Procurement Act 2023: Opportunities and Risks for Social Care Providers in 2026

July 15, 2025

The Procurement Act 2023 has changed the environment in which social care providers compete for public contracts. Since the new regime came into force on 24 February 2025, authorities have been working within a framework built around greater transparency, broader value and more flexible competition design. For providers operating in local authority and NHS markets, that means active procurement awareness and a disciplined tender strategy are now more important than ever. The opportunity is real, but so is the risk for organisations that do not adapt their evidence, governance and bid processes.

🔍 Understanding the landscape

The Procurement Act 2023 replaced the older EU-derived procurement regime for new covered procurements from 24 February 2025 and introduced a simpler structure for competitive tendering. Official guidance confirms that the main competitive procedures are now the open procedure and the competitive flexible procedure, with the latter designed to give buyers more freedom to shape a process around the contract they are procuring. In practice, this means social care providers can no longer assume every competition will follow the same familiar format.

For care and support providers, these changes matter because they influence how contracts are advertised, how opportunities are designed, how evaluators assess bids and how much visibility suppliers have into the authority’s decision-making. A provider that understands the new framework can make better choices about which tenders to pursue and how to structure its response. A provider that does not may still submit, but with weaker alignment and more avoidable risk.

💡 Key opportunities

Greater transparency – the regime places strong emphasis on information-sharing and wider publication of procurement information, which can help smaller or newer providers understand opportunities and decisions more clearly.
Focus on outcomes and broader value – the Act uses the concept of the “most advantageous tender”, supporting award decisions based on wider value considerations where the authority’s criteria are designed that way.
Flexibility – the competitive flexible procedure can favour agile and specialist providers where authorities want a process better suited to complex or nuanced service requirements.

These opportunities matter in social care because strong providers are often differentiated by service quality, continuity, specialist capability, mobilisation realism and social value rather than price alone. A more visible and flexible procurement environment can create more room for those strengths to be recognised, provided the provider makes them easy to evidence.

Opportunity 1: greater transparency can improve bid selection

One of the most practical advantages of the new regime is stronger visibility across the procurement lifecycle. When more information is available earlier, providers can make better bid or no-bid decisions instead of chasing every contract that appears superficially attractive. This is especially helpful in social care, where geography, workforce availability, mobilisation timescales and service fit can quickly determine whether an opportunity is viable.

Operational example: a domiciliary care provider reviews an upcoming opportunity and, using published procurement information, identifies that the contract geography would require unrealistic travel assumptions and rapid growth in an area where it has little staffing base. Rather than proceeding automatically, the provider stands down early and redirects bid effort toward a smaller, better-aligned opportunity. The benefit of transparency here is not abstract. It directly improves commercial judgement and protects organisational capacity.

Opportunity 2: broader value can support stronger providers

The move to “most advantageous tender” matters because it gives clearer room for wider service value to count where the authority’s award criteria allow it. In social care, this can support stronger recognition of outcomes, safeguarding grip, workforce stability, continuity, social value, mobilisation planning and specialist capability. Price still matters, but providers have more reason to make broader value visible in a structured way.

Operational example: a supported living provider responds to a framework opportunity by showing how named teams improve continuity, how outcomes are reviewed monthly, how restrictive practice is monitored and reduced, and how governance meetings turn complaints and incidents into service improvement. Because the response makes wider value concrete and measurable, it is easier for evaluators to justify a higher score than if the provider had relied on generic statements about quality.

Opportunity 3: flexible procedures may suit specialist services better

The competitive flexible procedure can create opportunities for providers delivering specialist, complex or pathway-based services, because commissioners are no longer confined to older, more rigid process structures in the same way. This can be particularly relevant in services involving complex needs, integrated pathways, specialist workforce requirements or outcome models that are harder to assess through a purely standardised paper exercise.

Operational example: a complex-needs provider enters a competition that has been structured to test mobilisation, partnership working and pathway logic as well as written quality. Because the provider has prepared consistent evidence across governance, workforce and outcomes, it is able to respond coherently across stages. A less prepared competitor, relying on recycled generic text, is more exposed. Flexibility can therefore reward genuine service substance, but only where the provider has prepared properly.

⚠️ Key risks

Increased competition – a more transparent environment may make opportunities easier to spot, which can increase bidder numbers and intensify competition.
Scrutiny of evidence – weak or poorly evidenced claims on quality, safeguarding, governance or social value may be more exposed in a clearer, more structured procurement process.
Process misunderstanding – providers that do not understand the new procedures or published requirements risk weaker submissions, avoidable non-compliance or poor strategic decisions.

These risks are especially important in social care because many providers still rely on bid habits formed under the previous regime. The more visible and defensible the procurement environment becomes, the less protection there is for vague claims, inconsistent governance evidence or weak-fit bidding.

Risk 1: more transparency can mean more competition

Greater visibility is good for market access, but it also means more suppliers may see and pursue opportunities that once attracted a narrower field. Smaller providers may benefit from this in some cases, but they should not assume transparency only works in their favour. Stronger competition means bid selection, service positioning and evidence quality become even more important.

Operational example: a homecare provider that previously relied on incumbent familiarity now faces a broader field of bidders because the opportunity is easier to find and the process is more visible. The provider can no longer rely on local name recognition alone. It must show outcomes, workforce stability, continuity controls and mobilisation realism much more clearly than before.

Risk 2: weak evidence is more easily exposed

Where procurement documents are clearer and evaluators are expected to justify decisions more visibly, poorly evidenced claims become more vulnerable. A sentence saying “we have robust governance” or “we deliver excellent safeguarding” carries little weight unless supported by operational detail, audit logic, improvement routes and measurable evidence. This is not a new principle, but the newer regime increases the cost of getting it wrong.

Operational example: a provider states that it has a strong social value approach but provides only broad aspirations about supporting the community. A competitor, by contrast, shows local recruitment data, staff wellbeing measures, partnership working and how those commitments will be monitored. Under a more structured, transparent evaluation, the better-evidenced answer is much easier to defend and score highly.

Risk 3: misunderstanding process can weaken otherwise good providers

One of the biggest practical risks is assuming the process works as it used to. Providers that fail to read the documentation carefully, overlook procedure design, misunderstand timelines or do not adapt to the competitive flexible procedure may weaken themselves before quality is even considered. In a more flexible regime, process literacy is part of bid competence.

Operational example: a provider treats a more tailored competition as though it were a standard document-only exercise, fails to align internal subject experts early and submits inconsistent evidence across stages. The underlying service may be strong, but the process misunderstanding damages confidence and scoring. This is why procurement understanding now needs to sit alongside bid writing skill.

📥 How to mitigate risk and maximise opportunity

stay informed through official procurement guidance, portals and authority notices so your understanding of the regime remains current
invest in clear, robust evidence of quality, safeguarding, outcomes, governance and social value rather than relying on broad claims
review internal bid processes so they align with transparency, integrity, fairness and the more flexible competition environment
improve bid triage so you pursue contracts that genuinely fit your workforce, geography, mobilisation capability and service strengths
use clarifications carefully and strategically where documentation needs interpretation, rather than making assumptions

These disciplines help providers do more than stay compliant. They help them compete more intelligently. In a more transparent and flexible market, the organisations that usually perform best are those that combine strong services with strong procurement judgement.

Commissioner expectation

Commissioners increasingly expect providers to understand the current procurement environment, not merely recognise the name of the legislation. They want bidders who can respond clearly to the chosen procedure, evidence broader value where relevant and show that governance, delivery and contract management are under control. Providers who do this well generally feel lower risk and easier to appoint.

Regulator and assurance expectation

Although the Procurement Act 2023 is not a CQC framework, many of the things that become more important under the new regime overlap with wider assurance concerns: integrity, governance, past performance, accurate records and the ability to evidence safe and effective delivery. Providers that are stronger under procurement scrutiny are often stronger under commissioner and regulatory scrutiny more broadly.

Final thought

The Procurement Act 2023 creates both opportunity and pressure for social care providers. A more transparent system can help good providers compete more fairly. Broader value can carry more weight. Flexible procedures can favour genuine specialist strength. But none of that helps if the provider is poorly prepared, overclaims or misunderstands the process.

In 2026, the providers most likely to benefit are those that treat procurement reform as a strategic shift rather than a legal footnote. They are improving bid selection, tightening evidence, understanding procedure design and making their value visible. In a more competitive public market, that is what turns reform into advantage.