What began as a subtle shift toward promoting equality has transformed into an overwhelming bureaucratic process. This change has reshaped how public bodies evaluate and award contracts, making efficiency and transparency harder to achieve.
The Shift from Cost to Social Value
Until 2012, public contracts for vital services—such as medical equipment for the NHS or vehicles for local police—were decided based on price and the ability to deliver. The Local Government Act of 1988 even explicitly forbade public bodies from factoring in non-commercial elements. But with the 2012 Public Services (Social Value) Act, everything changed. Public authorities were now required to account for broader considerations, including how spending decisions might influence economic, social, and environmental well-being.
The intention behind this shift was to ensure public funds not only delivered goods and services but also contributed to societal betterment. However, by 2020, this had evolved into a more entrenched practice. All central government spending had to include a formal 'social good' assessment, with companies bidding for contracts being scored on their ability to meet goals like diversity, sustainability, and tackling modern slavery.
The Cost of Compliance
In 2022, the Conservatives further expanded these requirements. Bids were now judged not just by their value for money but by how well they aligned with a range of policy priorities. This meant contractors had to compile extensive data to show how their services addressed issues like domestic violence or climate change. The result? A massive spike in administrative work, including hiring consultants and forming committees to assess proposals.
This has created a stark divide between large corporations and smaller businesses. Small firms, which often lack the resources to handle such complex requirements, are effectively shut out. The system disproportionately benefits larger companies with the means to navigate this bureaucratic maze. Meanwhile, infrastructure projects, already notorious for delays and budget overruns, now take even longer and cost even more due to the additional hurdles.
Recent efforts suggest a potential shift in focus, with new priorities like job creation and skills training being introduced. On the surface, this appears like an improvement. In reality, the fundamental problem remains. The process is still convoluted, and companies must now prove their 'social value' in new and unpredictable ways.
Despite promises of reform, governments continue to tweak the system to align with new agendas. The same burdens remain, just repackaged with updated labels. Instead of making procurement simpler and more efficient, the focus stays on compliance, favoring those with the power to afford it. The system remains a costly, inefficient, and confusing mess.