Procurement Act 2023: Opportunities and Risks for Social Care Providers in 2026
The Procurement Act 2023 is now shaping how adult social care contracts are designed, advertised and evaluated across England. While the new regime introduces more flexibility for commissioners, it also raises expectations around transparency, governance and delivery evidence. Guidance within the Procurement Act 2023 knowledge hub and the wider Governance & Leadership guidance series highlights a consistent message: providers who combine operational credibility with structured governance will be better positioned to benefit from the new commissioning environment.
Why the new procurement framework matters
The Procurement Act replaces the older regulatory framework that governed public contracts for many years. Although the new system aims to simplify procurement and encourage innovation, it also requires providers to demonstrate much stronger evidence of delivery capability.
Commissioners now have greater freedom to design evaluation models that emphasise outcomes, accountability and service credibility. This creates opportunities for strong providers to differentiate themselves. However, it also introduces risks for organisations that rely on generic tender responses or weak governance evidence.
Under the new regime, providers must demonstrate that their leadership structures, risk management systems and quality assurance processes are robust enough to deliver the contract safely and effectively.
Opportunity: stronger providers can stand out
One of the main opportunities created by the Procurement Act is that commissioners can evaluate bids more holistically. Instead of relying solely on compliance-based scoring, authorities can consider factors such as delivery capability, governance maturity and service innovation.
Providers that have invested in strong governance frameworks and clear operational systems may therefore find it easier to demonstrate value. Transparent reporting, structured leadership oversight and credible quality assurance processes all help build confidence in a provider’s ability to deliver.
Operational example: using governance evidence to strengthen a community care tender
A community care provider responding to a large framework tender recognised that commissioners were focusing heavily on governance and delivery assurance. Rather than presenting a generic description of its quality systems, the provider explained how governance worked in practice.
Each service maintained a monthly audit cycle covering medication safety, safeguarding practice and care planning quality. Results were reviewed by the Registered Manager and escalated to a quarterly governance meeting involving senior leadership.
Where recurring themes were identified, improvement plans were developed and tracked through subsequent governance meetings. This approach allowed the provider to show evaluators how governance systems supported real improvement rather than simply monitoring compliance.
Risk: greater scrutiny of governance and evidence
While the new procurement framework creates opportunities, it also increases scrutiny. Commissioners are more likely to examine whether governance structures described in tender responses genuinely reflect operational practice.
Providers that rely heavily on policy statements without demonstrating how governance works day to day may find it harder to achieve high scores. The emphasis is now on practical evidence: leadership oversight, quality monitoring, risk management and continuous improvement.
Operational example: identifying governance gaps before a major recommissioning
A supported living organisation preparing for a regional recommissioning exercise carried out an internal governance review. While the organisation had strong operational practice, documentation of governance processes was inconsistent.
The review identified that incident trends were discussed informally but not consistently recorded, and improvement actions were sometimes tracked outside formal governance meetings. To strengthen its governance model, the organisation introduced structured governance agendas and formal action tracking.
This ensured risks and themes were reviewed consistently across services and gave the provider stronger evidence for its tender submissions.
Operational example: improving risk management transparency
A residential care provider preparing for a multi-provider framework realised that commissioners were paying close attention to risk management. The organisation therefore reviewed its risk register and governance reporting structure.
The revised system ensured that operational risks such as staffing shortages, safeguarding incidents and environmental hazards were reviewed monthly by the Registered Manager and escalated to senior leadership where necessary.
By explaining this governance process in its tender response, the provider was able to demonstrate clear accountability and oversight.
Commissioner expectation: clear governance and credible delivery models
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate structured governance arrangements that support safe service delivery. Tender responses should explain leadership accountability, quality assurance mechanisms and how risks are identified and managed.
Regulator / Inspector expectation: governance must support safe care
Regulator / Inspector expectation: CQC expectations around well-led services remain central to commissioning confidence. Providers must show that governance systems support safe practice, learning from incidents and continuous improvement.
Preparing for the evolving commissioning environment
The Procurement Act 2023 is still bedding into practice, but its direction is clear. Commissioning will increasingly reward providers who demonstrate credible leadership, structured governance and real operational evidence.
For adult social care organisations, the challenge is not simply understanding procurement rules. It is ensuring governance frameworks genuinely support safe and effective service delivery. When governance systems are strong and well evidenced, providers are far better placed to navigate the opportunities and risks of the new procurement landscape.