Public procurement challenges: 30 days can disappear faster than you think

In Verity Healthcare Limited v Cambridgeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 2830 (TCC), the High Court dismissed a challenge concerning a procurement for homecare services across Cambridgeshire, with an estimated framework value of more than £928 million, after concluding that proceedings had been commenced outside the statutory time limit. 

The decision is also noteworthy because it is only the second reported judgment considering section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023 (“the Act”), which deals with interim remedies available before a contract is entered into. It therefore forms part of the emerging case law on how challenges under the new procurement regime will operate in practice. 

The 30-day rule

Under section 106 of the Act, most procurement challenges must be commenced within 30 days beginning with the day on which the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the circumstances giving rise to the claim. 

The words "ought to have known" are crucial.

The clock does not necessarily start when a supplier obtains legal advice, concludes that the authority has acted unlawfully or receives a definitive response to a complaint. For the purposes of limitation, what matters is when it knew, or objectively ought to have known, about the circumstances giving rise to the potential challenge. 

That issue proved decisive in this case. The supplier had been excluded for failing to meet a condition of participation and challenged the requirement for a CQC rating of "Good" or above. It argued that it had not become aware of the relevant condition until 19 July 2026. The Council contended that it ought to have known of it when the tender notice was published on 15 July 2026. Proceedings were issued on 17 August 2026. The Court concluded that the challenge was out of time and entered summary judgment for the Council. 

That is a stark consequence: the merits of a potentially valuable challenge may never be determined if the limitation deadline is missed.

Asking questions does not stop the clock

The commercial instinct where something appears wrong with a procurement is often to ask questions first. A bidder may seek clarification, challenge the authority's reasoning, await further information or try to resolve the issue without proceedings.

Often that is entirely sensible. But suppliers should not assume that correspondence with the contracting authority, or attempts to resolve a complaint, suspend or restart the statutory limitation period. The limitation question needs to be considered separately and in parallel.

This creates a particular trap under a 30-day regime. A supplier may still be gathering information about what happened, and legitimately seeking an explanation, while the period available for bringing proceedings is already running.

Do not rely on an extension

Section 106 does give the Court power to extend the normal 30-day period where there is a "good reason" for doing so. But that discretion should not be regarded as a substitute for acting promptly. The Act also imposes an ultimate three-month limit from the date when the supplier knew or ought to have known of the relevant circumstances. Specified set-aside proceedings are additionally subject to a six-month longstop running from entry into or modification of the contract. 

The prudent approach is therefore to treat the 30-day deadline as the operative one and any extension as an exceptional safety valve rather than part of any strategy.

Interim relief is not a substitute for getting the basics right

There is another useful lesson from the judgment.

The supplier sought interim relief under section 102, including suspension of the procurement. The Council responded with its own application for strike out and/or summary judgment on limitation grounds. The limitation issue therefore became a threshold question, and summary judgment was entered for the Council. 

For suppliers contemplating urgent relief, the practical message is important. Urgency does not cure a limitation problem. Before considering how to preserve the procurement or prevent contract award, suppliers and their advisers need to establish the earliest possible date on which the claim may have arisen and calculate time from there.

The Court also indicated that, had it needed to determine the supplier's application for an injunction, it would not have granted it. 

That reinforces a wider point: where urgent court intervention may be required, suppliers need a coherent strategy from the outset covering limitation, evidence, the substantive procurement complaint and the remedy being sought.

Five practical steps for suppliers

The lesson is not that every procurement concern requires immediate litigation. It is that potential challenges need to be recognised and assessed quickly.

Suppliers can reduce the risk by:

• Escalating concerns immediately. 

If something in the tender documents, conditions of participation, evaluation methodology, exclusion decision or award outcome appears potentially unlawful, escalate it beyond the ordinary bid clarification process.

• Recording the earliest relevant date. 

Keep a clear record of when the relevant notice, tender document, decision or information became available. When calculating limitation, work from the earliest realistically arguable date, not simply the date most favourable to the supplier.

• Obtaining early legal advice. 

Taking advice does not mean commencing proceedings. A focused early assessment can establish whether there is a credible challenge, identify what further information is required and, critically, protect against an unnoticed limitation problem.

• Running correspondence and limitation in parallel. 

Continue constructive discussions with the authority where appropriate, but maintain a separate limitation timetable. Do not assume that unanswered clarification questions or an ongoing complaint give additional time. 

• Preserving the evidence. 

Record when documents were accessed, when relevant information was identified and who knew what and when. This judgment illustrates how the chronology of knowledge can itself become a decisive issue.

The key takeaway 

Public procurement challenges operate to a timetable very different from most commercial disputes. Thirty days is a very short period in which to identify a problem, investigate it, take advice and, where necessary, commence proceedings.

The developing case law under the Procurement Act 2023 demonstrates that procedural issues can be every bit as important as the substantive merits of a supplier's complaint. The judgment provides a particularly clear example that once the Court concluded that the claim was out of time, the challenge could go no further. 

The message for suppliers is therefore straightforward: if you suspect that something material has gone wrong in a public procurement, take advice early. Doing so does not commit you to litigation. It may, however, preserve options which could otherwise disappear surprisingly quickly.

If you require advice about issues that have arisen in relation to a bid for a public contract, please do not hesitate to contact our specialist public contract procurement disputes lawyers.