When public sector organizations evaluate software proposals, the lowest upfront bid can look like the safest bet. But when it comes to complex, long-lived systems — like case management, records and document management, or permit tracking — that first-year price tag tells only part of the story.
In our first post in this series, we looked at procurement reform through a Northern lens: the challenges of rigid scopes, limited vendor pools, and the need for more flexible, trust-based evaluation methods. This time, we’re digging into another critical dimension: how value is measured.
And we’re making the case that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) — not just sticker price — should be at the heart of every procurement decision.
Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software often appears budget-friendly at first glance. It’s already built. It’s scalable. It comes with support. But dig deeper, and the long-term math changes.
Take a recent pricing analysis we conducted for a government case management system. A typical COTS proposal included:
Over five years, that “affordable” $200K base license can balloon well past $750K.
By contrast, a custom-built system using a low-code platform like OutSystems front-loads investment into the things that matter: tailored features, robust integrations, and future-proof infrastructure. There are licensing costs, but they’re modest and predictable — and you own the system.
Here’s the kicker: In a side-by-side comparison over five years, a custom low-code solution with a higher upfront price turned out to be $175K cheaper by Year 5. Why? Lower annual fees, reduced dependency on outside vendors, and the ability to evolve the system internally over time.
Here’s how a smartly scoped budget allocation can set a project up for long-term success:
This isn’t just budget allocation — it’s a roadmap to long-term digital maturity.
Budgets are tight. Teams are small. Technology needs are complex. For governments and organizations in the North, investing in solutions that are maintainable, adaptable, and cost-effective over time is not just smart — it’s essential.
This is especially true when systems are tied to critical services: social programs, housing, public guardianship, and more. In these cases, the cost of having to rip and replace software in five years far outweighs the value of a slightly cheaper bid today.
When evaluators prioritize TCO, flexibility, and future readiness, they enable better partnerships and better outcomes. And when vendors structure proposals around long-term value — not just compliance checklists — they create space for innovation and trust.
We believe the shift is already underway. And as this series continues, we’ll be spotlighting more ideas and examples that can help move procurement toward a future that’s transparent, fair, and designed for lasting success.
In our final post, we’ll explore how building transparent, maintainable systems empowers public organizations to take ownership of their technology — reducing long-term risk and strengthening internal capacity.
If something in this post resonated—or sparked ideas—we’d love to hear from you.
If something in this post resonated—or sparked ideas—we’d love to hear from you.
