- Details
A call to review public contracts with Russian suppliers
Juli Lau and Gonzalo Puertas discuss the first official document to consider public sector contracts with companies linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes, issued by the Cabinet Office.![]()
On 28 March, the Cabinet Office issued the Procurement Policy Note 01/22 – Contracts with suppliers from Russia and Belarus, alongside a list of frequently asked questions (“PPN”). This is the first official document to consider public sector contracts with companies linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The PPN concerns the termination of such contracts and considers the related issue of new procurements involving such companies. It also draws important distinctions between central and local government statutory obligations.
Scope and timing
All central government departments, their executive agencies, and non-departmental public bodies are expected to apply PPN 01/22 provisions with immediate effect, while other public sector contracting authorities “should consider applying” its approach. The PPN notes that contracting authorities subject to section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 are prohibited from considering non-commercial reasons in their procurement decisions, or for terminating contracts, and indicates that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is considering an amendment through secondary legislation to address the issue.
Three key takeaways
The following issues of note arise for public authorities:
Identifying contracts – A proportionate and risk-based approach is suggested to identify Russian and Belarusian prime contractors. The focus should be on major contracts and those which could have the most impact and influence on the Russian or Belarusian regimes. However, the PPN applies to contracts below and above the thresholds of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, indicating that monetary value is not the only factor to be considered when identifying relevant contracts.
Assessing risks – Terminating a contract should only be considered if there are suitable, commercially acceptable termination provisions in the contract, and assessments have been made as to (i) the criticality of the contract and the availability and affordability of alternative providers, and (ii) the financial and other implications and these have been mitigated. Assessments should be documented, and any recommendations approved by the appropriate senior commercial or procurement leader in the organisation. The guidance appended to the PPN provides example methodologies for assessing risk. The process set out in the contract should be followed precisely to ensure the termination is valid.
Exclusion from procurements –Regarding new procurements, public authorities could decline to consider (or otherwise exclude from participating in the procurement) bids from suppliers who are constituted or organised under the law of Russia or Belarus (as neither are party to any procurement agreements with the UK), unless the supplier is registered or has significant business operations in the UK, or in a country the UK has a relevant international agreement with reciprocal rights of access to public procurement. In this case, the non-discrimination, equal treatment, and remedy provisions contained within the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 apply.
Next steps
While the overarching recommendation of the PPN is that public sector organisations consider the specific circumstances, conduct appropriate and proportionate due diligence, and pursue legal routes of cancelling their contracts with Russian/Belarusian suppliers, it suggests seeking legal advice on more nuanced issues, most notably around contractual termination provisions and their implications, complying with public procurement obligations, and in the case of local authorities, being alive to specific local government legislation, which may change in the near future.
Juli Lau is Legal Director and Gonzalo Puertas is an Associate at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email
|
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
|
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD
We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here.
|
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES
June 23, 2026
The New Data Protection Complaints RegimeFrom this Friday, 19 June 2026, organisations can no longer rely on complaints going straight to the ICO. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduces a new regime requiring them to receive, investigate and resolve data protection complaints themselves. Maggie Burns and…
June 18, 2026
Commercial Payments Bill: Implications for Public Authorities and ContractorsJuli Lau, Helen Arthur and Shyann Sheehy look into the new Commercial Payments Bill and what it means for both public authorities and larger contractors.
June 18, 2026
Construction Defects Claims: 5 Top Tips for EmployersAanya Gujral and David Owens set out five top tips on how best employers can protect their interests when it comes to construction defects.
June 18, 2026
A Modern Jarndyce v Jarndyce: Privy Council Endorses Robust Approach to “Inordinate” Appellate Delay (Baird v Goldgar and others [2026] UKPC 23)Olivia Peake and Simon Kiely examine the Privy Council’s decision in Baird v Goldgar, which clarifies the distinct tests for striking out an appeal for want of prosecution and abuse of process in the Eastern Caribbean, and reinforces judicial willingness to act robustly where…
|
|
OUR KEY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
|
||
|
Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
Rachel Murray-Smith Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Jo Pickering Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Emyr Thomas Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Gemma Duncan Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||
|
|
||
|
Simon Kiely Partner 020 7406 4600 Find out more |
||







Catherine Newman




