Contract award
Twelve million pound window contract split between two North West firms
By Staff Writer | 25 August 2026
Be One Homes has published a contract award notice for the supply and installation of windows, naming two contractors to share the work. P. Casey & Co., Limited and Emanuel Whittaker Limited are recorded as the suppliers on an award valued at 12,718,500 pounds excluding value added tax and 15,262,200 pounds including it. The notice was published on 24 August 2026 at 12:18pm under the identifier 080293-2026.
The procurement was run as an open procedure under the Procurement Act 2023 in a single lot, and the notice records the award as above threshold. The award status is recorded as pending and the standstill period ends on 3 September 2026. No contract signature date is published. The stated contract period runs from 14 September 2026 to 13 September 2029, with a maximum extent date of 13 September 2031.
The notice records an option to extend twice at annual intervals, described as twelve months plus twelve months, subject to satisfactory performance. That accounts for the two years between the stated end date and the maximum extent date. The tender description states that the intention was to appoint two contractors to deliver the works, with the workload distributed between both contractors over the contract term. Twenty five organisations are recorded as tenderers, including the two named suppliers.
Two suppliers, one lot, no published split
The structure is unusual enough to be worth reading carefully. This is not a framework and it is not a multiple lot award. It is a single lot on which two contractors have both been appointed, with the workload distributed between them across the term. The notice publishes one aggregate value for the award and does not apportion it between the two, so the figure of 12,718,500 pounds excluding value added tax is the combined estimate rather than either contractor's share.
How the work is allocated between them is therefore the whole commercial question, and the notice does not answer it. A distribution mechanism of that kind is normally either geographic, by stock type, or by a performance ranking that moves volume from one contractor to the other. Each produces a different resourcing decision for the two firms, because a contractor that is guaranteed a share can plan factory output and labour against it, and a contractor whose share depends on measured performance cannot.
The classification is installation of windows and the delivery region is recorded as the North West. Both named suppliers are registered in Greater Manchester, and the buyer is registered in Bolton, so the award keeps a regional programme with regional contractors.
Twenty five bidders on an open procedure
Twenty five organisations tendered, which is a very large field for a single works contract, and the composition of that field says something about how the requirement was read in the market. It includes general building contractors, dedicated window and glazing installers, window system manufacturers, and firms whose principal business is the wider building services and compliance market. That spread suggests the requirement could be priced either as a manufacturing and installation package or as a building contract with a glazing content, and the two produce different cost structures.
An open procedure carries the assessment work that goes with a field of that size, and the notice records that assessment summaries have been sent. The two firms that were appointed both appear in the tenderer list as well as in the supplier list, which is the ordinary record of a bidder that succeeded.
What the notice does not publish
There is no property number, no window type, no specification and no statement of whether the programme covers replacement in occupied homes or work to void properties. On a social housing window programme that distinction is the main cost driver, because working in an occupied home brings appointment scheduling, tenant liaison, decant management and a working day that ends earlier than a site day does.
No form of contract is named and no payment mechanism is given. The notice publishes no award criteria and no weightings, only that the award is above threshold and that the assessment summaries have gone out. Nor does it publish any measured order value or schedule of rates, so the 12,718,500 pounds is an estimate of what is expected to flow through the arrangement over three years rather than a committed sum.
The dates are the firmest part of the record. Standstill ends on 3 September 2026 and the contract period is stated to begin on 14 September 2026, which leaves eleven days between the two. For a programme of this size that is a short mobilisation, and it is the strongest indication on the notice that the buyer expects work to start at volume rather than to ramp up.