The most advantageous tender (MAT) criterion, formerly known as the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT), enables your institution to take account of criteria that reflect qualitative, technical, and sustainable aspects of the tender submission as well as price when reaching an award decision.
It is a reminder that contracts do not have to be awarded solely on the basis of cost/price or indeed that cost/price should be the dominant factor in award decision making. MAT encourages institutions to consider the wider aspects of the contract, from sourcing through to end of contract life/disposal. Any criteria used must be linked to the subject-matter of the contract in question. The Act requires that award criteria comprising MAT, should be linked to the subject matter of the contract.
Under the Procurement Act 2023, MAT award criteria must:
Relate to the subject-matter of the contract
Be sufficiently clear, measurable and specific
Not break the rules on technical specification (for example, referring to specific trademarks, place of origin, producers where that is not necessary to making its requirements understood)
Be a proportionate means of assessing tenders, having regard to the nature, complexity and cost of the contract
Be accompanied by the “assessment methodology” describing how tenders are to be assessed by reference to the award criteria and, in particular, specify whether failure to meet one or more criteria would disqualify a tender, and
If there is more than one criterion, detail their relative importance by:
Weighting each as representing percentage of the total importance,
Ranking them in order of importance, or:
Describing it in another way
When developing award criteria, institutions must consider the following:
Procurement objectives: award criteria must be designed bearing in mind the obligation to remain transparent and proportionate, treating all suppliers equally and being mindful of the need to encourage SME participation
The National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS) or its equivalent in devolved UK nations, together with wider added/social value identified in the institution’s geographic or economic community
Can the award criteria be finalised now? If not, design the ability to refine the award criteria, when using the competitive flexible procedure noting limitations on what can be refined and when
The award criteria should be sufficiently described in the tender notice and/or associated tender documents to allow suppliers to prepare their tenders
When setting the award criteria for a given tender, this must be clearly defined in the Invitation to Tender (ITT) and the relative weighting of each criterion used to assess tender submissions must be stated. Where this is not possible for objective reasons, criterion should be stated in descending order of importance. Quite often the award criteria stated in the tender notice and/or the tender documentation will be made up of several related sub-criteria. These sub-criteria and their weightings should also be notified to the tenderers - the sub-criteria detail could probably be provided within the tender documentation rather than in the contract notice.
The following non-exhaustive list of criteria to be considered when evaluating tenders includes:
Quality
Price or cost using a cost-effectiveness approach
Technical merit
Aesthetic and functional characteristics
Accessibility
Social characteristics
Environmental characteristics
Innovative characteristics
After-sales service and technical assistance
Delivery conditions such as date, process, and period
End of life disposal
Added value to the institution
It is also permissible for the cost element to take the form of a fixed price or cost, with tenderers competing solely on quality criteria.
When including sustainability-based criteria it is important to remember these criteria must be 'linked to the subject matter of the contract' and be proportionate for the contract.
Return to the Evaluation of submissions page.