Procurement & Democracy

A Pattern of Urgency Bypasses

Brighton & Hove City Council's housing procurement decisions are under scrutiny following a pattern of direct awards made under urgency provisions — decisions that bypass competitive tendering and the democratic oversight that comes with it.

The most prominent example is the £18.86 million contract awarded to Base One Holdings Ltd on 31 December 2025, using Schedule 5 of the Procurement Act 2023. But the coalition's analysis suggests this may not be an isolated case.

The Procurement Act 2023 created urgency provisions for genuine emergencies — situations that are "unforeseeable" and where time does not permit open competition. The coalition's position is that a structural housing crisis years in the making does not meet the legal threshold for urgency, and that using emergency provisions in this context undermines both the spirit and letter of the law.

What Is Democratic Gatekeeping?

Democratic gatekeeping occurs when decisions that should be subject to public scrutiny are taken through routes that minimise or remove that scrutiny. In procurement, the primary safeguard is competitive tendering — the open process by which the public can see who bid, on what terms, and why a particular supplier was chosen.

When urgency provisions are invoked, competitive tendering is bypassed. This removes the price competition, quality benchmarking, and transparency that tendering provides. While the Procurement Act 2023 requires publication of direct-award notices, the substantive rationale — why this supplier, why now, why at this price — often remains opaque.

The coalition argues that this constitutes a form of gatekeeping: the appearance of transparency (publication of a notice) without the substance (ability to scrutinise the decision before it is taken).

The Procurement Act 2023 and Schedule 5

The Procurement Act 2023 came into force in early 2025, replacing the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Schedule 5 of the Act provides for "limited tendering" in specific circumstances, including genuine urgency that is "unforeseeable" and not "attributable to the contracting authority."

The coalition's analysis raises a fundamental question: can a housing authority facing a long-running, well-documented housing crisis — one that its own budget reports have flagged for multiple years — credibly claim that the need for emergency temporary housing management was "unforeseeable"? Our position is that it cannot, and that the invocation of Schedule 5 in this context deserves full public scrutiny.

Our Five Demands

1. Full public disclosure of the justification for each direct award made under Procurement Act 2023 urgency provisions in the housing portfolio since 2024.
2. An independent procurement audit by the Council's Audit & Standards Committee, with findings published within 60 days.
3. Competitive tendering for any contract renewal, extension, or new housing management procurement above £100,000.
4. Publication of a procurement transparency policy committing to pre-tender market engagement and post-award rationale disclosure.
5. Council Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing to provide a full written statement to Full Council on the Base One Holdings contract and procurement route used.

How You Can Help