The pros and cons of dynamic purchasing systems

Written by Ian Fishwick on 8 November 2017 in Opinion

Ian Fishwick of Innopsis argues that, while the DPS model is imperfect, the government should be commended for trying new procurement ideas


At the Cabinet Office SME Panel, many of the small businesses that are represented are very keen on the more widespread introduction of dynamic purchasing systems (DPS).

In general, they do not like the use of frameworks as they almost all get extended to their four-year lifetime – sometimes even longer – and therefore it effectively locks small businesses out of that sector of the market if you are not one of the original suppliers on the framework. 

The problem with reducing the length of frameworks is that it drives up suppliers’ bidding costs even further, as you are forced to bid more often. DPS models offer a potential solution, because new suppliers can join the system throughout its life, provided that they meet the minimum selection standards.

They have also proven successful in a number of categories of spend, but their use in ICT procurement has been limited to date. A recent report by the Local Government Association argued that DPS systems have their place, but that they are best for commodity products such as taxi services or, in our industry, products such as public switched telephone network (PSTN) lines. The complication for most purchasers is that, in order to use a DPS effectively, they need to be very prescriptive about the specification of products and services they require

Related content

Innopsis has worked with NHS Digital to create RM3825, the dynamic purchasing system for the health and social care network. 

One problem we faced was what to do when a supplier can only supply services once they achieve compliance, and different suppliers achieve compliance at differing times over what may be a period of several years.

In short, we needed to find a way to allow suppliers to join in when they are ready – and a DPS achieves just that.

My personal view is that it the DPS model is not perfect. A DPS does not allow direct awards in the same way that the G-Cloud or the RM1045 Network Services framework permit. I appreciate that many companies are wary of direct-award contracts, as they see it as an easy way to renew the incumbent supplier. However, I think there is a role for them. Do we really want to force every customer to place a tender for absolutely everything, regardless of value?

I’m not sure my ideal world – a DPS that can also handle direct-award contracts – currently legally exists. But Crown Commercial Service is to be applauded for breaking new ground and seeking to extend the use of DPS to meet the needs of its users.


About the author

Ian Fishwick is commercial director at Innopsis

Share this page



Add new comment

Related Articles

Regulator urges government to mandate NHS compliance with surveillance camera code
17 January 2018

Commissioner Tony Porter tells PublicTechnology about continued efforts to get the Home Office to recognise the need for a surveillance camera code of practice that applies to NHS and...

HMRC transformation programme a ‘precarious high-wire act, battered by the winds of Brexit’ – PAC
15 January 2018

MPs claim department faces ‘difficult decisions’ to deliver on schemes including Making Tax Digital rollout and office relocations 


Sheffield NHS trust to implement electronic baby tagging
12 January 2018

Supplier sought for three-year project to install technology at Jessop Wing Maternity Hospital

DWP in-house IT company BPDTS appoints Loveday Ryder as CEO
12 January 2018

First set of annual accounts for BPDTS Ltd reveal that company delivered more than £12m of IT services to department in first four months of existence