This article explains how schools procure managed print services in the UK, and it is written for school business managers, trust finance teams, site and operations leads, and senior leaders who need a clear view of what good procurement looks like. The aim is not to sell printing, and it is not to pretend that every school needs a large contract. The aim is to set out, in a practical way, how schools can buy printing and copying in a compliant, value focused, and low risk manner, while protecting pupil data and keeping day to day work running smoothly. In my view, managed print procurement is at its best when it reduces uncertainty, clarifies costs, improves reliability, and avoids the common trap of buying devices that do not match how a school actually works.
Even in settings that are pushing hard towards digital learning, printing still plays a role. Schools print lesson resources, safeguarding paperwork, letters, labels, registers, education health and care plan documents, reports, and sometimes controlled assessment material. The pressure is not only cost. It is also security, reliability, and staff time. A poorly managed print environment can quietly drain budgets through consumables, ad hoc repairs, and inefficient device sprawl. A well managed approach can reduce waste, improve uptime, and give leaders the evidence they need to make sensible decisions about what to print, when to print it, and how to keep it safe.
What managed print services mean in a school context
Managed print services, often shortened to MPS, usually mean a supplier takes responsibility for the school or trust print environment under a contract. That can include supplying and maintaining multi functional devices, managing consumables such as toner, monitoring usage, providing on site or remote support, and offering software that controls printing and reporting. In many cases it also includes help with standardising devices across sites, setting default print rules like double sided printing, and supporting scanning workflows so that paper can be reduced over time.
I have to be honest, the phrase managed print services can be used loosely. Some arrangements are essentially a device lease plus maintenance and toner. Others are wider, including print audits, secure print release, department level billing codes, and structured reporting to help a school control cost and carbon. The key is to define what is included and what is not, because schools often assume the word managed means everything is covered, and that is not always true.
In schools, managed print has some specific features that matter more than in many offices. Devices are used by a mix of staff roles with different access needs. There are peaks around certain times of year. There is a safeguarding and confidentiality dimension because school printers can be a weak point if papers are left in trays or devices store documents. There can be a need to print in different buildings, sometimes with limited network coverage. There is also the reality that teachers are busy, and if printing becomes unreliable, it affects learning materials and classroom readiness immediately.
Who managed print procurement is for in education
Managed print procurement is relevant to maintained schools, academies, free schools, special schools, pupil referral units, and multi academy trusts. It can also apply to independent schools that still want a structured approach, although the procurement rules they follow may differ depending on status and funding arrangements. In England, the Department for Education provides guidance on buying multi functional devices and printing and encourages the use of approved buying options where appropriate.
In my view, the organisations that benefit most from managed print procurement are those that have grown beyond a single device in the office and a couple of desktop printers. Once there is a fleet, multiple sites, or a need for predictable cost, it becomes easier to justify a managed approach. Trusts often centralise procurement to standardise devices, negotiate better rates, and reduce support complexity across schools. Local authorities may also have existing arrangements that schools can access, particularly for maintained schools, although the details vary widely.
That said, it is not automatically the right route for every school. If a small school prints very little and already has stable equipment under warranty, the overhead of a larger managed contract may not be worthwhile. A sensible procurement approach is about fit, not fashion.
The policy and compliance backdrop schools need to be aware of
School procurement sits within public sector expectations around value for money, transparency, and fair competition. The legal framework depends on where in the UK the school is based and whether the organisation is classed as a contracting authority for the purposes of procurement law. In England, the public procurement landscape has been changing, with the Procurement Act now forming the core of the regime for many public bodies and with updated threshold amounts applying from the start of the current year.
I believe it is important to be clear about what this means in practice for printing. Most school print contracts are not headline grabbing mega procurements. Many sit below the level where a full scale regulated tender would be required. Even then, schools still need to follow good governance, avoid conflicts of interest, keep records, and be able to explain why a particular supplier was chosen. Where a contract value reaches the relevant thresholds, the procurement route and publication obligations become more formal and the school or trust will need to run a compliant process and advertise appropriately. The exact thresholds and notice requirements can change over time, which is why relying on an old template without checking it is risky.
If you work across the whole UK, it also matters that procurement portals and approaches differ by nation. England uses Find a Tender for higher value notices, while Scotland has Public Contracts Scotland, Wales uses Sell2Wales, and Northern Ireland uses eTendersNI for many public sector opportunities. In my view, this is one of the most common misconceptions, namely that a single England based approach automatically fits the rest of the UK.
How schools typically organise responsibility for print procurement
Procurement is a team activity, even when one person leads it. In a single school, the school business manager often drives the process, with input from the headteacher and sometimes the IT lead. In a trust, there may be a central procurement or estates team, with finance oversight and local school input to reflect practical needs. Governors or trustees may have a role in approving the business case or the contract award, particularly for higher value commitments.
I suggest being explicit about roles early. Someone needs to own requirements gathering. Someone needs to own the budget and approvals. Someone needs to manage supplier communication and tender documentation if a competition is run. Someone needs to validate that safeguarding and data protection concerns have been addressed. Someone needs to manage contract performance once the supplier is in place.
A mature approach also considers separation of duties. In my experience, schools sometimes let the person who uses the copier most also decide what to buy, and that can lead to over specification or a decision based on familiarity rather than value. A balanced process makes room for classroom reality while still holding to financial discipline.
Starting with a clear definition of need
Before a school goes anywhere near a framework, a quote, or a sales call, it helps to get honest about what the school actually needs. This is where I often encourage people to slow down. The procurement process is easier when the requirement is clear, and it is safer when it is based on evidence rather than assumptions.
In a practical sense, defining the need means understanding print volume, peak periods, device locations, network constraints, and user behaviour. It also means understanding which printing is genuinely essential and which is habit. A school might assume it needs multiple high capacity devices because staff complain about queues, but the underlying issue might be that one device is badly placed, or that default settings encourage single sided printing, or that desktop printers are being used in a way that duplicates central devices.
A print audit can help here, but I suggest treating audits as evidence gathering rather than a route to a predetermined solution. Some frameworks and providers offer print audits as part of the service, and the key is to ensure the school keeps ownership of the data and is not pushed into a solution that does not match the findings. DfE supported buying routes for schools often highlight structured options for multi functional devices and associated services, which is useful when you want a more standardised approach.
Understanding what schools are really buying when they buy managed print
Managed print procurement usually includes several different “things” wrapped together. I believe it helps to unpack them so you can compare options properly.
There is the hardware, meaning the multi functional devices or printers themselves. These can range from smaller departmental devices to higher volume machines with finishing options. There is the service element, which covers maintenance, repairs, and response times. There is the consumables element, often toner, and sometimes staples if finishing is included. There is the software element, which can include print management, secure release, reporting, and scanning workflows. There is also implementation, meaning installation, networking, user set up, and training.
When a school compares quotations, it is essential to compare like with like across these categories. A cheaper monthly charge can hide higher click costs or expensive call out fees. A low device cost can hide the fact that toner is not included. A strong looking package can be undermined by weak response times or limited local engineering coverage.
In my view, schools should also treat scanning and digital workflow as part of the conversation, even if the initial contract is focused on printing. It is common for schools to print because it feels quick, and later scan the paper back into a system. That is a sign the workflow can be improved, and many managed print arrangements can support a gradual shift so staff print less without feeling blocked.
Routes to market that schools commonly use
Schools procure managed print in several main ways. The right choice depends on the size of the contract, the governance arrangements, and what is already available to the school.
Many schools and trusts use public sector frameworks. Frameworks exist specifically for multi functional devices, managed print provision, and related digital workflow services, and they offer a compliant route to buy without running a full tender from scratch. For example, major public buying organisations provide frameworks covering multifunctional devices and managed print services, along with associated software and consultancy support. I believe frameworks are often the most practical route for schools because they reduce procurement burden while still giving access to multiple suppliers and standardised terms.
Another route is to use a dynamic purchasing system where available. A dynamic purchasing system can allow suppliers to join over time and can be useful when requirements change or when a trust wants to run mini competitions regularly. In practice, printing is often bought via frameworks rather than dynamic systems, but this can vary.
Schools can also run their own competitive tender, either as a single school or as a trust wide procurement. This can be appropriate for larger trusts, complex requirements, or situations where the school wants a bespoke contract structure. The trade off is time and expertise. Running a tender properly requires clear documentation, structured evaluation, and careful supplier communication.
Some maintained schools may buy through local authority arrangements, depending on local policies. This can be efficient when the local authority has already negotiated terms and when the school fits the contract model. The risk is that the solution is not always tailored to the specific school, and there may be less flexibility on device mix.
DfE supported buying options and why they matter in England
In England, the Department for Education provides guidance for schools on buying, including specific content on multi functional devices and printing. The guidance encourages schools to consider approved buying options, and it exists because schools can benefit from using compliant routes that have been designed with public sector needs in mind.
There is also the practical service dimension. DfE backed routes can simplify the process, particularly for schools without specialist procurement capacity. In my view, these options are helpful not because they remove the need to think, but because they reduce the risk of accidental non compliance and provide a clearer starting point for comparing suppliers.
It is also worth noting that DfE related content has highlighted the importance of sustainability in printing choices, including the idea of enabling schools and trusts to make more sustainable decisions through structured buying routes. Sustainability is not only about paper. It is also about energy use, device lifecycle, and reducing unnecessary printing through better controls.
Frameworks and what they do and do not guarantee
A framework is not a single supplier contract. It is a pre competed arrangement that lets a school call off services from one of a set of suppliers under agreed terms. Frameworks can include multiple lots covering different requirements, such as hardware supply, managed print service, software, and consultancy.
What a framework guarantees is that suppliers have been assessed against criteria set by the framework authority, and that the terms meet the compliance standard for that framework. What it does not guarantee is that the first supplier you speak to will be the best fit. Schools still need to run a sensible selection process within the framework rules, and they still need to define requirements properly.
In my opinion, one of the best uses of a framework is to run a mini competition where the school sets out its needs and asks framework suppliers to respond. This encourages better pricing and clearer commitments, and it leaves a stronger audit trail than selecting a supplier based on a single informal conversation.
Leasing versus buying and how schools make the decision
Print hardware can be purchased outright or leased. Leasing is common in managed print because it spreads cost, supports refresh cycles, and can bundle service and consumables into a predictable monthly amount. Buying outright can be attractive when capital budgets allow and when the school wants to avoid ongoing finance agreements.
I suggest schools approach this choice through total cost of ownership. The real cost is not only the device. It is the maintenance, the toner, the downtime, and the time staff spend chasing issues. Leasing can sometimes look expensive if you focus only on the monthly fee, but it can be good value if it includes strong support and removes the shock of unexpected repair bills. Buying can look economical until a key component fails out of warranty, or until the school needs a replacement because the device no longer supports modern security standards.
There is also a governance aspect. Leasing is a contractual commitment, and schools need to be sure they understand term length, end of lease options, early termination costs, and the process for device return. In my view, problems often arise when schools treat a lease as if it can be cancelled easily, only to discover that the finance agreement is separate from the service agreement.
Specification in education: choosing devices and software that match school reality
A good specification balances performance, accessibility, and cost. Schools often need reliable black and white printing for everyday classroom use, with colour where it genuinely supports learning materials. They may need scanning to email or scanning to a secure folder. They may need ID card integration or PIN codes for secure release. They may need finishing for booklets or stapled packs, but only in certain locations.
I believe it is wise to be cautious about over specification. High end devices have a place, but if a school buys more capability than it will use, it pays for it every month. The opposite mistake is under specification, which creates queues, frustration, and a return to desktop printers that are harder to control and often more expensive per page.
Software choices matter too. Print management tools can reduce waste by making staff actively release jobs at the device. They can provide reporting by user or department. They can enforce policies such as default double sided printing. They can also support follow me printing, where a job can be released at any authorised device, which is particularly useful in multi site trusts.
Safeguarding, confidentiality, and data protection in managed print
Schools handle sensitive information. That includes pupil records, safeguarding notes, staff information, and sometimes medical or social care related material. Printing can create risk because paper is easy to misplace, and printer hard drives can store copies of documents if not configured correctly.
In my view, the baseline expectation for a school print environment is secure print release for sensitive areas, clear policies on collecting printing promptly, and sensible placement of devices so that confidential printing is not left in public areas. Where devices store data, the school should ensure encryption is enabled and that data wiping processes are in place at end of life. The contract should be clear about what happens to devices when they are returned or replaced, and how any stored data is handled.
It is also important to align print procurement with the school’s wider data protection arrangements. If the supplier provides monitoring software, remote support tools, or cloud based services, the school should understand what data flows occur and ensure appropriate contractual safeguards are in place. A managed print supplier should be able to explain this clearly, and I have to be honest, if a supplier cannot, that is a red flag.
Cyber security and network considerations
Printers and multi functional devices sit on the network. They can be overlooked in security planning, which is risky. Modern devices can support secure protocols, access controls, and audit logs, but only if configured properly. I believe schools should treat print devices as part of the IT estate, with ownership between IT and operations clearly defined.
A robust approach includes ensuring devices receive firmware updates, disabling unused services, setting strong administrative credentials, and segmenting devices where appropriate. If a school uses cloud print or remote management, it should ensure the service is configured securely and that access is restricted to authorised users.
This is also where procurement and technical teams need to work together. A procurement led decision that does not involve IT can result in devices that do not integrate cleanly, or software that conflicts with existing identity management. Conversely, an IT led decision that ignores finance can lead to cost structures that are hard to sustain. In my view, the best procurements bring both perspectives together early.
Value for money in schools: looking beyond the headline price
Schools are under budget pressure, and printing is a visible cost. The temptation is to pick the lowest monthly fee. I suggest a more rounded approach that looks at cost per page, expected volumes, service reliability, and the management time the contract will consume.
Cost per page is only meaningful if volume assumptions are realistic. If a contract includes a set number of pages and the school exceeds it, overage charges can add up quickly. If the contract assumes a volume that the school never reaches, the school may pay for unused capacity. A good procurement uses actual historical usage data where possible and considers how that usage might change with curriculum shifts, staffing changes, or a push towards digital work.
Service reliability also has a cost. A device that is out of action regularly does not only waste time. It often drives staff to use alternative printers, buy cartridges locally, or print off site. Those costs are rarely tracked, which makes the “cheap” option look cheaper than it really is.
Sustainability and print reduction without disrupting teaching
Sustainability has become a bigger part of public sector procurement in recent years, and schools are increasingly expected to consider environmental impact alongside cost and quality. There has been explicit emphasis in the school buying space on enabling more sustainable printing choices through structured options.
In practice, sustainability in managed print can be approached in a calm and realistic way. A school can reduce paper use by defaulting devices to double sided printing, encouraging secure release so jobs are not abandoned, and providing reporting so departments can see patterns. It can also reduce energy use by consolidating older devices into fewer modern devices that meet higher efficiency standards and by configuring sleep settings properly.
I believe the most effective sustainability measures are those that do not feel like punishment. Teachers are more likely to adopt changes when the printing process is reliable, predictable, and quick. If sustainable settings make printing slower or more awkward, staff will find workarounds. The contract and implementation plan should therefore treat behaviour change as part of service, not as an afterthought.
The procurement process step by step, in a school friendly way
Schools often ask what procurement actually looks like in reality, beyond the theory. While each organisation has its own governance, there is a common flow that tends to work well.
It begins with internal approval to explore options, usually based on problems with the current setup, upcoming lease expiry, rising costs, or a desire to standardise across sites. It then moves into evidence gathering, using meter readings, device lists, service history, staff feedback, and layout constraints.
Next comes route selection. The school chooses whether to use a framework, a local authority route, a trust wide competition, or another compliant method. In England, DfE guidance encourages schools to consider approved options for multi functional devices and printing.
After that, the school creates a specification and evaluation approach. This is where it decides what it will score and how it will compare suppliers. It then invites responses, either via a mini competition or tender. Responses are evaluated, clarifications are handled, and a preferred supplier is chosen. The school then moves to contract award, implementation planning, and go live.
Finally, and this is the part that is often neglected, the school manages the contract. It monitors performance, checks invoices, reviews usage, and makes adjustments as needed.
Evaluation criteria schools commonly use, and why
In my view, evaluation needs to focus on outcomes rather than glossy brochures. A school is buying uptime, predictable cost, secure handling, and support that works with term time realities.
Service levels matter. Response times and fix times need to be realistic for a school day. Consumables delivery needs to be reliable. If a device goes down before an exam pack is printed, the impact is immediate.
Device suitability matters. This includes speed, capacity, paper handling, and usability. If staff struggle with the interface, printing will become slower and more error prone.
Security matters. Secure print release, access controls, audit logs, and secure disposal should be treated as essentials, not optional extras.
Management information matters. Reporting that shows what is printed, where, and by whom can help schools manage budgets and reduce waste, but only if the data is understandable and actually used.
Implementation matters. A supplier that can install quickly, manage old device removal, and support staff training reduces disruption.
Commercial terms matter. Schools need clarity on what is included, how charges work, what happens if volumes change, and how price changes are handled over the contract term.
Common pitfalls and how to avoid them
One common pitfall is focusing only on the device and not the service. The device is visible, but the service determines whether the device stays usable.
Another is ignoring hidden costs. These include call out fees, chargeable parts, software licence renewals, and end of contract costs.
Another is underestimating the importance of contract length and exit. Schools change. Trust structures change. Sites open and close. A rigid contract can become a burden if it cannot adapt.
Another is failing to involve the right people. If IT is not involved, security and network integration can be weak. If finance is not involved, the cost structure can surprise. If staff users are not involved, device placement and usability can be poor.
Another is weak record keeping. In a public sector environment, schools need to be able to evidence decisions, especially if a procurement is challenged or audited. A simple, organised audit trail reduces stress later.
Framework buying and mini competitions in practice
When schools use a framework, they usually either direct award or run a mini competition, depending on the framework rules and the school’s own governance. Direct award can be faster, but mini competition often delivers better pricing and clearer commitments because suppliers know they are being compared.
Frameworks covering multi functional devices and managed print services often include multiple suppliers and can cover both device provision and software services. In my experience, the most successful school procurements through frameworks are those that produce a clear statement of requirements, provide accurate usage data, and ask suppliers to explain not only price but also implementation and support model.
It is also worth being aware that some framework based buying routes are designed specifically with schools and trusts in mind, including options highlighted through the Get help buying for schools service. The value here is not only compliance. It is also that the route is built around education sector expectations, which can make the conversation more grounded.
Managing contracts once the supplier is in place
Procurement does not end at signature. In my view, contract management is where value is either delivered or lost.
Schools should agree a regular review rhythm with the supplier. That might include termly usage reporting, service performance review, and discussion of any recurring faults. In a trust, it can include site by site comparisons to identify where printing is unusually high or where devices are underused.
Invoice checking is important. Many print contracts bill based on meter readings or click charges. Schools should ensure readings are accurate and that billing aligns with the contract. If there is a dispute, it is easier to resolve early than after months of accumulation.
Change control is also important. Schools might add devices, move devices, change locations, or shift volumes. The contract should allow for this without punitive costs. Where the school’s printing reduces due to digital changes, it should not be trapped paying for volumes that no longer reflect reality.
End of contract planning should start early. If a lease ends at a busy time of year, the school can end up rushing a replacement decision. I suggest looking at contract timelines well in advance, so the school can run a calm procurement and avoid emergency extensions.
Pros of managed print services for schools
A well procured managed print service can bring predictability. Schools can forecast cost more reliably, plan budgets, and avoid sudden repair bills.
It can also improve reliability. Centralised maintenance and a clear support route can reduce downtime, especially if the supplier has strong local coverage.
It can enhance security. Features such as secure release and controlled access reduce the chance of confidential papers being left unattended.
It can reduce waste. Reporting and print controls can help schools understand where printing is high and make informed changes.
It can reduce complexity. Standardising devices across sites can simplify training, support, and consumables management.
In my opinion, one of the most overlooked benefits is staff time. When printing is stable and consumables arrive automatically, office teams spend less time firefighting and more time on meaningful work.
Cons and trade offs schools should consider
Managed print can create dependency on a supplier. If service is poor, the school can feel stuck.
Contracts can be complex. Schools can be caught out by separate finance and service agreements, or by unclear terms about what is included.
There can be a risk of over specification. Suppliers may propose more devices or higher capacity than needed, which increases cost.
There can be a risk of lock in. Long contract terms can reduce flexibility, particularly for trusts that are changing structure.
There can be an implementation burden. Changing devices across a school is disruptive if not planned well, especially if staff are not supported through the transition.
I believe these cons are manageable, but only if the procurement is thorough and the contract is clear.
FAQs and common misconceptions
A common question is whether schools must always use a framework. The honest answer is that it depends on the school’s status, governance, and the value and nature of the contract. Frameworks are often the simplest compliant route, and in England there is clear encouragement to use approved buying options where suitable, but schools still need to choose the route that fits their circumstances.
Another common question is whether managed print means the school loses control. In my view, the opposite can be true. With good reporting and clear policies, schools often gain control because they can see usage and manage it.
Another misconception is that printing can simply be eliminated by going digital. Schools can reduce printing significantly, but some printing remains necessary for accessibility, safeguarding, and certain administrative processes. The goal is usually to print what is needed and stop printing what is not.
Another question is whether leasing is always the best choice. Leasing can be practical, but it is not automatically best. The right answer depends on budget structure, risk appetite, and the school’s ability to manage assets.
Another question is whether a school should keep desktop printers. Desktop printers can be useful in specific cases, but they can undermine cost control and security if unmanaged. Many schools move towards fewer, better managed devices because it reduces consumable waste and support complexity.
Another misconception is that procurement is only about getting three quotes. For low value purchases, seeking a small number of quotes might meet internal policy, but for larger commitments, schools need a more structured approach and may have publication and competition obligations depending on the contract value and the applicable regime.
What I would suggest as a practical, low risk approach for most schools
In my view, a sensible approach starts with evidence. Understand current devices, volumes, costs, and pain points. Then decide what outcome you want, such as fewer devices, improved reliability, better security, or clearer costs.
Next, pick a compliant route that reduces risk. For many schools, a framework designed for public sector printing and multi functional devices offers a good balance of compliance and practicality.
Then, run a structured selection, ideally with a mini competition if appropriate. Be clear about your evaluation approach, and make suppliers commit to service levels, implementation plan, and commercial clarity.
Finally, manage the contract actively. Use the reports. Review performance. Adjust. Plan renewals early. A managed print service is only managed if the school manages it too.A grounded closing perspective for school procurement teams
If I had to sum it up, I would say that managed print procurement in schools works best when it is treated as a service and governance decision, not as a photocopier purchase. Schools that define their needs clearly, choose a compliant route, and insist on transparent terms usually get a stable print environment that supports teaching and administration without constant fuss. Schools that rush, over specify, or rely on informal promises often end up paying more, managing more disruption, and taking on avoidable data and operational risk. In my opinion, the strongest outcome is not the fanciest device. It is a print setup that is secure, reliable, and proportionate, with a contract that your finance team can understand and defend, and with reporting that helps you reduce waste over time rather than simply accepting it as inevitable.