A call to review public contracts with Russian suppliers
Juli Lau and Gonzalo Puertas discuss the first official document to consider public sector contracts with companies linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes, issued by the Cabinet Office.
- Details
On 28 March, the Cabinet Office issued the Procurement Policy Note 01/22 – Contracts with suppliers from Russia and Belarus, alongside a list of frequently asked questions (“PPN”). This is the first official document to consider public sector contracts with companies linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The PPN concerns the termination of such contracts and considers the related issue of new procurements involving such companies. It also draws important distinctions between central and local government statutory obligations.
Scope and timing
All central government departments, their executive agencies, and non-departmental public bodies are expected to apply PPN 01/22 provisions with immediate effect, while other public sector contracting authorities “should consider applying” its approach. The PPN notes that contracting authorities subject to section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 are prohibited from considering non-commercial reasons in their procurement decisions, or for terminating contracts, and indicates that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is considering an amendment through secondary legislation to address the issue.
Three key takeaways
The following issues of note arise for public authorities:
Identifying contracts – A proportionate and risk-based approach is suggested to identify Russian and Belarusian prime contractors. The focus should be on major contracts and those which could have the most impact and influence on the Russian or Belarusian regimes. However, the PPN applies to contracts below and above the thresholds of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, indicating that monetary value is not the only factor to be considered when identifying relevant contracts.
Assessing risks – Terminating a contract should only be considered if there are suitable, commercially acceptable termination provisions in the contract, and assessments have been made as to (i) the criticality of the contract and the availability and affordability of alternative providers, and (ii) the financial and other implications and these have been mitigated. Assessments should be documented, and any recommendations approved by the appropriate senior commercial or procurement leader in the organisation. The guidance appended to the PPN provides example methodologies for assessing risk. The process set out in the contract should be followed precisely to ensure the termination is valid.
Exclusion from procurements –Regarding new procurements, public authorities could decline to consider (or otherwise exclude from participating in the procurement) bids from suppliers who are constituted or organised under the law of Russia or Belarus (as neither are party to any procurement agreements with the UK), unless the supplier is registered or has significant business operations in the UK, or in a country the UK has a relevant international agreement with reciprocal rights of access to public procurement. In this case, the non-discrimination, equal treatment, and remedy provisions contained within the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 apply.
Next steps
While the overarching recommendation of the PPN is that public sector organisations consider the specific circumstances, conduct appropriate and proportionate due diligence, and pursue legal routes of cancelling their contracts with Russian/Belarusian suppliers, it suggests seeking legal advice on more nuanced issues, most notably around contractual termination provisions and their implications, complying with public procurement obligations, and in the case of local authorities, being alive to specific local government legislation, which may change in the near future.
Juli Lau is Legal Director and Gonzalo Puertas is an Associate at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES Airport Subsidy Challenged in the CAT
Jul 09, 2025
Oliver Slater, Beatrice Wood and Steve Gummer dive into the latest Competition Appeal Tribunal subsidy control challenge, brought against the Welsh Government's subsidy to Cardiff Airport.
IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
Jul 03, 2025
Aanya Gujral and David Owens dive into the recent guidance published on managing the risks associated with Private Finance Initiative (“PFI”) projects.
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
Jul 03, 2025
On the 19th June 2025, the Data Use and Access Bill (“DUA Bill”) received Royal Assent to become the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (“DUA Act”).
Modifying subsidies: What is permitted and what is not?
Jun 24, 2025
Beatrice Wood and Oliver Slater explore recent developments and discuss the process of awarding subsidies.
Getting new PPP right: Smarter tools for smarter infrastructure
Jun 24, 2025
Nicola Sumner, Steve Gummer and Roseanne Serrelli discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of Public-private Partnerships in their new form.
Zones/RABs and heat networks: The path to an investible infrastructure asset class?
Jun 19, 2025
The UK’s new heat network zoning framework (the outlines for which were drawn by the Energy Act 2023) is set to redefine how low‑carbon heating is delivered by creating geographic zones, where district heat networks are the mandated, optimal solution.
Partial debt guarantees- Reviving Investment in UK Water Infrastructure
Jun 17, 2025
Is it Time for a Public Sector Major Infrastructure Debt Guarantor?
Court gives clarity on consultations : R (The National Council for Civil Liberties) and others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jun 10, 2025
Chloe Woodward and Joe Walker discuss a recent judgment on when engagement with third parties constitute a formal consultation and must therefore adhere to case law on being 'run fairly'.
URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2025] UKSC 21 – Supreme Court hands down significant judgment for the construction industry
May 27, 2025
Helen Arthur explores a recent Supreme Court judgment on building safety in high-rise buildings, explaining what the decision means for defects claims.
Catch me if you can: Local government blazes a trail in increased SME spending
May 21, 2025
Juli Lau and Natasha Barlow take readers through the report published by the BCC on procurement spending.
Changing Course: Navigating Variations Under JCT and NEC Contracts
May 21, 2025
Tiah Weekes explains the process of changes to contracts in the field of construction.
Lessons in public consultation: High Court finds failures in local authority’s consideration of consultation responses
May 21, 2025
George McLellan and Samuel Hart explore the High Court decision ruling that Lambeth Council broke the law in the process of establishing an LTN in the borough.
|
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here. |
OUR NEXT EVENT
|
OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |