What changed about tender scoring under the Procurement Act 2023?
The Procurement Act 2023 changed the language used to describe how contracts are awarded in the UK.
Under the previous regime, contracts were generally awarded on the basis of the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT). Under the Procurement Act 2023, the terminology became Most Advantageous Tender (MAT).
The change matters, but perhaps not for the reason many suppliers assume.
The UK Government's current guidance makes clear that the basis on which tenders are assessed is largely unchanged. Removing the word "economically" was intended to clarify that contracting authorities do not have to prioritise price or cost over other factors when determining value for money.
For suppliers, the practical lesson is straightforward: read the actual award criteria and weightings in the tender rather than assuming that price will dominate the evaluation.
MEAT versus MAT: what actually changed?
The old MEAT terminology could give the impression that economic considerations had to sit at the centre of the evaluation.
MAT removes that implication.
The Procurement Act allows contracting authorities to consider a wider range of factors when determining which tender is most advantageous. These can include quality, technical merit, social value and other factors relevant to the procurement.
But this does not mean buyers can simply score whatever they like.
The criteria still need to be set out in the procurement documents, and suppliers should write their responses against those published requirements.
The change is therefore less about giving buyers unlimited freedom and more about making the principle of value for money clearer.
What has not changed?
The most important point for bidders is that the basic discipline of tender writing remains the same.
You still need to:
- understand every award criterion
- identify every sub-criterion
- understand the weighting attached to each
- identify any minimum thresholds
- provide evidence against the requirements
- make your answer easy for the evaluator to score
- distinguish your response from competing submissions
Changing MEAT to MAT does not make a generic answer more competitive.
If a quality criterion is worth 30% of the score, you still need to demonstrate why your approach deserves a high mark against that criterion.
The UK and Ireland now use different terminology
This distinction matters particularly for suppliers operating in both markets.
In Ireland, the Office of Government Procurement continues to describe award criteria using Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT). Its guidance explains that MEAT can incorporate both price and quality factors, including technical merit, environmental and social considerations.
Irish eTenders competitions continue to use MEAT in current procurement notices.
So a business bidding across the UK and Ireland should not assume that terminology from one market applies automatically to the other.
The better approach is to establish the procurement regime first.
How to identify which scoring regime applies
Before writing a response, establish:
1. Where is the contracting authority based?
A UK public body and an Irish public body may be operating under different statutory frameworks.
2. What legislation and procurement documents are referenced?
Do not rely solely on terminology in the tender title. Read the instructions and procurement documents.
3. What are the actual award criteria?
The criteria are more important to your bid than the acronym used to describe the overall award mechanism.
4. What are the weightings?
A 30% quality criterion deserves substantially more attention than a 5% criterion.
5. Are there minimum thresholds?
A tender can contain individual scoring thresholds that create a pass/fail risk even if the overall score is competitive.
What MAT means for your bid
The biggest mistake would be to interpret MAT as meaning that quality automatically matters more than price.
It doesn't.
The weighting in your specific tender determines where the marks are available.
If price represents 40% and quality represents 60%, your bid strategy should reflect that.
If price represents 70% and quality 30%, you cannot compensate for an uncompetitive commercial offer simply by writing better prose.
This is why understanding the scoring matrix is more useful than relying on general assumptions about procurement policy.
BidReview's procurement scoring matrix examples show how the weighting and scoring bands translate into actual marks.
Read the tender, not the acronym
The Procurement Act 2023 has changed the language surrounding UK tender evaluation.
But the fundamental lesson for suppliers has not changed.
The buyer tells you what will be scored. Your job is to make the highest possible score easy to award.
That means mapping your answer to the criterion, using specific evidence and understanding exactly where the available marks sit.
Whether the tender calls the mechanism MEAT or MAT, the winning discipline is much the same: read the evaluation framework before you write the answer.
