Award Criteria & Bid Scoring Explained

What are award criteria?

Award criteria are the factors that a contracting authority uses to evaluate competing bids and determine which supplier represents the best value for money. They must be published in advance — in the Contract Notice or the procurement documents — and contracting authorities are bound by them. You cannot be evaluated on criteria that were not disclosed, and buyers cannot change the weighting or methodology after bids are received.

Award criteria are distinct from selection criteria. Selection criteria determine whether a supplier is sufficiently capable and experienced to be considered (they are assessed at the PQQ or SQ stage). Award criteria are applied to the actual bid — the proposed solution, methodology, price, and supporting evidence. You must clear the selection hurdle before your award response is evaluated.

In practice, award criteria in UK public procurement almost always consist of a quality component and a price component, each carrying a defined percentage weighting that adds up to 100%. The proportion allocated to each reflects how price-sensitive the requirement is and how much the buyer values differentiation in the proposed approach.

Quality/price splits

The quality/price split is the first number to look at in any procurement documents. It tells you immediately how the buyer has balanced value-for-money considerations against quality of solution.

Common splits in UK public procurement include 60/40 quality/price, 70/30, 80/20, and 50/50. A 60/40 quality/price split means that 60% of the total score is determined by the quality of your written response and 40% by your price. The higher the quality weighting, the more a well-crafted response can overcome a slightly higher price — and the more important it is to invest in bid quality.

Higher quality weighting (70%+) is typical for professional services, consultancy, complex IT implementation, and contracts where the approach and methodology genuinely differentiate outcomes. The buyer is signalling that they expect variation in approach quality and are willing to pay more for the best solution.

Balanced or price-led weighting (50/50 or below quality) is more common for commoditised supplies, facilities management, and contracts where the specification is tightly defined and supplier approaches are expected to be broadly similar. The buyer believes price variation is the primary differentiator.

Social value is increasingly embedded within the quality component, typically as a standalone criterion worth 10–20% of the quality score, or as a sub-criterion within methodology or community benefit questions. The Procurement Policy Note 06/20 requires central government to include social value with a minimum 10% weighting of the overall award score.

MEAT and MAT under the Procurement Act 2023

The concept of Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) has governed UK public procurement award decisions for decades, derived from EU procurement directives. It requires contracting authorities to evaluate bids on the basis of value for money — combining quality and price — rather than awarding solely to the cheapest bidder.

The Procurement Act 2023, which came into force in February 2025, replaces MEAT with Most Advantageous Tender (MAT). The terminology change reflects a deliberate shift in emphasis: 'economically advantageous' was sometimes interpreted narrowly as being primarily about financial value. MAT is intended to make clear that the full range of value — social, environmental, economic, and qualitative — must be considered.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, contracting authorities must have regard to the delivery of value for money, acting in a transparent and fair manner, and maximising public benefit. Award criteria must be clear, proportionate, and connected to the subject matter of the contract. Environmental and social factors can be considered even where they do not directly relate to delivery, provided they are proportionate.

For bidders, the practical implication is that quality criteria are not a box-ticking exercise — they are the mechanism through which value is assessed. Buyers who award on MEAT or MAT are legally required to select the bid that offers the best value across quality and price, not simply the cheapest or the highest quality in isolation.

How to read a scoring matrix

A scoring matrix is the document that defines how evaluators will translate your written response into a numerical score. Most contracting authorities publish the matrix in their ITT or bid pack. Reading it before writing is not optional — it is the foundation of a competitive bid.

The scoring scale. Most matrices use a 0–4 or 0–5 point scale, or occasionally 0–10 or 0–100 for individual questions. Each point on the scale corresponds to a quality level: 0 for unacceptable or unanswered, rising to the maximum for an outstanding, fully evidenced response. The descriptors for each score level tell you precisely what the evaluator is looking for at each threshold.

Criteria weightings. Each criterion carries a weighting (expressed as a percentage or as available marks). Sub-criteria within a criterion may have their own relative weightings. Multiply the score awarded by the weighting to arrive at the weighted score for that criterion. The total across all criteria, combined with the price score, gives the overall award score.

Quality thresholds. Many procurements set a minimum quality score — for example, a bidder must achieve at least 60% of the available quality marks to be considered for award. A bid that scores brilliantly on price but falls below the quality threshold is eliminated entirely. Always check for minimum score thresholds and design your responses to clear them with headroom.

Evaluator consistency. Most public sector evaluations use panels of two or more evaluators who score independently and then moderate to a consensus score. This means your response must be clear and unambiguous enough for multiple readers — not just the procurement lead — to extract the same evidence and award the same score.

Common quality criteria types

While the specific wording varies by buyer and procurement, the quality criteria in UK public sector tenders tend to cluster around a consistent set of themes.

Worked scoring example

The following example shows how a 60% quality / 40% price split translates into final award scores for three hypothetical bidders on a contract with a budget envelope of £500,000.

Frequently asked questions