When bidding for UK public sector contracts, knowing how your bid will be scored is just as important as knowing what to write or how to price. MEAT—Most Economically Advantageous Tender—is the scoring framework used to assess tenders, and it’s not a one-size-fits-all model.

Note: The New Procurement Act (2023) has modified the naming for MEAT → MAT (Most Advantageous Tender). From what most can understand so far, until we see it in practice, the formulas used will be consistent with MEAT.

Different buyers use different MEAT methodologies, each with its own quirks. And for you as a bidder, each one demands a different approach to pricing, solution design, and win strategy.

What is MEAT?

MEAT stands for Most Economically Advantageous Tender, and it’s the UK government’s preferred way to evaluate bids. Unlike lowest-price models, MEAT considers both price and quality, usually expressed in weighted percentages (e.g. 60% quality, 40% price).

But while the concept is simple, the price evaluation formulas used in MEAT scoring can vary widely. And that has major implications for how you build your bid.

Common Pitfalls in MEAT-Based Bidding

One of the biggest mistakes bidders make is assuming that submitting a strong technical solution or a competitive price alone is enough. But MEAT scoring is blind—you don’t see the other bids. That means you can never truly optimise your own bid unless you understand three things:

1. The customer and their evaluation priorities
2. The requirements and how they translate into value
3. The likely strategies of your competitors

Without those insights, you’re flying blind. Many suppliers underprice themselves to win—or over-engineer a solution that isn’t needed. True optimisation only happens when you balance quality and price against what you believe others will submit. This is where game theory becomes critical.

By modelling possible competitor behaviours and scoring simulations, you can land your bid in the “optimal zone”—not just compliant or cheap, but perfectly positioned to outscore others.

The Four Most Common MEAT Price Scoring Models

01. Value for Money (Quality/Price Ratio)

How it works: VfM scoring evaluates the ratio between the quality offered and the price quoted. It’s calculated as Quality / Price, meaning bids that deliver more quality per pound spent score higher—regardless of whether they’re the cheapest.

Example:

• Bid A: Quality score of 85, Price = £100k → VfM = 0.85
• Bid B: Quality score of 75, Price = £80k → VfM = 0.9375 Despite a lower quality score, Bid B delivers higher value for money due to its lower price.

Bid Strategy Tip: To win, you need to be near the lowest price. Consider stripping non-essential scope and focusing on lean delivery.

02. Weighted Value for Money (Curved or Normalised)

How it works: Like linear scoring, but with additional weightings for Quality & Price.

Pros: Reduces excessive advantage for lowest bids; encourages balance of quality and price. Cons: Harder to model accurately; can mask how far off you are in price.

Bid Strategy Tip: Aim to optimise both price and quality. High scores on quality can still win if your price is within 10–15% of the lowest (dependent on the weightings employed).

03. Relative Scoring

How it works: The lowest price gets full marks, but your score depends on how close you are to that specific bid—not a theoretical maximum.

Cons: Encourages reactive pricing based on speculation; creates volatility in price scoring between competitions; asymptotic behaviour.

Bid Strategy Tip: Monitor the framework / competition history. This method rewards knowing the price positioning of known competitors.

04. Willingness to Pay (WTP)

How it works: A sophisticated approach where the buyer assigns a theoretical value to your offer and scores price based on that perceived value.

Bid Strategy Tip: Invest in articulating benefits, outcomes, and ROI. WTP works in your favour if you can prove measurable value that justifies your price.

Summary: Tailoring Your Bid Strategy to MEAT

Failing to align your approach to the specific MEAT model in play can mean missing out—even with a strong bid. The commercial, solution, and narrative strategies must evolve depending on how value is being defined and scored.