Selection and Award Criteria

The distinction between selection and award criteria is crucially important. Selection criteria are focussed on "the bidder" and award criteria is focussed on "the bid" and purchasers must maintain a clear distinction between both throughout the procurement process. This means that issues/questions which are appropriate to the selection criteria must be addressed at the selection stage and cannot form part of the award stage (even if they were omitted from the selection stage in error) and vice versa.

The selection stage, often known as the "pre-qualification stage", involves an examination of the suitability and capability of the potential suppliers to perform the contract that will be awarded at the end of the competition. The criteria used for selection must be appropriate, relevant and proportionate to the particular procurement. The selection process should be a "backward-looking, not forward-looking" process. That is, the criteria for selection must concentrate on the general suitability and capability of the supplier for the project, as opposed to the specific means by which the supplier would perform the contract. To allow institutions to identify a number of suitably qualified and experienced businesses who will be invited to submit a tender a standard standard Selection Questionnaire (SQ) should be used. Note: The SQ must only be used for procurement exercises that are being conducted in accordance with EU Procurement Regulations (as interpreted by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015) and therefore meet the threshold for the requirement to follow such procedures thus require advertising in The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU)). The Public Contracts Regulations are a legal requirement and as such the Head of Procurement and/or Central Procurement team must be consulted before any above threshold procurement exercise is carried out.

The award stage involves examination of the merits of the bids. This will identify which of the eligible tenderers will deliver best value for money for the organisation, based on either the most economically advantageous tender or lowest price, depending on the criteria agreed by the User Intelligence Group (UIG). The award criteria must relate directly to, and be proportionate with, the subject matter of the requirement.

Value for Money is defined as the optimum combination of whole life costs and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the user's requirement. Depending on the nature of the contract, whole-life costs may include implementation costs, ongoing operating costs and end-of-life disposal.

You must ensure that the criteria used at both stages are relevant, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Criteria (and any sub-criteria) used by a public body at both the selection stage and the award stage, together with any weightings attached to them, must be published and made known to suppliers at the time of the issue of either the SQ and /or the Invitation To Tender (ITT) documents.

A clearly documented process must be followed in order to ensure there are satisfactory responses from suppliers and no inconsistencies in both pre-qualification and tender evaluations, which could ultimately result in a legal challenge. Any failure in this respect will leave the procurement suspect to audit scrutiny and legal challenge.

Examples areas that are commonly known as "selection" and "award" criteria are listed in the table below:

Publication of criteria

As a matter of procurement policy, and in order to meet obligations of transparency you must publish details of the evaluation criteria to be used to either select the suppliers to be invited to bid for the contract or the evaluation criteria to be used to identify the supplier to whom the contract will be awarded. It is best practice that evaluation criteria for both selection and award stages be agreed, along with respective weightings, by the UIG before the Contract Notice is published and any documentation issued. The evaluation criteria will comprise of the selection or award criteria (depending upon the stage of the competition), sub-criteria, weightings, minimum standards, pass marks (if any) etc. If there is any doubt as to the level of detail that must be disclosed/published, you should seek specialist professional procurement or legal advice and guidance.

The evaluation criteria must be included or referenced within the Contract Notice where possible, and set out in the subsequent SQ and ITT documentation. All procurement documents must be made available online from the date of the contract notice publication in OJEU. Evaluation criteria will be included within these documents. If it is not possible to have all of this prepared and available prior to the publication of the Contract Notice, the public body must ensure that it publishes any selection evaluation and contract award criteria at the same time as it issues SQ and / or the ITT document. Government provide guidance as to the interpretation of “procurement documents”. You should also consult your Head of Procurement and/or Central Procurement team on this matter.

Where it is not possible to provide weightings on objective grounds, the criteria should be stated in descending order of importance in the contract notice or ITT documents.

The objective and non-discriminatory criteria that will be applied to produce a 'short-list' must be contained in the Contract Notice, or at the very latest published at the same time as the SQ documents is issued to suppliers.

In exceptional circumstances you may be entitled to invoke the Negotiated Procedure with or without competition. Please see EU Public Procurement Guidance for more information. Please note that the Negotiated Procedure may only be invoked in circumstances set out in procurement legislation, you must seek specialist professional procurement or legal advice and guidance prior to embarking on this process.

The agreed and advertised award criteria and weightings must not be changed once they have been notified to the tenderers.

Minimum standards

Where it has been determined that minimum standards are applicable either within selection or award criteria they must relate to and be proportionate to the subject matter of the requirement and clearly detailed in the appropriate documentation. Where you wish to apply minimum standards to limit the number of potential suppliers to be invited to tender, minimum standards or objective criteria must be specified or referred in the Contract Notice and set out in the SQ to allow the rejection of potential suppliers. Similarly if a pass mark can only be obtained by a response that meets the minimum requirement, it must be clearly stated within the scoring guidance provided to suppliers.

Selection criteria

Further information on the selection stage is available under the Supplier Selection station of the Procurement Journey. The standard Selection Questionnaire (SQ) Questions can be found in the Supplier Selection station of the Procurement Journey, these questions should not be amended, however questions can be deleted if not required and additional questions added.  If additional questions are added, the Procurement Officer should create a separate section for these as appropriate.

Prior to issuing the SQ, the Procurement Officer should develop a percentage scoring methodology for the questionnaire tailored to the needs of the requirement.

Award criteria

The Procurement Officer should work with the UIG to agree appropriate award criteria, based upon their knowledge of the goods or services to be procured and the critical aspects of the requirement as identified in the Specification.

The criteria identified must relate directly to the goods, services or works to be provided and not focus the characteristics of the individual suppliers. Each award criterion should be clearly defined, so that there is a common understanding of what it means.

Good criteria will ensure that responses from suppliers clearly addressed the most critical aspects of the specification and allow the evaluation panel to make a fair and equal comparison of the bids received.

The objective of any procurement exercise should be to achieve best Value for Money for the taxpayer. Public bodies can award contracts on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender or the lowest price. In determining the criteria for the award of contracts, purchasers should rarely rely on price alone. This is because awarding contracts on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender allows public bodies to balance the quality of the goods, services and works they are procuring against price and to frame specifications in a way which encourages innovation rather than defining the solution. As part of value for money, due regard to other relevant organisational policies is important, for example, policies in relation to corporate social responsibility/sustainability and Quality/Technical Merit - Is the product or service proposed fit for purpose? How well does it perform?

Lowest price is based on the lowest priced tender which meets the user’s requirements.

Some examples of award criteria are given below:

• Quality/Technical Merit - Is the product or service proposed fit for purpose? How well does it perform?
• Design, functional characteristics and aesthetics - How should the product look and feel? How easy is it to use?
• Sustainability - e.g. social, economic and environmental considerations
• Innovation, where appropriate - e.g. new or novel concept?
• Maintenance, ongoing technical support or after sales service - What support is required and available?
• Delivery or period of completion- the guaranteed turnaround time from order to delivery or provision of service
• Price- The whole life cost including the initial purchase price, operating costs, consumables and disposal costs. How cost effective will the goods/service prove to be?

Weighting the criteria

The Procurement Officer should work with the UIG to decide on an overall ratio or split between price and quality (non commercial aspects) criteria and allocate weightings to any sub-criteria as appropriate.

As the aim of any procurement exercise should be to achieve Value for Money, it is recommended that the "most economically advantageous" evaluation is used.

The ratio will determine how much price and quality will influence the tender evaluation and should reflect the relative importance of either element to the public body. You may find it useful to refer back to the Strategic Positioning Action Plans to help decide the appropriate price/quality ratio to apply.

The table below provides some suggested criteria and ratios depending on the nature of the commodity/service being procured:

 Scoring methodology for award stage evaluation

 The Procurement Officer should ensure that a robust methodology is developed to assist with the evaluation process.

An example of scoring methodology is provided below and should be used in conjunction with the evaluation matrix: this can be tailored to suit the specific requirements of your procurement exercise.

0 - Unacceptable - Nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate an ability to meet the requirement

1 - Poor - Response is partially relevant and poor. The response addresses some elements of the requirement but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirement will be fulfilled

2 - Acceptable - Response is relevant and acceptable. The response addresses a broad understanding of the requirement but may lack details on how the requirement will be fulfilled in certain areas

3 - Good - Response is relevant and good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good understanding and provides details on how the requirements will be fulfilled

4 - Excellent - Response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement and provides details of how the requirement will be met in full

Any documents you need are available here