National TOMs explained

The National TOMs framework was developed by the Social Value Portal in collaboration with local authorities and the Local Government Association. Its primary purpose is to create a standardised method for measuring social value that can be adopted consistently across different buying organisations — so that a local council in Manchester and a housing association in Bristol are measuring and comparing social value commitments using the same underlying structure and the same published proxy values.

Before frameworks like National TOMs existed, social value evaluation in procurement was largely qualitative and inconsistent. Different buyers used different criteria, different proxy values, and different methodologies — making it almost impossible for suppliers to produce responses that transferred between buyers, or for buyers to aggregate and compare data across their supplier portfolio. National TOMs addresses this by providing a common taxonomy of outcomes and a published set of monetary proxy values that translate those outcomes into comparable figures.

The framework is maintained and updated by the Social Value Portal. Many organisations that use National TOMs also use Social Value Portal software for post-award delivery tracking — though the framework itself is the measurement standard, not the software. See alternatives to Social Value Portal for the distinction between buyer-side reporting tools and supplier-side bid writing tools.

The framework organises outcomes into five themes — Jobs, Growth, Social, Environment, and Innovation — each broken down into specific outcome measures with individual identifiers (for example, TOM 1a: Creating Employment for Local People). Each measure has a published proxy value: a monetary figure that represents the social benefit of one unit of that outcome.

When a supplier makes a TOMs-aligned commitment, they are committing to a specific number of units against a specific outcome measure. The proxy value is then applied to calculate the total monetary social value being claimed. For example, a commitment to create two local employment opportunities represents 2 × £12,654 = £25,308 of proxy social value under TOM 1a. This figure is directly comparable between suppliers and between contracts — which is why TOMs-based evaluation tends to be more numerically rigorous than frameworks without published proxy values.

Evaluators scoring a TOMs-based response are typically comparing the total proxy social value being offered by each supplier, alongside the credibility and specificity of the commitments. A supplier offering £120,000 of proxy social value with clearly deliverable, proportionate commitments will typically outscore a supplier offering £300,000 of proxy value with implausible commitments. The numerical figure matters, but it is not the only test.

National TOMs is most widely adopted by local authorities and housing associations, particularly those that have formally adopted the framework as part of their social value policy. It is common across metropolitan councils, combined authorities, and NHS trusts that have chosen to standardise their social value measurement against the framework. Some government-owned development corporations and arm's-length bodies have also adopted it.

Central government departments and executive agencies procuring above the relevant thresholds are bound by PPN 06/20 rather than National TOMs. The two frameworks are not interchangeable — structuring a response to PPN 06/20's five themes when the buyer is scoring against TOMs outcome measures will misalign your response with the evaluation criteria. Identifying which framework the buyer is using is the critical first step before building any social value response.

When an ITT does not explicitly name a framework, look for clues: references to "TOMs measures", "outcome measures", "proxy values", or "Social Value Portal" suggest National TOMs. References to "PPN 06/20 themes", "Model Award Criteria", or the five PPN 06/20 theme names suggest the government model. Buyers using a bespoke local framework usually describe their own criteria in the ITT or link to a separate social value policy document.

National TOMs proxy values produce a gross social value figure. Some buyers additionally require SROI adjustments — deadweight, attribution, and displacement — to be applied before a net social value claim is stated. Where SROI adjustments are required, the gross TOMs figure is a starting point rather than the final claim.

In practice, most TOMs-based evaluations do not require full SROI adjustments at bid stage, though some NHS and housing association buyers do specify SROI methodology. Read the ITT carefully: if deadweight, attribution, or displacement is mentioned, or if the buyer asks for a "net social value figure", SROI adjustments are required.