THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM: Contract Register & Procurement Profile
Companies House: Royal Charter Company·DfE school register: Higher education institutions·Education·West Midlands·BIRMINGHAM
Companies HouseRC000645 ↗
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 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.
241 awarded tenders, 223 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
48 Software package and information systems9 procedures · 5%79 Business services: law, marketing, consulting8 procedures · 5%71 Architectural, construction, engineering6 procedures · 3%50 Repair and maintenance services5 procedures · 3%38 Laboratory, optical and precision4 procedures · 2%51 Installation services (except software)4 procedures · 2%39 Furniture, furnishings, domestic appliances3 procedures · 2%72 IT services: consulting, software, internet3 procedures · 2%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 · 175 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.
Contract87%(152 notices)
152 of 175 notices are Contract (87%).Framework13%(23 notices)
23 of 175 notices are Framework (13%).
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 award57%(99 notices)
99 of 175 notices are Direct award (57%).Route not published21%(37 notices)
37 of 175 notices are Route not published (21%).Open10%(17 notices)
17 of 175 notices are Open (10%).Limited / restricted7%(13 notices)
13 of 175 notices are Limited / restricted (7%).Selective5%(9 notices)
9 of 175 notices are Selective (5%).
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 2 lots from this buyer’s competitions, last 24 months. Small sample.
i
How long this buyer takes to decide after bids close.
Middle value in days from the bid deadline to the award date, on this buyer’s own tenders.
Based on 8 decided tenders across all categories, last 24 months.
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 175 notices across all categories, last 24 months.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRUKER UK LIMITED | 5 | 2.1% | 1 | 6 | 28 Mar 2025 |
| FEI UK Limited | 4 | 1.7% | 2 | 4 | — |
| ServiceNow | 4 | 1.7% | 1 | 5 | 22 May 2025 |
| Medidata Solutions International Limited | 4 | 1.7% | 1 | 4 | — |
| SThree Partnership LLP | 3 | 1.2% | 3 | 3 | — |
| Becton, Dickinson U.K. Limited | 3 | 1.2% | 2 | 3 | — |
| Advance HE | 2 | 0.8% | 2 | 2 | — |
| Orebus Consulting Limited | 2 | 0.8% | 2 | 2 | 30 Jun 2025 |
The three most frequent suppliers are named on 5% of 241 awarded procedures (each procedure counted once, so a panel shared by several of them is not double-counted); 223 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 Technical Services to the High Temperature Research Centre | Manufacturing Technology Centre | — | — | £30,391,540 † |
| Provision of Health Insurance Cover to University of Birmingham Dubai | Orient Insurance P.J.S.C. | — | — | £3,703,848 † |
| Sequencing Technologies in Clinical Research | Oxford Nanopore Technologies | — | — | £3,000,000 † |
| Workflow Automation and Business Process Integration Platform | ServiceNow | — | 3 yrs | £2,062,723 ≈ £688k/yr |
| Glo-BNHL Central Review of Imaging and Clinical Data | Medidata Solutions International Limited | — | — | £685,056 † |
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.
139 of 226 contracts carry an end date, 16 estimated from the duration · not a retender forecast
Recent procedures
Latest 50 of 347 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. 139 of 226 published contracts have an end date; 16 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.