Image: © Engel Ching | iStock

Over one year after the Procurement Act 2023 (‘the Act’) came into force on 24 February 2025, the public procurement landscape is beginning to reflect a new regime, but the Act’s first year has seen a measured transition.

The emerging picture is one of incremental change rather than wholesale transformation, with authorities and suppliers navigating both opportunities and uncertainties. However, how the Courts interpret the law may lead to more significant practical changes.

Here are our thoughts on some of the key developments in the Act’s first year.

Transitional provisions mean that procurements initiated under the previous regime will continue to be governed by those rules. This includes modifications made to contracts awarded under such previous legislation (including call-offs under a Framework). Authorities also remain able to use (and are using) legacy frameworks, dynamic purchasing systems, and utilities qualification systems, some of which will have extensive tails. As a result, authorities are still having to apply both the old and new regimes, which adds complication, but the dual-regime landscape will remain in place for some time.

The Court’s first decision on automatic suspension under the Act in ParkingEye Ltd v Velindre University NHS Trust [2026] signals a potentially material shift from the previous regime. In this very recent case, the Court refused to lift the suspension, preventing the authority from entering into the contract. The judgment suggests that the Courts view the new test as different from the old law and may make it harder for authorities to succeed in lifting the suspension.

Whilst every case will be fact-specific (given the public interest, and the interests of suppliers, considerations will likely differ in each case), the early indication is that Courts may be more willing than previously to keep suspensions in place pending trial. If so, this could have a significant impact on procurement litigation, enforcing the position of a challenger.

The Court’s judgment refers to the ‘possibility of appeal,’ and so we will have to see how this evolves.

One of the key areas of interest to both authorities and suppliers under the Act has been exclusion and debarment.

The newly expanded exclusion grounds and introduction of a publicly available central debarment list were promised to mark a significant shift in supplier accountability, seeking to protect public contracts and the public purse from high-risk/poorly performing suppliers.

The Act has given authorities a number of additional tools, such as broader discretion to exclude suppliers for poor performance and misconduct, as well as a wider remit for exclusions, including enhanced rules for assessing exclusions for Associated Persons/ Connected Persons.

However, this is not a ‘silver bullet’, and authorities still need to exercise discretion carefully when considering whether to exclude a supplier.

Given the higher stakes for suppliers, including the risk of exclusion, potential debarment, and reputational damage associated with being deemed ‘poorly performing,’ this is likely to be a fertile ground for challenge.

Whilst at the time of writing, there have been no suppliers placed on the debarment list, this could become one of the most consequential aspects of the Act over time, particularly as the first debarment decisions are made.

Transparency was one of the Act’s headline ambitions, and it is the area where arguably the most tangible change has occurred.

The newly introduced Central Digital Platform and expanded notice requirements have resulted in significantly more information entering the public domain, including publicly available performance data and core supplier information. This, however, does carry an increased administrative burden for authorities.

We are seeing an increase in the volume of notices being published on the Central Digital Platform.

Authorities will need to take time to ensure they stay on top of which notices are required at each stage of the procurement process, and to maintain certain notices (e.g., payment compliance notices, contract performance notices, and contract termination notices) throughout the contract lifecycle.

This sits alongside obligations to measure and report against data, which reflect the increased legislation of contract management.

Further, whilst the information is available, authorities will need to check that core supplier information on the Central Digital Platform is complete, accurate, and up to date as part of their selection processes under the Act.

Despite the Act still being in its infancy, we may see some reform in the near future.

The Cabinet Office published its response to the ‘Growing British industry, jobs and skills’ consultation on 26 March 2026, which summarises stakeholder feedback rather than guaranteeing further reform.

The consultation sits within a wider policy push to use public procurement to support the Industrial Strategy, strengthen economic resilience, create local jobs and skills, improve prompt payment, and widen opportunities for SMEs and VCSEs.

To conclude, the Act’s underlying policy objectives are clear, but its practical operation is still evolving, with authorities straddling dual regimes. As the first cases begin to come before the Courts, judicial interpretation of the Act will provide important insight into the Act and its practical implementation going forward.