The answer would really depend on how the question was drafted and the particular context so it is difficult to say that is approach is universally correct or incorrect.
The question asked would need to fit within the rules relating to award criteria which were highlighted in the webinar. First, the general principles at Regulation 18 (non-discrimination and equal treatment) are in play here, so it would be important not to actively restrict suppliers from being able to take part if they were not based in the Authority’s region; this could create an equal treatment or discrimination challenge.
Second, the award criteria would need to be sufficiently clear as to what was required and how it would be evaluated such that the RWIND tenderer (as Kim mentioned in the webinar) can understand the criterion and how its response will be assessed. It seems to us that a general drafted social value question around “improving economic, social or environmental wellbeing in the area” would need to be accompanied by a very clear assessment methodology if it is going to meet the RWIND tenderer test.
When we remained part of the EU, another angle to consider on this question would have been that we were subject to EU General Principles (namely equal treatment, transparency, non-discrimination, nonarbitrariness, proportionality, good administration, procedural fairness, and the protection of legitimate expectations). Requiring a supplier to do something for the benefit of a particular area used to be seen to be potentially difficult from a EU perspective, in the sense that it could be seen as antithetical to the promotion of “cross border interest”.
However, now we have left the EU, the General Principles have only interpretative force (as confirmed in the recent case of Adferiad Recovery Limited v Aneurin Bevan University Health Board [2021] EWHC 3049 (TCC).
However, given that the key principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment are still in play thanks to the fact that they appear in our domestic legislation (i.e. Regulation 18 PCR 2015), authorities continue to need to be careful not to set criteria that discriminate against suppliers from outside the authority’s area.