View all publications

Appendix 3: Tender Evaluation Plan Example


This tender evaluation plan is a guideline only.  It sets out the basic procedures for evaluating tenders.

Tender evaluation team

  • Evaluation team leader and facilitator [name]
  • Team member [name]
  • Team member [name]


No panellist shall disclose any information on tenders evaluated during or after the evaluation to any person, company or organisation, without the project co-ordinator’s approval in writing.

Tender timetable

The timetable for the tendering, evaluation and selection process is as follows:

Tenders close

[Time, day and date]

Evaluation of tenders

[Times, days and dates]

Tender presentations and meetings (short-listed tenderers)

[Time, day and date]

Tender negotiations (and meetings if required)

[Time, day and date]

Tender recommendation report to be finalised and distributed as an agenda item


Full council meeting – tender recommendation report to be presented and discussed at this meeting and decision made to allow contract to be awarded


Contract begins


Tender opening

  • The closing date for tender submissions is [time, day and date].  The procedure for opening the tender box will be as per the council’s standard procedures.
  • Each envelope should contain four [this is dependent on the number of copies required] identical copies of the non-price attribute information within envelope 1.  A copy of the submission and any covering letter or additional information will be distributed to each evaluation team member.
  • The council will check (not an evaluation team member) each tender submission for conformity and completeness, and to make sure that no priced information has been included within the non-priced information.
  • Where appropriate, alternative tenders will be identified and copies distributed to evaluation team members.
  • Priced information will be left in the sealed envelopes and stored in a secure location.

Evaluation procedure


  1. This section discusses the general procedure to be followed for the tender evaluation.  Following receipt of the tenders, one full set of the non-priced attributes (excluding price) is given to each team member for evaluation.
  2. The tender evaluation will be undertaken using a weighted attribute method.
  3. The following attributes weightings will be used as a general guideline:


Relevant experience


Track record


Technical skills




Management skills




Innovation/waste reduction


Alignment with objectives and waste management plan




Financial capacity


Adequacy of occupational health and safety programme/standards




4. The council reserves the right to depart from the stated methodology in the evaluation of the tenders.  Tenderers should note that the council reserves the right to withdraw from the tender process at any time without notice before entry into a contract.

Stage 1: Evaluation of non-price attributes (conforming tenders)

5. The tender evaluation meeting will begin on [time, day and date].

6. Each evaluation team member shall individually read and evaluate the tender submissions using the marking sheets provided (as guidelines only) before the evaluation meeting.

7. During the review of tender documents, evaluation team members should collate any queries and send these through to [nominate one team member] for collation and distribution to tenderers before the evaluation team meeting.

8. Each attribute shall be marked out of 100 points, generally in multiples of 5 (sub-attribute weightings may be determined at each evaluator’s discretion).

9. Team members shall use the following score definitions to determine grades for each attribute.  This should help with consistency between team members and a reasonable spread of values across tenderers and attributes.

Definitions of scores




< 35


Unacceptable in this attribute and ruled out of further consideration.

36 to 45

Below average:

Below council’s expectations and would need considerable improvement in this attribute if selected.

46 to 55


Adequate in most areas but some deficiencies, which are not likely to have any major adverse affect.

56 to 69

Above average:

Requirements are adequately covered in all areas.  Council’s expectations achieved.

70 to 85

Very good:

Requirements are fully covered in all aspects.  Likely to add value beyond council’s expectations through this attribute.

86 to 100


Only awarded when all requirements are met in an outstanding manner, with significant added value beyond council’s original expectations through this attribute.

10. If a tenderer scores less than 35% of the percentage points weighting for a particular attribute, then the council reserves the right to reject their tender.  Tenderers who are unfamiliar with the weighted attribute evaluation method should contact the authorised representative for clarification.

11. If not already done, evaluation team members should collate any queries for discussion and review at the beginning of the evaluation process.  If not resolved, respective tenderers will be contacted by email to clarify these issues.  The clarification and removal of any tagged notes should be undertaken at this stage and confirmed in writing by the tenderer.

12. Referees will be contacted by an assistant as specified by the evaluation team, to feed back into the evaluation process.  Financial, bond, insurance and corporate structure checks will also be undertaken.

13. The team will then collectively discuss each tender and their individual scores to confirm an overall team score for each attribute.

14. At the evaluation meeting, if the team consensus scores less than 35% on any one attribute, then that tender will be excluded from further consideration.  However, if an individual evaluator marks any attribute less than 35%, they shall still continue to mark all other attributes for that tender.

15. In establishing the score for each attribute, it is reasonable to consider scores based on a comparison with other submissions.  Therefore, the scores should fit the definitions above and should also be comparable with how other submissions meet the same attribute.

16. Team members should score each attribute and sub-attribute according to how the submissions meet the RFT requirements.  It is very easy to mark tenderers that are known to the evaluator on a different basis to those unknown to the evaluator (‘the devil you know’ syndrome).  At the team evaluation meeting anecdotes should only be shared if they are relevant to the process.

17. The process works best when marks are well spread across attributes and tenderers.  Many evaluations become nonsensical if evaluators award marks in a very small band.

18. Evaluators should make notes when reading through submissions and undertaking individual evaluations.  As there will be a large amount of information to read, the notes will be invaluable for distinguishing between each of the submissions and providing prompts during the evaluation meeting.  All notes and evaluations must be brought to the evaluation meeting.

Stage 2: Evaluation of priced attributes (conforming)

19. Following completion of the non-priced attribute evaluation, the priced attributes are to be evaluated.

20. The price grade shall be calculated as follows:

Grade =  50 + 100 x (median conforming tender price - tender price)/median conforming tender price

The price grade may be negative, but can only be a maximum of 100.  The median conforming tender price shall be taken as the median tender price.

The weight specified for the price attribute shall be multiplied by the grade specified in the RFT and then divided by 100 to give an index for the price attribute.

Stage 3: Evaluation of indices

21. The non-price and price indices for each tender shall be summed to give an overall tender index for each tender.  The overall indices for all tenders shall be documented and signed off by all evaluation panel members.  All indices shall be to one decimal place.  The overall index shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.  When more than one tender shares the top overall index, the highest-ranked tenderer is likely be the one with the lowest price, although consideration may also be given to external attributes (eg, of the environmental qualities of the company).  Some indices may be provisional and subject to clarification of queries and/or the interview/presentation.

22. A brief summary of the team’s collective views on the key reasons for the tenderers’ rankings for each of the attributes shall also be detailed in writing.

Alternative and non-conforming tenders

23. For consistency, it is proposed that evaluators first evaluate the conforming tender for each tenderer.  This shall be followed by evaluating the non-price submission for any alternative tender submissions.  The evaluation process for alternative tenders shall follow the above process for conforming tenders.

24. Only tenderers that have submitted a conforming tender shall have their alternative tender evaluated (subject to RFT clause 3.12).

25. Following this, non-conforming tenders shall be reviewed in line with the RFT clause 4.1.

26. If a decision is made to evaluate a non-conforming tender, the evaluation process shall follow the above process for conforming tenders.

Stage 4: Negotiations

27. fter the Stage 3 evaluation of the tenders, the council may select one (or possibly two) preferred tenderer(s) to negotiate with.

28. The preferred tenderer(s) will be invited to attend an interview, the purpose of which includes to:

  • meet the key personnel
  • clarify any outstanding issues
  • discuss any tags
  • negotiate the scope of works
  • negotiate on price.

29. This may include a presentation to the tender evaluation team, or nominated persons from this team if appropriate.  If required by the council, the presentation will be carried out at the council’s office.  The presentation may utilise overheads, PowerPoint or other visual methods.  The presentation shall be for no more than 20 minutes, and will be followed by an informal question and answer period of a further 20 minutes.

30. This interview and presentation should be minuted and will form part of the contract if this tenderer becomes the contractor, with these minutes being attached to the contract documents for signing.

Determining the recommended tenderer

31. At the conclusion of the negotiations, the tender evaluation team will make a decision on whether the preferred tenderer will be recommended.

32. Note that if the evaluation team negotiated with more than one preferred tenderer, then following negotiations the weighted attributes will be reassessed taking into account any changes, and a final assessment made of the preferred tenderer for the purpose of making a recommendation report to the council.

End of evaluation process

33. At the end of the evaluation process all informal notes and individual scores will be collected by [name of the team leader or organisation responsible for the tender process] for destruction.

34. [Insert name of person/organisation responsible] will record summary notes at the evaluation meeting to provide verbal feedback to tenderers after the process is complete (should they request it) and to support the negotiations process.

35. Individual evaluators will not discuss the evaluation with tenderers or provide feedback on their submissions.  All such queries shall be directed to [name of person responsible].

Tender recommendation report

36. The information provided in the report from the tender evaluation team will be included in the final tender recommendation report to the council.  The final report will take into account all the tenders, and recommend the most favourable option for the council.

Council sign-off

37. The tender recommendation report will be forwarded to the council for final approval.  The selection of the recommended tender or tenderers shall be at the sole discretion of the council.

Award of contract

38. A letter of award will be drafted by the authorised representative when the decision to award the contracts has been made by the council.