Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust: Contract Register & Procurement Profile
NHS ODS: NHS TRUST·Central government·West Midlands·Birmingham
Official UK PPONPLVW-7764-XPRNWebsitebhamcommunity.nhs.uk ↗
i
Tenders you can still bid for.
Notices at tender stage whose deadline has not passed, counted the way the search counts them: a notice shows under every code and region it names.
i
Notices published in the last 12 months.
Counted per tender, not per lot, against the 12 months before where shown.
i
How many companies usually bid when this buyer runs a tender.
Middle value of the bid counts on its award notices, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.
Based on 3 lots from this buyer’s competitions, last 24 months. Small sample.
i
How much of this buyer’s work goes to its three most frequent suppliers.
Share of its awarded tenders that name at least one of the top three. Each tender is counted once.
67 awarded tenders, 60 different suppliers.
Describes the record. It is not a sign of favouritism.
i
Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.
Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.
An end date does not confirm a new procurement.
i
How much this buyer has awarded recently, by published values.
Sum of published VAT-exclusive awards to single suppliers, last 24 months. Left out: concession revenue, framework ceilings, repeated notices, equal-value duplicates.
Published values, not actual spend. The biggest rows are listed so you can check.
What they buyi
What kind of work is bought here.
Notices by procurement category (CPV). A notice with several categories counts in each.
i
What kind of work is bought here.
Notices by procurement category (CPV). A notice with several categories counts in each.
Last 24 months · CPV divisions on published procedures · a notice with several divisions counts in each
85 Health and social work services8 procedures · 11%64 Postal and telecommunications services2 procedures · 3%33 Medical equipments, pharmaceuticals1 procedure · 1%45 Construction work1 procedure · 1%72 IT services: consulting, software, internet1 procedure · 1%How they buyi
How work here is packaged.
Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.
i
How work here is packaged.
Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.
Last 24 months · 70 notices · commercial tool and route as published on the notice, not a legal-regime claim
i
How work here is packaged.
Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.
Contract99%(69 notices)
69 of 70 notices are Contract (99%).Dynamic purchasing system1%(1 notice)
1 of 70 notices is Dynamic purchasing system (1%).
i
Which procedures buyers here use.
Notices by the procedure they declare: open, selective, limited or direct. Open and selective are competitions; limited and direct are not.
Direct award79%(55 notices)
55 of 70 notices are Direct award (79%).Limited / restricted10%(7 notices)
7 of 70 notices are Limited / restricted (10%).Open6%(4 notices)
4 of 70 notices are Open (6%).Selective3%(2 notices)
2 of 70 notices are Selective (3%).Route not published3%(2 notices)
2 of 70 notices are Route not published (3%).
i
How many companies usually bid when this buyer runs a tender.
Middle value of the bid counts on its award notices, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.
Based on 3 lots from this buyer’s competitions, last 24 months. Small sample.
i
How often this buyer changes a notice after publishing it.
Middle number of amendments per notice. Deadline extensions and corrections both count.
Based on 70 notices across all categories, last 24 months.
i
Do this buyer’s awards land above or below its own estimates.
Each lot’s published estimate against its award, on this buyer’s competitions, like for like.
Based on 1 lots with both an estimate and an award, last 24 months. Small sample.
A past pattern, not a price to bid.
Who wins herei
Which suppliers win the most here.
Suppliers ranked by the number of tenders won, not by money. A supplier on one big framework with many call-offs does not outrank one that won many separate competitions.
i
Which suppliers win the most here.
Suppliers ranked by the number of tenders won, not by money. A supplier on one big framework with many call-offs does not outrank one that won many separate competitions.
All published awards naming a supplier · ranked by distinct procedures, not pounds · panel and call-off entries inflate award records
| Supplier | Procedures | Share | Last 24m | Award records | Last activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust | 2 | 3% | 2 | 2 | 20 Feb 2026 |
| COSTA LIMITED | 2 | 3% | 2 | 2 | — |
| Henry Schein | 2 | 3% | 2 | 2 | — |
| East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust | 2 | 3% | 2 | 2 | 2 Jul 2026 |
| Birmingham City Council | 2 | 3% | 2 | 2 | — |
| Nigel Walton | 2 | 3% | 2 | 2 | — |
| BSL assist Ltd | 2 | 3% | 2 | 2 | — |
| Opcare Limited | 1 | 1.5% | 1 | 1 | — |
The three most frequent suppliers are named on 9% of 67 awarded procedures (each procedure counted once, so a panel shared by several of them is not double-counted); 60 distinct suppliers hold at least one. Descriptive concentration of published awards, not a statement of preference.
i
How much this buyer has awarded recently, by published values.
Sum of published VAT-exclusive awards to single suppliers, last 24 months. Left out: concession revenue, framework ceilings, repeated notices, equal-value duplicates.
Published values, not actual spend. The biggest rows are listed so you can check.
i
The middle published award value for this buyer.
Middle value of the same awards as the total above.
Largest published awards iThe biggest published awards. Awards to a single supplier with a published value, largest first, so you can check the totals against the notice. A repeated framework total can appear here. Open the notice to check. | Supplier | Awarded | Term | Published value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision of a Prosthetic, Orthotic and Technical Service (Lot 2 & Lot3) | Opcare Limited | — | — | £19,264,495 † |
| Clinical Partners ASD & ADHD Assessments | Clinical Partners Ltd | — | — | £5,000,000 † |
| 24/7 Clinical Call Handling Service | East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust | — | 1 yrs | £661,136 ≈ £661k/yr |
| BCHC Hybrid Mail | Synertec Limited | 8 Oct 2026 | 1.6 yrs · up to 3.6 yrs | £550,000 ≈ £347k/yr |
| Certero ITSM SAAS Asset Management | Certero Ltd | 15 Sept 2026 | 2 yrs | £330,185 ≈ £165k/yr |
Contracts endingi
Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.
Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.
An end date does not confirm a new procurement.
i
Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.
Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.
An end date does not confirm a new procurement.
55 of 62 contracts carry an end date · not a retender forecast
Recent procedures
Latest 50 of 75 procedures where this authority buys, is the authority the work is for, or runs the procurement
About this data
- Source. Official UK public procurement notices (Find a Tender), reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. New notices arrive through the day; the figures are rebuilt nightly.
- One profile per authority. Different spellings and registration numbers of the same body are merged into this profile. It includes tenders the authority ran for other bodies and tenders run on its behalf; spend is credited to the body that pays.
- Values are published values. Award values are what the authority published, excluding VAT and framework ceilings. They are not a budget or total spend.
- Contract end dates. 55 of 62 published contracts have an end date; 0 of those are estimated as the signature (or publication) date plus the published duration and are marked “estimated”. They feed “Contracts ending”, the same rule as the retender radar.
- Every figure shows what it rests on. Not every notice publishes a bid count, a value or a delivery region, so each figure carries the number of records behind it, and one built on few records is marked as such. The on a figure explains it; the counting rules are in the methodology. Spotted something wrong? Tell us.