Social Value in Construction Tenders: how contractors can score extra 10-20%
- Roman Bazelchuk
- 5 days ago
- 5 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
In 2026 tendering, social value is no longer a “nice statement” at the back of the submission. On many public and regulated-industrial procurements, it is a meaningful slice of the scorecard. In central government construction procurement, policy has long expected Social Value to be explicitly evaluated with a minimum weighting of 10%, and a higher weighting can be applied if justified. The newer Social Value Model in PPN 002 provides a structured menu of outcomes and award criteria, and Crown Commercial Service has stated it is mandatory for above-threshold central government procurements from October 2025.
That is the baseline. In practice, many industrial clients and contracting authorities now set weightings above the minimum (often 15% and, on some frameworks, 20%+). You cannot “guarantee” 20% on social value, because the weighting is tender-specific. What you can do is build an approach that is credible enough to capture most (or all) of whatever social value marks are available, rather than leaving points on the table through generic promises.
This article explains the scoring trends, and how a planning-and-controls partner can make social value “built-in” to delivery rather than bolted on.
Social Value in Construction Tenders
Bid teams are now competing in a more mature environment. Evaluators have seen thousands of statements along the lines of “we will engage schools” and “we will use local suppliers”. The difference between a low-scoring answer and a high-scoring answer is rarely passion. It is evidence, relevance and deliverability.
The most common reasons social value answers score poorly are:
They are not specific to the contract and location (generic corporate commitments).
They are not measurable (no baseline, targets, dates, or method of tracking).
They have no delivery mechanism (no named lead, no governance, no reporting).
They are disconnected from the programme (activities that cannot realistically happen).
They read as marketing rather than an operational plan (no audit trail).
In 2026, procurement policy is increasingly geared toward outcomes and transparency, so contracting authorities are incentivised to choose commitments they can monitor and enforce.
The scoring trend that wins: “operational social value”
The simplest way to think about high-scoring social value is this:
If an assessor asked, “How will you deliver this on a live project, and how will you prove it happened?”, could your answer stand up?
High scores typically come from commitments that are:
Contract-relevant
They relate directly to the work and the operational reality (industrial safety, competence, productivity, local labour access, supply chain resilience).
Quantified
They specify what will happen and how much: paid placements, training hours, qualifications, local spend, engagement sessions, verified outcomes.
Governed
There is a delivery plan: who leads it, what the cadence is, and what gets reported.
Auditable
The contractor can evidence delivery via payroll records, training logs, supplier invoices, site records, and programme milestones.
This aligns with how the Social Value Model is set up: it is a menu of outcomes/criteria intended to be selected for relevance and proportionality to the specific procurement.
Where NEC Planning Solutions fits: making Social Value “built-in” when you engage us
Most contractors treat social value as a separate bid workstream (often owned by someone outside delivery). That is why it becomes disconnected from reality.
NEC Planning Solutions’ delivery model can be positioned differently: when you engage us, social value is not just promised; it can be delivered through the way the planning service is provided, because our model is explicitly built around training, supervised placement and capability-building in planning and project controls.
What this means in practical tender terms is that “partnering with NEC Planning Solutions” can contribute directly to social value outcomes that are commonly scored, because you can evidence:
Skills and employability outcomes tied to a real project
Instead of generic “training commitments”, you can offer structured development pathways in planning and controls that are project-relevant, with supervised delivery, defined competencies and measurable outputs.
Fair work, progression, and supervised professional development
Where tenders score fair work and skills progression, a supervised placement model with QA gates and mentorship creates credible outcomes: it is not a work experience promise; it is measurable capability transfer.
Supply chain resilience and SME participation
If your procurement approach values SME involvement, the partnership is a concrete, contract-relevant supplier arrangement with defined outputs and reporting.
The key is that this is not a claim of automatic tender points. It is a mechanism you can use to underpin a social value delivery plan with credible evidence.
How to turn the partnership into scored tender content
To score highly, you need to write social value answers like delivery plans. The structure below consistently performs well because it mirrors how evaluators assess credibility.
Step 1: Start with the tender’s social value weighting and themesDo not spread thinly across every theme. Pick the two or three outcomes that are most relevant to the works and location (industrial civils, mechanical install, E&I, commissioning and handover).
Step 2: Convert outcomes into “commitments with metrics”.
Examples of how to phrase commitments credibly:
Commitment type A: supervised planning placements that support delivery
Provide X paid placement(s) into planning/project controls aligned to the contract duration.
Deliver Y hours of structured training/mentorship linked to programme update cycles, progress measurement, and change management evidence.
Evidence: monthly training log, supervision records, defined competency checklist, and outputs produced on the project.
Commitment type B: capability uplift for the contractor’s team
Run a monthly “programme governance” clinic for site/commercial leads (short, practical sessions: progress rules, reporting cut-offs, change audit trail).
Evidence: attendance logs, session outputs/templates adopted, actions tracked.
Commitment type C: local skills linkage
Coordinate with local training providers to align the placement to local employment pathways, where feasible.
Evidence: agreements/emails, attendance/certification, outcomes.
Step 3: Show the delivery mechanism:
named responsible person
mobilisation timeline
monthly reporting cadence
risk and mitigation
Step 4: Tie delivery to the programme
This is the decisive move for industrial clients: put social value into the programme narrative so it is deliverable. For example:
mobilisation month: onboarding and training plan agreed
monthly cycle: programme update + QA + learning review
defined gates: competency sign-off points aligned to reporting periods
If you do not connect commitments to programme reality, evaluators assume they will be deprioritised when production pressure hits.
Step 5: Define how you will evidence itYou want assessors to be able to imagine a file being produced at the end of the job:
KPI tracker (monthly)
training/mentorship log
outputs delivered (programme updates, dashboards, lookaheads)
supplier spend evidence (where relevant)
The “up to 20%” playbook: how contractors typically lose (or win) those marks
If a tender allocates 20% to social value, you rarely win it by having more initiatives. You win it by having fewer initiatives that are deliverable, measurable and aligned to the contract.
High-scoring pattern
2–3 relevant outcomes
quantified commitments
a real delivery mechanism
a reporting and evidence plan
clear linkage to programme/mobilisation
Low-scoring pattern
a long list of generic commitments
no numbers, no dates
no governance
no proof plan
not linked to delivery reality
Summary
NEC Planning Solutions provides planning and controls support through a supervised training-and-placement model. Where permitted by the ITT and aligned to project needs, this approach enables measurable skills and employment outcomes to be delivered as part of the planning service itself, supported by QA-led supervision and auditable reporting.
Comments