By Christopher Jones, Advocacy Officer
The think tank Re:State has recently published Procure and Simple, a report examining the current procurement landscape and proposing 22 recommendations aimed at modernisation, innovation, and increased commercial effectiveness within government contracting. The report focuses on simplifying processes, encouraging new forms of procurement, and reshaping the supplier market with an emphasis on startups and scaleups. At The Institute for Social Value (ISV), we welcome open debate on improving public procurement. A review of procurement practice is timely, particularly as government departments work to implement the Procurement Act 2024, update their commercial capability, and embed place-based, outcomes-focused approaches. There is broad agreement across our membership that procurement processes can be streamlined and made more accessible, and that a gap remains between policy ambition and practical delivery. However, following detailed review across ISV’s working groups, we have significant concerns about the treatment of social value within the report, and the potential implications of several recommendations if adopted without appropriate safeguards or expert consultation.
Protecting the Integrity of Social Value
A core concern is that some recommendations appear to conflate social value with general economic activity. Social value is not simply “economic growth by another name.” It is a broader, outcomes-driven commitment to ensuring public contracts deliver tangible benefits for people and places.
Our position is clear:
- Social value must remain a meaningful, mandatory component of
procurement. - Any reform should strengthen—not dilute—outcome-based social value
commitments. - Proposals such as automatic scoring for certain supplier types risk
undermining fairness and genuine delivery. - Value for Money assessments must continue to reflect Most Advantageous
Tender principles, not simply lowest cost or short-term outputs. -
Social value outcomes often take time to develop. Where the report proposes new
break clauses, performance frameworks, or post-contract reviews, these must
explicitly include social value and avoid favouring short-term, financially driven
metrics.
Ensuring Social Value Expertise Shapes Reforms
Many of the misconceptions around social value that feature in the report can be traced to the apparent absence of sufficient consultation with social value practitioners and organisations within the research process. Procurement reform must be informed by those with first-hand expertise in designing, delivering, and monitoring social value outcomes.
ISV stands ready to support government and industry partners by:
- defining what good social value delivery looks like;
- contributing to standards, quality marks, or capability frameworks;
- advising on proportionate, outcome-based evaluation criteria;
- ensuring reforms remain coherent with the Social Value Model and wider
government missions.
Any next steps stemming from the report must include proper engagement with the social value community.
Championing an Inclusive, Diverse Supplier Base
We recognise the intent behind improving access for startups and scaleups, and agree that innovation is a critical driver of public sector improvement. However, shifting procurement focus exclusively toward these groups risks excluding VCSEs, SMEs, and mission-led enterprises who have long been central to delivering social value in communities.
We do not support proposals that:
- replace SME/VCSE priorities with a startup-centric approach;
- define social value through narrow economic or technological criteria;
- marginalise organisations whose primary purpose is community or social
impact.
Government procurement thrives on diversity. A balanced supplier ecosystem, including VCSEs, SMEs, MSMEs, social enterprises, and new innovators, is essential for achieving social value outcomes that matter.
Innovation and “Smart Awards”
We also welcome the intention to make procurement more innovative and responsive and recognise the potential of ‘Smart awards’ to reduce barriers to entry and encourage new suppliers. However, this will only be beneficial if implemented with safeguards that protect social value.
Any innovation mechanism must:
- maintain transparency and competition;
- include social value requirements from the outset;
- avoid creating short-term or high-risk conditions that disadvantage smaller or
- mission-driven organisations;
- ensure social value outcomes are measured fairly over appropriate
timescales.
Proportionality and Accessibility
ISV supports proposals that:
- streamline tender documents;
- remove unnecessary administrative barriers;
- allow suppliers without extensive public sector experience to compete.
These are positive steps toward opening the market, provided they do not compromise standards or social value expectations. Where requirements such as prior experience are removed, clear and consistent criteria for demonstrating capability, including social value capability, must remain in place.
Governance, Accountability, and Performance Management
ISV supports enhanced accountability, including stronger SRO responsibilities, core KPI frameworks, and structured post-contract reviews. These measures can improve delivery and drive better outcomes, if social value is embedded within them.
We emphasise the need for:
- balanced KPIs that measure social as well as financial outcomes;
- independent oversight to avoid conflicts of interest;
- transparency that supports market confidence rather than deters participation.
Performance data should highlight good practice as well as areas for improvement, supporting sector-wide learning.
Contract Length, Red Lines, and Procurement Architecture
Several recommendations propose strict limits on contract length or size. While well intentioned, such red lines are impractical for many sectors, particularly infrastructure, complex services, and any contract where impact (including social value impact) requires long-term investment.
Overly restrictive contract architecture could:
- undermine stability in key markets;
- prevent the meaningful measurement of social value outcomes;
- increase, rather than reduce, procurement burdens.
Reforms in this area must be evidence-based and sensitive to sectoral differences.
Closing Thoughts
The ‘Procure and Simple’ report raises valuable questions and includes several constructive ideas that could help modernise procurement. But substantial changes are needed to ensure that social value is preserved, understood, and strengthened, rather than diluted or misplaced. At ISV, our message is simple: Social value is not an add-on. It is central to public procurement and essential to ensuring that public money creates long-term, meaningful benefit for communities across the UK.
We welcome continued dialogue with Re:State, government departments, suppliers, and the wider social value community. Together, we can ensure that the next phase of procurement reform delivers innovation and impact, without compromising the principles that matter most.
