The hidden risks of education procurement frameworks 

It’s easy to see the appeal of frameworks. Procurement can be time-consuming and resource-heavy, especially if you’re leading a large MAT with multiple schools to support. Writing a full tender document, evaluating suppliers, and running a formal process takes time and expertise that many schools simply don’t have.

Frameworks promise to make life easier. They’re marketed as ready-made, compliant routes to procurement that give you access to a pool of vetted suppliers. They also provide a level of comfort: if a supplier is on a framework, they must have met certain standards, right?

There are examples where education procurement frameworks really do help. G-Cloud, for instance, provides a centralised marketplace for cloud-based services. It makes it easier for schools and other public sector organisations to compare suppliers, understand pricing, and avoid lengthy negotiations. For straightforward software needs, frameworks like G-Cloud can save time and reduce complexity.

Further reading

Download our FREE guide to improved procurement and purchasing

The challenge is that not all frameworks are created equal. While some are designed with fairness and balance in mind, others include terms that place disproportionate risk on suppliers. When that happens, many providers choose not to participate. And when suppliers walk away, schools are the ones who lose out.

Take Everything ICT as an example. On paper, it looks like a simple, broad procurement route. But in practice, the contractual obligations are far more restrictive than most suppliers would usually accept. These include:

• Broad and potentially uncapped indemnities that go well beyond standard risk-sharing.
• Annual liability caps that can exceed typical contractual limits.
• Perpetual IP licensing rights granted to customers, extending beyond normal usage.
• Escrow requirements where suppliers cover set-up and storage costs.
• Step-in rights that allow the customer to take over delivery at the supplier’s expense.

This might sound technical, but the implications are simple: many reputable providers won’t sign up to terms like these. The result? Schools limiting themselves to a smaller pool of suppliers without even realising it.

A good example of this came from a local authority in Cardiff. They had got a considerable way through a framework procurement exercise for school MIS and finance via Everything ICT, only to face a challenge from the incumbent supplier, who wasn’t on the framework because of its restrictive T&Cs. The authority had to restart the process and eventually went through the Kent County Council (KCC) framework instead. That shift effectively ruled out both Access Education and Compass, even though both were bidding initially, and limited the final options available to schools.

What this means for schools & trusts

The danger of restrictive education procurement frameworks isn’t just theoretical. It has real consequences for schools and trusts.

• Reduced choice: If suppliers opt out, schools miss out on solutions that might be a better fit for their needs.
• Less competition: With fewer providers in the mix, there’s less pressure on pricing and innovation.
• Unfair processes: A framework that only a narrow set of suppliers will accept can’t truly deliver fairness in procurement.
• False security: Just because a framework is approved doesn’t mean it’s the best route or the most cost-effective option.

In some cases, schools may think they’re saving time by using a procurement framework, when in fact they’re cutting themselves off from potential partners who could deliver more value and better outcomes.

This doesn’t mean education procurement frameworks should be written off altogether. Far from it. When they’re structured fairly, frameworks can be a useful tool. Alongside G-Cloud, frameworks like YPO, G-Cloud 14, and ECS are widely adopted and give schools a fairer balance of terms. These frameworks encourage more suppliers to participate, which means schools still get the benefits of choice, competition, and innovation.

Sometimes, though, the best option is to step outside frameworks and run your own procurement process. Writing a tender may take more effort upfront, but it gives you full control over what you ask for, how you evaluate suppliers, and what outcomes you prioritise. It also helps you avoid hidden pitfalls that might be baked into framework terms.

If you do go down the tender route, there are a few golden rules worth remembering:

1. Set clear goals: Don’t just list features — explain the outcomes you want to achieve, whether that’s improving teacher retention, saving money for reinvestment, or boosting visibility at trust level.
2. Engage suppliers early: Cold tenders, where there’s been no prior conversation, often result in weaker responses. Talking to suppliers ahead of time helps both sides understand if the partnership will work.
3. Be open about budget: Sharing a realistic figure helps suppliers shape solutions that maximise value within your financial scope.
4. Provide context, not just checkboxes: Avoid spreadsheets of “yes/no” questions. Instead, share narrative detail about your needs and challenges.

By following these steps, you give suppliers a better chance to respond in a way that aligns with your goals, and you get better results in return.

Further reading

If you’re looking for more detailed guidance on how to build your own education tender document, read our latest guide - A guide to building education tenders

The bigger picture

Education procurement frameworks exist for good reasons: they’re meant to make procurement easier, reduce risk, and deliver value for money. But the reality is more complicated. Some frameworks deliver on that promise. Others, because of restrictive terms, end up doing the opposite.

For schools, the key is awareness. Don’t assume a framework is automatically the best or only route. Take the time to understand how it works, what terms suppliers are being asked to sign, and whether that’s discouraging good providers from taking part.

Frameworks can be part of the solution, but they’re not a silver bullet. By weighing up the benefits and challenges of each, and by being thoughtful about when to use a framework and when to run your own process, schools can make procurement decisions that truly serve their long-term goals.

Education procurement frameworks can save time and offer reassurance, but they can also restrict choice and fairness if they’re not designed well. The peril lies in relying on them blindly.

Schools, academies, and trusts deserve procurement processes that give them genuine choice, real value, and solutions that meet their needs, not processes that unintentionally close doors.

So, before you commit to a framework, ask the hard questions, explore the alternatives, and remember: the best procurement decisions are made when schools go in with eyes wide open.

If you're interested in partnering with Access Education, head over to our suite page or get in touch with one of our friendly experts.