In June 2026, the UK Government announced a revised approach to outsourcing when it introduced a new Public Interest Test. At the same time, it declared a move away from outsourcing as the default option for delivering public services. The test will apply from 1st April 2027 to many planned central government service procurements valued at more than £1 million, including VAT. Relevant government bodies will be required to consider whether these services could be delivered in-house before any outsourcing decision is made. The aim is to take a broader view of value for money, and include factors like long-term service quality, resilience and wider economic and social objectives alongside cost.
For technology companies hoping to win government business, this raises an important question. If government is reassessing whether it needs external suppliers in the first place, shouldn’t those suppliers also be reassessing how they position themselves? At present, it is tempting to approach government sales as just another enterprise vertical. But government buyers operate in a very different environment, with different priorities, stakeholders and measures of success.
The new Public Interest Test is not a new set of criteria for evaluating every technology tender, but it does demonstrate that government is taking a more considered approach to when and why it uses external suppliers. Those companies that provide services which could potentially be delivered in-house can no longer assume that offering a competitive solution will be enough to win business. Simply taking the same propositions and marketing materials developed for commercial customers and directing them at government buyers is unlikely to be sufficient.
Stop selling technology. Start demonstrating public value.
Technology suppliers need to consider how their value propositions relate to the priorities of the public sector. While the technology being proposed might be the same, the reasons for investing in it can be fundamentally different for the public sector.
For example, a cybersecurity company selling to an enterprise might emphasise protecting revenue, reducing downtime and mitigating financial risk. When selling to government, that same technology might need to be positioned around protecting essential public services, safeguarding citizens’ information and maintaining national resilience. In the same way, a connectivity provider might sell to enterprises on the basis of performance, scalability and efficiency. For government, the more compelling story might concern digital inclusion, reaching underserved communities or facilitating access to essential services. The technology hasn’t changed, but how the conversation is positioned has.
These considerations are not entirely new. Government buyers have always needed to account for public money, service delivery and wider responsibilities. But the renewed focus on insourcing reinforces how important it is to clearly demonstrate the value that external suppliers can bring. It also means that technology companies need to think carefully about the evidence supporting their propositions.
Government buyers need proof of delivery, relevant experience, demonstration of operational resilience and measurable outcomes. A strong proposition connects technical capabilities directly to public priorities. As well as demonstrating what the technology is capable of, it also needs to communicate why it matters to the people and services government is responsible for.
If government only hears about you when you tender, you’re already behind
Many technology suppliers focus their government marketing efforts on identifying procurement opportunities and responding to tenders. But by that point, they may already have missed opportunities to establish their credibility.
Government buyers must make decisions involving public money, essential services and potentially significant reputational consequences in an increasingly challenging economic environment. Choosing an unfamiliar supplier can represent a substantial perceived risk. That is why technology companies need to invest in building awareness and credibility long before a procurement opportunity emerges. Thought leadership, public sector case studies, independent media coverage, executive visibility and participation in relevant industry discussions should all form part of the efforts to support sales to the public sector. They help establish a company’s expertise and provide evidence of its capabilities that can be independently assessed.
AI search is also changing how buyers research potential suppliers. Before speaking to a salesperson, a buyer can rapidly build a picture of a company’s expertise, track record and reputation from information available online. If there is little credible evidence to find, that absence becomes part of the picture too.
Building credibility before procurement means that when buyers assess potential suppliers, there is already publicly available evidence of their capabilities and experience. A tender response can demonstrate that you meet the requirements, but your reputation helps establish why you should be trusted to deliver.
Government growth requires a different marketing strategy
Government remains an important market for technology suppliers, but the UK’s changing approach to outsourcing is a reminder that public sector organisations are considering not just the cost of external services, but whether outsourcing represents the best way to deliver long-term value.
That doesn’t mean every technology supplier will be directly affected by the Public Interest Test. Nor does it mean government will stop buying services from external providers. But it does reinforce the need for suppliers to understand government priorities, communicate the value they bring and demonstrate why their expertise and capabilities are worth investing in.
Technology suppliers that fail to invest in the positioning, evidence and reputation needed to compete are potentially undermining their own government growth ambitions before the procurement process has even begun.