My Lords, I seek to deal with amendments related to competitive procedures. I will start with the government amendments. Amendment 98 ensures that contracting authorities can choose not to assess tenders that do not comply with the procedure. This is different from improper behaviour in a procurement resulting in exclusion, which is addressed in Clause 30. As such, this amendment gives contracting authorities the discretion to exclude for procedural breaches that do not meet the higher threshold for improper behaviour and to ignore an insignificant breach, depending on the context. Government Amendments 99 and 103 are consequential to Amendment 98.
Turning to the Clause 19 amendments, Amendment 106 would replace
“a competitive tendering procedure other than an open procedure”
with “a competitive flexible procedure”, making it much easier to understand the two types of competitive tendering procedure. There are many consequential amendments to update this terminology, including Amendments 108, 109, 115, 132, 133, 155, 156, 157, 161, 188, 189, 192, 195, 199, 202, 213, 221 and 289.
5.45 pm
Amendment 110 would delete an unnecessary phrase—
“the exclusion of suppliers by reference to”—
as it is already dealt with in a cross-reference. Amendment 122 would make the change from “competitive procedure” to “competitive tendering procedure”, as per Clause 18’s heading. Amendments 146, 190 and 261 reflect this.
I now turn to Clause 32. Amendments 193 and 194 would work together to clarify that, where a supplier does not qualify for the reserved contract, the contracting authority can exclude that supplier at any point in the procurement process. Amendments 196 and 197 are made simply to improve the drafting.
Similarly, in Clause 33, Amendments 200 and 201 would clarify that, where a supplier does not qualify for the reserved contract, the contracting authority can exclude that supplier at any point in the procurement process.