There's a story I sometimes hear from buyers. A tender goes out, suppliers compete, the lowest price wins. Everyone is happy because they have saved money upfront. But a few months later, the problems start to show. Products wear out faster than expected, staff issues arise with comfort or fit, stock becomes messy and hard to control, and ultimately additional costs starting to creep back in through the side door.
The reason this happens is so simple. Value for money is not the cheapest price on the day the tender is awarded, it's the total cost of using that product over time (we like to call it the lifetime cost, 'or cost in use'). This includes product lifespan, performance, wastage, and management. Surprise surprise, when seen in this way, the cheapest option is never the most cost effective.
In order to drive real value, you need a supplier that will review PPE usage, rationalise, standardise, and examine where improvements and changes can be made to existing ranges, not race to the bottom in order to secure the contract. That will not deliver the best value in the long term. True value comes from the long-term savings and improvements that are the result of the whole sphere of support that your supply chain partner provides, not just the price of the products.
One of the biggest shifts in procurement and tenders in recent years is the change in focus from MEAT to MAT. For those of you not familiar with these acronyms, here's the breakdown:
MEAT stands for “Most Economically Advantageous Tender”. It focused mainly on economic value. This had good intentions, but ultimate in practice it often translated to price, or 'what's the cheapest option?'.
MAT stands for “Most Advantageous Tender”. This has been a big improvement in tenders, as it examines overall value, including quality, sustainability, service, and long‑term impact.
This shift has encouraged buyers to consider product lifespan, waste reduction, social value, and the additional support a supplier provides. Even though this applies mainly to public sector contracts, many large private organisations follow the same approach because it leads to better outcomes ... great news!
One of the most important parts of creating a tender, but often the hardest part to judge.
A common challenge is working out whether the products being offered are genuinely suitable or simply the cheapest options that meet the wording of the specification. For example, if the tender asks for a “blue shirt”, some suppliers will offer the cheapest blue shirt they can find. It might technically meet the requirement, but it may not perform well, last long, or keep people comfortable.
In other words it breeds the wrong mentality and habits.
This is why clarity matters, because the more specific you are about what you need, the easier it becomes to compare suppliers fairly. Good suppliers will ask questions, challenge vague descriptions, and explain the differences between products. That is usually a sign they are thinking about long‑term performance, not just scoring points on a tender.
Tenders often reduce everything to a number on a spreadsheet. When that happens, important details can get lost. Durability, comfort, waste reduction, delivery performance, and ongoing support all have a major impact on long‑term value, but they are not always easy to capture in a simple price comparison.
This is why many organisations now treat tenders as one part of a wider decision‑making process rather than the only method. A tender can be useful, but it should not replace conversations, product trials, or a clear understanding of how items will be used in real life.
When buyers combine structured tendering with open discussion and practical insight, the results are almost always stronger.
Tenders can work very well when they are written with the right goals in mind. They help buyers compare suppliers fairly and create a structured way to make decisions. But when tenders focus too heavily on price or overlook the details that matter, they can limit innovation and hide long‑term costs.
The most successful tenders are the ones that allow space for clarity and understanding. When buyers and suppliers can talk openly about needs, challenges, and long‑term goals, the outcomes improve dramatically.
Tenders have their place. The key is making sure they support the outcome you want, not just the process you follow.
To sum up, here's a top five things to consider when creating a tender.
Most teams inherit product lists that have been around for years. Taking a moment to look at what isn’t working such as comfort, durability, or stock issues, makes the whole tender more meaningful. It’s not about rewriting everything, it’s about the chance to fix the issues you deal with every day.
The lowest price rarely tells the full story. A product that lasts longer, fits better, or reduces waste supports both your budget and your team. Think in terms of lifespan and performance to make decisions that work in the real world, not just on a spreadsheet.
A good supplier does more than supply, they should help you keep stock under control, respond quickly when something isn’t right, and support wearers. When their service is strong, your team feels it with less frustration, fewer delays, and no surprises.
Instead of going with the same tender structure, make a small change that will make a big difference to comfort, safety, or waste. This allows suppliers to suggest alternatives and open the door to improvements you might not have known existed.
Ah, the ultimate question, and a tough one. But it's worth considering another stage or two before the tender, which gives suppliers the chance to prove there is more to their partnership offering. A full product review for instance can give suppliers the chance to show you where they can make big improvements such as cost-cutting and safety enhancements.
Of course tenders haven’t had their day, they are still a very important way for complex organisations to make a very considered and objective decisions. But they also work best when they reflect how your teams actually use the kit and how your organisation judges and calculates value. When you focus on real‑world value instead of headline price, the outcomes improve for everyone.
