Framework Call-Off Responsibilities: What the Buyer Still Owns Under the Sourcing Playbook

Purpose: What a contracting authority must still do when it uses a framework for an outsourced service, and where framework-provider activity can support rather than replace buyer judgement.

What a contracting authority must still do when it uses a framework for an outsourced service, and where framework-provider activity can support rather than replace buyer judgement. This matters because public procurement decisions are rarely isolated events. A choice made during planning can affect competition, affordability, service quality, supplier behaviour and the ability to manage the contract later. The strongest approach is therefore to use the source guidance as part of an end-to-end commercial process, with clear ownership and evidence rather than as a document that is completed after the key decisions have already been taken.

Quick summary

• The 2023 guidance allocates responsibility for Sourcing Playbook policies between framework providers, calling-off authorities and, in some cases, both.
• The calling-off authority remains responsible for its Delivery Model Assessment where one is appropriate.
• The buyer is responsible for developing and using the Should Cost Model for its requirement, even where the provider makes pricing or benchmarking information available.
• The buyer sets contract-specific KPIs, service levels and caps and is responsible for performance monitoring and reporting.
• Contract-specific risk allocation is a buyer responsibility, while the framework provider addresses common risks at framework level.

What the guidance means in practice

The source material gives several anchors for that process. The 2023 guidance allocates responsibility for Sourcing Playbook policies between framework providers, calling-off authorities and, in some cases, both. The calling-off authority remains responsible for its Delivery Model Assessment where one is appropriate. The buyer is responsible for developing and using the Should Cost Model for its requirement, even where the provider makes pricing or benchmarking information available. These are not interchangeable statements: some describe statutory or policy requirements and others describe recommended commercial practice. Teams should identify which category each requirement falls into, apply it to the organisation and procurement in scope, and keep a record of the judgement. Where guidance from 2021 or 2023 predates the Procurement Act 2023, its commercial principles can remain useful, but current legislation, regulations and current statutory guidance take precedence on legal process.

The practical value becomes clearer when the remaining guidance is read alongside the project lifecycle. The buyer sets contract-specific KPIs, service levels and caps and is responsible for performance monitoring and reporting. Contract-specific risk allocation is a buyer responsibility, while the framework provider addresses common risks at framework level. The buyer must check that the framework terms enable the testing, pricing, KPI, financial standing and resolution arrangements needed for the intended call-off. In day-to-day terms, this means the buyer should be able to answer three questions at any approval point: what outcome are we trying to achieve, what evidence supports the proposed commercial approach, and what will need to be managed after the decision is made? If those answers are weak, more analysis is normally more useful than adding another layer of narrative to an approval paper.

A practical process to follow

A proportionate process can be built into existing governance. The steps below are deliberately practical. They are not a substitute for the detailed source guidance, legal advice or local standing orders, but they provide a useful structure for a procurement or commercial team.

1. Step 1. Start with the business need and delivery model rather than selecting a framework first. Record any assumption that could change the conclusion and when it will be reviewed.
2. Step 2. Ask the provider for relevant market and pricing information, then test whether it is current and suitable for the requirement. Keep the analysis proportionate to the value, risk, novelty and criticality of the requirement.
3. Step 3. Confirm the framework terms support the intended evaluation, testing, KPIs, risk allocation and payment mechanism. Capture the source evidence and name the person accountable for the next decision.
4. Step 4. Develop the call-off Should Cost Model and affordability view before finalising the competition strategy. Record any assumption that could change the conclusion and when it will be reviewed.
5. Step 5. Document provider responsibilities and buyer responsibilities in a simple matrix. Keep the analysis proportionate to the value, risk, novelty and criticality of the requirement.
6. Step 6. Plan mobilisation, financial monitoring, contract management and exit before award. Capture the source evidence and name the person accountable for the next decision.

What good looks like

Good practice is visible in the decision trail, not only in the final document. A reviewer should be able to follow the line from the service need, through market and cost evidence, to the route, evaluation, contract terms and management arrangements. Where several functions contribute, the file should show who owns each decision and where challenge occurred. The same principle applies to handover: useful assumptions, models, KPI definitions, risks, supplier information and approval conditions should move into mobilisation and contract management instead of being left in the sourcing archive. This continuity is particularly important for long-running public services, where staff can change but the organisation remains accountable for the outcome.

Recommendations for procurement teams

The following recommendations are suitable for teams that want to embed the topic into normal ways of working rather than create a parallel compliance process:

• Use the responsibility guidance at project initiation, not after the call-off starts.
• Avoid assuming framework-level due diligence proves suitability for every contract.
• Bring the future contract manager into the call-off design team.
• Escalate any mismatch between the framework terms and the intended commercial model before tendering.
• Retain evidence of checks in the procurement file.
• Read this 2023 guidance alongside current Procurement Act 2023 rules where the call-off is under the new regime.

Common pitfalls to avoid

The most common problems are usually process failures rather than a lack of templates. Watch particularly for the following:

• Choosing a framework because it appears quicker without testing suitability.
• Treating framework provider assurance as a transfer of buyer responsibility.
• Setting meaningful KPIs only after award.
• Accepting a pricing mechanism that conflicts with the intended allocation of risk.

Easy-to-read takeaway

For framework call-off responsibilities: what the buyer still owns under the sourcing playbook, the core discipline is to start early, connect the analysis to a real decision and preserve enough evidence for the next stage of the lifecycle. The source material should help teams make better decisions, not merely produce more paperwork. Before acting on a live procurement, confirm the current version of the Procurement Act 2023, regulations, Procurement Policy Notes and any organisation-specific approvals or delegations. This is especially important for thresholds, notice duties, exemptions and policy requirements that can change over time.

Source basis

Primary source used: Using the Playbook in Conjunction with Framework Agreements, June 2023. Related articles in this collection also draw on the other supplied Cabinet Office, HM Treasury and Procurement Act materials where the topics overlap.

This article is general procurement support content. It should be read alongside current legislation, statutory guidance and your organisation’s own governance and legal advice.