The Selection Questionnaire is a proportionality test, and most authorities fail it quietly
Read the statutory guidance behind PPN 03/24 and one instruction repeats until it is impossible to miss: only the winning supplier should generally have to produce documentary evidence. Everything else at selection stage is self-declaration. Yet the standard complaint from suppliers, particularly smaller ones, is still that they spend days assembling certificates, policies and accounts for a competition they may not reach the shortlist of. That gap between guidance and practice is the real story of the SQ.
What the update actually did
PPN 03/24 updates and replaces PPN 03/23. The visible changes are contained: revised payment questions, revised steel questions, clarity on considering bids from Russian and Belarusian suppliers in line with PPN 01/22, and the removal of references to PAS91, which the BSI has withdrawn.
It also completes a piece of post-EU Exit tidying by replacing the European Single Procurement Document with the Single Procurement Document under regulation 59 of PCR 2015. The SPD is the template at Annex C, so this is a change of name and legal anchor rather than of substance.
The more forward-looking change is structural. The template format was revised to support e-procurement platforms, and the note is candid that while a template helps some authorities, the growing need is for a format that adapts easily to e-platforms. It now provides both a question list and a template, which is a recognition that the document is becoming a data schema.
Where authorities overreach
The first overreach is demanding evidence too early. The guidance says a bidder is not required to produce supporting documentary evidence or certificates until specifically requested, and that generally only the winning supplier should be required to submit them. Earlier requests are permitted, but only where necessary to ensure proper conduct of the procedure, with three named situations. Routine early evidence demands are not among them.
The second is unreported deviation. Wording gets tweaked to suit a local template, an extra question is bolted on because someone once had a bad experience, and nobody reports it. Yet changes to the wording of the standard questions and non project-specific additional questions are exactly what must be reported, once, with Head of Procurement approval and reasons. It is a light obligation that is widely ignored.
The third is disproportionate financial requirements. The guidance asks you to state minimum requirements clearly, describe the assessment methodology and keep it proportionate, and it points out that small companies only need to file abbreviated accounts with Companies House. A minimum turnover threshold picked for comfort rather than for risk excludes capable suppliers for no gain.
The fourth is missing the works route entirely. For works contracts, including mixed contracts with supplies and services, authorities should use the Common Assessment Standard in place of the standard SQ template. Running works bidders through the standard SQ duplicates a process the construction market has already standardised.
The policy questions that ride along
The SQ is also where a series of other policies attach themselves, and the value thresholds differ enough to catch people out. Payment approach questions under PPN 10/23 and Carbon Reduction Plan questions under PPN 06/21 both bite for central government contracts of 5 million pounds and above per annum. Apprenticeship and skills support applies to contracts with a full life value of 10 million pounds and above running 12 months or more. Steel questions apply where a relevant steel procurement is involved.
Modern slavery deserves particular care. Organisations with turnover of at least 36 million pounds carrying on business in the UK must publish a statement under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and failure to publish or comply is likely to give rise to a discretionary exclusion ground. In procurements identified as high risk under PPN 02/23, Part 1 and Part 2 declarations can be required from supply chain members, and the authority should say in the specification how far down the chain it wants to look.
The guidance also sets a fair standard for judging modern slavery responses: bidders should only fail selection if they do not meet the criterion after their statement, their reasons for non-compliance and any assurances about future compliance have been taken into account. That is a considered assessment, not a tick box.
How to fix it
Audit your live SQ against the standard questions and mark every difference. Then sort the differences into project-specific, e-procurement formatting, omissions, and everything else. Only the last category needs reporting, and knowing which is which takes an afternoon.
Move your evidence requests to the end. Self-declare at bid, verify before award, and say so plainly in the procurement documents so suppliers can plan. If you genuinely need earlier evidence, name the reason from the guidance rather than asking as a matter of habit.
Then treat the questionnaire as data rather than a document. The direction of travel in this PPN is unmistakable, and authorities whose selection information lives in structured, reusable form will spend far less time on each competition than those still exchanging completed templates by email.
The takeaways
- PPN 03/24 replaces PPN 03/23 and swaps the ESPD for the SPD at Annex C.
- Only the winning supplier should generally have to provide documentary evidence.
- Wording changes and non project-specific extra questions are reportable deviations.
- Works and mixed contracts should use the Common Assessment Standard instead of the standard template.
- Below threshold procurements must not include a pre-qualification stage.
Want the full breakdown?
The complete explainer covers the key facts, the requirements in detail and a practical action list, free and printable in the Procurement Library.