What Does “Value for Money” Really Mean in Education Procurement?

Every school wants value for money. With budgets under pressure, getting as much as possible from every pound is an understandable priority.

When schools are reviewing catering, cleaning or facilities management contracts, it can be tempting to begin with the cheapest. But the cheapest quote does not always offer the best value.

A lower price may come with reduced staffing, cheaper products, additional charges or a service that requires more management from the school. A slightly higher price, on the other hand, may offer better quality and reliability.

That’s why good educational procurement means looking beyond the initial figure and asking:

What is the school actually getting for its money?

Why the lowest price isn’t always the best value

There is nothing wrong with wanting to reduce procurement costs. Finding ways to save means the school can reinvest elsewhere. The problem comes when getting the lowest price becomes the main measure of success.

If a bid is significantly cheaper than the alternatives, schools need to understand why. Has the supplier found a more efficient way to deliver the service? Or have staffing hours been reduced? Are cheaper products being used? 

Comparing suppliers on a like-for-like basis helps schools understand differences in quality, service, compliance and delivery before making a decision.

Quality needs to be a part of the calculation

The right measure of value depends on what the contract needs to deliver. 

Take catering, for example: the cost per meal is important, but so are food quality, nutritional compliance, portion sizes, menu variety, service standards and whether pupils actually want to eat what is being served.

A cheaper contract is less attractive if pupils dislike the food and fewer meals are being purchased. 

The same applies to cleaning. Lower expenditure may come at the cost of fewer hours or resources. And if standards fall, staff may find themselves reporting recurring problems and pupils may be spending their day in a poorer environment.

Ultimately, the aim should be a fair price for a service that meets the standard the school needs.

Staff time has a cost too

One of the most overlooked costs associated with a poor contract never appear on an invoice: staff time. 

If a supplier underperforms, someone within the school has to deal with it. Business managers may spend time challenging invoices or unexpected charges. Site teams may repeatedly report maintenance issues. Leadership teams may have to escalate complaints or monitor a supplier more closely because agreed standards are not being maintained.

Across several contracts and an entire academic year, that workload can add up. Reducing the amount of time staff spend managing procurement and supplier issues is an essential part of the value equation because they already have enough competing for their attention.

Compliance cannot be treated as an optional extra 

Every service comes with its own responsibilities. Catering involves areas such as food safety, allergens and nutritional standards. Cleaning contracts need appropriate safeguarding, training and health and safety processes. Facilities management can involve a wide range of statutory checks, servicing requirements and responsibilities across the school estate.

These requirements should form part of the supplier evaluation from the beginning. Schools need to know what evidence suppliers can provide, who is responsible for each requirement and how compliance will be monitored during the contract. 

A competitive price offers little value if the supplier cannot give the school confidence that its responsibilities will be met.

Consider the impact on pupils and staff

Procurement decisions can feel a long way removed from the classroom, but their impact is felt throughout the school. 

Pupils eat the meals provided through catering contracts. Staff use the washrooms maintained by cleaning suppliers. They learn and work in buildings supported by facilities management providers. The quality and reliability of these services contribute to the environment, making wellbeing another key consideration for procurement decisions. 

These factors may be harder to put into a spreadsheet than a contract saving, but they still have a bearing on value.

Look at long-term value

The headline figure presented during a tender is only part of the story when it comes to longer-term contracts. 

Schools should look at potential annual increases, additional charges, equipment costs, maintenance requirements and what happens if the service needs to change during the contract.

They should also consider performance. A supplier that costs slightly more but consistently delivers what was promised may offer better long-term value than a cheaper provider that requires constant management, generates additional charges or needs to be replaced earlier than expected.

Sustainability can also form part of this assessment. Waste reduction, responsible sourcing and more efficient use of energy and resources may affect the longer-term cost and impact of a service.

The most sustainable option will not always be the best choice, but where environmental improvements can be made without compromising service or affordability, they are worth including in the evaluation.

Start with what your school needs

There is no single definition of value for every school. A large multi-academy trust may be able to use its scale to secure efficiencies across several sites. A smaller primary school may put more emphasis on flexibility and a supplier that understands its community.

The priorities can also vary between contracts. A school with low catering uptake may focus on food quality, while one dealing with repeated cleaning complaints may prioritise performance management.

That is why procurement should start with the school’s requirements. 

Before approaching the market, schools should identify what is working, where problems exist and what successful delivery should look like. Suppliers can then be assessed against those requirements instead of price alone.

So, what does value for money really look like?

When assessing value for money, schools should consider whether a contract:

The balance will vary depending on the school and the service. What matters is that the criteria reflect what the school really needs. 

Making every pound work harder

Schools should absolutely challenge suppliers on cost, particularly when budgets are under pressure. But reducing expenditure should not mean accepting a poorer service or creating more work for staff. 

At Procure, we work exclusively with schools and trusts to review, tender and manage essential contracts across catering, cleaning, facilities management and utilities. Our role is to help schools make sound commercial decisions while recognising the wider demands on their budgets, staff and resources.

Because value for money should never simply mean spending less. It should mean making sure the money you do spend delivers as much value as possible for your school, your staff and, ultimately, your pupils.

If you want to identify potential savings while making sure your services continue to deliver what your school needs, talk to our team today.

Procure Education works exclusively with schools and multi-academy trusts on procurement strategy, contract management and energy. If you would like an independent view of your trust’s energy position, get in touch.