Back to the Knowledge hub

What do evaluators score in a Social Value bid response?

If you read our previous piece on Social Value, you know that it’s now a scored, weighted component of public sector bids – and that weak or generic responses can cost you a contract even when your technical offering is strong.

But knowing Social Value matters is only half the picture. The other half is knowing what evaluators are actually looking for when they score it, and where most suppliers are leaving marks on the table.

First: understand the policy framework

Before writing a single word of your Social Value response, it’s worth getting familiar with Procurement Policy Note 002 (PPN 002). This is the current government guidance on how Social Value should be evaluated in public sector procurement, and it matters because buyers are expected to follow it.

PPN 002 sets out model outcomes, example deliverables, and the kinds of questions buyers might ask. Reading it gives you a map of the territory. You’ll see how your own commitments can be framed in terms evaluators recognise and know how to score.

One important note: if you’ve come across references to PPN 06/20 in older guidance or templates, that policy has been superseded following the Procurement Act 2023. PPN 002 is what you should be working to now.

The minimum weighting for Social Value in most evaluations is 10% of the overall score – but depending on the buyer, it can be significantly higher. On some frameworks and contracts, it reaches 20% or more. That’s not a marginal consideration. It can be the difference between winning and losing.

What evaluators reward

Specificity above everything else

Vague commitments don’t score. Evaluators are looking for concrete, measurable outcomes — not statements of intent.

“We are committed to supporting diversity and inclusion” is not a Social Value response. “We will provide two paid work placements per contract year, prioritising candidates from underrepresented groups, with placements supported by a named internal mentor” is.

The more specific you can be – who, what, how many, by when – the more there is for an evaluator to score against.

SMART objectives

The best responses structure their commitments using SMART criteria:

  • Specific: what exactly will you do?
  • Measurable: quantify the benefit (three apprenticeships per year, a 15% reduction in carbon emissions, ten hours of volunteer time per employee per quarter)
  • Achievable: realistic for your organisation size and the scale of the contract
  • Relevant: clearly connected to what you’ll be delivering under the contract
  • Time-bound: with clear timeframes for delivery and review

If your commitments can’t be expressed in SMART terms, they probably aren’t specific enough yet.

Proportionality

Evaluators don’t expect a small tech company bidding for a mid-size contract to fund a community centre. What they do expect is that your Social Value commitments are proportionate to the contract size and your capacity to deliver.

Overpromising is a red flag. It suggests either that you haven’t thought the response through, or that the commitments won’t be delivered. Keep your ambitions realistic and your evidence credible.

Governance and accountability

Evaluators want to see that someone is responsible for making this happen. Name the person or role that owns Social Value delivery within your organisation. Show there’s a process for tracking progress and reporting on outcomes – not just a set of aspirations that will sit in a folder once the contract is awarded.

Awareness of the buyer’s own priorities

Public sector organisations have their own Social Value goals and strategies. If you can show you’ve read them and reflected them in your response – demonstrating how your commitments will help the buyer achieve their priorities, not just your own – you’ll stand out from suppliers who’ve submitted a generic response.

What suppliers consistently get wrong

Being too general

This is the most common issue. Responses that speak in broad principles rather than specific commitments give evaluators very little to score. If your response could have been submitted for any contract, by any supplier, it probably won’t score well for this one.

 

No Social Value strategy to draw from

Some suppliers underestimate how much the expectation has shifted. Framework applications increasingly ask for a declaration of your Social Value commitment – not just at call-off stage. If you don’t have a Social Value strategy in place at an organisational level, you’re always going to be writing responses from scratch, and it shows.

It’s worth investing in getting this right now. Build a set of core Social Value commitments that are genuine, evidenced, and specific to your organisation – then tailor them to each opportunity rather than rewriting from zero each time.

Treating it as a compliance exercise

The suppliers who score well on Social Value are the ones who approach it as a genuine part of what they deliver — not a box to tick at the end of the bid. Evaluators can tell the difference. A response that feels like it was written as an afterthought will read that way.

Ignoring framework-level obligations

If you’re bidding for call-off contracts through a framework, your Social Value obligations don’t start at call-off. Many framework agreements include Social Value KPIs and reporting requirements that you take on when you’re awarded a place on the framework. Make sure you understand what those are — and factor them into how you respond at call-off level.

A note on what you’ve already done

Responses can reflect a balance of what you’ve already achieved and what you’re committing to going forward. A rough guide is 30% evidencing existing commitments and 70% forward-looking. The forward-looking element is usually weighted more heavily, but prior evidence builds credibility and shows your commitments aren’t just words.

Think about: training delivered internally and to buyers, how you influence staff and supply chain, and the partnerships you have in place that help you deliver Social Value outcomes. Much of this may already exist in your business — it just hasn’t been documented and structured for a bid response.

If you want support getting this right

We recently ran a webinar on exactly this topic, covering what good looks like, how to build credible and measurable responses, and the common mistakes that cost suppliers marks. The recording is now available along with a full written Q&A document answering the questions submitted by attendees.

Access the recording and resources now

If you’d rather talk through your specific situation, book a call with our team.

Related resources

You may also be interested in