MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender)

Most Economically Advantageous Tender, abbreviated as MEAT, is the dominant evaluation methodology in modern public procurement. Under MEAT, the contracting authority evaluates tenders against a combination of price and quality criteria, weighting each criterion according to its importance to the buyer. The tender with the highest combined weighted score wins. MEAT replaced the older approach of awarding contracts purely on lowest price, recognising that the cheapest bid is not always the best value when quality varies significantly across suppliers.

Most Economically Advantageous Tender, abbreviated as MEAT, is the dominant evaluation methodology in modern procurement">public procurement. Under MEAT, the contracting authority evaluates tenders against a combination of price and quality criteria, weighting each criterion according to its importance to the buyer. The tender with the highest combined weighted score wins. MEAT replaced the older approach of awarding contracts purely on lowest price, recognising that the cheapest bid is not always the best value when quality varies significantly across suppliers.

Why MEAT replaced lowest price evaluation

Lowest price evaluation, where the contract is awarded to the cheapest compliant bid, has obvious appeal in its simplicity. However, lowest price evaluation often produces poor outcomes when supplier quality differs significantly. A cheap supplier with weak quality may deliver poor service, miss deadlines, or fail to meet specifications, costing the buyer more in the long run than a slightly more expensive but reliable alternative.

MEAT evaluation addresses this problem by allowing the buyer to score quality alongside price. A high-quality supplier can win even with a higher price, provided their quality advantage outweighs their price disadvantage according to the published weighting. This shift in evaluation methodology has been one of the most important developments in modern public procurement, particularly in the European Union where the procurement directives now treat MEAT as the default evaluation approach.

Lowest price evaluation has not disappeared entirely. It remains appropriate for true commodity procurements where supplier differentiation is minimal and quality variation is small. Standard office supplies, fuel, basic equipment, and similar items can still reasonably be procured on lowest price. For everything more complex, MEAT is now the standard approach.

How MEAT evaluation is structured

A typical MEAT evaluation publishes detailed scoring criteria for both quality and price, with explicit weights showing how the criteria combine into the overall score. Quality criteria might include technical methodology, team qualifications, project management approach, risk mitigation, sustainability, and innovation. Each quality criterion has its own scoring rubric and weight within the overall quality score.

Price scoring under MEAT typically uses a formula that converts the lowest compliant price into the maximum price score, with higher prices receiving proportionally lower scores. Common formulas include the lowest-price-equals-maximum-points approach, where the lowest bid receives all available price points and other bids receive a percentage based on their relative price. Other formulas use logarithmic or proportional scoring depending on how the buyer wants to value price differences.

The combined MEAT score is calculated by multiplying each criterion's score by its weight and summing. For example, if quality is weighted at 60 percent and price at 40 percent, a tender with quality score 80 out of 100 and price score 60 out of 100 would have a MEAT score of 60 percent times 80 plus 40 percent times 60, equalling 72 out of 100. The tender with the highest MEAT score wins.

Strategic implications for suppliers

Suppliers responding to MEAT-evaluated tenders need to understand the published weighting before deciding their bid strategy. A 70 percent price weighting and 30 percent quality weighting calls for aggressive pricing because price differences will dominate the outcome. A 30 percent price weighting and 70 percent quality weighting calls for premium pricing combined with extensive technical proposal work because quality differences will dominate.

The most common bidding mistake in MEAT tenders is misjudging the weighting and submitting a balanced bid when the buyer wanted a price-led or quality-led offer. Suppliers who tailor their bids precisely to the published weighting consistently outperform competitors who use generic bid templates regardless of the evaluation methodology.

Sophisticated MEAT bidders also model their competitors' likely scoring before finalising their own bid. By estimating where competitors will score on quality and price, the bidder can decide whether to compete on price advantage, on quality advantage, or on a balanced approach. This strategic modelling is particularly valuable in mature MEAT markets where competitor behaviour is reasonably predictable.

Recent updates to EU procurement law have expanded the scope of MEAT evaluation to include sustainability, social value, and innovation criteria alongside traditional cost and quality factors. Buyers can now score environmental impact, contributions to local economic development, and other broader value dimensions as part of MEAT. Suppliers responding to modern MEAT tenders need to address these expanded criteria, not just traditional price and quality.

The United Kingdom Procurement Act 2023 and similar modernisation efforts in other jurisdictions have continued the trend towards more sophisticated MEAT evaluation. Suppliers in 2026 face MEAT evaluations that are richer, more nuanced, and more demanding than the simple price-quality combinations of a decade ago. Successful bidders invest in understanding evaluation trends and adapting their bid strategies accordingly.

Related terms

See Otnox plans to track procurement opportunities across 25 markets.