Pagabo Major Works 2026: How Call-Offs and Mini-Competitions Will Work From October

Pagabo Major Works 2026: How Call-Offs and Mini-Competitions Will Work From October

The National Framework for Major Works 2026 (ref PA23-YPO-0002) goes live in October 2026 with a £5 billion ceiling and nine lots covering schemes from £5 million to £60 million and above. Appointed suppliers will be awarded call-off contracts either through direct award or further competition, depending on the lot and contracting authority preference, and most further competitions will require fresh quality submissions scored against social value, carbon reduction plans and delivery methodology rather than a simple price exercise.

This matters because many suppliers and their supply chain partners are treating October go-live as a simple switch-on date. In practice, the real commercial activity begins when contracting authorities issue the first call-offs, and those call-offs will demand different levels of effort depending on whether they are direct awards or mini-competitions. If you were appointed to the framework in late June 2026 but have not prepared a reusable mini-competition response structure, you will spend the first three months reactive rather than converting.

Direct award and further competition thresholds

Contracting authorities using the framework can choose between direct award and further competition on most lots. Direct award means the authority selects a supplier from the appointed list without a competitive process, typically based on geographic coverage, sector experience or prior relationship. Further competition (sometimes called mini-competition) means the authority issues a specification and invites some or all appointed suppliers on the relevant lot to submit a proposal, usually with a scoring model that mirrors or simplifies the original framework evaluation.

Direct award is faster for the authority and lower cost for suppliers, but it also gives the authority less price tension and less ability to test innovative delivery approaches. Most authorities will default to further competition for higher-value lots and direct award for smaller or repeat works where they already have a preferred supply chain relationship.

The framework does not set mandatory thresholds for which route to use. YPO, the contracting authority that let the framework, and Pagabo, the framework manager, have provided non-binding guidance that direct award is appropriate for lower-value call-offs where the authority has a clear delivery partner in mind, and further competition is appropriate for complex or politically sensitive schemes where the authority needs to demonstrate competitive process. In practice, authorities using lots 7, 8 or 9 (schemes over £20 million) will almost always run a further competition because the value and visibility demand it.

What a mini-competition quality submission looks like

A typical further competition on the Major Works 2026 framework will ask for a quality submission weighted between 40 and 60 percent of the total score, with price making up the balance. The quality submission will usually include a delivery methodology narrative, a named project team with CVs, a programme showing key milestones, a social value delivery plan and a carbon reduction plan specific to the call-off project.

The original framework evaluation, which closed on 22 June 2026, was scored 60 percent quality and 40 percent price using a single-stage Open procedure under the legislation enacted in the earlier Procurement Act of 2023. Many further competitions will invert this to 40 percent quality and 60 percent price, particularly on lower-value lots where the authority is prioritising cost certainty over innovation. The quality criteria will be simplified compared to the framework stage. Where the framework asked for multiple case studies across different lot categories, a call-off further competition will typically ask for one or two case studies directly relevant to the specific project and a short methodology response of 1,500 to 3,000 words.

Social value and carbon reduction plans are evaluated differently at call-off stage than they were at framework stage. At framework stage, your social value response was a general statement of capability: the kinds of activities you can deliver, your track record, your supply chain commitments. At call-off stage, the authority wants a costed commitment. If you say you will deliver 50 apprentice weeks on a £12 million secondary school refurbishment, the evaluator will calculate the cost per apprentice week and compare it to benchmarks. If your social value offer is vague or back-loaded to year three of a two-year programme, you will score poorly even if the narrative is well written.

Worked example: lot 5 secondary school refurbishment

A local authority issues a further competition on lot 5 for a £9 million secondary school refurbishment using NEC4 ECC Option C (target cost with activity schedule). The authority invites six appointed suppliers from lot 5 and scores submissions 40 percent quality, 60 percent price. The quality envelope is split into three equally weighted criteria: delivery methodology and programme (13.33 percent), named team and case study (13.33 percent), and social value and carbon plan (13.33 percent).

Your quality submission includes a four-week programme saving against the authority's indicative timeline, a project manager and quantity surveyor who have both delivered NEC4 schools projects in the last 18 months, and a social value plan committing to 40 apprentice weeks, 10 SME subcontractors within 20 miles of the site, and two school engagement sessions during construction. Your carbon plan commits to 15 percent embodied carbon reduction through reuse of existing steelwork and low-carbon concrete mixes, with third-party verification. This scores 11 out of 13.33 on the social value and carbon criterion because the evaluator considers the apprentice commitment realistic and the carbon measures specific and evidenced.

Your price submission is £9.2 million including a fee of 4.5 percent on direct costs. The lowest bid is £8.8 million and the highest is £10.1 million. You score 57 out of 60 on price (using the standard formula where the lowest price scores full marks and others score proportionately). Your total score is 68 out of 100. The lowest bidder scores 60 on price but only 6 out of 13.33 on quality because their social value plan was generic and their carbon plan referenced only compliance with Part L rather than specific reduction measures. They score 66 total and you win the call-off.

This example shows why preparing a reusable response library matters. The carbon reduction plan and social value commitments that won you 11 out of 13.33 marks were not written from scratch in the two-week mini-competition window. They were adapted from a template you built in August 2026, immediately after framework award, with input from your quantity surveyor and sustainability lead. The project manager and quantity surveyor CVs were already formatted and approved. The delivery methodology narrative was 60 percent reused from your framework submission, with 40 percent project-specific content added in the final three days before the call-off deadline.

JCT and NEC4 pricing under the framework

The Major Works 2026 framework supports both JCT and NEC4 contract forms. Most contracting authorities will specify which form they want to use in the call-off notice, and the pricing structure you submit must align with that form. If the authority specifies NEC4 ECC Option A (priced contract with activity schedule), you price the works as a series of activities with quantities and rates. If they specify the earlier JCT Design and Build edition from 2016, you price using a contract sum analysis showing prelims, measured works, design fees and risk allowances.

The framework does not mandate a particular NEC4 option or JCT variant, so you need to be fluent in both families and comfortable switching between lump sum, target cost and cost-reimbursable structures depending on what the call-off requires. The most common forms on higher-value lots will be NEC4 ECC Option C (target cost) and JCT Design and Build, because both give the authority a degree of cost certainty while sharing risk where the scope is not fully defined at contract award.

Your pricing submission must separate your fee from direct costs. Most further competitions will ask you to state your percentage fee on construction costs and percentage fee on design fees if novated consultants are involved. The market range on Major Works frameworks for main contractor fees sits between 3.5 and 6 percent depending on risk, complexity and programme constraints. If you price at 7 percent without a clear justification tied to abnormal site conditions or an accelerated programme, you will lose on price to competitors pricing at 4 to 5 percent.

Social value and carbon reduction plan returns at call-off stage

Social value commitments you make in a call-off submission are contractually binding if the framework and call-off terms incorporate them as method statements or schedules. Most authorities will incorporate your social value plan as a contract schedule and will require quarterly reporting against the commitments. If you committed to 40 apprentice weeks and deliver 25, the authority may apply a performance deduction or escalate through the contract management process.

This is a significant shift from earlier legacy frameworks where social value was often evaluated but rarely monitored post-award. As of 2026-07-05, under the provisions introduced in the prior Procurement Act of 2023, contracting authorities have stronger tools to measure and enforce social value delivery, and many are using the Major Works 2026 framework as a testbed for post-contract social value KPIs.

Carbon reduction plans follow a similar pattern. If you commit to a specific percentage reduction in embodied carbon and that commitment is incorporated into the contract, you will need to evidence it through product Environmental Product Declarations, carbon calculations at practical completion, and third-party verification if the authority requires it. The commitment is not decorative. It will be measured, and failure to deliver may affect your performance score for future call-offs on the framework or related frameworks managed by Pagabo.

The commercial risk here is over-commitment during the bid phase. If you commit to 20 percent embodied carbon reduction to score well on quality, but your supply chain can only realistically deliver 12 percent without cost increases that break your target cost envelope, you will either fail to deliver the carbon commitment or exceed the price, and both outcomes damage your standing with the authority.

Preparing for October go-live

Suppliers appointed to the framework in late June 2026 have a three-month window before go-live in October to prepare response materials, brief their supply chain, and engage with contracting authorities likely to use the framework early. The most effective preparation is building a modular response library organised by lot and contract value band, so that when a call-off notice appears you are assembling and tailoring pre-approved content rather than drafting from scratch.

That library should include a delivery methodology template that can be customised to site-specific constraints, a set of case studies organised by building type and contract form, a social value menu showing the apprentice weeks, SME spend and community engagement activities you can realistically deliver at different contract values, and a carbon reduction playbook showing which interventions (low-carbon concrete, reuse of existing structures, off-site manufacture) are viable at different price points and programme durations.

You should also map the first wave of likely call-offs by reviewing capital programmes published by local authorities, health trusts and housing associations in your target geographies. The framework covers public sector bodies across England, and many will have already allocated budget for schemes starting in early 2027 that will be procured through the Major Works framework in Q4 2026 or Q1 2027. If you identify three or four high-probability call-offs in your pipeline, you can engage early with the project teams, understand their priorities and tailor your response materials accordingly.

For further detail on how the framework was structured and evaluated, see our earlier analysis at pagabo-major-works-framework-2026. If you need support preparing for call-offs or building a response library before October, we cover that in pagabo-framework-support. You can track upcoming submission dates at tender-deadlines.

Frequently asked questions

Can an authority run a further competition and then direct award to the same supplier for a follow-on phase?

Yes. The framework terms allow an authority to use different award routes for different call-offs, even if the call-offs relate to the same site or programme. An authority might run a further competition for the main construction phase and then direct award a defects rectification or fit-out phase to the same supplier if continuity and programme are priorities. The only constraint is that each call-off must fall within the scope and value bands of the relevant lot, and the authority must follow the award procedure it states in the call-off notice.

If I score poorly on a mini-competition, does that affect my standing on the framework for future call-offs?

Not directly. Each call-off is evaluated independently, and a low score on one further competition does not automatically disqualify you from future opportunities or lower your framework ranking. However, many authorities share informal feedback across their procurement teams, and Pagabo collects performance data from completed call-offs. Repeated poor scores or post-contract performance issues may influence whether an authority invites you to future further competitions, particularly if the framework moves towards a dynamic ranking model in later years.

Do I need to reprice my framework rates for every call-off, or can I rely on the rates I submitted in June 2026?

You will reprice for every call-off. The framework establishes your eligibility and general pricing structure, but each further competition or direct award requires a project-specific price based on the call-off specification, drawings, site conditions and programme. Your framework rates provide a reference point and may be used by the authority to check that your call-off pricing is consistent with your framework submission, but you are not locked into those rates if the call-off scope or risk profile differs materially from the framework assumptions.

Book a call at bookings.glaxtons.co.uk

Glaxtons, 3 More London Place, London SE1 2RE