PPN 06/20: the government's social value model for procurement

PPN 06/20 requires all central government contracting authorities — including government departments, executive agencies, and non-departmental public bodies — to evaluate social value explicitly in procurements above the relevant threshold (currently £122,976 for goods and services, with equivalent thresholds for works). Social value must be given a minimum weighting of 10% of the overall evaluation score.

The policy is binding on in-scope central government bodies. It does not apply directly to local authorities, NHS trusts, or other public sector organisations, though many have adopted their own social value policies that operate similarly. For local authority and NHS contracts, buyers are more likely to use the National TOMs framework or bespoke local criteria — though PPN 06/20 remains the dominant framework for central government work.

The practical effect for suppliers is straightforward: on any qualifying central government contract, your bid must include a credible, specific, and quantified social value response. It will be scored by evaluators using the Model Award Criteria and account for at least 10% of your total award score. In competitive procurements, the social value section regularly determines the outcome between otherwise equivalent bids.

The Cabinet Office publishes Model Award Criteria (MAC) that buying organisations use to evaluate social value commitments. These criteria provide a standardised scoring structure that evaluators apply across the five themes. The MAC are not prescriptive about which specific commitments to make — they define the types of outcome the buyer is looking for and provide a basis for comparing commitments between suppliers.

Each criterion asks bidders to describe what they will deliver, how they will deliver it, and how they will measure and report against their commitments. Vague intentions are scored poorly; specific, evidenced, measurable commitments with a clear monitoring mechanism score well. The most common mistake in PPN 06/20 responses is submitting a general statement of social responsibility rather than a specific commitment schedule tied to this contract's deliverables.

Buyers using PPN 06/20 typically score social value responses on a scale of 0 to 10 per theme, or per criterion within each theme. A score of 0 is awarded for a response that provides no evidence or a generic statement. A score of 10 requires exceptional commitments with clear evidence of deliverability, a specific measurement methodology, and demonstrable alignment to the buyer's stated priorities. Most competitive responses score in the 5–8 range; a well-structured HelpMeBid-assisted response consistently targets the upper end of that range.

Experienced PPN 06/20 evaluators apply a consistent set of tests to bid responses. The first is specificity: does the response describe particular commitments, with particular volumes and timeframes, or does it describe a general organisational approach? A commitment to "prioritise local employment" scores near zero. A commitment to "recruit a minimum of two employees from long-term unemployment in the contract delivery area within the first six months, evidenced through DWP partnership and quarterly reporting to the contract manager" scores significantly higher.

The second test is proportionality. Commitments need to be plausible given the contract value, duration, and the size of the workforce you will deploy. A two-year IT services contract for £500,000 that claims to deliver twenty apprenticeships fails the credibility test — and evaluators who doubt one commitment will reduce their confidence in the entire response.

The third test is measurability. PPN 06/20 requires suppliers to report against social value commitments during contract delivery. Evaluators are trained to look for responses that describe not just what will be delivered, but how it will be measured, evidenced, and reported. A commitment without a monitoring mechanism is treated as aspirational rather than operational.

Unlike the National TOMs framework, PPN 06/20 does not use published proxy values as the primary basis for scoring. There is no standard monetary equivalent for each commitment. The evaluation is qualitative and quantitative — focused on the credibility, scale, and measurability of what you will deliver, scored by human evaluators against the MAC. This means the quality of your narrative matters as much as the headline figure, and that SROI-style monetised totals are less central than in TOMs-based evaluations.

PPN 06/20 applies specifically to central government contracting authorities. For local authority, NHS, and housing association contracts, the relevant framework is more likely to be National TOMs or a bespoke local requirement. Some buyers sit in an ambiguous position — for example, NHS integrated care boards commissioning services that also involve local authority partners — and may reference PPN 06/20 alongside local criteria.

Reading the ITT carefully to identify which framework the buyer is actually using is the most important step in building a social value response. A response structured around PPN 06/20's five themes submitted to a buyer scoring against National TOMs outcome measures will misalign with the evaluation criteria and score poorly, regardless of the quality of individual commitments. See the bid writing guide for how to approach framework identification from ITT documents.