11 Bids Received for UKGC's New Case Management System
Regulator withholds bidder identities and evaluation scores for critical new technology, citing commercial sensitivity.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed that 11 companies submitted valid bids to supply the UK Gambling Commission with a new case management system. The regulator has refused to name the bidders or their scores, citing commercial sensitivity.
Article Content
UKGC Cites Commercial Sensitivity in Refusal
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) received 11 valid bids for a new Cloud-Based Case Management System, a critical piece of technology for its regulatory operations. However, the regulator has refused to disclose the names of the bidding companies or their evaluation scores, citing commercial sensitivity.
The request, dated 23 March 2024, asked for the number of submissions, the names of the bidders, and the total score for each bidder involved in the procurement process (ITT Ref: 23-001).
In its response, the UKGC confirmed it received 11 valid bids but withheld the other requested details, invoking Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This section provides an exemption for information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
Why This System Matters
A case management system is the digital backbone of a regulator's enforcement and licensing activities. The new system will be used by the UKGC to manage everything from operator licence applications and compliance assessments to investigations into regulatory failings. Its efficiency and capabilities directly impact the Commission's ability to monitor the industry, enforce rules, and ultimately protect consumers from harm.
The procurement of this system represents a significant investment in the UKGC's technological infrastructure, intended to modernise how it handles data and manages its regulatory caseload.
The UKGC's Justification
The Commission argued that releasing the names and scores of bidders could harm their business reputations, particularly if scores were revealed without the full context of the evaluation criteria. The UKGC stated that such a disclosure could "damage their business reputation or the confidence that customers, suppliers or investors may have in them."
In conducting a public interest test, the UKGC acknowledged that releasing the information would promote transparency and accountability. However, it concluded that the public interest in maintaining a fair and competitive procurement environment was greater.
The regulator expressed concern that disclosing this level of detail could deter companies from participating in future bidding processes. This, it argued, could "undermine the ability of the Commission to fulfil its role" by limiting its choice of suppliers and potentially affecting the quality of services it can procure.
Due to the recent nature of the tender process, the Commission determined that the information remains highly sensitive. The decision leaves the public and industry observers without insight into which companies are vying to provide this core technological platform for the UK's gambling regulator, or how they were assessed.