The Social Value Act 2012 required authorities to "have regard" to social value. The Procurement Act 2023 goes significantly further — making social value an explicit, mandatory evaluation criterion with new obligations around measurement, commitment capture and delivery tracking.
What PA23 requires of buyers
- Define social value evaluation criteria before issuing the tender notice
- Specify the weighting social value will carry — it must be meaningful, not tokenistic
- Evaluate social value commitments as part of the formal scoring process
- Capture winning supplier commitments formally at the point of award
- Track delivery of commitments throughout the contract lifecycle
- Report on social value outcomes to boards, scrutiny committees and publicly where required
What does meaningful weighting look like?
The Act does not prescribe a minimum weighting, but sector practice suggests below 10% is likely tokenistic and vulnerable to challenge. Most authorities are setting 15–20% for service contracts. Some in housing and local government are going higher.
How to structure social value criteria
Effective criteria are specific, measurable and relevant to the contract. Avoid generic criteria like "commitment to social value." Instead specify outcomes: local employment percentage; number of apprenticeship starts; SME supply chain spend percentage; volunteering hours; specific carbon reduction commitments.
The TOMS framework
TOMS (National Themes, Outcomes and Measures) maps commitments to five national themes: jobs, growth, social innovation, health and environment. Most modern eSourcing platforms including HostAContract support TOMS-aligned social value evaluation and reporting natively.
What suppliers need to understand
Social value commitments are now a significant scoring criterion on most above-threshold contracts. Suppliers who make strong, evidenced commitments with delivery track record have a measurable advantage. Common mistakes: making commitments that cannot be verified; copying standard social value text without adapting it; failing to evidence delivery on past commitments; underweighting social value preparation relative to its actual scoring weight.