Establishing a scaled scoring approach

This content is draft for consultation.

Purpose of a scaled scoring approach

During the vendor evaluation process, a scaled scoring system helps to objectively compare and evaluate vendors based on a set of agreed criteria. This allows the evaluation committee to:

Assess vendors objectively: a scaled scoring system offers a clear, objective basis for comparing vendors on predefined factors such as cost, quality, delivery time, and support. Without it, evaluations could become subjective and more vulnerable to bias.
Standardise the process: scaled scores provide a uniform standard for evaluating all vendors, ensuring consistency across different evaluators and departments.
Enhance transparency: by defining and applying scores consistently, the vendor selection process becomes more transparent, making it easier to justify decisions to stakeholders and ensuring procurement integrity.
Incorporate weighted importance: scaled scores enable weighted scoring, allowing critical factors like quality and security to carry more weight than other attributes, ensuring these key considerations have a greater impact on the final decision.

Evaluation structure

1.1 Develop an evaluation criteria

The evaluation committee should establish the primary goals of the evaluation process. This involves reviewing and analysing several critical areas to make an informed decision on the preferred vendor.

The following list outlines common factors to consider, ensuring a thorough and comprehensive assessment. Users should ensure these are tailored to align with their organisation’s specific requirements and compliance standards.

Factors	Key Considerations
Functionality	Has the vendor responded “Compliant” on all mandatory requirements stated in the Request For Proposal (RFP) document. If a response on a mandatory requirement is “non-compliant”, was there any indication that the vendor can include this in the enhancement roadmap with no additional cost?
Cost and Pricing Structure	How does the vendor’s pricing compare with industry averages and competitors? Are the payment terms favourable? i.e. milestone payments. Are there any additional costs for setup, maintenance, training, or support
Compliance	Does the vendor hold relevant industry certifications (e.g., ISO, health and safety)? What are the vendor’s quality assurance and control measures?
Reliability and Performance History	How long has the vendor been in business, and what is their track record in terms of reliability? Can they provide references or case studies of successful projects with similar sized clients?
Capacity and Scalability	Can the vendor meet your volume requirements now and in the future? Is the vendor equipped to manage growth if your needs increase?
Financial Stability	Is the vendor financially stable? This can be assessed through financial statements or credit checks.
Technical Capability	Does the vendor have the technical skills and resources required?
Data Security and Privacy compliance	Does the vendor adhere to cybersecurity standards? How does the vendor manage data privacy, especially if dealing with sensitive information?
Geographic Location and Accessibility	Is the vendor's location advantageous for logistics, delivery times, or costs? Are there potential geopolitical or environmental risks associated with their location?

1.2 Develop a scoring system

The following table provides sample generic definitions for each rating across key evaluation categories relevant to a vendor's tender response.

These definitions should be customised to align with the specific requirements and guidelines of your organisation. Furthermore, more categories may be added by the evaluation committee depending on the tender being assessed.

Rating	Score	Value for money	Compliance	Technical	Quality
Exceptional	5	Exceeds value for money expectations by delivering exceptional efficiency and effectiveness, while also offering additional value beyond the core requirements through enhanced features.	Exceeds compliance requirements by fully meeting and surpassing regulatory and contractual obligations, with added advantages in areas such as risk mitigation, or enhanced governance practices.	Exceeds technical expectations by demonstrating exceptional expertise and offering solutions that go beyond the required specifications.	Exceeds quality standards by delivering outstanding results that significantly surpass the required benchmarks.
Above Standard	4	Competitive pricing, providing substantial value for money.	Fully compliant with all requirements, meeting expectations thoroughly.	Strong technical capability, showing above-average performance and expertise.	High quality, anticipated to meet or slightly exceed required standards.
Meets Standard	3	Meets market expectations with fair pricing that aligns with the industry average, ensuring value for money without concerns.	Meets all essential requirements without concerns.	Meets the required technical capabilities, demonstrating sufficient expertise to fulfill the requirements.	Meets quality standards, delivering an acceptable quality that satisfies basic specifications.
Minor Concerns	2	Pricing is slightly higher than average, offering limited value for money.	Mostly compliant, but minor deviations or issues are present.	Adequate technical capability with minor concerns, indicating some limitations in meeting all requirements.	Quality meets some standards but has minor gaps or issues in certain areas.
Major Concerns	1	High pricing with low value for money compared to competitors.	Partially compliant, with significant deviations from or omissions in meeting requirements.	Limited technical capability, raising serious concerns about fulfilling the requirements effectively.	Quality is a concern, with significant issues unlikely to meet all required standards.
Unsatisfactory	0	Uncompetitive or unjustified pricing, offering poor value.	Non-compliant with essential requirements, failing to meet core specifications.	Lacks the technical capability required to perform adequately, posing a high risk of underperformance.	Inferior quality with substantial gaps, failing to meet the minimum required standards for the service or product.

1.3 Assign weights to criteria

Assigning appropriate weights to each criterion based on its importance will ensure that vendors are evaluated fairly and transparently. This approach not only helps identify the vendor that best meets the organisation’s needs but also reinforces accountability and consistency in the procurement process.

Here is the step-by-step process:

Assess: based on your organisational goals, evaluate how critical each criterion is to the success of the procurement.
Assign: assign numerical weights, on a scale from 1 to 100, to each criterion, with higher weights reflecting greater importance. Ensure that the total weight across all criteria adds up to 100%.
Validate: review the criteria weights with relevant stakeholders to ensure alignment with the organisation’s priorities and to maintain transparency.

1.4 Conduct evaluation

Once all vendor responses are gathered, the evaluation committee can begin assessing and scoring each vendor according to the established criteria and agreed-upon scoring and weight system. Upon completion, the committee chair will compile the scores to generate a consolidated result for each vendor.

Below is the evaluation template, which incorporates the scoring matrix and the weighted values for each criterion.

Excel scoring matrix

1.5 Sample illustration of the evaluation process

In this example, we are assessing 2 (two) vendors, with the evaluation committee agreeing on 2 (two) criteria for the evaluation.

2 (two) key criteria

Functionality – High priority (Weight: 70%)
Geographic Location – Lower priority (Weight: 30%)

Scoring system

Scale used: 0 – 5 (0 as unsatisfactory and 5 as exceptional)

Vendor A receives 4 for functionality and 3 for geographic location.
Vendor B receives 3 for functionality and 5 for geographic location.

Outcome

Vendor	Functionality (Score x Weight)	Geographic Location (Score x Weight)	Total Weighted Score
Vendor A	4 (Above Average) x 0.70 = 2.8	3 (Meets Expectations) x 0.30 = 0.9	2.8 + 0.9 = 3.7
Vendor B	3 (Meets Expectations) x 0.70 = 2.1	5 (Excellent) x 0.30 = 1.5	2.1 + 1.5 = 3.6

Conclusion

Vendor A has the higher total score (3.7), even though Vendor B scored better on location. This reflects the higher weight given to functionality.

Contact us

This content is draft for consultation. To learn more about the Guidelines, the phased publication approach, or if you are interested in being part of future reference groups, please contact us via the form below.

Provide your feedback