Follow the Contract: Researching Public Procurement

Illustrative scenario: a local authority announces a substantial equipment purchase. You want to explain who won, how the award was made and what the published records show about the price. Bound the task by contracting authority, date range and contract identifier. This is a method example, not an allegation about an actual award.

Build a record chain

Start with the authority's official procurement portal. Capture the tender notice, award notice, published contract and later amendments where available. Tie them together using identifiers, not similar titles. Record whether each amount includes tax, which currency is used, whether it covers multiple years, and whether it is an estimated ceiling or actual expenditure.

Establish who won

• Match the supplier's legal name and company identifier against the official registry; a trading name alone may be ambiguous.
• Check entity status and published filings as of the relevant period, not only today.
• If ownership information is available, record its date and disclosure limits. A director is not necessarily an owner.
• Use court records only where relevant, distinguishing allegations, judgments and appeals. Leave unrelated employee information out.

Compare like with like

An apparently high unit price may include installation, support, training or delivery to difficult locations. Compare the specifications and scope before using another contract as a benchmark. Count lots and framework call-offs correctly so you do not double-count the same award. A single bidder or repeated winner can justify a question, but neither proves that the process was improper.

Make the unknowns part of the finding

If a required record is missing, check publication rules and request it through the relevant lawful information-access process. Maintain a table of source URL, publication date, document version, extracted figure and interpretation. Ask the authority and supplier about material inconsistencies before publishing. A defensible conclusion might be 'the award value is documented, but the available notices do not explain this amendment.' Do not turn that gap into a claim of corruption.