One of the most important but easily misunderstood changes under the Procurement Act 2023 is now live. The move from Most Economically Advantageous Tender to Most Advantageous Tender is not just a wording change. For councils, it fundamentally affects how evaluation criteria should be designed, applied and justified.
The risk is that some authorities continue to operate evaluation models that still behave like the old regime, even though the legal and policy framework has moved on. That creates a gap between what the Act allows and what the council can actually defend if challenged.
What has changed in practice
Under the previous regime, Most Economically Advantageous Tender placed a strong and often dominant emphasis on price and cost. While quality and social value could be included, many evaluation models still leaned heavily toward financial scoring.
The Procurement Act replaces this with Most Advantageous Tender. This gives councils more flexibility to design evaluation models that reflect broader outcomes, including quality, social value, delivery risk and long-term impact.
However, that flexibility comes with a responsibility. Authorities must be able to explain clearly how their criteria lead to the selection of the most advantageous tender overall, not just the cheapest compliant option.
Why this matters now
This is not a theoretical issue. Councils are already running procurements under the new regime.
If evaluation criteria have not been reviewed properly, authorities may be using scoring structures that do not fully reflect the new approach. In some cases, price weightings remain disproportionately high simply because that is what teams are used to. In others, qualitative criteria are included but not defined clearly enough to be applied consistently.
That creates two risks. First, the authority may not achieve the best outcome. Second, it may struggle to justify its decision if a bidder questions how the result was reached.
The practical risk in evaluation models
The most common issue is not non-compliance. It is weak alignment.
For example, a council may state that social value or service quality is important, but the scoring criteria do not give evaluators a clear way to differentiate between bids. Alternatively, weightings may suggest a balanced approach, but scoring guidance pushes evaluators back toward price as the deciding factor.
This creates a disconnect between what the procurement claims to value and what it actually rewards.
What good MAT evaluation looks like
A strong approach to Most Advantageous Tender starts with clarity of purpose.
Authorities should be able to explain what outcomes matter most for the contract and how those outcomes are reflected in the evaluation criteria.
Criteria should be specific enough to guide evaluators but flexible enough to allow meaningful differentiation between bids. Scoring descriptors should describe what good, acceptable and poor responses look like in practice, not just repeat generic language.
Most importantly, the final evaluation should tell a coherent story. The winning bid should be demonstrably the most advantageous when all relevant factors are considered together.
What councils should do now
Authorities should review live and upcoming procurements to ensure evaluation models reflect the MAT approach rather than legacy MEAT thinking.
This includes checking weightings, refining qualitative criteria and strengthening scoring guidance so evaluators can apply it consistently.
Procurement teams should also test moderation processes to ensure that final scores are supported by clear reasoning rather than broad agreement.
Where councils want practical templates, scoring frameworks and evaluation tools that align with the new regime, the Prestige Commercial Consulting support hub provides resources that can support this transition.
Building confidence in evaluation capability
The move to MAT also highlights a capability issue. Evaluators need to feel confident applying more nuanced criteria and explaining their decisions clearly.
For some authorities, this may require targeted training rather than assuming existing knowledge is sufficient. Procurement and commissioning teams can access structured learning through the Prestige Commercial Consulting Learning Portal, where training subscriptions can be purchased directly via Stripe. Organisations that prefer to discuss options first can also use the Prestige Commercial Consulting contact page.
The takeaway
The shift to Most Advantageous Tender is one of the most important practical changes under the Procurement Act 2023.
Councils that update their evaluation models now will be better placed to achieve stronger outcomes and defend their decisions. Those that continue to rely on legacy approaches may find that the real issue is not the rule itself, but how their evaluation process stands up to scrutiny.