners must respond promptly, and redactions are limited to the exemptions in Regulation 12(5). Providers should not accept delays of several months or heavily redacted records. Regulation 12(4) requires commissioners to provide promptly information they are required to record under Regulation 24, subject to Regulation 12(5). Providers may wish to scrutinise the timing, completeness and justification for redactions in any disclosure. 
• The Panel review is a credible remedy. In this case, the Panel advised SEL ICB, as a minimum, to revisit the evaluation and scoring of responses to GQ10 because it considered the relevant breach likely to have materially affected the provider selection.   

Implications for Integrated Care Boards

• Prepare a standalone Step 1 record.  Commissioners should ensure that the record explains the link between the key criteria and the contract award criteria, together with the rationale for that linkage and the importance or weighting attributed to those criteria.Disclose the full assessment framework in evaluation questions. .  Commissioners should ensure that matters to which evaluators will give weight are included in the question, scoring methodology or otherwise sufficiently disclosed in advance

1. Consider moderation records. The Panel observed that records of moderation discussions, particularly reasons for agreeing final scores that differ from individual scores, will often form an important part of the reasons for an evaluation decision. It recommended that commissioners carefully consider whether keeping such records would assist compliance.

• Provide requested information before the further decision. The Panel considered that information should have been supplied before completion of the representations review so that the provider had a further opportunity to explain or clarify its representations. 
• Apply redactions by reference to Regulation 12(5). Commissioners should record and be able to explain the basis for redactions. The Panel indicated that refusal to share information about evaluator identities is likely to be appropriate only in limited circumstances and should be supported by robust grounds.

Conclusion

This decision reinforces that the PSR requires not only that decisions are properly made, but that they are properly documented, that evaluation follows published criteria, and that the representations process gives aggrieved providers a meaningful opportunity to engage.  Issues relating to transparency, including the use of undisclosed evaluation criteria, have featured in procurement case law for many years under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and remain relevant under the Procurement Act 2023. This decision provides a further example of how similar principles may apply under the PSR.

Article written by Mali Hurford (Solicitor).