West Yorkshire bus franchising

[stevieinselby]

Do operators bidding for 'B' lots have to show anywhere in the documentation how they are going to provide the service, eg what depot facilities they have?
I understand that if a new operator is willing to acquire depot facilities/access on winning a contract then the process shouldn't discriminate against them compared to an operator that already owns a suitable depot ... but if that question isn't even explored in the bidding process then that feels like an omission.

 

[D6130]

Does anyone know whether TLC have actually bidded for any lots?

 

[Andyh82]

Does anyone know whether TLC have actually bidded for any lots?

Yes they are in the unsuccessful suppliers list at the bottom of this page

https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/084929-2026#main_heading_anchor_2

 

[D6130]

Yes they are in the unsuccessful suppliers list at the bottom of this page

https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/084929-2026#main_heading_anchor_2

Thanks.

 

[Ballyheigue]

Can't see TLC lasting long at all at this rate, no access bus work, loss of the Kirklees bid, not much work left to retain in Calderdale and Bradford so I recon they'll just throw the towel in and sell up to a bigger company rather than risk losing both remaining bids and finding themselves quickly out of income.

Now regarding cross boundary routes, WYCA I believe will award permits on condition the route compliments rather than compromises it's own network. So bearing this in mind, will we finally see the never ending all stops 36 finally speed up by becoming alighting only Leeds bound, or boarding only Harrogate bound like it used to?

 

[Mollman]

Still of this latest lot to signed etc so Tower could decide its pointless having an isolated 4 vehicle operation and back out. The alternate is whether the agreements allow sub franchising. Or will they do a 21 Transport approach and have a scattering of unkept looking vehicles outstationed in farmyards.

Yes I was wondering if they could sell on the franchise, it might be that they have to establish a Tower Transit Holmfirth Ltd to operate it then sell that to Transdev or Stotts etc.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Assume it is down to the price as I thought operators had to pre-qualify.

Might be price or a lack of tenderers

Still of this latest lot to signed etc so Tower could decide its pointless having an isolated 4 vehicle operation and back out. The alternate is whether the agreements allow sub franchising. Or will they do a 21 Transport approach and have a scattering of unkept looking vehicles outstationed in farmyards.

Can't speak on this procurement but they usually have stipulations that a) each tender submission has to be self-sufficient so that operating one package isn't dependent on winning others and b) if you are awarded and then backheel it, you are on the hook for the cost of retendering. Sub-contracting will only be with the agreement of the CA.

They might indeed have a four vehicle operation and have it based in a haulage depot; not every firm is as basic as T21

Do operators bidding for 'B' lots have to show anywhere in the documentation how they are going to provide the service, eg what depot facilities they have?
I understand that if a new operator is willing to acquire depot facilities/access on winning a contract then the process shouldn't discriminate against them compared to an operator that already owns a suitable depot ... but if that question isn't even explored in the bidding process then that feels like an omission.

The technical response will ask operators to demonstrate their competence (i.e. where they have done it before) and what they will do to meet the tender requirements.

Can't see TLC lasting long at all at this rate, no access bus work, loss of the Kirklees bid, not much work left to retain in Calderdale and Bradford so I recon they'll just throw the towel in and sell up to a bigger company rather than risk losing both remaining bids and finding themselves quickly out of income.

Why would a bigger company buy them? What are they buying?

 

[D6130]

Might be price or a lack of tenderers


Can't speak on this procurement but they usually have stipulations that a) each tender submission has to be self-sufficient so that operating one package isn't dependent on winning others and b) if you are awarded and then backheel it, you are on the hook for the cost of retendering. Sub-contracting will only be with the agreement of the CA.

They might indeed have a four vehicle operation and have it based in a haulage depot; not every firm is as basic as T21


The technical response will ask operators to demonstrate their competence (i.e. where they have done it before) and what they will do to meet the tender requirements.

Why would a bigger company buy them? What are they buying?

A rag-bag collection of old buses perhaps? Would their staff be TUPEd over to the new operator? I hope so, because the Eastwood-based drivers are exceptionally friendly and helpful.... although the occasional relief drivers from Bradford or Huddersfield sometimes let the side down.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A rag-bag collection of old buses perhaps? Would their staff be TUPEd over to the new operator? I hope so, because the Eastwood-based drivers are exceptionally friendly and helpful.... although the occasional relief drivers from Bradford or Huddersfield sometimes let the side down.

Exactly - a rather mixed collection of ageing vehicles. That's it. However, who's to say that they might not get something in future tranches?

Drivers would have the right to TUPE.

 

[Ballyheigue]

Exactly - a rather mixed collection of ageing vehicles. That's it. However, who's to say that they might not get something in future tranches?

Drivers would have the right to TUPE.

Would anyone knowing how bad TLC cancellations are, and how bad their vehicles get, give them a franchise contract? I wouldn't that's for sure.

 

[Andyh82]

Firstly franchising doesn’t work like that, and secondly it could be argued that the upcoming franchising is partly to blame for all that, but in any case it’s not really on topic.

Yes I was wondering if they could sell on the franchise, it might be that they have to establish a Tower Transit Holmfirth Ltd to operate it then sell that to Transdev or Stotts etc.

If they gave it up, wouldn’t it just go to whoever came in second place?

It certainly doesn’t seem ideal to have such a small operation in a rural town that will have to stand on its own feet in terms of spare buses, spare drivers etc

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Would anyone knowing how bad TLC cancellations are, and how bad their vehicles get, give them a franchise contract? I wouldn't that's for sure.

That's not what public procurement allows. They have to pass the pre-qual (which they did) and then you judge their submission without prior knowledge.

 

[Deerfold]

Can't see TLC lasting long at all at this rate, no access bus work, loss of the Kirklees bid, not much work left to retain in Calderdale and Bradford so I recon they'll just throw the towel in and sell up to a bigger company rather than risk losing both remaining bids and finding themselves quickly out of income.

They haven't lost the Accessbus work yet - it's just going to be retendered.
Most of their current work is in Calderdale and Bradford and most of the routes in those areas have not yet been awarded so I'm not sure how there's not much "left to retain".

I suspect the only bid they've lost so far is for the 900 group of services.

 

[citybus2500]

They haven't lost the Accessbus work yet - it's just going to be retendered.
Most of their current work is in Calderdale and Bradford and most of the routes in those areas have not yet been awarded so I'm not sure how there's not much "left to retain".

I suspect the only bid they've lost so far is for the 900 group of services.

Access Bus tender out now.

https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/085479-2026

An "interesting" constraint. Not sure that will work out well for WYCA.

Lot constraints​

Maximum number of lots a supplier can bid for: 1

Maximum number of lots a supplier can be awarded: 1

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2026 ==

Might be price or a lack of tenderers


Can't speak on this procurement but they usually have stipulations that a) each tender submission has to be self-sufficient so that operating one package isn't dependent on winning others and b) if you are awarded and then backheel it, you are on the hook for the cost of retendering. Sub-contracting will only be with the agreement of the CA.

They might indeed have a four vehicle operation and have it based in a haulage depot; not every firm is as basic as T21


The technical response will ask operators to demonstrate their competence (i.e. where they have done it before) and what they will do to meet the tender requirements.

Why would a bigger company buy them? What are they buying?

Indeed, what would anyone be buying? I'm not sure what assets they actually have.

 

[Andyh82]

Access Bus tender out now.

https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/085479-2026

An "interesting" constraint. Not sure that will work out well for WYCA.

Lot constraints​

Maximum number of lots a supplier can bid for: 1

Maximum number of lots a supplier can be awarded: 1

Surely that must be an error as it makes no sense, unless they are deliberately wanting to increase costs

 

[317 forever]

Oh yes you're right as it was me who reported it at the time lol, totally forgot they withdrew it.

There was a Saturday only route linking Halifax with Holmfirth with South Pennine Community Transport. I rode it in March last year.

I am shocked to think it having been withdrawn now.

 

[Deerfold]

There was a Saturday only route linking Halifax with Holmfirth with South Pennine Community Transport. I rode it in March last year.

I am shocked to think it having been withdrawn now.

It was the HX1, then renumbered 539, although other buses with the same number on Mondays to Fridays either ran Holmfirth to Barkisland or Halifax to Stainland.
My sister used to use it occasionally for going to gigs in Holmfirth but had to get an Uber, a lift, or two buses to get home.

 

[Deerfold]

Squarepeg is mounting a legal challenge to the first round awards.

They think they shouldn't have had to tender for their routes according to this article.

Managing Director Simon Daymond is working with procurement specialists at legal firm DWF on the challenge, which will be lodged by Friday 25 September. He believes that assessment of bids failed to properly consider SME operators and that the structure adopted “is biased towards big groups.”

A formal letter to WYCA has been prepared and on Monday 21 September was undergoing final checks and approvals. Squarepeg Buses is an established critic of franchising in West Yorkshire and during the summer organised protests outside the WYCA head office in Leeds.

The Combined Authority named intended winners of the Tier B small franchise contracts and Tier C home-to-school awards on 8 September. Although two SMEs are set to gain such work, Squarepeg currently is not among them.

Squarepeg Buses in legal challenge to WYCA franchise awards - routeone

Squarepeg Buses will legally challenge planned awards of Tier B and Tier C contracts in the first round of West Yorkshire franchising.

share.google

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Squarepeg is mounting a legal challenge to the first round awards.

They think they shouldn't have had to tender for their routes according to this article.

That's not the only thing they're saying. The legal challenge is around the hurdles being artificially high for most SMEs

 

[stevieinselby]

Squarepeg is mounting a legal challenge to the first round awards.

They think they shouldn't have had to tender for their routes according to this article.

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair summary ... while they have been critical of the idea of franchising all along, the legal challenge is based on the bar being set too high for SMEs to be able to compete (which has a kernel of truth but is arguable, when Stotts did successfully compete). I'm not sure whether the insinuation that the winners were "predetermined" is part of their challenge, but for their sake I hope not, as I don't think there's any way that would stand up in court, and undermines the validity of the rest of their argument as it just looks like sour grapes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair summary ... while they have been critical of the idea of franchising all along, the legal challenge is based on the bar being set too high for SMEs to be able to compete (which has a kernel of truth but is arguable, when Stotts did successfully compete). I'm not sure whether the insinuation that the winners were "predetermined" is part of their challenge, but for their sake I hope not, as I don't think there's any way that would stand up in court, and undermines the validity of the rest of their argument as it just looks like sour grapes.

I think that's a fair summary from you.

If they're saying that the financial stability barrier is so high that it essentially precludes you from succeeding, that might be the best approach. Pre-determination... probably not. As you say, it begins to sound a bit overwrought.

I did think of the Stotts example too. I don't know what the rules were but might be that you could only win a package of a worth that is a multiple of your financial strength so hence an SME can't win anything other than the smallest?

 

[Deerfold]

That's not the only thing they're saying. The legal challenge is around the hurdles being artificially high for most SMEs

It's not the only thing they're saying but a direct quote is included.

He says that such an approach, and failure by WYCA to utilise scope to direct award franchise contracts to incumbents as permitted by the Bus Services Act, is “choosing to put operators like mine out of business as an unintended consequence of franchising.”

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's not the only thing they're saying but a direct quote is included.

Yeah - that’s why I said the bit about a direct award wasn’t the only point they were saying, and what the basis of the legal challenge seems to be.

 

[TheWierdOne]

It's not the only thing they're saying but a direct quote is included.

He says that such an approach, and failure by WYCA to utilise scope to direct award franchise contracts to incumbents as permitted by the Bus Services Act, is “choosing to put operators like mine out of business as an unintended consequence of franchising.”

Surely direct awarding would also put WYCA at risk of a legal challenge unless they had absolutely cast iron reasons for doing so. West Yorkshire is not a situation like in some extremely rural areas where there can be literally only one operator with sufficient capacity who can fulfil a contract without an obscene amount of deadheading.

 

[mattb7tl]

So, is their position, that they believe they should have been given a direct award because they are a small operator. If that is the basis of the argument, that itself is a form of preferential treatment.

Larger operators are also entitled to compete for those services, and the fact that they are a small operator does not inherently give it a stronger claim to the contract than another bidder. If anything, designing the process around protecting a particular incumbent because of their size is just as unfair to the other operators that are willing and able to compete. It is not the fault of the authority that they struggled.

 

[Megafuss]

So, is their position, that they believe they should have been given a direct award because they are a small operator. If that is the basis of the argument, that itself is a form of preferential treatment.

Larger operators are also entitled to compete for those services, and the fact that they are a small operator does not inherently give it a stronger claim to the contract than another bidder. If anything, designing the process around protecting a particular incumbent because of their size is just as unfair to the other operators that are willing and able to compete. It is not the fault of the authority that they struggled.

Yes, it is very much the authority at "fault", if that is ghe right word.

I think the point they are trying to make is that in order to bid for contracts, big groups are inadvertently* at an advantage as they have bid teams that can prepare bids with flowery language and are backed by millions of pounds.

Whereas SME operators have next to no experience completing tender documents at the scale that combined authorities proceeding with franchsing want completed.

I've heard countless LA officers talking about SME providers "having a place" with franchising.... yet thier procurement policies and service packaging would suggest otherwise.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, it is very much the authority at "fault", if that is ghe right word.

I think the point they are trying to make is that in order to bid for contracts, big groups are inadvertently* at an advantage as they have bid teams that can prepare bids with flowery language and are backed by millions of pounds.

Whereas SME operators have next to no experience completing tender documents at the scale that combined authorities proceeding with franchsing want completed.

I've heard countless LA officers talking about SME providers "having a place" with franchising.... yet thier procurement policies and service packaging would suggest otherwise.

This is exactly it. Clearly SquarePeg are massively frustrated (and if you had a business/livelihood being removed from you in a process that you thought was manifestly unfair, you might be too) and so the talk of pre-determination and direct awards is just a reflection of this frustration.

No-one is disputing the fact that the process should be fair and accessible to all parties, without fear or favour, to businesses of all shapes and sizes. However, if the tender process is so onerous, or the requirements of financial standing are so great, that it is skewed to the benefit of large corporates that then is inherently unfair and that is probably the only way in which SquarePeg can challenge the process (without wishing to sound like a barrack room lawyer).

 

[Mollman]

Yeah - that’s why I said the bit about a direct award wasn’t the only point they were saying, and what the basis of the legal challenge seems to be.

I seem to recall that this was not applicable to existing franchising schemes so WY couldn't do it as they were too far down the road when the Act came into law.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is exactly it. Clearly SquarePeg are massively frustrated (and if you had a business/livelihood being removed from you in a process that you thought was manifestly unfair, you might be too) and so the talk of pre-determination and direct awards is just a reflection of this frustration.

I do feel very sorry for the likes of SquarePeg, who have built up their own business only to see it taken away from them through a process in which they have very little oversight or control.

I don't think that the authorities have a deliberate predisposition towards large corporate groups compared to SMEs. I think the problem is a lot more fundamental than that- people who can speak the language of procurement have a significant advantage over those who can't. It isn't even about the process being overly complicated or overly convoluted, even with a simplified procurement route for SMEs you're still going to have the same fundamental issue: people who can speak the lingo (or who have enough money to buy in that expertise) have an advantage over people who can't.

I experience the same in my line of work: it isn't just about what you are doing, it is about how well you can communicate that to your regulator. You can have the best story in the world but if you can't express it in their language then you're on the back foot.

I can see how that ends up feeling like the outcome was somehow pre-determined, that the authority were never really interested in SMEs and only wanted the big corporates.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't think that the authorities have a deliberate predisposition towards large corporate groups compared to SMEs. I think the problem is a lot more fundamental than that- people who can speak the language of procurement have a significant advantage over those who can't. It isn't even about the process being overly complicated or overly convoluted, even with a simplified procurement route for SMEs you're still going to have the same fundamental issue: people who can speak the lingo (or who have enough money to buy in that expertise) have an advantage over people who can't.

I think you're right in that it's the law of unintended consequences or almost subconscious bias.

Trying to be fair and balanced, I know that in public procurement, there have to be checks and balances to ensure that we don't have corruption (not withstanding VIP lanes etc) and ensure a certain level of assurance in the process to make sure that businesses have the correct insurances, financial standing etc. So whilst there's no active support for multinational corporates, by having all manner of outwardly fair requirements, it can skew the process and given that we've seen relatively little success for SMEs, it suggests that there is a barrier to them succeeding.

I might liken the issue to race, sex or disability discrimination in employment. You can't have quotas or positively discriminate - that's as abhorrent as negatively discriminating and as illegal. However, you can have positive action to level the playing field and make things easier - if you are still beaten by the better candidate, so be it.