The PA23 Headache: Why You're Not Paranoid, You're Just Awake

If you're a procurement officer in the public sector right now, you're probably having a fairly consistent thought pattern that goes something like this: "How on earth am I supposed to document every single decision in a way that'll survive challenges under the Procurement Act 2023?"

You're not alone. And you're not being dramatic.

The truth is, PA23's golden thread requirement (running from your preliminary market engagement notice in Section 12, through your tender notice in Section 19, to your standstill explanations in Section 50) has created a documentation standard that traditional procurement methods simply weren't designed to meet. It's a bit like being asked to explain exactly how you solved a complex equation when your methodology was essentially "I stared at it until the answer felt right."

The Problem Nobody's Really Talking About

Here's what actually happens in most procurement evaluations. You've got your weighted scoring matrix: 30% for technical quality, 20% for relevant experience, 15% for approach to risk, and so on. A panel reads through the submissions, discusses them over several meetings, assigns scores based on collective professional judgement, and selects a winner.

Then an unsuccessful bidder challenges you under Section 50, asking: "Why exactly did we score 6/10 on technical quality whilst the winner scored 8/10? What specific, factual difference justified that two-point gap?"

And that's when you realise your evaluation notes say things like "strong response" and "demonstrated good understanding" and "panel felt approach was comprehensive." Which is to say, you've got nothing that would survive proper scrutiny.

The regulations now require you to explain, transparently and verifiably, why the winning tender was more advantageous than others. Not just "better" in some vague sense. More advantageous across the specific dimensions you published in Section 19. With evidence. With calculations. With an audit trail that doesn't evaporate under questioning.

Why Traditional Scoring Doesn't Cut It Anymore

The weighted scoring approach we've all been using for years has a fundamental flaw: it treats completely different types of value as if they're directly comparable. How do you mathematically compare "strong technical methodology" against "excellent social value outcomes" against "robust fraud prevention procedures"? The answer has always been: you don't really, you just assign numbers and hope nobody asks awkward questions.

PA23 has made everyone start asking awkward questions.

And it's not just about defending against challenges (though that's certainly keeping legal teams awake at night). It's about genuinely meeting the obligation to select the tender that delivers the most advantage to your authority and the public. If you can't systematically compare different types of value, how do you really know you've made the right choice?

The Extended Monetisation Trade-Off: A Different Approach

This is where Black Pear Advisory's methodology differs from traditional evaluation approaches. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores and hoping they'll stand up to scrutiny, Extended Monetisation Trade-Off (EMTO) does something more fundamental. It translates all sources of value into a common measurement framework.

Before you switch off thinking "oh great, another consultant promising to monetise everything," hear this out. EMTO doesn't claim you can put a price on literally everything. What it does is create a systematic framework for comparing unlike things in a way that's both defensible and genuinely useful for decision-making.

Here's how it works in practice. For elements that have clear financial implications (whole-life costs, productivity improvements, efficiency gains), you monetise directly. For social value outcomes, you use established frameworks like National TOMs to translate benefits into monetary equivalents. For environmental considerations, you apply recognised carbon pricing.

But (and this is crucial) for things that genuinely can't be monetised (certain quality dimensions, capability risks, fraud prevention robustness), EMTO uses risk-adjusted impact assessment grounded in your empirical data. So rather than saying "Bidder A gets 7/10 for capability," you're saying "Based on organisations with similar evidence profiles, there's a 15% probability of cost overrun, representing £X expected value at risk."

Automated Procedural Analysis: The Missing Piece

Now, you might be wondering how on earth you're supposed to actually do all this whilst maintaining any semblance of reasonable timescales. Fair question. This is where many people jump straight to "Artificial Intelligence" as if we're going to hand over procurement decisions to some sentient digital entity that'll magically sort everything out.

That's not what's needed, and frankly, it's not what you want either.

What Black Pear Advisory employs is something rather different: Automated Procedural Analysis (APA). The distinction matters enormously. APA doesn't pretend to make decisions or exercise judgement. What it does is automate the forensic verification of mass data sets according to clearly defined procedures and criteria.

Think about what currently happens when you receive tender submissions. Someone (probably you) needs to extract relevant evidence from potentially hundreds of pages across multiple bids, verify claims against external databases and frameworks, calculate risk probabilities from historical patterns, cross-reference commitments against published standards, and document every single finding. It's mind-numbing work that takes days or weeks, and it's precisely the sort of systematic, rules-based analysis that humans are actually rather poor at doing consistently.

APA handles that forensic grunt work. It extracts evidence systematically, applies your published criteria consistently, performs calculations according to defined methodologies, and generates complete documentation automatically. The important bit is this: it liberates the human "Controlling Mind" (that's you) to perform the true function of procurement.

And what is that true function? It's not drowning in spreadsheets or second-guessing whether you've extracted every relevant piece of information from page 47 of Bidder C's technical response. It's the negotiation and settlement of expectations between parties. It's understanding what your authority actually needs, what the market can realistically deliver, and how to structure arrangements that genuinely serve the public interest. It's applying contextual judgement, managing relationships, and taking accountability for outcomes.

Those are inherently human activities that require experience, wisdom, and professional judgement. They're also the bits of procurement that most officers actually enjoy and find professionally rewarding. APA doesn't replace that. It makes it possible by removing the cognitive overload of trying to process complexity that exceeds human capability.

What This Actually Means for You

Using EMTO supported by APA doesn't just help you comply with PA23's transparency requirements (though it absolutely does that). It changes the quality of your decision-making and the quality of your working life. You're no longer trying to hold seven different value dimensions in your head simultaneously whilst pretending you can compare them directly. Instead, you're working with a systematic framework that:

• Documents every assumption and calculation from source evidence through to final recommendation

• Creates the complete audit trail that Section 50 requires

• Lets you genuinely compare different types of advantage in a defensible way

• Produces evaluation reports that could be published without embarrassment

• Frees you to focus on the strategic and relational aspects where you actually add value

That last point matters more than you might think. If your evaluation methodology couldn't be published without causing problems, it probably doesn't meet PA23's transparency standards. And if you're spending 80% of your time on data extraction and verification rather than actual procurement strategy, something's gone rather wrong.

Why This Matters Now

Look, we're still in relatively early days of PA23 enforcement. Many authorities are continuing with traditional approaches and hoping for the best. But the first few legal challenges that properly test the Section 12-19-50 golden thread are coming, and they're going to set precedents.

The authorities who've already moved to systematic, evidence-based methodologies like EMTO (supported by APA) will be fine. They'll produce their documentation, demonstrate how every decision traces back to published criteria and factual evidence, and move on. The authorities that continue to rely on "panel consensus" and weighted scoring matrices... well, they're about to discover what "transparency" really means when you're explaining your decisions to a judge.

Black Pear Advisory specialises in strategic coaching of authorities towards and through transition to PA23-compliant evaluation methodologies. Not by adding more bureaucracy to your existing process (you've got quite enough of that, thanks), but by fundamentally redesigning how you assess and compare value in a way that meets both your legal obligations and your practical need to make good decisions under pressure.

Because at the end of the day, PA23 isn't just about compliance. It's about being able to stand behind your procurement decisions with confidence, knowing you've got the evidence to prove your business chose the option that delivered the most genuine advantage. And that's rather a good place to be.

Want to know more?

For more information on the challenges faced by contracting authorities in writing, evaluating, and awarding major procurements under PA23 to the MAT request my paper The Cognitive Deficit in Public Procurement: Bridging the Gap Between System Complexity and Human Capability. In this paper I explore the potential adoption of Extended Monetised Trade-Off evaluation techniques as a means of effective selection of the MAT for project success and creating defendable tender awards under PA23.

mail to: martin@blackpearadvisory.com