“(1) In the specific cases and circumstances laid down in this regulation, contracting authorities may award public contracts by a negotiated procedure without prior publication. (2) The negotiated procedure without prior publication may be used for public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts in any of the following cases:— … (c) insofar as is strictly necessary where, for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by events unforeseeable by the contracting authority, the time limits for the open or restricted procedures or competitive procedures with negotiation cannot be complied with… (4). For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), the circumstances invoked to justify extreme urgency must not in any event be attributable to the contracting authority.”
“The change in both the demand and supply side of the PPE market occurred very quickly and very dramatically. In the NHS demand for PPE increased between 5-fold and 2,500-fold, depending on the category of item. The effect of such increased demand, which was being replicated on a global scale, led to a wholesale change in the relevant market dynamics. In particular, market power shifted decisively in favour of suppliers, such that the competition was no longer between suppliers to satisfy government or buyer demand, but between different national health authorities to secure commitments to supply. On a number of occasions supplies which had been offered for supply to the UK ended up being sent to another country that made a higher priced offer for the same goods. Some countries banned PPE exports entirely. Indeed, the EU itself introduced legislation which required specific member states to obtain licences for PPE if they wished to export it. Given the uncertainties of supply there was an inevitable incentive to stockpile, with consequent effects upon the availability of supplies. Some suppliers were induced by more attractive financial offers to renege on existing contractual commitments. Some commercial purchasers engaged in speculative buying, and there was a worldwide shortage of some of the necessary raw materials, incentivising the placing of orders in excess of likely demand. In these circumstances, suppliers were demanding significant advance payment. Some other countries were offering to pay substantial sums of cash upfront to overseas producers, in order to secure immediate commitments, and then stockpiling the PPE. When new sources of supply did come onstream these offers would often only be open for twenty-four hours. If negotiations were not concluded in this time, stocks would simply be lost to another country instead.”
“Permission will be granted only where the court is satisfied that the papers disclose that there is an arguable case that a ground for seeking judicial review exists which merits full investigation at a full oral hearing, with all the parties and all the relevant evidence. 37. … The purpose of the requirement for permission is to eliminate at an early stage claims which are hopeless, frivolous or vexatious and to ensure that a claim only proceeds to a substantive hearing if the court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration. The requirement that permission is required is designed to, in the words of Lord Diplock in R v The Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Limited: prevent the time of the court being wasted by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending, although misconceived.”
“The parallel supply chain has not yet received much of the PPE it ordered, with some of it not yet manufactured. Of 32 billion items of PPE ordered by the end of July, 6.6 billion items have been received by 29 September, and another 5.1 billion items were also in the UK but not yet with the parallel supply chain. Two-thirds of items still to arrive in the UK were expected for delivery before the end of 2020. The department expected large volumes to be delivered to the parallel supply chain in October and November. This has meant that the department has been building up its stock of PPE, and it expects to have four months' worth by November. However, the parallel supply chain has ordered PPE that might provide stocks that would last far longer than four months. Between March and July, the volume of PPE that it distributed to frontline organisations averaged about 503 million items per month. There is a lot of uncertainty about future requirements for PPE. However, if this rate of distribution were to continue, then the 32 billion items that have been ordered by the parallel supply chain by 31 July could last around five years. The parallel supply chain's initial estimate of the PPE that would be required nationally anticipated an enormous increase compared with pre-pandemic use, but actual use has been lower than this although still far higher than pre-pandemic use.”