Search

How can we help?

Icon

Procurement challenges: What documents and information are bidders entitled to?

A tricky feature of public procurement challenges for unsuccessful bidders is that contracting authorities usually hold all the cards. When the outcome of a tender conducted under the Procurement Act 2023 has been decided, authorities must provide bidders with an Assessment Summary containing their scores for each of the award criteria and those of the successful bidder and an explanation for those scores. This limited information, while it may raise concerns, is rarely detailed enough for bidders to determine whether they have a strong case to challenge the legality of the tender process.

Acting quickly during the standstill period

Bidders only have a standstill period of eight working days in which to decide whether to issue proceedings in order to prevent the award of a contract, so they need to act very quickly in seeking further information and documents from the contracting authority and taking legal advice. But authorities are usually reluctant to disclose anything further, seeing extensive requests for documentation as fishing expeditions by disappointed bidders. So what further documents are bidders actually entitled to?

What documents should contracting authorities disclose?

The Technology and Construction Court – the specialist division of the High Court which hears most procurement cases – has published guidance stating that contracting authorities “are expected to disclose the key decision materials relating to the complaints made against them … such materials should include the instructions given to the evaluation team, documents showing the individual and consensus scores, minutes of moderation meetings, the contemporaneous documentation produced by the actual evaluation process, and any documents generated by any independent check of the evaluation process actually carried out.

A tricky feature of public procurement challenges for unsuccessful bidders is that contracting authorities usually hold all the cards.

Prime Way Care v Southwark: A significant decision

This approach was recently endorsed in the first judgment concerning early disclosure of documents under the Procurement Act 2023, in the case of Prime Way Care Limited v London Borough of Southwark [2026] EWHC 1845 (TCC). The dispute concerned a framework agreement for adult care services, in which the Claimant, Prime Way Care, had been excluded from the tender at its first stage for failing to achieve a sufficiently high score to meet the requirements of the Procurement Specific Questionnaire (PSQ). Southwark declined to provide all the documents the Claimant had asked for relating to the scoring of its PSQ response, and the Claimant made an application to the court to compel disclosure.

The Court noted that it was necessary for the Claimant to establish a prima facie case in order for disclosure to be ordered – i.e. it needed to show that its claim was not hopeless or fanciful. It also said that applications for disclosure needed to be proportionate and focused, and that fishing expeditions would not be tolerated. It was satisfied that these requirements were met in the Claimant’s case, and ordered Southwark to provide all of its contemporaneous evaluation records regarding the Claimant’s response to the specific PSQ question under challenge, as well as its evaluation records for the responses of other bidders who had achieved a ‘pass’ score for that question.

This judgment represents welcome confirmation that the Court’s approach to disclosure of key decision making materials under the Procurement Act 2023 remains broadly in line with the approach taken under the old regime (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015). Bidders should however take prompt legal advice to ensure that requests for disclosure are appropriately targeted to the key issues, and should avoid the generic and wide-ranging demands that can often be generated by AI tools – the latter are unlikely to find favour with the Court.

Need advice on a procurement challenge?

If you believe a public procurement process has been conducted unlawfully, time is of the essence. Our procurement specialists can advise on the merits of a potential challenge, assist with obtaining key disclosure documents, and help you protect your position within the strict statutory deadlines.

Contact our Procurement team today to discuss your options and receive tailored advice on navigating a procurement challenge.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 07 May 2026
  • Public Procurement

What the First Procurement Act 2023 Judgment Means for Automatic Suspension

It has been more than a year since the Procurement Act 2023 (PA23) came into force in February 2025, and the long wait for the first High Court judgment on the Act to be published is finally over.

art
  • 28 January 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Looking ahead to Dispute Resolution in 2026

2026 is shaping up to be a busy year with a number of important changes due to be implemented by new legislation.

Pub
  • 01 January 2026
  • Public Procurement

Procurement Challenges under the Procurement Act 2023

Taking prompt advice is essential as unsuccessful bidders have just ten days within which to issue court proceedings if they want to benefit from the automatic suspension provided for in the Regulations, which prevents the contracting authority from awarding the contract to anyone else.

Pub
  • 10 October 2025
  • Public Procurement

Public Procurement Annual Update 2025

Join Chris Tayton and Emma Butcher for the 2025 Public Procurement Annual Update webinar, covering key insights on the Procurement Act 2023, challenges under PA23, and recent case law updates on procurement awards.

art
  • 24 February 2025
  • Public Procurement

Public procurement: When does a contracting authority have an obligation to seek clarification?

In the recent case of Work on Wellbeing Ltd t/a Optima Health v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Court of Appeal has provided useful guidance on how a contracting authority should exercise its discretion to seek clarification of errors and ambiguities in bids, and when they are obliged to do so.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Public Procurement

Procurement Act 2023 – Coming into force on 24 February 2025

After a four-month delay from its original commencement date of 28 October 2024, the new Procurement Act 2023 is now due to come into force later this month on 24 February 2025.