Most Economically Advantageous TenderEdit
Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) is a procurement principle used by many public authorities to determine bids on the basis of overall value, not simply the lowest upfront price. By embedding price within a framework of quality, performance, delivery, and risk considerations, MEAT aims to secure goods and services that deliver long-term value for taxpayers. In practice, contracting authorities document the evaluation criteria in advance, weigh them according to importance, and apply them consistently across all bids. This approach is widely used in Public procurement systems around the world, including the Public procurement in the European Union framework, and is central to how governments buy everything from roadworks to IT systems and healthcare services. Most Economically Advantageous Tender is the term most procurement professionals use for this concept.
From a design perspective, MEAT recognizes that the cheapest bid today can yield higher costs tomorrow if it underperforms, fails to meet standards, or requires expensive maintenance. Therefore, price is an important factor, but it sits alongside attributes such as Quality, Life-cycle cost, Reliability, and After-sales service. The method encourages competition not merely on price but on the whole package of value a supplier can bring, including timely delivery, technical merit, and the supplier’s ability to sustain performance over the contract life. In many systems, a clearly defined scoring rubric converts these elements into a transparent numeric outcome, making the results auditable and less prone to favoritism. See how this plays out in practice within Contracting and Evaluation criteria.
What MEAT Evaluates
MEAT covers a broad spectrum of factors that contribute to value. Typical criteria include: - Price and affordability, understood in the context of Life-cycle cost and long-term expenditure. - Technical merit or the functional capability of the proposed solution. - Delivery reliability, lead times, and logistics planning. - Quality standards, conformity with specifications, and consistency of performance. - Risk management, including supplier stability and supply-chain resilience. - Sustainability and environmental impact, as well as social and economic considerations when appropriate. - After-sales support, maintenance requirements, and the ability to adapt to changing needs over time.
Procurement documents often present these criteria with explicit definitions, benchmarks, and a scoring scheme so bidders know how they will be evaluated. When criteria are well specified, the process tends to reward firms that deliver durable, cost-effective results rather than those that offer only the lowest bid. For further context, see Evaluation criteria and Life-cycle cost.
Process and Governance
Implementing MEAT typically follows a structured process: pre-qualification of bidders, publication of the tender with stated criteria, submission of bids, evaluation by a panel, an award decision, and post-award contract management. Procedural transparency is essential: the scoring rules should be public, the rationale behind decisions should be documented, and there should be avenues for challenge or appeal if the process appears biased. The emphasis on objective, verifiable criteria helps guard against cronyism and makes the best value outcome more predictable for taxpayers. See also Public procurement governance mechanisms and Transparency (governance).
In practice, MEAT can incentivize competition among suppliers who might not compete solely on price. When firms know that quality, durability, and ongoing support are rewarded, they invest in better performance, warranties, and service networks. This is aligned with market incentives that favor efficiency and accountability in the delivery of public services. For readers seeking related discussions, see Competition and Market economy.
Controversies and Debate
MEAT is not without debate. Critics argue that the definition of “most economically advantageous” can become subjective if the scoring rubrics are vague, poorly calibrated, or vulnerable to manipulation. Proponents respond that well-designed criteria, independent evaluators, and clear documentation mitigate these risks, while still enabling a more valuable outcome than price alone. See discussions around Evaluation criteria and Transparency (governance).
A point of contention in some debates is the extent to which social or environmental criteria should figure into MEAT. Critics from those who favor a pure market efficiency approach contend that shifting emphasis toward broad social goals can distort price-performance signals, complicate evaluation, and deter competition. Advocates counter that judicious, evidence-based inclusion of sustainability, local economic impact, or supplier diversity can align procurement with broader policy aims without sacrificing value. In this light, defenders of the approach stress that social criteria should be transparent, proportionate, and demonstrably linked to contract performance. See discussions referencing Sustainable procurement and Diversity (in business).
From a broader political economy perspective, MEAT embodies a stance that prioritizes value, accountability, and risk management in public spending. It tends to favor firms that demonstrate efficiency, consistency, and predictable outcomes, while avoiding overreliance on short-term price advantages. Critics who push for more expansive social or political criteria may label this stance as insufficiently inclusive; defenders respond that a disciplined focus on performance and life-cycle value is the most reliable way to avoid waste and deliver public services reliably. As with many policy tools, the balance between efficiency, fairness, and broader social goals remains a live subject of policy refinement. See Public procurement, Criminal corruption (for risks of procurement abuse), and Industrial policy for related tensions.