Evaluation and scoring
Evaluation criteria
Written by Justin Cesman, CEO of Skim. Last reviewed:
- Definition
- Evaluation criteria, called award criteria under the Procurement Act 2023, are the factors and weightings a buyer publishes to score tenders — covering quality, methodology, staff, price and social value — and decide the most advantageous tender. Criteria must relate to the subject-matter of the contract.
Key takeaways
- Evaluation criteria — termed award criteria under the Procurement Act 2023 — are the buyer's scoring rubric: the factors used to assess tenders and the weighting given to each.
- Criteria must be published in advance in the tender notice or associated documents, must relate to the subject-matter of the contract, and must be accompanied by an assessment methodology explaining how scores are reached.
- Award criteria assess the tender; conditions of participation (formerly selection criteria) assess the supplier — a pass/fail check on legal, financial and technical ability that comes before scoring.
- Where there is more than one criterion, the buyer must set out their relative importance through weightings, ranking, or another described method, so price never automatically outweighs quality.
- Experienced bidders read evaluation criteria as instructions: a criterion weighted at 20% earns 20% of the effort, and every sentence is written to score against a specific heading.
How it works
Evaluation criteria are the buyer's scoring rubric. They define exactly what the buyer will reward and how much each factor contributes to the final score. Under the Procurement Act 2023 these are called award criteria, and a contract may only be awarded to the most advantageous tender — the tender that both satisfies the buyer's requirements and scores best against the published award criteria and assessment methodology. Publishing the criteria in the tender notice or associated documents is a legal requirement, not a courtesy.
Criteria typically fall into categories: technical approach (can the supplier deliver?), methodology (how will the work be done?), staff and resources (who will do it?), price or commercial (what will it cost?), and social value (what wider benefits does the bid bring?). Each criterion carries a weighting — usually a percentage — and within a criterion there may be sub-criteria with their own weightings. Where more than one criterion applies, the buyer must set out their relative importance, expressed as weightings, a ranking, or another described method. Pass/fail criteria are permitted, but the assessment methodology must say in advance whether failing one would disqualify a tender.
Two rules constrain the buyer. First, award criteria must relate to the subject-matter of the contract and be a proportionate, clear and measurable means of assessing tenders, so a buyer cannot score on factors unconnected to the work. Second, criteria are largely fixed once published: in a competitive flexible procedure a buyer may refine award criteria before inviting final tenders, but only by adding detail or sub-criteria, never new main criteria, and any refinement must be republished. The terminology also shifted — the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 spoke of the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT); the Act drops 'economic' to give the most advantageous tender (MAT), reinforcing that price need not take precedence over quality and social value.
After tenders are scored, the buyer issues an assessment summary to each supplier setting out the score given for every award criterion and the reasons for it, then publishes a contract award notice and observes a standstill period of at least eight working days before signing. For an experienced bidder this closes the loop: the same criteria that shaped the bid are the criteria the feedback is structured around, which is why structuring a response heading-by-heading against the published criteria pays twice — once in the score, once in the debrief.
Award criteria vs conditions of participation (award vs selection)
| Feature | Award criteria | Conditions of participation |
|---|---|---|
| What is assessed | The tender — quality, methodology, price, social value | The supplier — legal, financial and technical ability to perform |
| Question answered | Which bid is the most advantageous tender? | Is this supplier capable and eligible to bid at all? |
| How it scores | Weighted scoring against published criteria | Largely pass/fail against minimum standards |
| Former name (PCR 2015) | Award criteria (most economically advantageous tender) | Selection criteria |
| Effect of failing | A low score reduces the chance of winning | Failing any one means the contract cannot be awarded to that supplier |
Under the Procurement Act 2023
Reviewed
The concept survives the reform, but the framing and terminology changed on 24 February 2025. Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (procurements started before that date), contracts were awarded to the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) against published award criteria. Under the Procurement Act 2023 (procurements started on or after that date), the standard becomes the most advantageous tender (MAT) — the same exercise, but the deliberate removal of 'economic' clarifies that price need not outweigh quality or social value. Section 23 of the Act requires award criteria to relate to the subject-matter of the contract, be a proportionate, clear and measurable means of assessing tenders, and be accompanied by an assessment methodology and, where there is more than one criterion, a statement of relative importance. Criteria may only be refined — adding detail or sub-criteria, never new main criteria — before final tenders in a competitive flexible procedure, and any refinement must be republished. Separately, the Act replaces 'selection criteria' with conditions of participation, which assess supplier capability rather than the tender itself.
Sources: Procurement Act 2023, s.23 (legislation.gov.uk) · GOV.UK — Guidance: Assessing Competitive Tenders (Procurement Act 2023) · GOV.UK e-learning — Module 7: Assessment and award of contracts
Why it matters for bidders
Evaluation criteria are not suggestions — they are the scoring matrix, and they are published before the deadline precisely so bidders can write to them. Every sentence in a bid should score against a specific criterion: a generic capability narrative loses to a response built heading-by-heading around the weightings. The discipline is mechanical. If staff experience carries 20% of the marks, the response needs evidenced CVs and relevant track record; if social value carries 10%, it needs a concrete plan, not a statement of good intentions. The deeper signal sits in the award data: published assessment summaries and award notices reveal how buyers in a sector actually weight quality against price and where winning bids concentrated their marks, so a bidder can calibrate effort to the criteria that decide the result. That award-data discipline, drawn from teams who have won £3bn+ in UK and EU public contracts, is what turns a published rubric into a higher score.
How Skim helps
Skim's Bid Analysis agent extracts and structures the evaluation criteria from tender documents, mapping each criterion and sub-criterion to its weighting and the assessment methodology, then highlights where the marks concentrate so bid-writing effort goes where it earns the most. Its Buyer Intelligence agent reads how a given buyer has historically weighted quality against price from past award data, so you write to the criteria that actually decide the contract rather than to a generic template.
Frequently asked questions
- What are evaluation criteria in a tender?
- Evaluation criteria are the published factors a buyer uses to score tender responses, together with the weighting given to each. They typically cover technical quality, methodology, staff, price and social value. Under the Procurement Act 2023 they are called award criteria, and a contract may only be awarded to the tender that scores best against them.
- How are tenders scored against evaluation criteria?
- Each criterion carries a weighting, usually a percentage, and a tender is scored against the buyer's published assessment methodology. Quality is normally assessed in absolute terms, so each bid is judged on its own merits, while price is often scored relative to other bids. The weighted scores combine to identify the most advantageous tender.
- Do buyers have to publish evaluation criteria in advance?
- Yes. Under the Procurement Act 2023, award criteria and the assessment methodology must be set out in the tender notice or associated tender documents before bids are submitted. Where there is more than one criterion, the buyer must also state their relative importance through weightings, ranking, or another described method.
- What is the difference between award criteria and conditions of participation?
- Award criteria assess the tender — quality, methodology, price and social value — to find the most advantageous bid. Conditions of participation, which replaced selection criteria under the Procurement Act 2023, assess the supplier's legal, financial and technical ability to perform. Failing a condition of participation means the contract cannot be awarded to that supplier at all.
- Can a buyer change the evaluation criteria after publishing them?
- Only narrowly. In a competitive flexible procedure a buyer may refine award criteria before inviting final tenders, but solely by adding detail or sub-criteria to existing criteria — new main criteria cannot be added, and any refinement must be republished. Outside that, published evaluation criteria are fixed for the procurement.
- What does most advantageous tender (MAT) mean for evaluation criteria?
- MAT is the standard for awarding contracts under the Procurement Act 2023, replacing the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT). The deliberate removal of 'economic' signals that price need not take precedence over quality or social value, so evaluation criteria can weight non-price factors as heavily as the buyer's requirements justify.
Sources
Related terms
Most economically advantageous tender(MEAT)
The most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) is the legacy award basis under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, requiring buyers to award on the best combination of quality and price rather than lowest price alone. The Procurement Act 2023 renames it the most advantageous tender (MAT).
Quality score
A quality score is the mark a public sector evaluator awards to the non-price (technical) elements of a tender, assessed against published award criteria — usually on a 0–5 or 0–10 scale with written descriptors — and often weighted at 40–70% of the total evaluation.
Social value
Social value is the wider economic, social, and environmental benefit a supplier's delivery of a UK public contract generates beyond the goods or services bought — local jobs, skills, carbon reduction, community impact. Central government must score it at a minimum 10% weighting of the total evaluation.
Win themes
Win themes are the three to five recurring messages woven through a tender response that tie a genuine differentiator to a buyer's stated priority and frame it as a benefit. Win themes answer the evaluator's underlying question — why choose this supplier for this contract — rather than listing capabilities.
Invitation to tender(ITT)
An invitation to tender (ITT) is the formal document package a public sector buyer issues to invite suppliers to submit a tender for a specific contract. An ITT sets out the specification, evaluation criteria and weightings, terms and conditions, pricing schedule, and submission instructions and deadline.