Social Value: Turning Commitments into Quantifiable Wins
Converting qualitative social value commitments into quantified, named, evidenced statements that score 5/5. Five-element pattern with TOMs mapping.
Image: Volunteers planting - CC BY
Quantified commitments. The discipline that converts a social value commitment from a paragraph into a scored line. This blog walks through the five-element pattern, the TOMs mapping, and the verification trail that produces 5/5 scores across the procurements in our 200+ submission register.
For service-level scope, see our social value bid writing service. This blog sits within our local authority tenders hub, which maps the standard scoring weightings across upper-tier councils, unitary authorities and combined authorities.
The procurement journey context matters. Social value is locked at ITT submission; the standstill (Alcatel) period under Procurement Act 2023 Schedule 5 Light Touch Regime preserves the award challenge route; the award letter cites the social value score line by line. Drafting that lands quantified, evidenced commitments builds the scoring buffer that withstands challenge.
What does quantifiable mean in social value?
A number with units, attached to a verb, a timeframe, a partner and an evidence trail. Not "we will employ locally". A measurable target the buyer can monitor and the provider can deliver.
The instruction set for quantified social value sits across three documents: the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, the Procurement Act 2023, and the Social Value Model published under PPN 06/20. NHS bids add PPN 06/21 Net Zero on top.
The Equality Act 2010 Section 149 (the Public Sector Equality Duty) also bites here, because most social value scoring rubrics now include a protected-characteristics dimension that the moderator reads against the PSED. Commitments that ignore the PSED dimension cap at middle band; commitments that name the protected characteristic group, the partnership and the verifiable outcome score top band.
The five-element pattern
Every social value commitment in a top-band response carries five elements.
- Verb. "We commit to."
- Quantified target. A number with units. Hours. Percentage. Days. Tonnes.
- Timeframe. "By Year 2." "Within the contract life." "Per annum."
- Named delivery partner. "Via the West Northants Council Skills Hub."
- Evidence of prior delivery. "Evidence: X delivered on Y contract in Year Z."
Five elements per commitment. Five sentences. The drafting time is non-trivial; the marks are.
The pattern is the 5W parenthetical specificity rule applied to the social value register. Who: named partner. What: quantified deliverable. Where: named geography. When: named timeframe. Why: named statutory or rubric anchor. Closing the loop on all five lifts the response from "we intend" to "we commit and we have done before".
Anonymised East Midlands application
An anonymised provider in our portfolio bid for a Mental Health and Physical Activity Community Support Service framework in the East Midlands in 2026. The social value section scored 5/5 across all four pillars. Full breakdown in West Northants Mental Health Win of the Month.
Sample commitment from the response:
"We commit to 1,800 hours of local employment across the contract life, with 4 apprenticeship starts in Years 1 and 2, recruited via the local Council Skills Hub. Evidence: 2,400 hours delivered against a 1,200-hour commitment on our anonymised East of England supported living contract in 2024."
Five elements. One commitment. Top band. The evaluator's anonymised feedback cited "quantified targets in each scored theme and named delivery partners" as the differentiator that moderated the score from 92% raw to 98.86%.
Anonymised Southend application
A children's residential provider in our portfolio bid for an Essex unitary authority Children's Residential Framework. Social value carried 18% of total weighting. Top-band score across all four pillars. The driver: a named care leaver recruitment commitment, a named local supply chain commitment, a named environmental partner and a named young person employability commitment.
Sample commitment:
"We commit to 6 supported internships per year for care leavers aged 18-25 referred by the council's leaving care service, with named mentor pairing and 50 mentoring hours per intern. Evidence: 4 care leaver hires in 2024 across our domiciliary care portfolio, 75% retention at 12 months."
The Care Leaver Covenant is the named national infrastructure that supports this commitment; signing the Covenant is the floor; committing measurable internships with named mentor hours is the top band. Corporate parenting principles under Children and Social Work Act 2017 Section 1 bind the council, so demonstrating that the provider has internalised those principles in recruitment practice differentiates the response.
The TOMs mapping
The Themes, Outcomes and Measures framework is the most widely adopted social value reporting standard. Most council scoring rubrics either reference TOMs codes directly or accept TOMs-mapped commitments without translation.
We map every quantified commitment to a TOMs code. Buyer can score directly against the rubric. Buyer does not have to translate. The mapping table is part of the deliverable on our social value service.
The TOMs framework has 5 themes (Jobs, Growth, Social, Environmental, Innovation), 19 outcomes and 76 measures. We deploy 8-12 targeted measures per response, selected against the buyer's rubric and the provider's verifiable delivery capacity. The Birmingham and Greater Manchester combined authority frameworks operate variant TOMs registers; we adapt the mapping to the local variant.
The verification trail
Every commitment carries an audit trail. The buyer can request evidence of any cited prior delivery within 5 working days of the request. The audit trail is part of the evidence library we maintain during the engagement.
Three elements per audit entry.
- Named contract or programme delivered against.
- Named outcome with date and quantum.
- Named source document (payroll record, partner sign-off, audited financial report).
Top-band scores require defensible audit trails. The buyer does not ask for them on every bid; the buyer asks for them on the bids that score top band, because the score itself is a flag. The Radar Healthcare governance suite configured with TOMs reporting as a quarterly dashboard generates the verification trail in the standard format the commissioner expects post-award.
The Director monthly P&L review signs off the social value commitments before submission. The bid manager does not promise what the Director will not sign off; over-commitment in the bid translates to under-delivery in year two, which prejudices the next bid.
The Quality Gate audit checklist
The Quality Gate audit on a social value section runs across six checkpoints. First, named verb plus quantified target plus units on every commitment. Second, named timeframe (Year 1, Year 2, contract life, per annum). Third, named delivery partner per commitment. Fourth, named evidence of prior delivery with named contract, named year and named quantum. Fifth, named TOMs code mapping per commitment. Sixth, named Director sign-off on operating-margin feasibility.
The Forensic Pause catches any commitment that the Director will not sign off and any prior delivery claim that lacks the named evidence trail. The 5W parenthetical specificity rule binds every commitment. The Director monthly review prices the social value commitments against operating margin; over-commitment in the bid translates to under-delivery in year two.
The Nominated Individual fortnightly review tests the social value report cadence against the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 Section 149. The Radar Healthcare governance suite or equivalent generates the quarterly TOMs report that becomes the next-bid evidence library.
Why this approach scores
Three structural drivers.
First, the evaluator can score directly against the rubric without translation. Evaluator psychology rewards the response that does the work for them.
Second, the commitment is realistic and evidenced, which signals delivery confidence. The Forensic Pause we run pre-submission caps any commitment that the operational team cannot defend.
Third, the TOMs mapping carries through to contract-life reporting without re-engineering. The social value report becomes the evidence library for the next bid; the discipline compounds.
Evaluator psychology and procurement journey context
Social value scoring is set at ITT submission and verified through the Section 50 assessment summary under the Procurement Act 2023. The standstill (Alcatel) window preserves the challenge route on contested social value lines; suppliers with weaker quantified evidence routinely test the scoring boundary because the TOMs framework codes provide a verifiable rubric reference.
Evaluator psychology splits across two reader roles. The lead quality evaluator scores the technical lines and reads the social value commitment as the integrating thread. The procurement-policy moderator scores the social value line against the TOMs reference by reflex. Drafting that closes the loop between the technical narrative and the social value commitment scores both readers; drafting that treats social value as a separate appendix caps the integration multiplier.
Sector dynamics are tightening. PPN 06/20 has consolidated as the default social value scoring frame; PPN 06/21 has added Carbon Reduction Plans for NHS contracts above £5 million; the Procurement Act 2023 Schedule 5 Light Touch Regime preserves both. Providers who report TOMs-mapped social value quarterly via the Radar Healthcare governance suite or equivalent compound the evidence library across procurement cycles.
Frequently asked questions
Is TOMs mandatory?
No. It is the most widely adopted framework. Most councils accept TOMs-mapped commitments; some councils use their own bespoke frameworks (Bristol Pound Score, Greater Manchester Social Value Framework). We adapt to the buyer's chosen framework. Where the buyer publishes no preferred framework, TOMs is the default; the Social Value Portal updates the measures register annually.
What if our company has limited social value delivery to evidence?
Commit to Year 1 delivery with a named partner. Evidence the partner's prior delivery. First-time bidders score commitment plus delivery plan equivalently for the prior delivery requirement. The named partner is typically the local Skills Hub, the local FE college, a national apprenticeship trainer on the Apprenticeship Provider and Assessment Register, or a named VCSE delivery partner.
How do you set the right ceiling on commitments?
We model against operating margin. Over-commitment loses marks on credibility and costs money post-award. Under-commitment loses marks on weighting. The right ceiling is realistic, defensible and aligned to prior delivery patterns. The Director sign-off rule is the operational backstop.
Does the pattern apply to NHS social value?
Yes, with an extra Net Zero layer under PPN 06/21. See our NHS tenders hub. NHS England's Net Zero Supplier Roadmap binds Carbon Reduction Plans on contracts above £5 million from 1 April 2024 and signals tightening expectations below the threshold; the Scope 1, 2 and 3 disclosure structure is now standard on quality scoring.
Speak to Derrick Mwesigwa, Head of Bid Operations. We respond within 4 working hours. Email [email protected] or call 01707 240393. TenderLab Ltd, Companies House 17184263. 92% win rate across 200+ submissions. Book a free 30-minute consultation via our bid writing service.