Procurement Act 2023 Implementation One Year On: PRU, Transparency and Compliance Insights

A Year Since Go Live: Reflections on Implementation

Confusingly…. Named The Procurement Act 2023, it was initially due to come into force in 2024 and actually took effect on 24 February 2025. It replaced the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and reshaped public procurement across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its commencement was delayed from late 2024 to align with a refreshed National Procurement Policy Statement, ensuring that the new regime launched with clear strategic priorities, including economic growth, SME access and improved transparency.

One year on, the prevailing assessment across the public sector is evolution rather than revolution. The fundamentals of running procurements remain recognisable, but the expectations around governance, documentation and oversight have sharpened considerably. The first year has been defined by transition, adaptation and the establishment of a new compliance culture.

Alongside the Act’s commencement, the Cabinet Office established the Procurement Review Unit. From day one, the message was clear: this regime would not rely solely on legal challenge to drive compliance. Oversight, transparency and structured review would be embedded into the system itself.

For Heads of Procurement, Procurement Directors and Section 151 Officers, year one has been about getting to baseline compliance. Year two will test whether those changes are truly embedded.

Governance Maturity and Cultural Shift

Implementing the Act has not been simply a technical exercise. It has required a reset in governance maturity.

Across the sector, internal procurement policies, templates and approval processes have been rewritten to reflect new terminology and obligations. Evaluation templates have been updated. Approval boards are asking different questions. Audit committees are seeking assurance that the new notice regime and documentation standards are being met.

Larger departments and authorities with established commercial functions moved quickly, often supported by legal and compliance teams and upgraded e-procurement systems. Smaller authorities have relied more heavily on Cabinet Office guidance and the Government Commercial Function’s short guides for senior leaders and practitioners. Maturity levels vary, but expectations do not.

A clear trend has emerged in more advanced organisations. Implementation responsibility has been formally assigned to senior leaders or compliance officers. Reporting lines to audit committees have been strengthened. Procurement reform is being treated as an ongoing governance obligation rather than a one-off project.

There has also been a subtle but important cultural shift. The question is no longer simply “Can we do this under the rules?” but increasingly “Is this consistent with the Act’s principles and the public interest?”. The flexibility introduced by mechanisms such as the Competitive Flexible Procedure is being used more confidently, but mature organisations are balancing that flexibility with strong audit trails and oversight.

Year one delivered baseline compliance. Year two must deliver strategic maturity.

Transparency as an Operational Requirement

Perhaps the most significant operational change under the Act is the expansion of transparency obligations. Transparency is no longer a high-level principle. It is a daily operational requirement.

Authorities must now publish notices at virtually every key stage of the procurement lifecycle. In addition to familiar planning and award notices, the regime includes:

• Procurement Termination Notices where a process is abandoned.

• Transparency Notices before making a direct award without competition.

• Contract Details Notices following award.

• A legal obligation to publish contracts valued at £5 million or more within 90 days of award, subject to redaction of sensitive material.

• Contract Termination Notices within 30 days of a contract ending or being terminated.

These obligations, published via the enhanced central digital platform built around Find a Tender, are designed to allow any interested observer to follow a contract from planning through to completion.

This level of transparency requires discipline. Section 98 of the Act places a statutory duty on authorities to keep sufficient records of procurement decisions. Accurate and timely notices are only possible if documentation is robust.

In practice, this has meant stronger evaluation records, clearer award justifications and more careful management of timelines. Award notices must be published before entering into contracts. Direct awards require advance transparency. Terminations must be formally recorded.

For many teams, the administrative burden in year one has been significant. Integration between existing e-procurement systems and the central platform has been maturing throughout 2025. Automation is improving, but manual oversight remains essential. Missed or late notices are technical breaches of the Act.

The enforcement tone in year one has been pragmatic. Cabinet Office messaging has emphasised remediation rather than punishment. However, guidance has been explicit that failure to publish required information may place contracting authorities at risk of legal challenge. Judicial tolerance for minor errors may exist initially, but repeated non-compliance is unlikely to be viewed leniently over time.

For senior leaders, the message is clear: transparency is not optional and cannot be delegated without oversight.

The Procurement Review Unit in Practice: Structure, Powers and Early Experience

The Procurement Act 2023 introduced a more formalised oversight architecture alongside the existing legal remedies regime. Central to that architecture is the Procurement Review Unit, established within the Cabinet Office and operational from the Act’s commencement on 24 February 2025; however, the Procurement Compliance Service did not begin accepting referrals immediately. The PRU does not replace the courts, nor does it remove the right of suppliers to bring legal challenges. Instead, it provides additional routes for oversight, investigation and accountability.

For senior leaders, understanding how the PRU operates, what powers it holds and how it interacts with the legal framework is critical.

Public Procurement Review Service

The Public Procurement Review Service is the successor to the former Mystery Shopper service. It provides a mechanism for suppliers and other stakeholders to raise concerns about procurement processes conducted by contracting authorities. Referrals can relate to a range of issues, including transparency, fairness, procedural compliance, application of exclusion grounds and payment performance.

The Service can consider procurements conducted within the previous two years. Upon receiving a referral, it may seek information from the contracting authority and review the circumstances of the complaint. It does not determine legal liability, nor does it award damages. Its role is advisory and investigative.

Where concerns are identified, the Service may issue recommendations to the contracting authority aimed at addressing the issue and preventing recurrence. The Act and accompanying guidance make clear that transparency is a core objective of the regime, and the PRU has indicated that it will publish summaries of cases and outcomes. This publication function is significant. Even where recommendations are not binding, public reporting introduces reputational considerations.

It is important to emphasise that the existence of the Public Procurement Review Service does not preclude suppliers from issuing formal legal proceedings. Suppliers retain their statutory right to challenge procurement decisions in court. In practice, some suppliers may choose to pursue both routes, depending on the nature and urgency of the issue.

Procurement Compliance Service

The Procurement Compliance Service is established under Part 10 of the Act and has statutory powers. Its focus is on systemic or institutional non compliance rather than isolated errors in individual procurements.

Under the Act, the Service may investigate a contracting authority where there are concerns about compliance with the regime. It has the power to require the provision of documents and other information relevant to an investigation. This is a formal statutory power, not merely a request for cooperation.

Where the Service identifies non-compliance, it may issue recommendations. It may also publish reports detailing its findings and recommendations. Contracting authorities are required to have regard to those recommendations. While they are not legally binding in the same way as a court judgment, they carry legal weight in that authorities must consider them and may be required to explain how they have responded.

The ability to publish findings introduces a structured form of accountability. A published report identifying systemic weaknesses in governance, transparency or record keeping would have implications not only for the procurement function but for wider corporate governance and audit scrutiny.

The Procurement Compliance Service sits alongside, not above, the courts. The legal remedies regime remains fully in place. Suppliers may bring proceedings in respect of alleged breaches of the Act and associated regulations. In the first year of operation, there have been successful supplier challenges under the new regime, demonstrating that judicial scrutiny is active. The detail of individual cases varies, but the broader point is clear: compliance with transparency obligations, evaluation methodology and procedural requirements is subject to legal review.

For senior leaders, this dual oversight structure is important. The PRU can investigate and publish recommendations. The courts can declare breaches, suspend procurements and award remedies in accordance with the statutory framework. Compliance failures therefore carry both reputational and legal risk.

Debarment Review Service

The Debarment Review Service addresses supplier exclusion and the operation of the national Debarment List created by the Act.

Under the regime, suppliers may be subject to mandatory or discretionary exclusion grounds. These include certain criminal convictions, grave professional misconduct, significant or persistent deficiencies in performance and other grounds set out in the legislation.

Where there are concerns that a supplier meets the criteria for exclusion, referrals may be made to the appropriate authority. The Debarment Review Service investigates whether the statutory grounds are met and whether the supplier has taken sufficient self-cleaning measures. Self-cleaning refers to actions taken by the supplier to address past misconduct and prevent recurrence.

If, following investigation, the criteria are satisfied, the Service may recommend to the Minister for the Cabinet Office that the supplier be placed on the Debarment List. Inclusion on the list has significant consequences. Contracting authorities are required to exclude suppliers on the list from certain procurements in accordance with the Act.

The legislation provides for transparency in the debarment process. Suppliers under investigation are to be notified, and investigation reports and decisions may be published, subject to national security considerations.

As of early 2026, the Debarment List has been established. Its existence creates a centralised exclusion mechanism that applies across contracting authorities. For public bodies, this introduces an additional compliance obligation: where a supplier is excluded on statutory grounds, appropriate notifications must be made in accordance with the regime.

Enforcement and Legal Challenge

It would be inaccurate to suggest that the first year of the Act’s operation has been without legal contention. Suppliers have exercised their right to challenge procurement decisions under the new framework. The remedies regime remains a core feature of public procurement law, and the courts continue to play a decisive role in determining whether contracting authorities have complied with their statutory duties.

Successful challenges in the first year underline a key point. Transparency, documentation and procedural compliance are not simply administrative matters. They are legally enforceable obligations. Failures in evaluation methodology, deviations from published criteria, or breaches of notice requirements can give rise to litigation risk.

At the same time, the introduction of the PRU does not reduce the importance of internal governance. If anything, it reinforces it. The combination of judicial oversight and central review increases scrutiny of procurement decisions.

For Section 151 Officers and Finance Directors, this has direct implications. Procurement risk is financial risk. Legal challenge can result in delay, additional cost, damages exposure and reputational impact. Published findings from a central oversight body can trigger audit interest and external review. The linkage between procurement compliance and corporate risk management is now more explicit.

Defining Robust Compliance

In this environment, robust compliance is not defined by the absence of complaint. It is defined by demonstrable adherence to statutory obligations.

This includes:

• Full compliance with notice publication requirements across the procurement lifecycle.

• Adherence to Section 98 record keeping standards, ensuring that decisions are documented and capable of external scrutiny.

• Consistent application of evaluation criteria as published.

• Lawful use of direct award provisions, supported by the required transparency notices.

• Structured governance oversight, with clear accountability at senior level.

Good compliance also requires clarity of roles. Procurement teams must understand the Act’s requirements. Legal and audit functions must be sighted on procurement risk. Senior leadership must receive appropriate reporting on compliance metrics, including publication timeliness and challenge exposure.

Independent assurance has a defined role in this landscape. Internal audit can test compliance against statutory duties. External reviews can assess governance maturity and alignment with the Act. Such assurance is not an admission of weakness. It is evidence of active governance.

The Procurement Act 2023 introduced enhanced transparency, a statutory oversight mechanism and a centralised debarment framework. It did not reduce legal accountability. The first year has demonstrated that compliance is both reviewable and enforceable. For public sector leaders, the priority is not to assume that implementation equates to compliance, but to ensure that systems, documentation and governance arrangements are capable of withstanding scrutiny from both the PRU and the courts.

That is the standard against which year two will be judged.

One Year in:

One year into the Procurement Act 2023 regime, the public sector has demonstrated professionalism and adaptability. The legal framework is operational. Transparency systems are functioning. The Procurement Review Unit is established and active.

The bar has risen, but so have the tools and guidance available to meet it.

For senior leaders, the focus now shifts from compliance to confidence. Are transparency obligations consistently met? Are documentation standards robust? Are patterns of risk being identified early? Is independent assurance in place?

The Act was not designed to trap authorities in procedural complexity. It was designed to strengthen integrity, unlock flexibility such as the Competitive Flexible Procedure, and enhance accountability across the system.

Year one established the foundations. Year two must consolidate and refine them. By reinforcing governance maturity, embracing transparency as an operational norm, engaging constructively with oversight and seeking independent assurance, public sector organisations can move beyond basic compliance and demonstrate genuine leadership under the new regime.

The direction of travel is clear: a procurement environment that is more open, more disciplined and more accountable. The responsibility now rests with senior public sector leaders to maintain momentum and ensure that the promise of the Procurement Act 2023 is fully realised.