Recent negative comments in the Gazette about the results of the Legal Services Commission’s mental health tender ignore a number of key points.

The tender process itself was a success. The LSC actually allocated 1,500 more new matter starts than in 2009/10, and the allocations we made were according to the level of client demand identified in each procurement area. We have therefore improved client access.

Oversubscription accounted for some providers finding themselves with less than they tendered for – this was particularly acute in London, which was heavily oversubscribed.

While providers have complained that newcomers with no experience have been awarded a contract, it’s hard to see how an invitation to tender can be open, fair and transparent if it bars new entrants. The pre-qualification questionnaire and essential selection criteria were designed to ensure that there is the requisite quality standard and the verification exercise we will carry out eight weeks before the contract starts will ensure organisations have the capacity to deliver the matters for which they have tendered.

Where organisations are found to lack the capacity to deliver the new matter starts they have tendered for, or are found to have given false or misleading information, they may have their contract withdrawn.

We understand it is disappointing for some providers not to receive the new matter starts they bid for, but the object of this tender was to ensure proper advice provision for clients. That is why we have allocated new matter starts not according to provider office location, but according to client demand.

Hugh Barrett, executive director for commissioning, Legal Services Commission