Evaluation Criteria Weighting

Evaluation criteria weighting is the assignment of a relative percentage or point value to each criterion used to evaluate bids. The weight shows how much a criterion contributes to the overall assessment. Evaluators then apply the stated weights consistently to every bid so that proposals can be compared and the best overall option identified.

In Canadian procurement guidance, a weight is commonly expressed as a percentage or a number of points. It represents the relative importance of one criterion compared with the others. Weighting is a feature of competitive methods that assess more than price, so it shapes how a bid team should plan, write and price a response. See the Competition Bureau's guide for procurement authorities for the wider context of fair competition in public buying.

Where weighting sits among mandatory, point-rated and price criteria

Weighting applies to some criteria and not to others. Canadian solicitations typically combine several types:

• Mandatory criteria are requirements a bid must satisfy to stay in the competition.
• Point-rated criteria measure and distinguish the relative technical merits of proposals, and they carry the weights.
• Price or cost criteria may be weighted alongside technical merit.
• Best-value or trade-off evaluations give technical quality and price different relative importance.

Federal professional-services templates draw the same line between non-rated requirements and point-rated requirements. The point-rated requirements receive points and may be assigned relative weights.

What Treasury Board and CanadaBuys say about weights

CanadaBuys instructs contracting officials to specify all evaluation criteria in the solicitation, including their relative weighting and importance. Its guidance on specifying evaluation criteria also advises officials to make sure that a high aggregate of points on minor criteria does not overcompensate for a low aggregate on major criteria.

Treasury Board Secretariat guidance on evaluation criteria describes models in which technical point-rated criteria and price are weighted together. One example gives point-rated criteria 80% of the evaluation and bid price 20%. Equal weighting of technical merit and price is also described.

The former Contracting Policy took the same approach. It stated that the merits of proposals should be compared using a weighted list of criteria, and that expected price could be weighted according to its appropriate importance relative to other factors. Its policy text is still a useful reference for how the practice developed.

Rules that govern how weights are set and applied

Weights must be fixed before bids are evaluated and disclosed in the solicitation. They must be applied equally to all bidders, and the evaluation approach cannot change after bid closing. The Office of the Procurement Ombudsman states that evaluation factors and their weighting must be established beforehand and adhered to strictly. Its reviews of Public Services and Procurement Canada, the National Research Council, Parks Canada and other federal organizations repeat this standard.

Other federal bodies set out the same requirement. Indigenous Services Canada requires calls for proposals to provide the evaluation criteria and their associated weights, with weights reflecting each criterion's relative importance to project requirements. The former policy likewise required tender documents to identify the criteria and the methods for weighting and evaluating them.

What weighting means for a supplier bidding on Canadian public contracts

The weights tell you where the points are. Read the evaluation matrix first, then build the response around it.

• Satisfy every mandatory requirement before anything else.
• Address each point-rated criterion directly and supply the evidence requested.
• Allocate proposal effort in proportion to the published weights.
• Follow any minimum technical score, pass mark, pricing formula or selection method.
• Do not assume the lowest price wins when technical criteria carry material weight.

Because strong results on minor criteria should not offset a weak result on major ones, a thin answer to a heavily weighted criterion is hard to recover from elsewhere in the bid.