I’ve been working closely with contracting authorities over recent months to help them turn the requirements and aspirations of the Procurement Act 2023 into workable processes and procedures. One area of focus has been preliminary market engagement (PME). The intention in PA23 is clear: earlier, more open engagement with suppliers to shape better procurement outcomes and reduce contractual issues in the long run. All good stuff!

However, the reality of making that happen is a little bit more difficult to achieve than the legislation maybe banked on.

At a recent supplier roundtable I chaired, the conversation turned quickly to the elephant in the room. Suppliers are encouraged to help shape future procurements, yet many are hesitant. Why? Because while they want to influence the approach, they fear giving away intellectual property or tipping their hand too early. There’s a real and understandable concern that their ideas could end up front and centre in the specification, essentially handed to competitors on a plate and removing their competitive edge.

From the buyer’s side, the situation isn’t much easier. Most procurement teams I’ve spoken to are keen to engage earlier and more meaningfully. They get it. They see the benefits and quite often they need market expertise to help them understand the product or service. But practicalities then get in the way. Teams are often stretched thin, lacking in resource to conduct meaningful 1-2-1 engagement. They are also wary of unintentionally giving one supplier an advantage, opening the door to challenges. For some, PME feels like an extra burden rather than a gateway to better outcomes.

The result? A familiar Catch-22. Suppliers hold back because they don’t want to give away the family jewels. Buyers hold back because they don’t have the capacity (or desire) to manage the process. Everyone agrees that better pre-engagement is needed, but no one wants to take the risk of doing it.

So, where does this leave us? The Procurement Act 2023 certainly gives us more tools and clearer permission to talk early and openly. But using those tools requires trust, time, and a willingness to accept a degree of risk on both sides.

The question I find myself asking, and one I’ll leave with you, is this: will the new approach to pre-market engagement actually result in meaningful change? Or is it, for all the policy shifts and fresh terminology, still just good old-fashioned business development in a new wrapper? Is it more about showing your face than showing your hand?