The UK public sector IT contract expiry cliff: 9,416 contracts, 1,430 buyer names, one month

What these figures are, and what they are not

• Every GBP figure is a floor on published, valued, sterling notices. 8,928 of 9,416 expiring IT contracts state a positive sterling amount; the rest state zero, a negative figure, another currency or nothing, and are excluded rather than estimated.
• The same figure is also an over-count of committed spend. A framework agreement states a ceiling shared across every appointed supplier, and the call-offs placed under it are published separately and counted too, so the figures are not additive.
• The largest single notice is 39.19% of the £130.13 bn stated on the 8,928 valued contracts, and the largest ten are 71.32%. One buyer, Crown Commercial Service, carries 69.7% of it. The median of those 8,928 valued contracts is £108,068. Any total or mean describes the frameworks, not the estate.
• A stated contract end date is not the date a contract ends. Extensions, options and early termination are invisible in published notices. The study measures what buyers published.
• Find a Tender records a contract end date only on notices PUBLISHED from 24 February 2025, so its contribution is built on 19 months of publishing. That is a publication limit, not a signature one: 19 rows in the dataset were signed before that date and reached it through a later Procurement Act notice. What the service cannot see is a contract whose only notice predates the regime.
• The buyer count is of distinct NORMALISED names: 1,613 spellings as published collapse to 1,430 keys. The Cabinet Office register holds 7,753 registrations covering 7,337 distinct names as published (7,132 after the same normalisation), and is not a superset of notice publishers, so 'M of the 7,753 registered public buyers' cannot be supported and is not claimed. The register's own identifier does appear on notices and does resolve - 2,340 rows carry one and all of them join - but it is published too rarely, and too often against a different registered name, to be a denominator either.
• The pre-registered any-CPV field rule counts a large non-IT contract whole if it carries a single IT sub-code, and that is most of the money: 52.1% of the stated total sits on 270 contracts whose PRIMARY CPV code is outside CPV divisions 30, 32, 48 and 72, the largest being a Crown Commercial Service electricity and gas supply framework classified to CPV division 09. This pushes the total up, the opposite direction from the floor caveat. The primary-CPV sensitivity bounds it at £62.09 bn and is reported beside the headline.
• The published data contains impossible figures that were counted, not silently kept. Across the whole Contracts Finder harvest: 51 award rows state a contract end date after 2060 and 6 before 2000, and 23 state a negative award value, the largest minus £30,000,000,000 - the minus £4bn row is simply the one that falls inside this window and basket. 18 bulk files are served by the publisher as a saved error page, and 38 notices are published as malformed XML - 34 of them truncated at source and unrecoverable, 4 repaired by adding the namespace declaration the publisher omitted.
• The window is anchored to the retrieval date, 25 September 2026. Moving it by a few days moves contracts across its edges.
• Pipeline notices - planned future procurement under the Procurement Act 2023 - are the opposite of an expiring contract. 10,413 were found and every one was kept out.

What the two services, read together, show

Contracts Finder and the Find a Tender Service both publish UK public sector procurement notices as they happen, and both let you search by the date a notice was published. Neither turns that around and shows what is about to reach its end date. This study inverts the axis: it takes the whole published back catalogue of both services, filters it to IT with a code list fixed before any result was known, removes the duplicates within and between them, and counts what states an end date in the year ahead. Forward expiry views of these feeds do exist commercially — PSIP sells one across five UK portals, Stotles publishes a free browsable list, Tussell has published forward IT expiry totals for central government — and they are cited below. What is published here is the method: the IT definition, the deduplication rule, five ways of totalling the same pounds, and the dataset itself.

• 9,416 — IT contracts reaching their stated end date in the next 12 months. 9,416 published UK public sector IT contracts state an end date in the window 25 September 2026 to 24 September 2027 inclusive. 6,819 come from Contracts Finder and 2,597 from Find a Tender.
• 1,430 — distinct buyer names holding at least one of them. 1,430 distinct buyer names, counted by normalised name, hold at least one expiring IT contract; those normalise from 1,613 spellings as published. 896 of them match a name on the Cabinet Office buyer register, which lists 7,753 registrations covering 7,337 distinct names as published, 7,132 after the same normalisation. That match rate errs in both directions and is context, not a denominator.
• March 2027 — the biggest single month. 2,082 of 9,416 expiring IT contracts (22.1%) state an end date in March 2027, more than twice the monthly average. 1,405 of them fall on 31 March 2027 alone - the last day of the UK financial year.
• £130.13 bn — stated value reaching its end date, summed as published. £130.13 bn as published. On the pre-registered primary-CPV sensitivity the same window is £62.09 bn; with framework and multi-supplier ceilings removed it is £97.12 bn; with in-notice repeats collapsed £124.02 bn. The median expiring contract is £108,068. A floor and an over-count at the same time, and not a measure of IT spend: 52.1% of it sits on contracts whose primary CPV code is not an IT division, and the single largest notice in it is a £51.00 bn Crown Commercial Service energy supply framework classified to CPV division 09. Print all three or print none.

Contracts Finder and Find a Tender, snapshot 25 September 2026. n = 9,416 expiring IT contracts. The window runs 25 September 2026 to 24 September 2027 inclusive.

How much, how many, and how many buyers

9,416 published UK public sector IT contracts state an end date in the 12 months to 24 September 2027. They are held by 1,430 distinct buyers. The 8,928 of them that state a positive sterling amount total £130.13 bn as published - a figure that is simultaneously a floor and an over-count, for reasons set out below.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Every step is a real count, not a rounded one, and every cell belongs to the stage its row names, so the funnel can be followed from all published award notices to the 9,416that are both IT and ending in the window. The two services’ all-CPV rows sum to 46,007 where they first enter the window and to 45,403 where they leave it: 542 rows are removed by the second within-service rule, which catches a contract republished under a new OCID inside one service, and 62 more across the two services. The Find a Tender column carries no separate OCID-deduplication step because that service publishes a contract end date only on notices from 24 February 2025 and its expiry view is already window-filtered. A stated end date is not the date a contract ends. Extensions, options and early termination are invisible in published notices. The buyer count is of distinct names inside the expiring set. It is not a fraction of the Cabinet Office register.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Nothing in the right-hand column is estimated or converted. A contract with no stated value, a zero, or a value in dollars or euros is counted and excluded, which is one of the two reasons the £130.13 bn is a floor; the other is that Find a Tender records a contract end date only on notices published from 24 February 2025, so a contract whose only notice predates that regime is invisible to it. That is a publication limit, not a signature one: 19 rows here were signed before that date and reached the dataset through a later Procurement Act notice, the earliest signed 30 June 2012. The same figure is an over-count for a different reason, set out below: framework ceilings are counted alongside the call-offs placed under them, and it is not a measure of IT spend for a third, set out under the money.

One month carries the cliff, and one day inside it

2,082 of 9,416 expiring IT contracts (22.1%) end in March 2027, against an average of 787 across the eleven whole months in the window - September 2026 and September 2027 are part-months and are left out of that average. 1,405 of those - 67.5% of the month and 14.9% of the whole year - state 31 March 2027 as their end date. That is the last day of the UK financial year. The clustering is consistent with buyers aligning contract periods to the financial year, which would make the date a publishing convention as much as an operational one; this study cannot observe when a contract in practice ends, so that reading is an inference from the dates, not a measurement.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

The value column is there to show why it is not the story. February 2027 carries the largest stated sum, £61.92 bn, on far fewer contracts than March 2027, because a single central framework ceiling sits in it. Sterling figures are a floor on valued notices, an over-count of framework ceilings, and not a measure of IT spend: 52.1% of the stated total sits on contracts whose primary CPV code is not an IT division, the largest being a £51.00 bn Crown Commercial Service energy supply framework. It is also a floor: contracts stating zero, a negative amount, another currency or nothing are excluded rather than estimated. The first and last months of the window are partial: the window opens on 25 September 2026 and closes on 24 September 2027, so September 2026 and September 2027 each hold a part-month and must not be compared with a whole one. The biggest month is the same on all eight CPV basket and field-rule cuts, which is why it is reported as a finding rather than an artefact of the IT definition.

Why the pounds move so much more than the count

Changing the IT definition from the pre-registered any-CPV rule to its primary-CPV sensitivity changes the contract count by 331 (3.5%) but the money from £130.13 bn to £62.09 bn. The reason is concentration. Both of those sterling figures are a floor and an over-count at the same time: a floor because contracts stating zero, a negative amount, another currency or nothing are excluded rather than estimated and Find a Tender records a contract end date only on notices published from 24 February 2025; an over-count because framework ceilings are counted alongside the call-offs placed under them. The largest single notice alone is 39.19% of the total; 3 notices carry half of it and 54 carry nine tenths. Remove the largest 1% of rows and £130.13 bn becomes £8.41 bn. The median expiring contract is £108,068. A total or a mean describes a handful of central frameworks, not the estate, which is why this study leads on the contract count. That is a claim about this pair of cuts, not about every cut: widening or narrowing the CPV basket changes what is being counted and moves the count a great deal, as the sensitivity table below shows.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Five ways of adding up the same window and the same pre-registered basket, all published so a reader can pick one and rebuild it from the dataset. Every figure in the right-hand column is a count of valued rows — the rows the sterling figure beside it is summed over — so a mean per row is that row’s value divided by that row’s count. The primary-CPV sensitivity covers fewer contracts as well: 9,085 of the 9,416, of which 8,628 state a positive sterling amount. The third row is cumulative on the second, not an independent cut of the first: rebuild it from the CSV by summing value_amount_gbp where value_used_in_gbp_total = 1 and in_notice_repeat = 0 and aggregated_award = 0. The headline is the first row because it is the pre-registered basis, not because it is the best estimate of committed spend. Contracts Finder publishes no framework flag of its own, so on that service this rests on notice titles and supplier counts alone and is certainly incomplete. The single largest expiring row in the study is not caught by it. 172 of the 9,416 contracts are flagged as aggregated awards, carrying £32.93 bn between them. Sterling figures are a floor on valued notices, an over-count of framework ceilings, and not a measure of IT spend: 52.1% of the stated total sits on contracts whose primary CPV code is not an IT division, the largest being a £51.00 bn Crown Commercial Service energy supply framework.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

The IT definition was fixed and hashed before any of these numbers existed, and was not adjusted after seeing them. Widening or narrowing the basket changes what is being counted, so the count moves with it: across all 8 cuts it runs from 4,104 to 9,945, with the pre-registered core basket at 9,416. The useful comparison is the pair that holds the basket still: on the core basket, changing only the field rule moves the count by 3.5%, from 9,416 to 9,085, and the stated value by a factor of 2.1. The two wider baskets are not nested in one another, so this table is not monotone and is not meant to be: the wide basket takes CPV divisions 30, 32, 48 and 72 whole, while core-plus-adjacent instead adds codes that sit outside those four divisions — IT maintenance, IT installation and telecommunications services — which the wide basket therefore does not contain. That is why the wide cut holds more contracts than core-plus-adjacent and less money. Four of these eight cuts cannot be rebuilt from the published CSV — core-plus-adjacent and wide, under both field rules — because that file is the core cut, so its in_core, in_core_plus_adjacent and in_wide columns all read 1 on every row and the extra rows the wider baskets add are simply not in it. The other four do rebuild from it, using the in_narrow, in_core and in_core_primary_cpv_rule columns. Rerun the analysis script for the wider two. Sterling figures are a floor on valued notices, an over-count of framework ceilings, and not a measure of IT spend: 52.1% of the stated total sits on contracts whose primary CPV code is not an IT division, the largest being a £51.00 bn Crown Commercial Service energy supply framework. The CPV rule was written and hashed before any expiring value was computed and has not been changed since. The any-CPV field rule is over-inclusive by construction - a large non-IT contract carrying one IT sub-code counts whole - and that bias is in the pre-registration, not a discovery. Contracts Finder publishes no framework flag, so the aggregated-award count is a floor on that service and the excluded-ceilings total is an upper bound on what remains.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Buyers, not suppliers: there is no supplier column, no supplier ranking and no supplier-level total anywhere in this study. That is not the same as no supplier appearing: buyers write supplier names into their own notice titles, and 44 of the 9,416 titles here carry a company suffix — a case-sensitive match of \b(?:Ltd|Limited|PLC|LLP|Inc|GmbH)\bagainst the title, the pattern being published because the same search ignoring case returns more. Titles are reproduced exactly as published, under OGL v3.0. The largest row is the clearest illustration of the pre-registered rule’s own bias — an energy framework whose primary code sits in CPV division 09, which enters the IT basket only through incidental sub-codes on the same notice, and which is 39.2% of the sterling total on its own. The rule was not changed after that was found; the primary-CPV sensitivity above, which drops it, is published instead. Sterling figures are a floor on valued notices, an over-count of framework ceilings, and not a measure of IT spend: 52.1% of the stated total sits on contracts whose primary CPV code is not an IT division, the largest being a £51.00 bn Crown Commercial Service energy supply framework.

What the two services can and cannot see

6,819 of the 9,416 expiring IT contracts come from Contracts Finder and 2,597 from Find a Tender. That split is not a measure of where UK procurement happens. Find a Tender states a contract end date only on notices PUBLISHED from 24 February 2025, when the Procurement Act 2023 regime began. A contract signed earlier reaches the dataset only if a later notice under that regime restates it - 19 rows here do, the earliest signed 30 June 2012 - so most of what expires in 2026-27 is visible only through Contracts Finder. That is why the whole published back catalogue was harvested rather than a guessed window.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

A contract ending in the next 12 months can have been published at any point in the last decade, which is why the whole back catalogue was harvested rather than a guessed window. 1,509 of the 9,416 were published between three and six years before their stated end date, and 6 more than ten years before it.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

The test is run once, over the whole all-CPV expiring set of each service, and every basket cut reuses its flags — so the two rows-tested figures are the same in both columns, and the match counts below them are the matches that fall inside the cut the column names. The column of the published CSV that records this is cross_service_duplicate_test, which reads “loose” on exactly the 7 rows kept under the loose key; the rows matching a strict key were removed before publication and are not in the file. Strict key A: normalised buyer name + normalised title + value in whole units + contract start date + contract end date. Strict key B: normalised title + contract end date + value in whole units, buyer name ignored. Loose rule: normalised buyer name + normalised title + contract end date. A row matching either strict key is removed; the Contracts Finder row is kept; the Find a Tender row is removed. Rows matching only the loose key are flagged and kept, because that key ignores the stated value. Contracts Finder issues Open Contracting identifiers beginning ocds-b5fd17 and Find a Tender ocds-h6vhtk; because the two ranges cannot intersect, joining on OCID across the services returns zero matches whatever the real overlap is, which is why a second rule is needed at all. Key B exists because the buyer name is the field the two services record differently — the same body is “Lancashire Constabulary” on one and “Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire” on the other. Inside one service, OCID deduplication cannot see a contract republished under a new OCID either, so key A is applied there too and removed 542 further rows across all CPV divisions. A buyer-independent version of that key would remove 23 more and is deliberately not applied, because within one service it also matches genuinely different buyers; its size is published rather than acted on. OCID cannot deduplicate across the two services. Contracts Finder issues ocds-b5fd17-... and Find a Tender ocds-h6vhtk-...; because the two ranges cannot intersect, joining on OCID across the services returns zero matches whatever the real overlap is. That result must never be cited as evidence the two sets do not overlap - it is why the secondary rule exists. The measured overlap under the published secondary rule is small, but a strict key finding nothing is evidence about the key as much as about the overlap. The buyer-independent key B exists because the buyer name is the field that differs between the services, and the loose rule is published beside both because it ignores the stated value and so cannot tell a duplicate from a renewal at a different price.

Who the buyers are, and why there is no 'M of 7,753'

1,430 distinct buyer names hold at least one expiring IT contract. 896 of them (62.66%) match a name on the Cabinet Office buyer register. The register cannot be used as a denominator: it holds 7,753 registrations, not organisations, resolving to 7,132 distinct names, and it is not a superset of the bodies that publish procurement notices.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

The count and the money point in opposite directions, and this is the table that shows it. By contract count the study is overwhelmingly IT. By stated value it is not: 52.1% of the £130.13 bn sits on 270 contracts whose primary code is outside CPV divisions 30, 32, 48 and 72, and division 09 alone — petroleum products, fuel, electricity and other sources of energy — carries £51.29 bn. Those contracts are here because the pre-registered field rule counts a notice as IT on any IT code recorded anywhere on it. The rule was not changed after this was found; the primary-CPV sensitivity, which drops them, is published beside the headline at £62.09 bn. Sterling figures are a floor on valued notices, an over-count of framework ceilings, and not a measure of IT spend: 52.1% of the stated total sits on contracts whose primary CPV code is not an IT division, the largest being a £51.00 bn Crown Commercial Service energy supply framework. It is also a floor: contracts stating zero, a negative amount, another currency or nothing are excluded rather than estimated, and Find a Tender records a contract end date only on notices published from 24 February 2025. And it is an over-count, because framework ceilings are counted alongside the call-offs placed under them.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

This ranks how many contracts a body publishes, which is a measure of publishing behaviour as much as of buying behaviour: a central purchasing body that publishes one framework covering hundreds of organisations appears once. A “no” in the last column does not mean the body is unregistered — 7,753 is a count of registrations, not of organisations: it resolves to 7,337 distinct names as published, 7,132 after normalisation, and 17 of the registrations are de-registered. The register is also not a superset of notice publishers - bodies that publish procurement notices without being registered appear in the notices and not in the register. Matching is by name because most notices publish no buyer identifier at all, and where the register's own identifier IS published it joins but often resolves to a different registered name. A matched fraction therefore errs in both directions and is reported as context, never as 'M of 7,753'. Value is more concentrated by buyer than by notice, and the ranking above hides it: Crown Commercial Service carries 69.7% of the £130.13 bn on 82 notices, on framework ceilings shared across every appointed supplier. Sterling figures are a floor on valued notices, an over-count of framework ceilings, and not a measure of IT spend: 52.1% of the stated total sits on contracts whose primary CPV code is not an IT division, the largest being a £51.00 bn Crown Commercial Service energy supply framework. Buyer names are matched by normalisation, which misses wording variants (Wirral Borough Council against Wirral Council) and cannot tell an aggregator buying on another body's behalf from the body itself. Buyers are ranked by how many contracts they publish, which is a measure of publishing behaviour as much as of buying behaviour. A central purchasing body publishing one framework for hundreds of bodies appears once.

How this was measured, and what it cannot show

Where the numbers disagreed, and what we did about it

• Two artefacts of the Contracts Finder collection stream give different totals for the same 6,837 expiring contracts - which are the 6,819 Contracts Finder rows published here plus the 18 the second within-service rule removes. Not a bug in either file. One Contracts Finder notice states an award value of minus 4,000,000,000 £- a framework for ICT goods and services to the education sector, ending 2 October 2026. The funnel excludes non-positive amounts; a naive sum of the extract does not, and lands exactly 4bn lower. This analysis excludes non-positive amounts and counts them: 6 negative award values among the Contracts Finder rows ending in this window, 1 of them inside the headline cut, and 23 across the whole Contracts Finder harvest, the largest minus £30,000,000,000. The row stays in the published dataset with its value as published and a reason code, so nothing is hidden.
• The brief expected value to be missing on about 17% of notices. Neither service behaves that way. The figures are still a floor, but for two different reasons, and both are stated: on Contracts Finder because zero-valued and non-GBP rows are excluded, and on Find a Tender because the service records a contract end date only on notices published from 24 February 2025.
• The build plan named cross-service duplication as the biggest arithmetic risk. It is not the biggest, and it is not the only one. Measured on the all-CPV expiring sets of both services, cross-service duplication is small - but the first version of this study measured it with a key that carried the buyer name, and the buyer name is exactly what the two services record differently. Adding a buyer-independent strict key roughly doubled it. Two larger duplications sit elsewhere and are now handled explicitly: the same contract republished under a second OCID inside one service, which OCID deduplication cannot see; and one award block per appointed supplier inside a single notice, each restating the same ceiling. The last of those is the biggest by money: one Contracts Finder notice restates a £250 m education ICT framework ceiling once per appointed supplier.

Work that measures something similar, and how this differs

• Contracts Finder and Find a Tender themselves — Both publish and index notices as they are published, and both can be searched or filtered by publication date. Neither publishes a forward view of contracts about to reach their stated end date, and neither combines the two services. This study inverts the axis from publication date to stated end date.
• Cabinet Office and departmental commercial pipelines — Planned future procurement: what buyers intend to go to market for. The opposite direction. Pipeline notices are excluded here by design; 10,413 were identified on Find a Tender and none enters any figure.
• PSIP, Contract Expiry Tracker — A live forward expiry view of exactly this kind: UK public sector contracts reaching their published end date in the next 30, 90, 180 or 365 days, aggregated from five portals - Find a Tender, Contracts Finder, Public Contracts Scotland, Sell2Wales and eTendersNI - filterable by CPV code, buyer name, source portal and contract value, and quoting 56,000-plus contracts expiring in the next 12 months. A subscription service from GBP 199 a month (checked 25 September 2026). Wider coverage than this study on portals; narrower on method disclosure. What this study adds is the parts a reader can check: an IT definition pre-registered and hashed before any result existed, published narrow and wide sensitivities around it, a published deduplication rule with its measured duplicate counts, five published ways of totalling the same pounds, and the row-level dataset itself under an open licence.
• Stotles, public notice explorer (expiring-contracts view) — A free-to-view, paginated browser of UK public sector contracts by expiry date, including a software cut, each entry showing an expiry date and a stated value, drawn from Contracts Finder among other sources (checked 25 September 2026). That view is a browsable list, one notice at a time. This study is an aggregate with the arithmetic shown: a stated IT definition rather than a topic label, a deduplication rule between the two UK-wide services with its duplicate count published, and a downloadable dataset that reproduces every figure on the page.
• Tussell, with the Institute for Government and AutogenAI, on UK government IT contracts expiring during this Parliament (September 2024); Tussell's published strategic-supplier expiry totals — Forward expiry value at the level of central government IT and of the government's strategic suppliers - GBP 23.4 bn of UK government IT contracts due to end during the Parliament, and GBP 41.7 bn of live strategic supplier contracts set to expire in the remainder of it. Supplier-led, over a parliamentary term. A different population and a different clock: all UK public sector buyers rather than central government or strategic suppliers, a fixed 12-month window rather than a Parliament, buyers and timing rather than suppliers, and a CPV rule fixed in advance rather than a sector label. It names no supplier at all.
• Servnet, 'UK public sector and VMware after Broadcom: a contract-notice tracker' — One vendor's footprint in the same notice family, by publication over time. A different cut of the same sources: all IT by CPV, forward expiry rather than vendor mention. The two do not overlap and this one links to that rather than repeating it. Read that tracker.

Forward expiry views of these feeds already exist. PSIP sells one across five UK portals, filterable by CPV code and buyer; Stotles publishes a free browsable expiring-contracts list including a software cut; Tussell, with the Institute for Government, has published forward IT expiry totals for central government over a Parliament. Neither the data nor the idea is new here. What this study adds is the method in the open: an IT definition pre-registered and hashed before any result existed and published with narrow and wide sensitivities, a deduplication rule stated in full with the number of duplicates it removed, five published ways of totalling the same pounds rather than one, and the row-level dataset under an open licence so every figure on this page can be recomputed - or contradicted - from bulk files anyone can download.

Sources

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

The CPV vocabulary is cited to legislation.gov.uk rather than simap.ted.europa.eu because ted.europa.eu, simap.ted.europa.eu and eur-lex.europa.eu all answer automated requests with an empty HTTP 202 challenge. The same 9,454 codes were obtained independently from the EU Publications Office SPARQL endpoint and agree on 9,450 of 9,454 English descriptions; the four differences are two CO2 subscript rendering artefacts and two modernisations of wording in UK law ('handicapped' to 'disabled'), none in CPV divisions 30, 32, 48 or 72. The OGL statement on this page covers the notice data and the buyer register, not the CPV vocabulary. Five of the six sources are Crown copyright under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The sixth is not: the CPV code descriptions are EUR-Lex-derived content on legislation.gov.uk, which states that its content is OGL v3.0 “except where otherwise stated” and that it “additionally contains content derived from EUR-Lex, reused under the terms of the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU on the reuse of documents from the EU institutions”. That is the basis for the primary_cpv_description column, the one field in the published dataset copied verbatim from a source. © European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Servnet’s derived tables and analysis are free to reuse under CC BY 4.0. Downloads: CSV, 9,416 rows · README, columns and licences · JSON. The published CSV has SHA-256 15572c9f8b3193f104b36f93847893023d0ce50e5d7236a26ed595bbf26af309, and every headline figure recomputes from it alone.

Questions about the expiry cliff

Planning around a contract end date

A stated end date in the next 12 months is a planning date, not a cliff edge for any one organisation. The tools below are the ones a buyer, or a supplier preparing for a renewal conversation, tends to need next: what the hardware behind a contract is worth keeping, what support for it costs once the maker’s own support ends, and what the licensing position looks like on the other side.

More Servnet research on UK public sector IT: the VMware and Broadcom contract-notice tracker, a different cut of the same two services; Windows Server 2016 end of life in the UK public sector; the G-Cloud 15 data-location census, which counts what suppliers declare on the framework these buyers purchase through; the public sector email security census. All Servnet research.