The New Procurement Question: How Long Will This Be Supported?

Procurement processes for software have evolved. Ten years ago, the conversation centered on licensing models and deployment options. Five years ago, it shifted to APIs, integration ease, and pricing flexibility. But in 2025, one question is rising in importance across every RFP, security review, and vendor assessment:

“How long will this be supported?”

Whether evaluating commercial software or open source components embedded in a vendor’s platform, enterprise buyers are now scrutinizing support timelines—and the lack of a clear answer is becoming a deal-breaker.

This shift reflects a broader trend: as organizations mature their software governance and supply chain security, support lifecycle guarantees are no longer a nice-to-have. They are a contractual necessity.

This blog explores why “supportability” has become a defining criterion in procurement decisions—and how teams responsible for both buying and building software can avoid lifecycle risk before it’s embedded in critical systems.

‍

Support Gaps Are Now Audit Findings

It’s no longer sufficient for a component to work well. If the software lacks:

• A published maintenance schedule
• An end-of-life (EOL) policy
• A clear upgrade path or support commitment

…it is now flagged by security reviewers, compliance auditors, or internal risk teams.

‍

Modern audits increasingly include requirements like:

• “All third-party and OSS components must be actively maintained”
• “Vendors must provide support for at least 18 months post-release”
• “Software must include vulnerability remediation SLAs”
• “SBOMs must indicate whether components are in active support status”

If these requirements are not met, the software is classified as unfit for procurement—or must be risk-accepted at an executive level.

‍

Procurement Is Now Asking Engineering’s Hard Questions

Traditionally, it was engineering’s job to manage support gaps. If a dependency hit EOL, it was an internal upgrade concern.

That’s changed. Procurement and InfoSec teams now:

• Ask vendors to disclose EOL timelines and patch coverage
• Require assurances that included OSS components have ongoing maintenance
• Involve security, legal, and compliance stakeholders earlier in the buying process
• Perform SBOM reviews as part of due diligence
• Expect lifecycle guarantees in vendor contracts or DPA clauses

In effect, procurement teams are now assuming a governance function—one that directly impacts what gets bought, renewed, or replaced.

This is particularly acute in industries like healthcare, finance, and government, where unsupported software creates both compliance risk and reputational exposure.

‍

How This Affects Open Source–Based Products

Many modern products are built on open source foundations. Buyers know this. They don’t penalize it—but they do demand visibility.

The most common red flags include:

• Vendors bundling OSS components without disclosing EOL status
• Projects with no published support schedule
• Dependencies with known CVEs but no patch availability
• Lack of clarity about who is responsible for post-EOL maintenance

In these cases, buyers ask:

• “What happens if this project is abandoned?”
• “Will you still support us if this framework reaches end-of-life?”
• “Do you have a support plan for your OSS stack?”

Without clear answers, confidence—and deals—collapse.

‍

Why This Is a Build-vs-Buy Issue for Internal Teams, Too

Even internal development teams are affected. When organizations build software for customers, partners, or internal business units, they are implicitly becoming software vendors.

And their stakeholders—whether they are procurement, IT security, or compliance officers—ask the same questions:

• “What libraries are you using?”
• “What happens when this version is no longer supported?”
• “Is there a patching process in place?”

If those internal systems depend on unmaintained OSS, they carry the same risk as external vendor software.

‍

Procurement-Ready Answers Require a Support Strategy

The only credible response to support lifecycle questions is a defined, defensible plan.

This includes:

• Documented component inventories and EOL timelines
• Defined upgrade schedules or version support policies
• Clarity about who owns patching responsibility (internal vs. vendor)
• Proof of CVE remediation for EOL components still in use
• If applicable, a commercial LTS provider or structured internal support agreement

Without this, software is perceived as “unsupported”—even if it technically works.

‍

Lifecycle Visibility Is Now Part of the Buy Decision

Today, enterprises don’t just ask, “What does it do?” They ask, “How long can we trust it?”

That trust depends on support. And whether you’re building internal software, buying from a vendor, or managing open source usage across your stack—the ability to answer that question clearly is now a core requirement.

Make sure your software isn’t just functional. Make sure it’s defensible.

‍