The construction sector has long been at the forefront of demonstrating how public sector procurement can deliver social value. The collective purchasing power of public sector construction frameworks is a powerful enabler for social value delivery — but it is not without its challenges.
We spoke with Alistair McCallum, founder of Framil, a construction-sector specialist supporting businesses to deliver public sector projects, manage frameworks, build relationships, and win new work. Our conversation explored social value and public sector procurement -what’s working well, and where there is still progress to be made.
The Role Social Value Should Play
The Social Value Act (2012), which came into force in 2013, was a landmark step in ensuring that public sector commissioners consider social, environmental, and economic benefits through their procurement activity. In simple terms, public sector procurement and government spending must achieve more than on-time and on-budget delivery- they must deliver wider value.
If one were to take a more cynical view, it is about ensuring that private businesses that profit from government spending are held to account in supporting the delivery of wider strategic priorities and in ensuring value for money for taxpayers.
Ultimately, project delivery, programme management, and risk management still dominate the agenda on public sector construction frameworks — and rightly so. However, for some time now, the delivery of social value has firmly formed part of that dialogue.
Despite this, there is often a disconnect between organisational social value strategies and commitments on the client side, and what is actually asked for during a procurement exercise. In some cases, there is little connection between the type of project being delivered, the outcomes it will achieve for a community, and how social value can realistically be delivered during the construction phase and beyond.
With the introduction of the updated Social Value Model, we may begin to see a shift -where commitments made at tender stage are more robustly held to account through project delivery.
How Frameworks Are Enabling the Delivery of Social Value
Frameworks are increasingly demonstrating what “good” looks like. They set out clear targets, KPIs, and expectations around employment, supply chain diversity, waste, and local economic benefit. They also align with the shift from MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) to MAT (Most Advantageous Tender), where social outcomes matter more than ever. In some cases, social value now accounts for up to 20% of the overall evaluation criteria.
However, challenges remain. The Procurement Act and the updated Social Value Model are relatively new, and client teams are still navigating how best to implement them to deliver meaningful community outcomes. While the updated model is far more prescriptive than its predecessor, there is limited guidance on the “how” -how to practically deliver against the social value missions and outcomes.
The increased focus on KPIs, measurement, and reporting undoubtedly places additional pressure on clients -particularly local authorities -who may lack the internal resource to collect, manage, and report this data. This raises an important question: where should the burden of delivery and reporting ultimately sit?
From Bid Candy to Actual Delivery
Social value questions at tender stage have become more specific and more demanding. The intent and commitment are usually there -the challenge lies in delivery.
Contractors may submit impressive plans, but without clarity, consistency, or effective monitoring from the client, those plans can quickly fall away. When measurement becomes a numbers game, the real community impact risks being diluted.
Collaboration should be key. Contractors often have the resources, expertise, and delivery capability to create meaningful social value. Perhaps bid-stage conversations should focus more on what is realistically possible and what would genuinely benefit the local community, rather than on headline numerical commitments that can become a proxy league table for comparing bidders.
Will the New Social Value Model Shift the Needle?
With the updated PPN and missions-based model now live, expectations from commissioners are set to rise. The new approach is more detailed and better aligned to wider policy outcomes. However, it also raises legitimate questions about whether clients have the capacity and resources to track delivery and implementation effectively.
There is a real risk that, in becoming more prescriptive, the system inadvertently makes social value harder -rather than easier -to deliver.
One of the biggest challenges for suppliers is translating the high-level missions of the updated Social Value Model into practical, deliverable actions. Bidders want to demonstrate ambition, but without client clarity or opportunities for pre-tender collaboration, commitments can become disconnected from local need.
Contractors bring expertise, resource, and a strong understanding of community impact. Clients bring local knowledge and priorities. Yet competitive tendering often limits early dialogue -resulting in targets set in isolation and social value that risks becoming little more than “bid candy”.
SME Opportunities and Barriers
If public procurement is to genuinely support vibrant local economies, SMEs must be part of the picture. However, there is a growing risk that the updated Social Value Model, while well intentioned, may inadvertently create barriers to SME participation. Many SMEs do not have in-house social value specialists or the capacity to meet increasingly complex reporting, monitoring, and data requirements -particularly when these expectations are designed with larger Tier 1 contractors in mind.
The updated National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS) -refreshed in February 2025 alongside the Procurement Act 2023 -reinforces social value as a core strategic priority for public procurement. As a statutory statement, public authorities are legally required to “have regard to” the NPPS when making procurement decisions, ensuring public spending supports national missions such as economic growth, social value delivery, and environmental goals including net zero.
Crucially, the NPPS explicitly encourages authorities to use procurement to create opportunities for SMEs, Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprises (VCSEs), and disadvantaged groups. A specific objective is to maximise procurement spend with SMEs and VCSEs, while setting clear expectations on suppliers to provide good jobs, fair pay, and opportunities for progression, and to adopt ethical and sustainable practices -including tackling modern slavery and eliminating late payments in supply chains.
The challenge now lies in ensuring that the practical application of social value requirements enables, rather than excludes, smaller suppliers — balancing ambition with proportionality so that SMEs can contribute meaningfully without being overwhelmed by compliance-driven processes.
So, What Does a Strong Social Value Response Look Like?
According to Framil, the most effective social value responses demonstrate a clear understanding of a client’s priorities and set out realistic, deliverable commitments across the life of a project.
A strong response also shows a proven track record of delivery through clearly defined programmes and partnerships. Above all, social value must be authentic — not only in the bidding process, but in delivering meaningful and lasting impact for local communities.
Conclusion
Social value has moved well beyond a “nice to have” in public sector procurement -it is now firmly embedded in policy, frameworks, and evaluation models. The opportunity is significant: public sector construction has the scale, influence, and reach to deliver meaningful, long-term benefits for communities. But real impact will only be achieved if social value commitments move from bid-stage ambition to practical, accountable delivery on the ground.
The updated Social Value Model, Procurement Act, and NPPS set a clear direction of travel. However, success will depend on how these tools are applied in practice — with proportionality, collaboration, and a shared understanding of local need. Strong social value outcomes are most likely when clients and suppliers work together early, set realistic and relevant commitments, and focus on impact rather than compliance.
