When you're responding to a federal RFP, understanding how evaluators will score your bid isn't optional—it's the difference between winning and wasting resources. Evaluation criteria weighting is the predetermined point distribution that contracting authorities must disclose upfront, showing you exactly how much technical merit, price, and other factors count toward your final score. The Supply Manual Section 4.35.5 requires that these rated criteria be established before bids are received, ensuring transparency and fairness in how your proposal gets judged.
How It Works
Not all procurement criteria carry equal weight. The Supply Manual Section 4.35.1 mandates that contracting officers establish clear, unambiguous mandatory criteria—these are your pass/fail requirements. But the real strategy happens with rated criteria, where points are allocated according to a weighting structure disclosed in the solicitation documents.
Most best-value procurements you'll encounter split the pie between technical merit and price. Treasury Board guidance shows a common example where technical merit accounts for 80% of the evaluation and price just 20%, though you'll also see 70/30 or 60/40 splits depending on the complexity of the requirement. PSPC's procurement practice review EPA-PPR-05-2023 specifically assessed whether contracting authorities clearly communicated point allocation methods and whether those points actually reflected the relative importance of each criterion. Vague weighting creates bid protests.
In practice, three main selection methods emerge: lowest compliant bid (mandatory criteria only, no weighting needed), lowest price per point (where your total points divide into your price), or the combination approach where technical and price scores are weighted and added together. DND and SSC typically favor this combination method for complex IT or professional services contracts, giving technical factors more weight to ensure they're not just buying the cheapest solution. The assessor guidance for supply arrangement requirements confirms that mandatory criteria identify minimum thresholds, while rated criteria let evaluators distinguish between acceptable and exceptional proposals.
Key Considerations
- Weighting drives your resource allocation. If technical merit counts for 70% and price for 30%, dumping effort into shaving pennies off your pricing won't help if your technical narrative scores poorly. Align your proposal team's focus to the points available.
- Courts expect strict adherence to published weights. Evaluators can't change the scoring methodology mid-stream or apply subjective importance that contradicts the solicitation. Treasury Board Contracting Policy subsections 10.7.25 and 10.7.27 require that criteria align with the statement of work and that measurement methods be specified upfront.
- Watch for sub-criteria weighting. A single technical category worth 50 points might break down into experience (20 points), methodology (20 points), and resources (10 points). You need to address each sub-criterion proportionally—neglecting a 5-point item is acceptable; ignoring a 20-point one is fatal.
- Price weighting doesn't mean lowest price wins. Even when price carries 30-40% weight, a mid-range bid with exceptional technical scores often beats the cheapest proposal. Run the math on different scenarios before you finalize your pricing strategy.
Related Terms
Basis of Selection, Mandatory Criteria, Point-Rated Criteria, Technical Evaluation, Best Value
Sources
- Supply Manual - Section 4.35 Evaluation of Bids
- Treasury Board Secretariat - Evaluation Criteria
- Procurement Practice Review EPA-PPR-05-2023
Before you write a single proposal page, study the evaluation grid. The weighting tells you where evaluators will spend their time—and where you should spend yours.