The Public Sector Mapping Agreement was the old name for the public sector deal that gave bodies in England and Wales free access to Ordnance Survey data from 1 April 2011. Since 1 April 2020, that arrangement has been the Public Sector Geospatial Agreement, a 10-year contract that affects how you price, scope and position any bid involving location data.
You've probably seen it in a tender and paused. The spec mentions PSMA, PSGA, OS MasterMap, AddressBase, APIs, or just “Ordnance Survey licensed data”, and the immediate question is simple. Does this mean you need to buy something, join something, or prove you're approved for something?
Usually, no.
For suppliers, this isn't mainly a history lesson about government mapping policy. It's a commercial issue. If the buyer already has access to the underlying geospatial data, your bid has to reflect that. If you miss that point, you can price badly, describe the wrong delivery model, or promise data rights you don't have.
What Is This Mapping Agreement in My Tender
When a tender refers to the Public Sector Mapping Agreement or PSGA, it's talking about how public bodies get access to Ordnance Survey data. It is not, in itself, a supplier framework.
That distinction matters straight away. A framework is something you try to get onto. This agreement is something the buyer already benefits from.
What the term usually means in practice
In older documents, you may still see PSMA. In current documents, you're more likely to see PSGA. The name changed, but the practical issue for a supplier is familiar. The buyer may already have lawful access to high-value mapping data, so your offer should focus on what you'll build, analyse, integrate or maintain.
That changes the conversation in the bid team.
Instead of asking, “Do we need to procure mapping?”, the better questions are:
- What data does the buyer already have access to? That affects pricing and solution design.
- What are we being asked to provide? Software, hosting, analysis, implementation, support, migration, configuration, training, or a managed service.
- What rights sit with the buyer and what rights sit with us? Suppliers often get sloppy here.
Practical rule: If the buyer mentions PSMA or PSGA, assume the data position needs checking before anyone finalises pricing.
Why suppliers get tripped up
A lot of bid teams read “mapping agreement” and think “procurement vehicle”. That's understandable, but wrong.
The agreement exists so public sector organisations can access Ordnance Survey data under a central arrangement. Your role is different. You're bidding to help them use that data well.
That means your response should show three things:
| Issue | What the buyer wants to see |
|---|---|
| Commercial awareness | You understand they may not need to pay again for base data |
| Legal awareness | You respect licence boundaries and public task use |
| Delivery capability | You can work with GIS products, APIs, structured geospatial datasets and public sector environments |
If you miss any one of those, your bid can look inexperienced very quickly.
What Was the Public Sector Mapping Agreement
Before the PSMA, public bodies handled mapping access through a patchwork of separate arrangements. Councils and departments weren't all operating under one clean model. That created friction, duplicated effort and made access less consistent.
The fix was simple in principle. Replace lots of smaller arrangements with one central one.
What changed in 2011
The Public Sector Mapping Agreement was formally implemented on 1 April 2011, replacing fragmented local contracts and giving all public sector bodies in England and Wales free, centrally funded access to Ordnance Survey's definitive geographic data, including OS MasterMap, as set out in the government's Public Sector Mapping Agreement material.
That was a major operational shift. The government paid centrally. Public sector bodies could use the data for core public sector activity without the old point-of-use charging model getting in the way.
For suppliers, that was the moment the old assumption stopped working. You could no longer build a bid on the basis that every authority would need to purchase mapping access separately.
Why that still matters now
Even though PSMA has been replaced, the supplier lesson from that period still holds. Buyers often treat mapping data as an available input, not a cost line they expect you to add.
That affects how you write your proposal.
- Don't package base data as if it's your differentiator. If the authority already has access, that pitch falls flat.
- Do focus on application and outcomes. Data integration, visualisation, asset management, planning support, routing, field operations and location intelligence are where your value sits.
- Check the named buyer carefully. A council, combined authority, emergency service or central department may already be operating from a much stronger data position than your sales team assumes.
If you're researching the wider Ordnance Survey buyer environment, Bidwell's Ordnance Survey buyer profile is a useful starting point for context around related public sector activity.
The strongest bids don't sell the existence of map data. They sell competent use of it.
A good internal test is this. If you removed every mention of “access to mapping” from your draft response, would the offer still look strong? If the answer is no, the bid probably relies too heavily on something the buyer may already have.
Meet the PSGA The New Agreement for Geospatial Data
The active agreement is now the Public Sector Geospatial Agreement, or PSGA. That's the term you should expect to see in current tenders, current data discussions and current delivery assumptions.
It took over from PSMA on 1 April 2020 and transformed the practical context again.
What the PSGA changed
The PSMA was officially replaced by the Public Sector Geospatial Agreement on 1 April 2020, and this 10-year contract expanded access to richer geospatial datasets for the entire UK public sector, including Scotland, as noted by the Society of Local Council Clerks summary of the change.
That matters because current buyers may be working with a broader geospatial toolkit than older bid templates assume.
The PSGA also brought in modern delivery expectations. Access is tied more closely to platforms such as the OS Data Hub and APIs. So if you're bidding for a geospatial service, the buyer may expect more than static map handling or basic layer display.
What this means for suppliers on live opportunities
A buyer working under the PSGA may expect you to be comfortable with:
- API-based consumption of Ordnance Survey data rather than manual file handling alone
- Property and address-level datasets where the service depends on accurate addressing
- National coverage expectations that go beyond England and Wales
- Data-rich service design where mapping sits inside a wider workflow, not as a standalone feature
If your team works in land, planning, estates or site analysis, it also helps to understand how mapping and ownership evidence intersect. A practical reference point is Domus's land ownership guide, which gives a useful supplier-side view of how land information is interpreted in real projects.
For teams bidding into this market repeatedly, geospatial opportunities are easier to spot when they're grouped properly. That's why it helps to track contracts under a dedicated GIS and geographic information systems sector view rather than relying on broad keyword searches alone.
The supplier mistake to avoid
Don't treat PSGA as just “PSMA with a new acronym”. Buyers may now expect wider coverage, newer datasets and cleaner technical integration.
If your method statement still reads like a legacy desktop GIS implementation from years ago, it won't feel current.
PSGA vs Frameworks A Critical Distinction
Most confusion typically stems from one key point: You cannot “get onto” the PSGA.
It isn't a framework, and it isn't a DPS.
The easiest way to think about it
A framework is a route to market. Buyers use it to buy from pre-approved suppliers.
The PSGA is different. It's closer to the buyer having a central arrangement for the raw geospatial materials they use in public service delivery.
The simple analogy is bricks and builders.
- Frameworks are the list of builders the council can appoint.
- The PSGA is the arrangement that means the council already has access to the bricks.
- Your bid is the proposal for what you'll build, how you'll build it and what it will cost.
That's why trying to present yourself as a “PSGA supplier” usually sounds off. The term doesn't mean what people think it means.
Side-by-side comparison
| Topic | PSGA | Procurement framework |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A data access agreement for public sector bodies | A buying route for appointing suppliers |
| Who it is mainly for | Public sector users of Ordnance Survey data | Suppliers and buyers using a procurement vehicle |
| Can you join it as a bidder? | No | Usually yes, if you meet the rules |
| What you compete on | Services, software, delivery, expertise | Framework admission and then call-off bids |
If your team is unsure whether an opportunity sits under a framework, a DPS, or a direct tender route, a live frameworks reference library helps sort the procurement route before you waste effort drafting the wrong answer.
Buyers don't need a supplier to “bring PSGA”. They need a supplier who understands the environment created by it.
What works and what doesn't in a bid
What works:
- Clear language about using buyer-held data within the proposed service
- Realistic assumptions about data access, integrations and licence boundaries
- Evidence of geospatial delivery capability in public sector settings
What doesn't:
- Claiming exclusive access to data the buyer can already obtain
- Talking about PSGA as if it's a badge suppliers earn
- Padding the commercial response with vague wording about platform access when the buyer already has it
A lot of weak bids fail here because they answer the wrong commercial question. They sell supply of data when the buyer is seeking implementation, analysis, support or software.
Legal and Commercial Implications for Your Bids
This is the part that affects score, margin and risk. Once you know the buyer may already have geospatial data rights, you need to turn that into bid decisions.
There are three areas to check. Pricing. Licensing. Capability.
Pricing needs to reflect buyer access
If your solution uses Ordnance Survey data that the public body can already access under the current arrangement, be careful how you price it. You're not in a strong position if your pricing looks like you've bundled in the cost of something the buyer sees as already available.
That doesn't mean geospatial work should be cheap. Far from it. Complex geospatial implementation can involve integration, hosting, schema handling, analysis, user configuration, QA, reporting and support.
It does mean your price should clearly relate to your service, not to resale of the underlying public sector data position.
A buyer will usually accept paying for expertise. They're less patient when they think they're being charged twice for the same underlying data access.
Licensing is not a footnote
The public body's rights are not automatically your commercial rights.
That's the point many suppliers gloss over when they rush the legal review. The buyer may have very broad operational access for public task purposes, but that doesn't mean you can take that same data and repurpose it across your wider commercial estate.
The position is even sharper when you compare public and private access models. Public sector PSGA members receive threshold-free access to data such as OS MasterMap, while business users accessing the same data via APIs face a monthly usage threshold, as explained in the government geospatial blog on the PSGA one year on.
That creates a real bid issue. If part of your proposed service sits inside the buyer's licensed environment and part sits inside your own commercial service stack, you need to know exactly where the data flows and who is using what rights.
Capability still has to be proved
Some teams assume that because the buyer has the data, the technical burden is lower. Usually, it's the opposite.
The buyer may expect you to handle:
- Complex geospatial structures rather than simple flat files
- API integrations into existing applications or workflows
- Address and property datasets that need careful matching and maintenance
- Operational map layers that affect frontline use, planning, compliance or field activity
Your bid should make that practical. Name the tools, delivery steps, governance points and handover model. Show that your team can work with geospatial content properly, not just talk about it in generic digital terms.
A vague sentence about “location-enabled services” won't do much. A clear delivery description will.
A Practical Checklist for PSGA Related Tenders
Once a tender mentions OS data, PSMA, PSGA, MasterMap, AddressBase or geospatial APIs, run a short internal check before the first draft response is written. It saves rework later.
The point isn't bureaucracy. It's to stop avoidable errors in scope, pricing and compliance.
The questions worth asking first
Which Ordnance Survey datasets are actually in play? Don't just write “OS data”. Pin down whether the buyer means OS MasterMap, addressing data, road network data, or another specific dataset named in the documents.
Is the buyer expecting us to consume buyer-held data, or host part of the service ourselves? That one decision affects legal review, architecture and cost.
Have we removed any hidden double charging? Check pricing lines, subcontractor assumptions and software wording. A bid can accidentally imply chargeable data access even when that isn't the intent.
What does the licence position mean for support, reporting and outputs? Think about exports, dashboards, mobile access, third-party integrations and any onward sharing.
Can we evidence geospatial competence properly? Buyers don't just want reassurance. They want to see that you've handled similar data, similar workflows and similar implementation challenges before.
What a good review call sounds like
A good bid review on a PSGA-related tender is usually short and precise.
It sounds like this:
We know which datasets matter. We know whether the buyer already holds access. We know where our service boundary starts. We know what we are and are not charging for. And we've written the method statement so a non-technical evaluator can still follow the logic.
That's usually enough to remove most of the confusion.
Common failure points
| Failure point | What it leads to |
|---|---|
| Treating PSGA like a supplier accreditation | Irrelevant response content |
| Not checking dataset specifics | Weak technical method |
| Pricing in assumed data costs | Commercial challenge or clarification questions |
| Ignoring licence flow | Contract risk later |
| Using generic GIS wording | Low confidence from evaluators |
Teams that bid for this work regularly benefit from keeping a reusable internal record of geospatial project evidence. The useful material is rarely just one polished case study. It's the architecture note from a prior bid, the implementation summary, the data handling explanation, the mobilisation plan, and the lesson learned after go-live.
That's why good bid operations matter. Tender monitoring helps you spot geospatial opportunities early. A knowledge base keeps the reusable proof in one place instead of scattered across SharePoint, inboxes and old submissions. AI response generation is then useful for first drafts, especially when the tender asks awkward variants of the same question about data handling, mobilisation, service design or licensing awareness.
Used properly, those three pieces don't replace judgement. They give the bid team a faster route to a cleaner answer.
Finding and Winning More Public Sector Work
Understanding the old public sector mapping agreement and the current PSGA not only helps you avoid mistakes, but it also enables you to spot better work.
If you know public bodies may already have strong access to Ordnance Survey data, you can shape your pipeline more intelligently. You can look for opportunities where your value sits in integration, analytics, user workflow, planning support, field operations, digital twins, estates management, routing, inspection, environmental services or land and property systems.
That changes business development. You stop chasing “map supply” thinking and start looking for contracts where geospatial capability is buried inside a wider service requirement.
What smart suppliers do differently
They monitor for the right signals.
Not just “PSGA” and “PSMA”, but also terms like OS MasterMap, AddressBase, gazetteer, LLPG, GIS integration, property data, network mapping, site intelligence, asset mapping, and spatial analysis. Often the best geospatial opportunities aren't labelled neatly.
They also keep reusable geospatial evidence ready. Past method statements, screenshots, mobilisation plans, licence handling notes, training approaches, data migration summaries, and buyer-specific examples all help when the next tender lands with a short deadline.
And they don't start every response from a blank page.
A practical bid setup usually needs three things working together:
- Tender monitoring to catch relevant public sector opportunities quickly
- A knowledge base that stores your geospatial experience in usable form
- AI response generation to draft customized answers from that evidence base, so your team spends time refining rather than hunting for old content
That's the operational side of winning more of this work. The commercial side is simpler. Buyers want suppliers who understand the environment they're working in. If your bid shows you understand the data position, the legal boundary and the delivery reality, you look easier to appoint.
And in public sector bids, easier to appoint is often half the battle.
If you want a simpler way to track geospatial opportunities, organise your bid evidence, and draft stronger public sector responses faster, take a look at Bidwell. It brings together tender monitoring, a searchable knowledge base, and AI response generation so your team can spend less time piecing bids together and more time improving the final submission.
