Reviews
What public records can prove about multilingual social providers
Read public records on multilingual social marketing providers: what Companies House, a framework listing and a supplier's own words can and cannot show.
Public records can establish a legal identity, a procurement route or a supplier's own description. They do not show how a provider would handle one buyer's languages, claims, channels, accessibility needs, data or exit. Reading each record for what it actually states comes before any provider is considered.
What to take away
- No provider can be named best from public records alone.
- Companies House verifies identity and filings, not service quality, linguistic skill, finances or fitness for a contract.
- A framework listing shows availability through that route and does not rank suppliers or verify multilingual social marketing competence.
- A supplier-selected testimonial is not an independent result.
- Publish a conditional shortlist rather than a best claim without full evidence.
Read every record against one defined task
Read each record against one defined task, not against a supplier category. Write the source asset, target language and market, channel, claim risk, delivery period and acceptance artefact before looking at a single provider.
Then ask whether the candidate supplies translation, localisation, transcreation, original-language writing, campaign operation or a documented combination. A record about one of these does not establish the others, so translation-only and interpreting-only entries do not show the combined task.
Define the service boundary
- Write source asset and target language
- Name market, channel and claim risk
- Set delivery period and acceptance artefact
- Ask which service types candidate supplies
- Check RM6302 lots and dates
- Do not admit on framework name alone
What a company register shows
A company register answers who a supplier legally is. GOV.UK says you can get some details about a company for free, including company information such as the registered address and date of incorporation. That is identity, and nothing in it describes how the supplier works.
Obtain the precise entity, company number where applicable, trading names, invoice party, insurance, subcontractors and locations of delivery. Check a UK entity against Companies House, while recording that the register verifies identity and filings, not service quality, linguistic skill, finances or fitness for this contract.
Verify the contracting identity
Does proposal, terms and payment recipient match?
Check Companies House and proceed
Reject unexplained mismatch
Reject an unexplained mismatch between the proposal, terms and payment recipient. Hold when subcontractors or data-processing parties are undisclosed. Neither outcome needs a view on the quality of the work, because identity is a precondition and not a score.
What a framework listing shows
A framework listing says whether a buyer may use a route. The RM6302 Language Services page records a UK public-sector framework, its lots and dates, and says the services are available to the whole of the public and third sector.
The Government Commercial Agency, the Crown Commercial Service until 1 April 2026, publishes it. That can evidence availability through that route for an eligible buyer. It does not rank suppliers or verify multilingual social marketing competence. Do not admit a provider merely because its name appears there, and remember that language services are not the same task as running social campaigns.
What a supplier's own words cannot show
A supplier's description of itself is a claim, not a finding. UK advertising rules, the CAP Code enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, govern how such claims are made, but a rule about presentation is not proof that the claim is true.
A supplier-selected testimonial is not an independent result either. The CMA's reviews and endorsements guidance is about being honest and transparent with online reviews and endorsements. Disclose incentives, reference permissions and reviewer conflicts rather than converting praise into a score.
Publication threshold and exclusions
- Complete permissioned dossier required
- Configured delivery evidence missing
- Named agencies and directories excluded
- Client-logo claims excluded
- Translation-only records excluded
- No hands-on testing occurred
This desk review of 6 September 2026 would have admitted a candidate only with a complete, permissioned dossier for the same multilingual social marketing task. None met that threshold, because configured delivery evidence was not available.
Named agencies, directory entries, anonymous suppliers, testimonials, awards and client-logo claims were excluded, as were generic marketing records that did not establish the combined task.
The records side by side
| Record | What it can establish | What it cannot establish |
|---|---|---|
| Companies House entry | Recorded identity and filings of a UK company | Service quality, linguistic skill, finances or fitness for the contract |
| Framework listing such as RM6302 | A route a public or third-sector buyer may use, with its lots and dates | A ranking, or multilingual social marketing competence |
| Supplier's own description | What the supplier says it offers | How it would handle one buyer's task |
| Testimonial, award or client logo | That the supplier chose to show it | An independent result |
| Public-records search in general | A starting list of names to ask for evidence | A best provider |
Keep a trail of what each record said
A reader should be able to see what was read and what was concluded. For every record, keep four lines and no more.
- The record and where it sits, for example the register entry or the framework page.
- The date it was read, because records change.
- The statement it makes, copied as the record words it.
- The conclusion it cannot support, written beside it.
The fourth line does the work. It stops a framework listing from becoming a recommendation and a register entry from becoming a reference, and it lets a second reader repeat the check.
Where the public record stops
When the records run out, the candidate's own evidence takes over, and the buyer asks every eligible candidate for the same permissioned material. How a review admits, holds or rejects on that material is set out in non-compensating review gates.
A shortlist that holds some candidates and rejects others follows pass, hold and reject rules. Even then, publish a conditional shortlist rather than a best claim unless the complete evidence matrix and buyer-owned weights support one. The agency review record shows the same restraint.
Before you act
- Define the task and acceptance artefact before reading any record.
- Verify the contracting entity and check for undisclosed subcontractors.
- Treat a framework listing as a route, not a recommendation.
- Set testimonials and awards aside as evidence.
- Write beside each record the conclusion it cannot support.
- Publish a conditional shortlist, not a best claim.
Common questions
What can public records establish about a provider?
A legal identity, a procurement route or a supplier's own description. They do not show how a provider would handle one buyer's languages, claims, channels, accessibility needs, data or exit.
Does a framework listing mean a provider is suitable?
No. The listing evidences availability through that route for an eligible buyer. It does not rank suppliers or verify multilingual social marketing competence.
What does Companies House verify?
Identity and filings for a UK entity. It does not verify service quality, linguistic skill, finances or fitness for this contract, so those need separate evidence.
