Tender evaluation & award criteria

Home / Procurement services

Check whether price and quality have been assessed as announced.

What matters in practice

A review of evaluation starts with the published criteria, weighting and scoring method. Selection of a capable bidder is distinct from the assessment of its tender. The file should explain the substantive reasons for quality scores and the treatment of unusual pricing, rather than merely record a result.

How we assist

We support evaluation teams with defensible documentation and assess bidder challenges to inconsistent scoring or unannounced subcriteria. A low price is not, by itself, proof of an unlawful bid. The relevant clarification duties and the evidence supporting the assessment require careful examination.

Three practical examples

1. A strong company submits a weak concept

The bidder has excellent references but its proposed delivery plan is incomplete. The evaluator must distinguish suitability from the quality of the offer. A high reputation should not replace the announced assessment of the actual concept. The record should connect the score to the material submitted under the relevant criterion.

2. A demonstration influences scoring

The authority asks suppliers to demonstrate software functions. It uses consistent conditions, records the results and assesses them under the announced model. Questions or assistance that materially improve one presentation need scrutiny. The decision should be explainable from the evidence rather than an evaluator’s general impression.

3. A zero price is treated as missing

An offer contains an express zero for one item. The authority examines the pricing instructions and the appropriate clarification rules before deciding whether there is a defect or an implausible price. A numerical entry and an empty field should not be conflated without analysis. The bidder should explain its pricing coherently.

Related guidance

German and EU procurement framework · Legal sources

Legal reference: Official source. Reviewed 12 November 2026. This overview does not replace advice on the relevant procurement and its deadlines.

Separate suitability, compliance and award scoring

A company’s ability to perform, an offer’s compliance with mandatory requirements and the comparative quality of its proposal are different assessments. Keep the criteria and evidence for each stage distinct. An evaluator should not reward general reputation where the published criterion concerns the proposed delivery method.

Make the reasons traceable

Use the announced scoring structure and record why an offer receives its score. If presentations, samples or tests are used, apply consistent conditions and retain the results. Clarification must not become an undisclosed opportunity to improve one bidder’s offer. A later explanation should reflect the actual contemporaneous assessment.

Documents, decisions and next steps

Create a decision record that links the purchasing need, legal route, commercial assumptions and evidence. Keep document versions and reasons for material changes together. Before publication or submission, ask whether an informed reader can understand the requirements, compare the offers and identify the proposed contractual obligations. Once the contract is awarded, pass the winning commitments, options and reporting duties to the delivery team. Procurement review and contract management should remain connected: a practical change in performance may have consequences for the original competition. Review those changes before committing to additional work, payment or duration.

German state rules · EU country guides · Special procedures · Industry guidance