# **Understanding Tender Evaluation Criteria: What Buyers Actually Look For**

**Published:** February 2026 · **Updated:** July 2026 · 6 min read **Topic:** Bid Strategy

Every public sector tender tells you how it will be scored. That much hasn't changed. What has changed is the language behind the scoring itself.

For years, buyers had to identify the "most economically advantageous tender," known across the industry by its acronym, MEAT. Since the Procurement Act 2023 came fully into force in February 2025, that term has quietly disappeared from live procurements. It's been replaced by MAT: the "most advantageous tender" ([UK Government, Procurement Act 2023 e-learning, Module 7](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-official-procurement-act-2023-e-learning/module-7-assessment-and-award-of-contracts)). Most SMEs still read the quality and price weightings in the invitation to tender (ITT), note the split, and move on. That was always a missed opportunity. Under the new rules, it's a bigger one, because the scoring methodology carries more information than most bidders use, and the definition of "advantageous" has genuinely shifted.

## **MEAT to MAT: More Than a Rebrand**

The word dropped from the old acronym is "economically," and it was dropped deliberately. Section 19 of the Procurement Act 2023 requires contracting authorities to award to the supplier offering the most advantageous tender rather than the most economically advantageous one, which in practice removes any assumption that price or cost must always carry the greatest weight ([UK Government, Module 7](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-official-procurement-act-2023-e-learning/module-7-assessment-and-award-of-contracts)). Section 12 of the Act goes further, requiring authorities to have regard to a broader set of factors when running a procurement, including what it calls "maximising public benefit," a category built to capture environmental and social objectives explicitly ([Gowling WLG, 2024](https://gowlingwlg.com/en-gb/insights-resources/articles/2024/procurement-act-2023-changing-landscape-issue-7)).

In practice, this is a change of emphasis rather than a change of substance for most contracts. Cabinet Office guidance is explicit that the shift "is not a change in policy," but a clarification that tenders don't have to be awarded on lowest price, and that price doesn't have to outrank quality by default ([Thrive Platform, 2025, citing PPN 002](https://www.thrive-platform.com/ppn-002-explainers-from-meat-to-mat/)). Most authorities are still choosing to weight quality and price much as they did before. The practical takeaway for SMEs is this: don't assume the rebrand means price no longer matters, but do expect buyers to feel more comfortable weighting quality, social value, and public benefit more heavily than they might have under the old rules, particularly on contracts where outcomes matter more than unit cost.

## **How Quality Scoring Really Works**

Quality is typically assessed through written method statements. You might be asked to describe your approach to mobilisation, your quality assurance processes, or how you'd handle a specific scenario. Each response is scored by evaluators, usually on a scale of 0 to 5 or 0 to 10, against published descriptors.

The critical detail sits in those descriptors. A score of 3 out of 5 often just means "meets requirements." That sounds acceptable, but in a competitive field it puts you squarely in the middle of the pack. To reach a 4 or 5, you typically need to demonstrate added value, innovation, or evidence of outcomes from similar contracts, not simply confirm that you can do the job.

This is why generic responses, however well written, rarely score above average, and why the headroom for better bid writing is larger than most SMEs assume. Industry benchmarking puts average unassisted win rates for SMEs at 20 to 35%, a wide enough range to suggest that bid quality, not just eligibility, is deciding a lot of these outcomes ([Tender Consultants, 2026](https://www.tenderconsultants.co.uk/uk-public-procurement-statistics/)). Evaluators are looking for specifics: named team members, measurable outcomes, and tailored approaches that show you've read and understood the specification, not paraphrased it.

## **Price Still Counts, It's Just Not Automatically King**

Many SMEs still assume public sector contracts go to the cheapest bidder. That was rarely true under the old MEAT regime, and it remains rare under MAT. Most tenders still combine quality and price using a weighted formula, and a 60% quality to 40% price split remains a common starting point, though this varies significantly by buyer and contract type.

The scoring method within the price element matters too. Some buyers use a simple ratio (your price divided by the lowest submitted price), while others use a median-based formula that rewards bids closer to the average rather than the cheapest. Understanding which method a buyer is using lets you price strategically instead of simply cutting margin and hoping for the best.

## **Social Value: The Default, Not a Bonus**

Social value is no longer a nice-to-have line in an ITT. Cabinet Office guidance under PPN 002 sets a default social value weighting of 10% for above-threshold procurements, with authorities free to weight it higher on contracts where community benefit, employment, or environmental outcomes are especially relevant to the work ([Thrive Platform, 2025](https://www.thrive-platform.com/ppn-002-explainers-from-meat-to-mat/)). Buyers want to see how your delivery will create local employment, reduce carbon emissions, support skills development, or benefit disadvantaged communities, and increasingly, they want a plan for measuring it.

Worth being honest about: this genuinely is hard for smaller suppliers. A recent techUK survey found that 76% of respondents see addressing social value in tenders as an administrative burden, and over half cited the sheer number of different procurement frameworks as a barrier in its own right ([techUK, 2025](https://www.techuk.org/resource/guest-blog-what-are-the-barriers-for-smes-when-bidding-for-government-contracts.html)). The mistake to avoid is treating it as a tick-box exercise anyway, mentioning a recycling policy or a one-off charity donation and hoping that's enough. High-scoring responses tie social value commitments directly to the contract's deliverables, with measurable targets and a clear plan for reporting outcomes over the life of the contract, not just at the point of bidding.

## **Practical Steps to Improve Your Scores**

1. Read the scoring descriptors before writing a single word, and map your response structure to exactly what an evaluator needs to see to justify the highest mark.  
2. Use evidence over adjectives. Case studies, data, and named references carry far more weight than general claims about quality or commitment.  
3. Tailor every response. Evaluators can spot a recycled answer instantly, and it signals you haven't invested time in understanding their specific requirements.  
4. Use the feedback you're now entitled to. The Procurement Act 2023 requires authorities to issue a mandatory assessment summary to every bidder before the contract award notice is published, with less room for vague interpretation than the old standstill letters allowed ([UK Government, Module 7](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-official-procurement-act-2023-e-learning/module-7-assessment-and-award-of-contracts)). Read it properly, and use it to improve your next submission.  
5. Score yourself as the evaluator would. Go back through your response against the published criteria and be honest about whether you'd award it a top mark. If you can't justify one, revise until you can.

## **The Bottom Line**

Average unassisted win rates sitting at 20 to 35% tell you two things at once: the competition is real, and so is the headroom. Understanding how quality is scored, how price is weighted, and how social value now sits as a default rather than an afterthought is no longer optional context. It's the difference between a submission that reads as competent and one that reads as the obvious choice.

Supplierverse doesn't just surface the tenders that fit your business, it flags the evaluation criteria and social value requirements up front, so you know exactly what a buyer is scoring before you commit the time to bid.