Tue12122017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Procurement and Outsourcing Journal: July/August 2015

David Sawtell considers how far good faith can apply to repudiatory breach

If a party is in serious breach of a contract, the so-called ‘innocent’ party needs to know whether or not it can elect to repudiate the agreement, and if so, whether it should. The Court of Appeal recently handed down the fine-detail test as to whether or not a party is in repudiatory breach in Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd v Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd [2013]. The other part of the equation is to consider if a party is actually entitled to elect to affirm the contract, despite the fact that the defaulting party is in repudiatory breach. Sometimes, the innocent party is prevented from choosing to continue with the contract if there is no good reason (other than damages) to do so.

Jenny Beresford-Jones summarises the implications of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 for procurement

It is now several months since the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) came into force, implementing the new EU Public Contracts Directive and bringing with them the biggest shake up of procurement law in a decade. Given these recent changes in the procurement landscape, procurement practitioners can be forgiven if the existence of the ‘other’ procurement regulations, which may well also come into force this year, has not yet hit their radar. This is not least because the new powers to make these further procurement regulations are concealed deep within the crevices of the lengthy and wide-ranging Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the Act), the majority of which has nothing to do with public procurement at all.

Eversheds

Bridgette Wilcox and Paul Pugh investigate the next steps for the mutualisation agenda

With the dust settling after the recent general election, it is possible to better speculate as to the likely direction of travel of the new Conservative government. The new administration has a slim majority, therefore, there still may be an element of internal horse-trading, but not the concessions required under a coalition.

Lisa Boyd looks at the promotion of SME engagement under the 2015 Public Contracts Regulations

Contracting authorities strive to achieve value for money through their various procurement exercises and in recent years we have seen a move towards shared services and larger contracts which offer greater economies of scale. This, however, in turn has the potential to reduce opportunities for smaller companies and in some cases can actually have the effect of reducing competition. As the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) promote SME participation, the new rules on the division of lots are one of many mechanisms to increase SME engagement.

Deborah Ramshaw reports on a recent judgment highlighting the pitfalls of disclosure

The Bristol Missing Link judgment (Bristol Missing Link Ltd v Bristol City Council [2015]) is another in a growing line of decisions concerning an application to lift the automatic suspension and provides useful commentary on the issue of disclosure in this context.

Tim Pugh and James Parker examine recent proposals for devolution and what it might mean for infrastructure delivery

How the UK plans and delivers its infrastructure development is crucial to making sure the country gets what it needs. This article explores the latest developments.

Dr Sam De Silva analyses managing legal risks within the supply chain

In a typical outsourcing arrangement, a customer will engage a service provider and will expect that service provider to provide the services itself. However, there are many instances where the selected service provider may need to subcontract its obligations to a third-party subcontractor. The subcontractor may then in turn need to further subcontract to another third party and this could be the beginning of a complex supply chain. How can the customer manage the risks related to a third party in the supply chain failing?

Chris Bryden, Agata Patyna and Matthew Shaw evaluate a recent Supreme Court decision dealing with the interpretation of contracts

When dismissing the appeal of the lessees in the Court of Appeal in the case of Arnold v Britton [2013], Davis LJ concluded:

Rory Ashmore assesses the impact of the new light touch regime

On 9 March 2015, the Cabinet and Crown Commercial Service (CCS) issued guidance on a new ‘light touch regime’ (LTR) for the procurement of contracts for certain social, health and education services. This new regime, although originally resisted by the UK, is provided for under the EU’s new Public Procurement Directive EC/24/2014 (the 2014 Directive) and has now been implemented into UK law by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (which came into force on 26 February 2015).