4,969,433.16

{
  "awards": [
    {
      "id": "069683-2025-715632450-1",
      "relatedLots": [
        "1"
      ],
      "status": "active",
      "suppliers": [
        {
          "id": "GB-FTS-165261",
          "name": "Sure South Atlantic Ltd"
        }
      ],
      "title": "715632450 - BFSAI  Enhanced Business Broadband"
    }
  ],
  "bids": {
    "statistics": [
      {
        "id": "1",
        "measure": "bids",
        "relatedLot": "1",
        "value": 1
      },
      {
        "id": "2",
        "measure": "smeBids",
        "relatedLot": "1",
        "value": 1
      }
    ]
  },
  "buyer": {
    "id": "GB-FTS-165260",
    "name": "Ministry of Defence"
  },
  "contracts": [
    {
      "awardID": "069683-2025-715632450-1",
      "dateSigned": "2025-10-01T00:00:00+01:00",
      "id": "069683-2025-715632450-1",
      "status": "active",
      "title": "715632450 - BFSAI  Enhanced Business Broadband",
      "value": {
        "amount": 4969433.16,
        "currency": "GBP"
      }
    }
  ],
  "date": "2025-10-30T11:42:44Z",
  "id": "069683-2025",
  "initiationType": "tender",
  "language": "en",
  "ocid": "ocds-h6vhtk-05d704",
  "parties": [
    {
      "address": {
        "countryName": "United Kingdom",
        "locality": "Corsham",
        "postalCode": "SN13 9GB",
        "region": "UK",
        "streetAddress": "Westwells Rd, Corsham SN13 9GB"
      },
      "contactPoint": {
        "email": "liam.barker121@mod.gov.uk"
      },
      "details": {
        "classifications": [
          {
            "description": "Ministry or any other national or federal authority, including their regional or local subdivisions",
            "id": "MINISTRY",
            "scheme": "TED_CA_TYPE"
          },
          {
            "description": "Defence",
            "id": "02",
            "scheme": "COFOG"
          }
        ],
        "url": "https://www.google.com/url?sa=t\u0026rct=j\u0026q=\u0026esrc=s\u0026source=web\u0026cd=\u0026cad=rja\u0026uact=8\u0026ved=2ahUKEwioooXT58uQAxUfT0EAHTKaKhIQFnoECBgQAQ\u0026url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.contracts.mod.uk%2F\u0026usg=AOvVaw23esGPI_6uePA764SaLdRS\u0026opi=89978449"
      },
      "id": "GB-FTS-165260",
      "identifier": {
        "legalName": "Ministry of Defence"
      },
      "name": "Ministry of Defence",
      "roles": [
        "buyer",
        "centralPurchasingBody"
      ]
    },
    {
      "address": {
        "countryName": "Falkland Islands",
        "locality": "Stanley",
        "region": "FK",
        "streetAddress": "Ross Road, Stanley"
      },
      "details": {
        "scale": "sme"
      },
      "id": "GB-FTS-165261",
      "identifier": {
        "legalName": "Sure South Atlantic Ltd",
        "noIdentifierRationale": "soleTrader"
      },
      "name": "Sure South Atlantic Ltd",
      "roles": [
        "supplier"
      ]
    },
    {
      "address": {
        "countryName": "United Kingdom",
        "locality": "Corsham"
      },
      "id": "GB-FTS-165262",
      "identifier": {
        "legalName": "ministry of defence"
      },
      "name": "ministry of defence",
      "roles": [
        "reviewBody"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "tag": [
    "award",
    "contract"
  ],
  "tender": {
    "classification": {
      "description": "Telecommunication services except telephone and data transmission services",
      "id": "64220000",
      "scheme": "CPV"
    },
    "coveredBy": [
      "GPA"
    ],
    "description": "The requirement is to provide a business broadband service with Wi-Fi distribution and \ninterconnects for BFSAI across the Falkland Islands to 1052 users across 85 sites.\nWelfare broadband is excluded from this requirement.",
    "id": "ocds-h6vhtk-05d704",
    "items": [
      {
        "additionalClassifications": [
          {
            "description": "Telecommunications network",
            "id": "32412100",
            "scheme": "CPV"
          }
        ],
        "deliveryAddresses": [
          {
            "region": "FK"
          }
        ],
        "id": "1",
        "relatedLot": "1"
      }
    ],
    "legalBasis": {
      "id": "32014L0024",
      "scheme": "CELEX"
    },
    "lots": [
      {
        "awardCriteria": {
          "criteria": [
            {
              "type": "price"
            }
          ]
        },
        "description": "the requirement is to provide a Business Broadband Service to BFSAI \u2013 Falkland \nIslands using both wired and wireless access",
        "hasOptions": false,
        "id": "1",
        "status": "cancelled"
      }
    ],
    "mainProcurementCategory": "services",
    "procurementMethod": "limited",
    "procurementMethodDetails": "Award procedure without prior publication of a call for competition",
    "procurementMethodRationale": "Where the proposed contract is below threshold\n\n          \nAt \u00a3407,629.74 (in effect inc of VAT as there is no VAT in the FIs) your proposed 2-year new contract award is below the PA23 financial thresholds for a Defence and Security Contract (as defined by s. 7 which you have confirmed this contract will fall within). As such you are not a \u201ccovered procurement\u201d for the purposes of the Act. This means, as far as the Act is concerned, you have significantly greater freedoms in terms of your Route to Market where you are looking to make a direct award \u2013 in effect your obligations under the Act including notice requirements are switched off.\n\n          \nThat said, I believe that MoD Policy still requires you to advertise and compete these below threshold procurements where viable. You would still have UK Public Law legal duties to act reasonably and a breach of MoD Policy could be relied on by an aggrieved supplier to challenge the award on the grounds that MoD had not acted reasonably. As a result, the fact your proposed contract is below threshold does not in and of itself give you the right to  make  a direct award.\n\n          \nHowever, here you have also put forward a quasi - technical reasons ground for a direct award to SURE on the basis that competition is not viable. Had you been above the PA23 threshold and a covered procurement, meaning the full Act regime would have applied, then this would have given you direct award grounds under para. 6 schd 5 and so you can use this fact to demonstrate that MoD is acting reasonably here iaw UK public law where the PA23 doesn\u2019t apply.\n\n          \nYou should also look to publish a \u201cMoD VTN or informal Transparency Notice\u201d to meet your MoD Policy transparency obligations and we can look at the wording of this in due course. (In other words, you wouldn\u2019t publish a formal Transparency Notice in the new PA23 platform but you could publish an informal one iaw with MoD Policy.)\n\n          \nLooking at your SSJ rationale I think this needs tweaking a bit to ensure your audit trail is robust. I do wonder whether the rationale you have sent me is an earlier draft and has been since improved when looking at the previous award? For example, it states that: \u201c \u2026it is considered that the award of a single source contract is lawful for reasons connected with the protection of exclusive rights on technical grounds\u201d \u2013 however you are not relying on protection of ER (which is a different ground under DSPCR and PA23) and are just relying on TR.\n\n          \nIf the total contract value creeps up and reaches the PA23 threshold\n\n          \nThe potential fly in the ointment is if the total value of the negotiated contract creeps up and exceeds the Defence \u0026 Security contract threshold under PA23 of \u00a3426, 955 (inc VAT). In such circumstances the PA23 will deem it a \u201ccovered procurement\u201d and the full PA23 regime will apply (absent an exemption ground).\n\n          \nYou are considering whether an exemption switching off PA23 might apply pursuant to para. 28 schd 2 of the Act. However, I think there would be problems with trying to rely on this exemption (and in fact para 27 which is quite similar). This is because the factual position with your proposed contract does not really fit with the criteria you must meet in order to rely on para 28 \u2013 as strictly speaking the FI government is not requiring MoD to procure these connectivity services with SURE. In fact, my understanding is that the FI govt only has an exclusivity agreement with SURE for civilian connectivity and so the real reason why you have to contract with this supplier for military connectivity is because indirectly only SURE have the necessary infrastructure on Island to deliver this requirement.\n\n          \nAs a result, my advice would be to not try to rely on this exemption here and simply rely on Technical Reasons \u2013 para. 6 schd 5 PA23 \u2013 to make the direct award. You would also need to comply with the PA23 notice provisions including the requirement to publish a Transparency Notice.",
    "procurementMethodRationaleClassifications": [
      {
        "description": "The procurement falls outside the scope of application of the directive",
        "id": "D_OUTSIDE_SCOPE",
        "scheme": "TED_PT_AWARD_CONTRACT_WITHOUT_CALL"
      }
    ],
    "status": "complete",
    "title": "4,969,433.16"
  }
}