UK procurement: evaluation and award criteria Q&A

Question 1

What does most advantageous tender mean under the Procurement Act?

Accepted Answer

The most advantageous tender is determined using the published award criteria and assessment methodology.

The change from most economically advantageous tender emphasises that price need not dominate, but official guidance says it is not a wholesale change of policy.

Quality, social, environmental and other relevant factors can be considered within the legal requirements.

The winning offer is therefore not necessarily the cheapest, nor necessarily the one with the longest or most polished narrative.

Question 2

Can price be the only award criterion?

Accepted Answer

The Act allows price or cost to be the sole criterion in an appropriate procurement, although the guidance says that is unlikely to suit most contracts.

Authorities must still consider their other obligations, including value for money and public benefit.

A bidder should use the published methodology rather than assuming that all tenders have a quality weighting.

Even in a price-led competition, compliance with the specification and participation conditions remains important.

Question 3

Must the buyer disclose how the tender will be scored?

Accepted Answer

The award criteria and assessment methodology must be made transparent through the tender notice and associated documents, with sufficient information for suppliers to prepare their tenders.

Where several criteria apply, their relative importance must be stated, for example through weightings or ranking.

If the scoring mechanism is unclear, ask before submission.

A bidder should not invent its own assumptions about how evaluators will reward evidence or combine scores when the buyer’s stated approach can be clarified.

Question 4

Can a tender fail even if its overall weighted score is high?

Accepted Answer

Yes, if the published assessment methodology contains a relevant pass/fail requirement or minimum standard that the tender does not satisfy.

The guidance allows pass/fail criteria where the disqualification consequence is disclosed.

Identify these gates before optimising scores elsewhere.

A high commercial score or strong narrative in another section may not compensate for a failed requirement.

Keep mandatory compliance and scored quality as related but separately checked parts of the response.

Question 5

How should a bidder interpret a quality weighting?

Accepted Answer

Use the full published calculation, including subcriteria, scoring scales, minimum scores and any rounding or moderation rules provided.

A headline weighting alone does not explain how marks are earned.

For example, a criterion may reward specific evidence rather than broad assurances, and a pass/fail gate may operate before totals are calculated.

Build a question-level plan against the actual methodology and ask the buyer to clarify an ambiguity that would materially change the response.

Question 6

Can a buyer reject an unusually cheap tender without asking for an explanation?

Accepted Answer

Where the authority intends to disregard a tender because the price is abnormally low, the Act requires investigation and an opportunity for the supplier to demonstrate that it can perform for that price.

The Act does not require an investigation in every case simply because a price looks low.

Keep a defensible cost model and evidence of efficiencies so an explanation can be supported.

A price being lower than competitors is not by itself proof of non-deliverability.

Question 7

What evidence helps explain an unusually low price?

Accepted Answer

Provide a transparent cost basis and credible evidence of the efficiencies or commercial circumstances that support delivery.

Relevant evidence could include a different delivery method, confirmed supply prices, available capacity or a genuine productivity advantage, depending on the contract.

Reconcile that explanation with staffing, risk and service commitments in the bid.

An unsupported statement that the company is efficient is weaker than an auditable explanation showing how the required outcomes remain achievable at the offered price.

Question 8

May award criteria be refined during a competitive flexible procedure?

Accepted Answer

The Act permits refinement in specified circumstances, but it is a controlled mechanism rather than an unrestricted change to the rules.

Read the provisions in the original tender notice and documents and any published refinement.

A bidder should assess whether the change affects its solution, evidence or commercial model and raise concerns promptly.

Do not assume that criteria are either permanently immutable in every procedure or freely changeable at any stage.

Question 9

Can the buyer evaluate a supplier’s general reputation instead of its submitted tender?

Accepted Answer

Award must follow the stated criteria and methodology.

The distinction between participation conditions and award criteria matters: general capability checks assess the supplier, while award criteria assess the tender’s merits.

A bidder should therefore present the necessary evidence in the response rather than expecting the evaluator to rely on familiarity, brand reputation or previous conversations.

Where experience is relevant to the specific criterion, explain its connection and the supported delivery benefit clearly.

UK procurement: evaluation and award criteria Q&A

What does most advantageous tender mean under the Procurement Act?＋

Can price be the only award criterion?＋

Must the buyer disclose how the tender will be scored?＋

Can a tender fail even if its overall weighted score is high?＋

How should a bidder interpret a quality weighting?＋

Can a buyer reject an unusually cheap tender without asking for an explanation?＋

What evidence helps explain an unusually low price?＋

May award criteria be refined during a competitive flexible procedure?＋

Can the buyer evaluate a supplier’s general reputation instead of its submitted tender?＋