Framework Fatigue Explained: Is Joining Every DPS Necessary?
Dynamic Purchasing Systems (DPS) were introduced to enhance flexibility in public procurement. Under the Procurement Act 2023, contracting authorities continue to prefer commercial models that promote open access and simplified competition. On paper, DPS arrangements appear to offer unrestricted opportunities, with no cap on provider numbers, rolling admissions, and regular call-off competitions.
However, in practice, many providers are beginning to feel the pressure.
Over the past two years, local authorities have expanded DPS models across various sectors, including supported living, children’s accommodation, domiciliary care, extra care, prevention services, and specialist support. For commissioners, the rationale is straightforward. A DPS allows them to frequently test the market, quickly respond to changes in demand, and maintain competitive pricing without the need for a full procurement exercise each time.
For providers, though, joining every available system can quietly become counterproductive.
The first challenge is the administrative burden.
Each DPS requires compliance documentation that must be kept up-to-date. This includes insurance renewals, safeguarding policies, equality and diversity updates, financial accounts, training matrices, evidence of CQC ratings, modern slavery statements, and business continuity plans. Under current regulatory expectations, these documents cannot simply remain unchanged year after year. They require regular review, updating, and governance oversight.
Now, multiply that by six or seven frameworks.
What initially seemed like a “quick registration” turns into a continuous cycle of updates. Directors and operations managers find themselves dedicating time to maintaining eligibility rather than improving service delivery or preparing strategic bids.
Then there is the commercial reality of call-off competitions.
Many DPS mini-competitions are issued with short turnaround times; sometimes just five working days. While quality weightings may still be 60% or higher, pricing pressure is evident. Authorities are increasingly seeking cost control due to budget constraints, especially in supported accommodation and domiciliary care.
Providers often assume that being on more systems increases their chances of winning. The reality is that oversubscription is common. In some regions, dozens of providers are on the same DPS. When a mini-competition is released, it can attract significant interest, compressing margins and increasing the demands of bid writing.
We recently reviewed a supported living provider registered on eight DPS arrangements across three counties. Over a 24-month period, they secured placements from only two of those systems. Meanwhile, their governance lead was spending an estimated eight hours per month updating documentation and responding to framework-related requests across all eight. When we analysed historic call-off activity, three of those DPS had issued fewer than five mini-competitions in two years.
The issue was not access. It was strategy.
The Procurement Act introduces the concept of the “most advantageous tender” (MAT), replacing the older terminology of “most economically advantageous.” While the language has shifted, the underlying principle remains: commissioners can design evaluation criteria that reflect broader value, including quality, resilience, and social value. This means providers must assess whether their model genuinely aligns with each authority’s priorities.
Before joining a DPS, providers should review:
Historic call-off frequency
Average contract values
Geographic density of placements
Pricing expectations compared to actual delivery costs
Quality weighting and evaluation methodology
If your staffing model relies on dense geographic clustering, but the DPS covers a wide rural area, participation may dilute operational efficiency. If the authority consistently awards to the lowest price bands, quality-led providers may struggle to compete sustainably.
There is also an often-overlooked risk around performance visibility. Repeated participation in mini-competitions without success can expose pricing weaknesses or quality gaps. Authorities build an informal picture of market capability over time.
Selective positioning is becoming more effective than blanket presence.
A strong commercial strategy might involve focusing on two or three frameworks where demand is proven, relationships can be developed through market engagement events, and mobilisation capacity aligns with pipeline expectations. Early market engagement under the Procurement Act is becoming more common, meaning providers who participate in consultation events can shape specifications before they are formalised.
Being everywhere is not the same as being competitive.
Frameworks and DPS arrangements remain valuable routes to market. They provide access to opportunities and reduce procurement barriers. However, growth requires discipline. Providers should be reviewing framework performance annually, analysing win rates, and assessing whether administrative investment translates into revenue.
The question is no longer “How many systems are we on?”
It is “Which systems genuinely support our long-term growth?”
