By Amanda Hall, General Counsel
Public procurement is one of the most powerful tools the UK public sector has at its disposal. Every year, local authorities, housing associations, NHS trusts and other public bodies spend hundreds of billions of pounds on goods and services. The rules that govern how that money is spent don’t just affect value for money for taxpayers. They shape competition, determine whether innovation can flourish, and ultimately influence the quality of services people rely on every day.
After nearly 15 years working with public sector procurement including a secondment to the procurement legal team at the former Department of Health I’ve seen the system from the inside. I’ve worked on tenders across everything from school catering and hospital facilities management to pension administration. And one thing became clear very early on: the framework itself often got in the way of progress.
The Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which governed procurement in England for much of the last decade, were designed to ensure fairness and transparency. Those goals are essential. But in practice, the process often became slow, overly bureaucratic, and biased unintentionally towards incumbents rather than innovators.
Now, as General Counsel at Plentific working closely with social landlords and local authorities, I see the consequences of that system from the other side of the table. And I also see why procurement reform and a rethink of how technology partners are selected matters more than ever.
The reality housing providers are facing
Social housing and local authorities are operating under unprecedented pressure.
Legislation such as Awaab’s Law, introduced under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, has fundamentally raised the bar. Landlords must now:
investigate dangerous damp and mould within 10 working days, and
address emergency hazards within 24 hours.
These are not abstract legal obligations. They directly affect tenant health, safety and trust.
In this environment, technology that improves reporting, triaging, contractor coordination and real-time visibility is no longer a “nice to have”. It is a critical enabler of compliance.
And yet, the procurement processes used to source that technology have historically made it difficult for the very suppliers best placed to help.
The three questions I’m most often asked
When I work with housing providers or advise internally on public sector opportunities, the same questions come up again and again.
1. “Why does procurement feel so slow when the problem is so urgent?”
From a legal perspective, the answer is simple: process design.
Traditional procurement frameworks prioritised risk avoidance over outcomes. Extensive documentation, rigid evaluation criteria and long timelines were seen as safeguards. In reality, they often delayed access to modern solutions and locked organisations into outdated systems.
For challenges like damp, mould or emergency repairs, delays are not just inconvenient. They increase risk.
The direction of travel is now changing. Procurement reform is explicitly intended to make it easier for public bodies to engage with agile, specialist suppliers and to focus on value and outcomes, not just compliance.
2. “How do we choose the right technology partner without breaching procurement rules?”
This is where legal teams can and should add strategic value.
Choosing the right partner is about understanding:
how adaptable the technology is,
whether it can integrate with existing systems,
how data is structured and accessed,
and whether the supplier can scale as regulatory and operational demands grow.
Modern procurement allows for far more market engagement, early dialogue and proportionate assessment than many organisations realise. Used properly, it supports rather than restricts informed decision-making.
3. “Why do innovative suppliers struggle so much in public procurement?”
From the Technology side, the challenges are very real.
Innovative companies like Plentific are often:
newer to the market,
modular rather than monolithic,
designed to integrate rather than replace everything at once.
Traditional procurement has not always been set up to assess that fairly. Frameworks can favour size over capability, longevity over agility, and familiarity over effectiveness.
That’s changing but it requires procurement teams and suppliers to meet in the middle.
What this means for technology and for housing providers
At Plentific, much of what we build is designed specifically to address the pressures facing social housing today. Our platform supports reactive and responsive works. The everyday repairs and interventions that most directly affect tenants’ living conditions.
From a legal standpoint, what excites me most is not just the technology itself, but what it enables:
clearer audit trails,
better data for regulatory reporting,
faster escalation of safety-critical issues,
and more defensible decision-making.
Procurement reform creates space for these benefits to be realised but only if organisations are willing to rethink how they assess, select and work with technology partners.
A moment of opportunity
Public procurement needed a glow-up.
The direction of travel is clear: towards agility, innovation and outcomes that genuinely improve public services. For social housing and local authorities, that means being able to adopt technology that helps meet legal obligations, protect tenants and support overstretched teams.
For companies like Plentific, it means the opportunity to compete on what really matters: impact, capability and trust.
When procurement works well, it’s not just a legal process. It’s a catalyst for better homes, safer communities and smarter public services.
And from where I sit, that’s exactly what the system should be designed to deliver.
By Amanda Hall, General Counsel
