Digital Primary Care Open Framework
This page considers a possible procurement route for the clinical model developed earlier in the wiki. Read DSIC for capability and assurance terms and the Tech Innovation Framework for the preceding framework context.
Research checked: 17 October 2026. NHS England has published a planned procurement for GP IT. The anticipated buyer scope expressly includes the Ministry of Defence. This creates a potential procurement connection to COPPER TIGER; it does not establish a Defence purchase or a delivered interface. 109
NHS England defines the procurement's GP IT scope around:
“digital solutions (products and services) that support the commissioning, delivery, administration and continuous improvement of general practice.”
— NHS England, UK3 planned procurement notice, 6 October 2026; excerpt from the scope definition. 109
The HTN article prompted this research. Its headline is a discovery lead. The findings below use the official notice and NHS service publications. 108
What the official notice establishes
| Item | Published position |
|---|---|
| Identity | Digital Primary Care Open Framework; NHS England reference C454613; notice 094419-2026; procurement identifier ocds-h6vhtk-050c1e |
| Stage | UK3 planned procurement, published 6 October 2026; no response required; not an open tender or award |
| Route | Multi-stage competitive flexible procedure under the Procurement Act 2023; suppliers must register on the Central Digital Platform |
| Estimated value | £838,749,369 excluding VAT; £1,006,499,242.80 including VAT; not committed expenditure |
| Indicative timing | Tender expected November 2026, subject to approvals; go-live Q3 2027. Structured dates: 20 September 2027–19 September 2030, potentially extending to 19 September 2033 |
| Entry | Multiple suppliers/lots; intended reopening within three years. SMEs, consortia and subcontracting anticipated, subject to final conditions |
| Buyers | Anticipated scope includes MOD and NHS bodies across all four UK nations; call-offs primarily by ICBs and practices |
| Lot | Capability scope | Estimated value excluding VAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Foundation EPR | GP appointments, consultations, patient information, prescribing, referrals and resources | £649,447,889 |
| 2 — Clinical and operational support | 27 capabilities, including care plans, workflows, diagnostics, documents, population health and remote monitoring | £135,301,480 |
| 3 — Research and development | Capability/standards development; successful Lot 1/2 suppliers enrolled unless they opt out | £54,000,000 |
These tables summarise the official structured notice. Final participation and call-off details await tender documents. 109
Procurement history and continuity
The May 2025 market-engagement notice described a successor to the expired GP IT Futures framework. The October 2026 UK3 notice advances that process to planned procurement. Neither stage proves supplier appointment. 110, 109
Digital Services for Integrated Care (DSIC) is the wider model for capabilities, standards, assurance and routes to market. It evolved from GP IT Futures. The Buying Catalogue provides a way to find and procure solutions. These terms describe related functions and should not be used interchangeably. 111, 113
NHS England's pages updated on 13 October confirm the Tech Innovation Framework (TIF) extension to 30 September 2027. They describe continuity while the replacement framework develops. This does not establish every incumbent contract's expiry or migration terms. 111, 112
TIF describes cloud-hosted, browser-based products with open APIs and six core GP functions. It is a useful comparator. Do not import its requirements into every new lot before the new tender specifies applicability. The current buyer guide likewise describes existing procurement routes; its thresholds are not verified rules for the future framework. 112, 113
Implications for NHS–Defence continuity
The following are COPPER TIGER design implications, not procurement requirements or evidence of implementation.
| Question | Implication for the proposed model | Evidence still needed |
|---|---|---|
| Could Defence use this route? | MOD's inclusion makes the framework relevant to procurement research. | Final buyer eligibility, lawful intended use, appropriate lot and actual call-off arrangements |
| What preserves the lifelong primary record? | Assess Foundation EPR and Patient Information Maintenance separately from a shared care view. Protect civilian history, coded entries, attachments, provenance and unresolved clinical work. | Record migration, reconciliation, cutover, rollback and receiving-clinician responsibilities |
| What can support clinical work across services? | Examine Lot 2 capabilities against specific correspondence, referral, diagnostic and task workflows. | Exact capability definitions, interface profiles, approved purposes and operating responsibilities |
| Can a bought system exchange data nationally? | Commercial access, product assurance and service onboarding are separate decisions. | Named product/version, service-owner approval, endpoint configuration and local clinical-safety evidence |
| Does UK buyer coverage create one UK interface? | Assess each country's national services and clinical arrangements independently. | Nation-specific technical routes, identity, governance and receiving workflows |
These implications extend the primary-record model, exchange contracts and Defence mechanism map. They retain the existing legal and purpose boundaries. They do not fix the Defence target architecture. 109
Keep four processes separate: GP2GP transfer following a patient's registration change; whole-practice supplier migration; authorised GP Connect access/exchange; and shared-record aggregation. GP2GP's published service scope requires both practices to be in England. DSIC's migration guide addresses established foundation suppliers and is not a new-supplier onboarding guide. 007, 111
Capability-specific evidence
A foundation system, shared-record capability and integration service have different responsibilities. Assess the exact offered function and specification version. Generic interoperability does not establish all foundation functions or commercial eligibility. A national-service listing does not establish Defence deployment, framework admission or the entire clinical workflow. Blank listing cells do not prove technical impossibility. 115, 026
Terms that change the reading
The notice uses Foundation EPR Solutions, Clinical and Operational Support Solutions and Research and Development as lot categories. Its capability names refer to functions, not standalone products or guaranteed end-to-end clinical workflows. The framework glossary explains the procurement and assurance vocabulary. Most terms predate this notice. 109, 116
Lifelong primary record is COPPER TIGER's continuity objective. Patient Information Maintenance — GP is a named capability with specific requirements. Neither a foundation label nor a shared view alone proves that the continuity objective has been met. The Lot 1 page maps the distinction; the Lot 2 page shows why optional reconciliation and task functions matter. 125, 126, 127
Uncertainties and independent research
- The notice's structured record contains an expression-of-interest date of 10 November 2026. Its narrative says no response is required. Do not treat that field as a live bid deadline. The eventual UK4 timetable takes precedence. 109
- The notice HTML and capability attachment returned access errors. The official OCDS API supplied the verified notice text and structured fields. The attachment's additional definitions remain unverified. 109
- Supplier admission, catalogue listings, detailed capability thresholds and any MOD procurement remain unestablished in the reviewed evidence. 109
- The UK3 describes possible call-offs using competitive flexible procedures. Cabinet Office guidance treats framework call-off selection separately from that tendering procedure. Final documents must clarify the mechanism; see procurement terms. 109, 119, 120
For independent checking, start with the Find a Tender notice and its official API record. Then compare the DSIC overview, TIF page, buyer guide, capability guide and supplier-progress table. Source dates and access limits are preserved in the register.
The validation queue records the trigger for reopening this evidence gap. No recurring monitor has been scheduled.
Explore Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 for capability detail. Then finish with project status to distinguish the completed research from the evidence and approvals still needed for implementation.