How Does the Switch from MEAT to MAT Affect Social Value?

PPN 002 and Social Value Model Explainer series

The Procurement Act 2023 changed the grounds for awarding contracts in competitive processes to “Most Advantageous Tender”. 

Before the Act, the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 had ruled that the basis should be “Most Economically Advantageous Tender”.

As the Bill which later became the Act made its way through the legislative process, there was much discussion about what this change of wording would mean for social value. 

Was it a sign that price was poised to be dislodged from its position as the most important factor in contracting authorities’ decision-making?

NB This article predates the publication of PPN 026 in August 2026 which will supercede PPN 002 from January 2027.

“This Is Not A Change In Policy”

The short answer is “no”, as Cabinet Office guidance makes clear:

“This is not a change in policy and the change is to clarify and reinforce for contracting authorities that tenders do not have to be awarded on the basis of lowest price/cost, or that price/cost must always take precedence over non price/cost factors.” 

Price can still be the decisive factor, but it was not – and never has been – the only one that contracting authorities could take into account. 

The message is hammered home in training provided by the Government Commercial Function: 

“The change from MEAT to MAT is not in practice significantly changing the way award criteria are set, tenders are assessed or contracts are awarded. It has been changed to highlight and reinforce the message that contracts do not have to be awarded on the basis of the lowest price or that price must always be weighted higher than quality.”

Contracting authorities are empowered to set awards criteria relating to a long list of factors besides price – including quality, and technical specifications, as well as social value considerations. 

As both PPN06/20 and PPN 002 state, for above-threshold procurements (that aren’t excluded for other reasons), the default social value weighting should be 10%. 

That’s unchanged, although there are provisions in the guidance for giving a greater or lesser weight to social value under certain circumstances. 

From MEAT to MAT In Practice

So why the change?

Part of the answer lies in Brexit (which was of course the primary motivation for the Procurement Act itself). The MEAT concept was incorporated into the PCRs by way of implementing a 2014 EU Directive.

And MAT is not, in fact, completely new the UK. It comes from the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Government Procurement, and was first discussed in the 2020 “Transforming Public Procurement” Green Paper. 

The objectives of the switch were to reinforce trends already in motion in public procurement:

• Making sure that public money is spent in a way that generates maximum benefit for the communities affected
• Expanding participation in public sector procurement by making it clear that price is not the only consideration – the perception of which has often deterred SMEs and VCSEs
• Ensuring that contracting authorities recognise the autonomy and choice over awards criteria that they have

That autonomy is not unlimited though. As the Procurement Act spells out in Section 23:

These conditions are unchanged from those which came before. Contracting authorities will still have to set award criteria tailored to the detailed requirements of the contract and make them public. 

So the change from MEAT to MAT is less a change of substance than of jargon. It solidifies the role of social value by sending a clear signal to contracting authorities that price shouldn’t automatically be the only factor in play, but it doesn’t increase its weighting or widen the range of cases where social value has to be included.