We're quite unusual in Adland and Brandland, because we genuinely do like the role procurement plays in agency selection and in an imperfect world, it’s about as level a playing field as you could hope for. But of course – there is always room for improvement. So this is the first in a series of posts making some suggestions about how it could be, well, even better.

“Of course we really care about accessibility” one national charity said to me recently, “it’s very important to us”.

Which was interesting. Partly because they had just reappointed an agency to a series of projects in which all the previous work they had created for the charity had huge accessibility issues. Partly because when this was pointed out to them, they claimed they had reviewed the work and were satisfied it met their standards (hence the quote).

But more, because they had given accessibility and the skills in delivering it - which was supposedly incredibly important to them – 10% of the total available marks on a tender. Price had been given 35% of the marks. So price was three and a half times more important to them than accessibility. Which tells a tale. And one that made them feel more than a little uncomfortable.

Now that may or not be the wrong ratio. Some people will think that mix is fair and that price is 3.5 times more important than making sure a quarter of the population can access your messaging. Others (“waves”) will argue that maybe that mix isn’t, ahem, quite right.

But I do think tenders needs to be honest with everyone about how much these issues really matter to the folk publishing them. Often questions about accessibility, social value, sustainability, diversity and more, require agencies to submit long and detailed responses in tenders to all these areas – presumably so social value boxes get ticked, managers can feel they are doing their bit and everyone can sleep at night.

But when the marks awarded are 5% or 10% of the total, what is the point in getting agencies to devote vast amounts of time and resource to answer questions you value so much less than price, agency experience or team resource. And why say it's important but then ignore whether the product delivered meets the standards you purport to care so much about?

Which is why I applaud the approach being taken to this issue by Bristol City Council The Council has announced a new approach to social value in procurement and I’d say it’s a sensible, balanced and practical one. There are a number of elements to the policy but stand out for me is:

·      Realistic: Bidders are only asked for Social Value which is realistic for that contract.

·      Simpler: Bidders complete a simple template which a Procurement Officer evaluates. The officer managing the contract monitors supplier delivery directly.

·      No fees: Suppliers no longer pay fees and evidence requirements are less onerous.

That seems to me be reasonable and responsible approach to social value. I wish more people would pursue it. They are not saying Social Value doesn’t matter – far from it. But they are making it easy for bidders to prove they meet some core standards the Council wishes to attain - a pass/fail level. And that seems fair.

If you absolutely care about issues like accessibility and diversity – and I hope you do – then by all means make agencies prove their worth. But then give those elements the value in the procurement process they deserve. If accessibility is ‘really important’ to you – give agencies with the right skills 35% of the marks available. And make price 10%

If on the other hand your key factors are price, team, or experience and that’s where all the marks for the process lie – don’t make agencies do a lot of tender work that has no bearing on how you'll decide on the right partner.

Let’s be honest with each other about what the key decision factors really are. The evaluation criteria and submission process should reflect the factors that will truly determine your choice of partner.