Most Advantageous Tender (MAT)

The shift from Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) to Most Advantageous Tender (MAT) is one of the most symbolically significant changes introduced by the Procurement Act 2023. While the practical difference between the two concepts is subtle, the removal of the word "economically" signals a deliberate policy choice to embed a broader understanding of value into UK public procurement, one that encompasses social, environmental, and public-interest outcomes alongside cost and technical quality.

What is the Most Advantageous Tender?

The Most Advantageous Tender is the winning bid in a procurement competition: the tender that, when evaluated against the published award criteria, achieves the best overall score and therefore represents the best overall outcome for the contracting authority and the public.

Under EU Directive 2014/24/EU, contracts had to be awarded on the basis of the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT), which could include price, quality, environmental characteristics, social criteria, and innovation. The EU interpretation of MEAT was already quite broad. The Procurement Act 2023 replaced MEAT with MAT and removed the "economically" qualifier to make clear that the evaluation basis need not be understood primarily through an economic lens. Factors such as climate impact, social value, community benefit, and long-term public interest can be weighted more prominently in a MAT evaluation without the tension created by the "economically advantageous" framing.

Crucially, MAT does not mean lowest price. Like MEAT, MAT requires a multi-criterion evaluation unless the buyer determines that price alone is the appropriate basis for a specific contract type (which remains permitted, particularly for commoditised purchases). The evaluation must be conducted against the pre-published award criteria and weightings, and the buyer must provide each unsuccessful supplier with an assessment summary explaining how their bid was scored.

Why it matters for bidders

For suppliers bidding into UK public contracts, the MAT framework reinforces the importance of non-price differentiation. A compelling social value proposition, a credible net zero plan, a well-evidenced community benefit commitment, or a superior quality methodology can all justify a higher price point if the award criteria weightings reflect the buyer's priorities under the MAT framework.

Understanding what the specific buyer values, informed by the National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS), the buyer's corporate plans, and the detailed award criteria, is the foundation of a winning MAT-aligned bid strategy.

Example

A county council awards a five-year highways maintenance contract on MAT principles. The award criteria weight technical quality at 40%, social value at 25%, environmental performance at 15%, and price at 20%. A contractor that offers a 5% higher price than the cheapest bidder but scores significantly higher on social value (through local employment commitments and apprenticeship guarantees) and environmental performance (through lower-emission plant) wins the contract. The outcome reflects the council's MAT evaluation, with a justified premium for non-price factors.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is MAT the same as best value?

MAT and "best value" are closely related concepts but not identical. Best value is a broader public law obligation on local authorities (under the Local Government Act 1999) to secure continuous improvement in the way their functions are performed, having regard to economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. MAT is the specific procurement law basis for evaluating bids. In practice, MAT-based evaluation is how best value is given effect in a procurement competition.

Can a buyer still award on price alone?

Yes. The Act does not prohibit price-only evaluation for contracts where quality variation between suppliers is minimal or where standardisation is paramount. However, buyers using price-only evaluation must be able to justify that approach given the MAT framework and the procurement objectives.

How does MAT differ from MEAT in practice?

For most procurement exercises, the practical difference is modest: both permit multi-criteria evaluation including qualitative, environmental, and social factors. The change is primarily one of framing and emphasis, removing the implicit assumption that economic value is the primary lens and making explicit that public-interest outcomes are a first-class consideration in the evaluation.