Scoring-Based Technical Evaluation

Scoring-based technical evaluation is a method where the Tender Evaluation Committee awards marks to each bidder's technical submission according to published criteria and weightages, producing a numerical technical score that either determines qualification (if below a minimum threshold) or contributes to a weighted combined score used to select the winner. It is the evaluation approach used in QCBS and QBS consultancy procurement, contrasting with the binary pass/fail approach used in L1 goods and works tenders.

What is Scoring-Based Technical Evaluation in government procurement?

Under scoring-based evaluation, the Request for Proposal (RFP) specifies the criteria to be scored, the maximum marks allocated to each criterion, and the sub-criteria used to allocate marks within each criterion. This information is published before bids are submitted, so firms know exactly how their proposals will be judged. The TEC then evaluates each proposal independently against these criteria and awards marks.

Typical criteria and allocations for a consultancy assignment under QCBS might include the following. Firm's specific experience relevant to the assignment carries 20 to 30 marks and is assessed on the number and value of completed assignments in the relevant sector over the last five to seven years. Key personnel qualifications carry 30 to 40 marks, with each key position worth a specified number of marks assessed on years of relevant experience, educational qualifications, and specific project examples. Methodology and work plan carry 20 to 30 marks, assessed on the quality and specificity of the proposed approach and how well it addresses the Terms of Reference. Local knowledge may carry 5 to 10 marks, assessed on demonstrated familiarity with local conditions, regulations, and stakeholders.

Each sub-criterion is further broken down. For a key position carrying 20 marks, the RFP might allocate 8 marks for more than 15 years of relevant experience (fewer marks for fewer years), 6 marks for lead responsibility on at least two similar assignments (fewer for one), and 6 marks for relevant professional qualifications.

The TEC evaluates each proposal independently, with each committee member assigning scores before a consensus or average is calculated. All proposals scoring below the minimum qualifying threshold, typically 70 or 75 out of 100, are eliminated and their financial proposals are returned unopened. For those that qualify, the technical score enters the QCBS formula.

Why it matters for bidders

Scoring-based evaluation rewards investment in proposal quality, not just document assembly. A firm that understands the sub-criteria and tailors its submission to address each explicitly will score higher than one that submits generic CVs and a boilerplate methodology.

Key personnel CVs must be structured to make scoring easy for the evaluator. If the sub-criterion awards marks for years of experience in a specific sector, the CV should state years of sector-specific experience explicitly, not leave it to the evaluator to calculate from a list of projects. Project lists must include all information needed to verify criteria: client name, assignment value, completion date, and the firm's specific role.

Methodology statements for scoring-based evaluation should directly map to the TOR. A common mistake is to describe generic methodology that is not specific to the assignment's context and objectives. Evaluators award marks for relevance and specificity, not for the length of the proposal.

Example

An urban development authority issues an RFP for a housing scheme DPR under QCBS with a 75:25 technical to financial weight. The technical evaluation criteria allocate 25 marks for firm experience, 35 marks for key personnel, and 40 marks for methodology and work plan, with a minimum qualifying score of 70.

Firm A scores 88: its firm experience is well-documented with ten comparable DPR assignments, its team lead has 18 years of directly relevant experience, and its methodology specifically addresses the local housing demand study approach required by the TOR. Firm B scores 68: it has relevant firm experience but its proposed team lead's CV does not clearly demonstrate sector-specific years and its methodology is generic. Firm B does not qualify. Only Firm A and two other qualifying firms proceed to financial evaluation.