The Gold Standard review of construction frameworks: all 24 recommendations, explained

The key facts

• The review was carried out by Professor David Mosey and the summary of recommendations was published in September 2022.
• It sets out 24 recommendations for Gold Standard public sector construction frameworks, mirroring the structure of the Construction Playbook.
• Recommendation 1 asks Cabinet Office to measure Construction Playbook implementation on a comply or explain basis using Gold Standard features.
• Frameworks should prioritise building safety, net zero carbon targets and the Compact with Industry.
• The review recommends a standard form framework alliance contract plus contractually binding action plans with agreed actions and timetables.
• Providers and clients should state the pipelines of work they commit to in every framework procurement, to end costly speculative frameworks.
• Costs should be controlled with evidence-based benchmarks and whole life Should Cost Models, and financial standing assessed using PAS91 or the Common Assessment Standard.
• Evaluation of frameworks and call-offs should use balanced criteria covering quality, social value and net zero GHG emissions by 2050.

What the Gold Standard review is and who it applies to

In September 2022 the Cabinet Office published a summary of the 24 recommendations in Professor David Mosey's independent report, Constructing the Gold Standard, an Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks. The review examines how public sector construction frameworks are set up and run, and defines what a Gold Standard framework, a Gold Standard framework contract and a Gold Standard action plan should look like. Its 24 numbered sections mirror the structure and requirements of the Construction Playbook, and the summary is designed to be read alongside the Playbook and its associated guidance notes.

The recommendations are addressed first to framework providers, clients and managers, but the review is clear that success also depends on suppliers and supply chain members adopting equivalent practices and commitments. Specific activities are recommended at each stage in the life of a construction framework: strategy, procurement, contract and management. The ambition is that frameworks become a strategic medium for implementing Construction Playbook policies, breaking the cycle of lost learning and delivering faster, better, greener construction through sustainable, long-term contracts.

The Gold Standard: frameworks, contracts and action plans

The foundation of the review is a measurable definition of good practice. Recommendation 1 asks Cabinet Office to assess how public sector clients and suppliers adopt the features of a Gold Standard framework, framework contract and action plan, so Construction Playbook implementation can be measured on a comply or explain basis. Recommendation 2 turns the same features into a comparison tool: clients and suppliers choosing between the many frameworks on offer should use them to identify the questions they need to ask and the answers they should expect.

On substance, the review recommends that all public sector construction frameworks prioritise improved building safety, net zero carbon targets and the Compact with Industry, including long-term relationships, fair returns, equitable treatment of risk and collaboration at all levels of the supply chain. It calls for wider adoption of a standard form framework alliance contract that aligns the objectives, success measures, targets and incentives of clients and suppliers, provides transparent performance measurement and work allocation procedures, and requires joint work to improve value and reduce risks.

Two recommendations give the standard teeth. Framework objectives should be converted into contractually binding action plans that state agreed actions and timetables for delivering improved economic, social and environmental outcomes. And framework providers should invest in framework management that demonstrates value for money for clients and suppliers, integrates strategic interests and supports collaborative joint working, including where consultants are appointed from outside the framework.

Pipelines, supply chains and call-off strategy

A strong theme is honesty about workload. Responding to industry concern at the cost and time wasted procuring speculative frameworks, the review recommends that providers and clients make clear in all framework procurements the pipelines of work to which they commit and the preconditions to implementing those commitments. Pre-procurement consultation should be used to explore emerging technologies and innovations and to identify opportunities and limitations in the market, with that learning embodied in the framework strategy and contract.

On call-off, the review challenges the default of repeated mini-competitions, which industry sees as inefficient and costly. Providers and clients should establish the optimum duration, scope and continuity of call-offs, including the potential benefits of awarding long-term or additional project contracts without further mini-competitions, and should ask suppliers how such awards will lead to innovation, investment and efficiency savings. Aggregated portfolios of work called off by one or more clients are recommended to unlock supplier investment in modern methods of construction and other offsite manufacturing technologies.

The supply chain recommendations cover SMEs, early involvement and data. Framework appointments should use evaluation criteria that identify SME strengths, with contractual Supply Chain Collaboration systems creating supplier-led alliances that include local and regional businesses. Early supply chain involvement should capture supplier insights, innovations and proposals. BIM and other digital technologies should create a whole life golden thread of asset information, integrated under the framework alliance contract, and specifications should focus on required client outcomes, supported by whole life carbon assessment and a Project Outcome Profile linking performance criteria to supplier incentives.

Costs, risk, evaluation and financial resilience

Delivery model assessments should inform framework strategy, procurement, management and every call-off, with framework managers guiding clients on the most appropriate model for each project. Costs should be assessed and controlled using benchmarks based on information from past projects and whole life Should Cost Models forecasting what each framework project or programme should cost. Pricing mechanisms should maximise cost certainty, identify agreed fees, profit and overheads separately from other costs, incentivise desired outcomes and require clients and suppliers to pay their supply chains promptly.

Risk allocation should be informed by market engagement rather than imposed, with a shared contractual risk register jointly managed at framework level, an early warning system and a joint decision-making group for efficient responses to risk events. Economic and financial standing should be assessed consistently and proportionately using PAS91 or the Common Assessment Standard, with stringency set by a Contract Tiering tool that applies higher thresholds to more critical projects. Evaluation of frameworks and call-offs should apply balanced criteria that examine all relevant aspects of value, enable differentiation between qualitative bids and incentivise government priorities including social value and net zero GHG emissions by 2050.

The final recommendations address resilience and relationships: flexible, transparent resolution planning systems in framework contracts to manage a supplier's financial distress with rapid response to early warnings, collaborative management systems mirrored in strategic supply chain relationships and led by a Core Group or equivalent joint decision-making body, and government-led training and guidance to support widespread adoption of the Gold Standard.

Why the review matters and how to apply it

Frameworks carry a large share of public sector construction spend, and their quality varies widely. The review gives clients an objective checklist for choosing, procuring and managing frameworks, and gives providers a clear standard to meet. The direction of travel is away from speculative frameworks, opaque pricing and one-way risk transfer, and towards committed pipelines, alliance contracts, shared risk management and measurable action plans.

In practice, teams can start by benchmarking existing and planned frameworks against the Gold Standard features on a comply or explain basis, being explicit about pipeline commitments before going to market, moving evaluation onto balanced, outcome-focused criteria, and building early warning, resolution planning and joint governance into framework contracts from day one.

How eSourcing Data helps

The Gold Standard review asks framework providers and clients to run transparent, evidence-based procurements, and that is where a structured eSourcing platform earns its keep. eSourcing Data supports outcome-focused tendering with structured evaluation criteria and complete audit trails, so balanced criteria covering quality, social value and carbon can be applied consistently across a framework competition and defended afterwards.

Pre-procurement market engagement can be run and recorded on the platform, keeping a clear evidence base for the supplier insights that shaped the framework strategy. Supplier management tools help track SME participation and supply chain commitments through the life of the framework, while reporting gives framework managers the performance data that Gold Standard management, comply or explain assessment and action plan monitoring all depend on.

What to do about it

1. 1Benchmark your current and planned frameworks against the 24 Gold Standard recommendations on a comply or explain basis.
2. 2Publish realistic, committed pipelines of work and their preconditions before procuring any framework.
3. 3Adopt outcome-based specifications and balanced evaluation criteria covering quality, social value and net zero emissions.
4. 4Use PAS91 or the Common Assessment Standard for financial standing checks, tiered by contract criticality.
5. 5Build shared risk registers, early warning systems and a joint decision-making Core Group into framework contracts.
6. 6Convert framework objectives into contractually binding action plans with agreed actions and timetables.
7. 7Review call-off strategy: consider longer-term contracts and aggregated portfolios instead of repeated mini-competitions.