Framework Agreements in UK Procurement: Innovation Enabler or Structural Barrier?
The value of contracts awarded via frameworks has grown rapidly from £10bn in 2019 to £35bn+ by 2023, so this procurement solution has become a cornerstone of UK public procurement. Widely used by central and sector-specific bodies such as NHS Supply Chain, they are designed to streamline purchasing, reduce administrative burden, and deliver value through aggregated demand. However, as their use has expanded, so too has a fundamental question: are frameworks enabling innovation or quietly restricting it?
At their best, frameworks provide a compliant, efficient route to market. Contracting authorities benefit from pre-vetted suppliers, standardised terms, and faster procurement cycles. For suppliers, particularly incumbents, frameworks offer predictable pipelines and reduced bid costs once admitted. In theory, this should create an environment where both efficiency and innovation can thrive.
In practice, the picture is more complex.
Barriers to entry remain a persistent concern.
Frameworks are typically set for multi-year periods, during which new suppliers, no matter how innovative or quality driven may be locked out entirely. This is particularly challenging for SMEs and newer market entrants who lack the scale, track record, or timing to secure a place at the outset. While Dynamic Purchasing Systems (DPS) have been positioned as a more flexible alternative, traditional frameworks still dominate in many high-value categories.
Mini-competitions, intended to preserve competition within frameworks, do not always function as designed.
In principle, they allow contracting authorities to refine requirements and drive value among pre-approved suppliers. However, feedback that we get from our clients suggests that mini-competitions can become formulaic, with limited differentiation between bidders. Where evaluation criteria are heavily weighted toward price or standardised responses, the scope for genuine innovation is often narrow. In some cases, mini-competitions risk becoming a compliance exercise rather than a true competitive process.
Innovation itself can be structurally constrained.
By definition, frameworks rely on pre-defined specifications and supplier capabilities agreed at the point of award. This creates a tension: how do you procure solutions that, by nature, may not yet exist or fully align with current specifications? Suppliers on frameworks may be incentivised to deliver “safe” solutions that align with evaluation criteria, rather than proposing novel approaches that carry perceived risk. Meanwhile, off-framework innovators are left without a clear route to engage.
There is also a concentration risk. Over time, repeated framework awards to a relatively small pool of large suppliers can reinforce incumbency. This may reduce diversity in the supplier base and limit exposure to new technologies, business models, or niche expertise. While frameworks are intended to aggregate demand for efficiency, they can inadvertently aggregate market power as well.
None of this suggests that frameworks are inherently flawed. Rather, their design and use determine whether they act as enablers or barriers. There are clear opportunities to evolve the model:
Shorter framework durations or more frequent refreshes to allow new entrants to compete
Greater use of flexible structures, such as DPS or open frameworks, where appropriate
Outcome-based specifications that create space for innovative solutions
More meaningful mini-competition design, with evaluation criteria that reward differentiation, not just compliance
The ongoing reforms under the Procurement Act 2023 also present an opportunity to rethink how frameworks operate in practice, particularly in terms of transparency, flexibility, and supplier access.
Ultimately, frameworks are neither inherently pro or anti-innovation. Used well, they can accelerate adoption of new solutions at scale. Used rigidly, they risk entrenching the status quo. For contracting authorities, the challenge is not whether to use frameworks, but how to design and deploy them in a way that keeps markets open, competitive, and responsive to change.
Frameworks are a key part of UK procurement