When a procurement decision is challenged, the conversation almost always returns to the evaluation criteria: what was asked, how it was weighted and how it was scored. Getting them right is the highest-value work in the whole process, and it happens before any proposal arrives.
Start from outcomes, not features
Criteria should test the things that decide whether the solution will work for your organization. A long list of equally weighted items dilutes that signal and makes the result harder to explain. If everything matters equally, nothing has been decided.
Make every criterion scoreable
Each criterion should ask one thing, in words that two evaluators will read the same way. Before the solicitation goes out, write down what a strong, an adequate and a weak response look like. If you cannot describe the difference between a three and a four, your evaluators will invent one, and they will not all invent the same one.
Be able to explain the weighting
You should be able to say why price carries the weight it does and why the technical and delivery criteria carry theirs. The weights are set before proposals arrive and are never adjusted afterwards. A weighting that can only be justified once you know who is ahead is not defensible.
Keep mandatory requirements to true must-haves
Every mandatory requirement is a way to disqualify a proponent, and therefore a way to be challenged. Reserve them for requirements that genuinely cannot be negotiated. Everything else belongs in the rated criteria, where judgment can be applied and recorded.
Test the criteria before you issue them
Run the scoring guide against a mock response. Ask someone outside the project team to read the criteria and say what they think is being asked. Look carefully for criteria that, perhaps unintentionally, point toward one supplier, such as an incumbent. It is far cheaper to find these problems on paper than during the evaluation.
Calibrate your evaluators
Brief the evaluation team together. Practise on a sample so everyone shares an understanding of the scale. Have each evaluator score independently before any group discussion, then use a consensus session to resolve differences and record why scores moved. A wide spread between evaluators is information, not an inconvenience: it usually means a criterion is unclear or a proposal is ambiguous.
Protect the boundaries
Collect conflict-of-interest and confidentiality declarations before anyone sees a proposal. Route all proponent communication through a single channel, and give every proponent the same answers at the same time.
When the criteria are clear, the scoring is explainable and the evaluators are aligned, the decision largely defends itself.
Acernis provides senior leadership for complex public procurements, from strategy through award and the transition to delivery. Start a conversation.
This article offers a general perspective and is not legal advice.