Five in twenty five: Frameworks and Dynamic Markets

Eight years is a maximum duration for an open framework, not a mandatory duration.

Section 49 of the Act provides that an open framework must provide for: (a) the award of a second framework within the period of three years beginning with the award of the first framework; and (b) the award of any subsequent framework within the period of five years beginning with the award of the previous framework. 

The key point is that section 49 is drafted by reference to the latest point by which a further framework must be awarded, resulting in a maximum overall duration of eight years. The Cabinet Office guidance describes open frameworks as capable of running "up to eight years" rather than requiring an eight-year term.

Yes. An open framework is a scheme of successive frameworks rather than a single continuously open framework. Each time the framework is re-opened, a new framework is awarded and the previous framework expires (subject to any ongoing call-off processes). In practice, this means the authority should enter into a new framework agreement with the suppliers appointed to each successive framework.

Yes. A Welsh public body may award a below-threshold call-off under a framework. The prohibition in section 85 on restricting participation by reference to supplier suitability does not apply to contracts awarded in accordance with a framework (section 85(5)(c)) and is also generally disapplied for devolved Welsh authorities and procurements under devolved Welsh procurement arrangements (section 85(5)(a) and (b)). Accordingly, the Welsh below-threshold exemption does not prevent the use of below-threshold call-offs from frameworks. See also paragraph 30 of the guidance for devolved Welsh authorities on below-threshold contracts. 

As things stand, no, we are not aware of any government proposal, consultation or published reform that would permit below-threshold contracts to be awarded through Dynamic Markets under the Act. The most recent Cabinet Office guidance (updated May 2026) continues to describe Dynamic Markets as being governed by sections 34–40 PA23 and does not introduce any mechanism for below-threshold awards through a Dynamic Market.

The reason is the interaction with section 85 of the Act. A Dynamic Market is, by definition, a list of suppliers that have met conditions for membership. Restricting participation to suppliers admitted to that Dynamic Market would amount to restricting participation by reference to supplier suitability, which is prohibited for regulated below-threshold contracts under section 85(1).

There has been market commentary highlighting the operational difficulty this creates for high-volume, low-value procurements (for example transport, taxi and placement services), and of course a workable alternative solution has already been adopted in Wales (see above) but to date there is no indication that Cabinet Office is currently planning legislative amendments to address it. 

Yes, annual reopening would be permissible, provided the successive frameworks are awarded on substantially the same terms and it is clearly outlined in the procurement documents from the outset.

Section 49 sets minimum reopening requirements; but it does not say that reopening can only occur at those points. In fact, FTS notices show how authorities are building on the statutory baseline in different ways. Some divide the framework into successive “schemes”, each with planned reopening points, while others allow suppliers to join at frequent or even annual entry points, often described as “entry windows”. Authorities also often reserve the right to adjust the indicative reopening schedule in response to operational requirements or specific triggers.

Where a framework is established as an open light touch framework, we think the best view is that the reopening requirements in section 49 still apply, including the requirement to reopen at least once within the first three years and at least once every five years thereafter. This is because the Act expressly disapplies section 47 for standard light touch frameworks (limits on standard duration of frameworks), but does not disapply section 49, which contains the core rules governing open frameworks.

Whilst the position is not expressly addressed in the guidance, the cautious interpretation is that, if an authority chooses to use the statutory open framework model, it must comply with the associated reopening requirements.

This is an odd outcome, because section 49 creates statutory limits around the maximum term of an open light touch framework, which would not be there for a ‘normal’ light touch framework under section 47. It remains to be seen whether this is addressed in case law, and therefore whether the intention of the Act was to create these limits. But for now, the cautious approach is to interpret it as described above.

Yes. The Cabinet Office guidance specifically states that the first framework can last for a maximum of three years, and subsequent frameworks can last for a maximum of five years each. It therefore contemplates a structure where the first framework runs for three years and he second framework runs for the remaining five years of the eight-year open framework term, without any further reopening during that second five-year period.

The starting point is that a light touch framework is still a framework under sections 45 to 49 of the Act, but sections 45(9), 46(11) and 47(5) create specific exemptions for light touch frameworks.

Is there a maximum framework term: there is a limit on the term because the flexibility for ‘normal’ light touch frameworks doesn’t seem to apply to light touch open frameworks (see answer to question on opening periods in light touch frameworks above). As described above, this is an odd outcome and it is unclear whether this was the intention of the Act; but absent any case law or further guidance, it remains that the cautious approach is to interpret in this way.

Greater flexibility in designing call-off procedures: the competitive selection processes under frameworks provisions do not apply to light touch frameworks. This removes restrictions that would otherwise require:

• conditions of participation to be proportionate and limited in particular ways;
• call-off assessments to be based only on framework award criteria; and
• refinements to remain within the section 46 framework.

If the services called off under a Light Touch framework are not, for whatever reason, Light Touch services (perhaps they are part of a mixed services requirement?) then the authority would need to treat these derogations as not being available. 

Under the PCR 2015, Regulation 33(8)(a) expressly required that a direct award could only be made where the framework set out "all the terms governing the provision of the works, services and supplies concerned". In addition, Regulation 33(6) prohibited the use of a framework in a way that would entail substantial modifications to the terms originally laid down. Those provisions created a fairly clear constraint on introducing bespoke terms at call-off stage.

The equivalent provisions under the Act are different. Section 45(4) permits award without competition where the framework sets out an objective mechanism for supplier selection and the core terms of the call-off contract. The Cabinet Office guidance explains that the core terms include matters such as deliverables, warranties, pricing mechanisms, indemnities, record-keeping obligations and termination provisions, but it does not require the framework to contain "all the terms" of every future call-off contract.

That suggests greater flexibility to supplement a call-off contract with additional terms than existed under Regulation 33(8)(a). However, authorities should be cautious about having an unrestricted ability to do so. The rationale behind section 45(4) is still that the supplier is being selected without further competition. If additional call-off terms materially alter the allocation of risk, scope, pricing structure or other matters that would ordinarily be regarded as "core terms", there is a strong argument that the authority has gone beyond what was contemplated by the framework. The absence of an express equivalent to Regulation 33(6) does not eliminate that risk, particularly given the overarching transparency and equal treatment objectives in section 12 and the continuing concept of substantial modification in section 74.

Further, where the value of the call-off contract is over £5 million, there will now an obligation to publish a copy of it (redacted as appropriate) together with the Contract Details Notice. This means that there will be visibility of the terms of a directly-awarded call-off contract and the ability for other suppliers in the market to scrutinize the extent to which the “core terms” of the framework agreement have been superseded (in breach of (section 45(4).

Assuming the framework itself was lawfully established (whether it is an internal framework established by the authority or an external/third-party framework established by another contracting authority), the notice requirements for the call-off contract are the same.

• No UK4 Tender Notice is published for a call-off contract.
• No UK5 Transparency Notice is required for a call-off contract even where directly awarded under the framework.
• A UK6 Contract Award Notice (CAN) is required for all call-off contracts (except for defence and security contracts).
• A UK7 Contract Details Notice (CDN) is then required following award of the call-off contract and must include details of the framework used and whether the call-off was awarded via a competitive selection process or without further competition. 
• If the call-off contract is over £5 million, the contract itself will generally need to be published under the usual contract publication requirements (with redactions as appropriate).

Potentially, yes, although authorities should not rely on consistency of provision alone without linking it to the statutory test.

Under section 47(2) PA23, a framework may exceed four years where the contracting authority considers that the nature of the goods, services or works means a longer term is required and this is stated in the tender or transparency notice. The Cabinet Office guidance indicates that the justification should relate to the characteristics of the requirement rather than a simple preference for a longer arrangement. For a SEND framework, stronger arguments might be:

• the need to maintain continuity and stability for vulnerable children and young people;
• the disruption and safeguarding risks associated with changing providers;
• the need for providers to make long-term investments in specialist staff, facilities, training and support services;
• the lengthy period required to achieve educational and care outcomes; and
• the benefits of avoiding unnecessary transitions for service users.

In other words, we would suggest framing the justification as continuity of support and safeguarding outcomes for children with SEND, rather than merely administrative convenience or a desire for consistency. Those factors are more closely linked to the nature of the services being procured and therefore sit more comfortably within section 47(2).

For frameworks, the authority establishing the framework is responsible for the framework procurement itself and the notices associated with establishing and managing that framework. However, the authority awarding the call-off remains responsible for complying with the Act when carrying out the call-off procurement. The Cabinet Office Guidance expressly states that where a centralised procurement authority establishes a framework for other authorities to use, the CPA is responsible for compliance when setting up the framework, but the authority procuring under the framework is responsible for complying with the Act when awarding the call-off contract.

For dynamic markets, the position is even clearer. Contracts awarded under a dynamic market are not "call-offs" in the framework sense. Section 34 PA23 treats them as procurements awarded through a competitive process by reference to membership of the dynamic market. The contracting authority running that procurement is therefore responsible for the procurement notices associated with that award.

Section 74 of the Act governs modifications and provides that a contracting authority may modify a public contract (including a call off) if the modification is either a “permitted modification”, a “non-substantial modification”, or a “below-threshold modification”.  One of the “permitted modifications” (these are set out at Schedule 8 to the Act) is where the modification is already “unambiguously provided for” in contract and in the tender notice. Of course, the latter is difficult in the case of a call-off, given that no tender notice will be published in its regard, although guidance suggest the requirement may be satisfied where the modification was referenced in the tender notice for the Framework Agreement itself.

The further types of “permitted modifications” at schedule 8, as well non-substantial modifications and below threshold modifications, may of course be made to a call off contract. 

Not generally. The Procurement Act 2023 extends to Northern Ireland and the majority of the framework provisions (including sections 45–49) apply in the same way as they do in England. 

However, there are a few practical points to be aware of as some of the Act's transparency obligations are modified or disapplied. For example, the requirement to publish a copy of the contract along with the contract details notice does not apply to a contract awarded by a transferred Northern Ireland authority or under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement.