Getting Started
Tender evaluation criteria: how governments score your bid
Inside the evaluation process — how government panels assess, weight, and score tender responses
Understanding how government evaluation panels actually score your tender response is perhaps the single most important factor in winning government contracts. Every tender publishes its evaluation criteria — but knowing what's being scored is different from understanding how it's scored. Here's a look behind the curtain.
How evaluation panels work
When a government agency receives tender responses, an evaluation panel is convened to assess them. The panel typically consists of three to five members, including subject matter experts, procurement specialists, and sometimes senior stakeholders. Each panel member independently scores every response against the published criteria before the panel meets to calibrate and reach consensus scores.
This means your response needs to work for multiple readers with different perspectives. The technical expert will scrutinise your methodology. The procurement specialist will check compliance. The stakeholder will focus on outcomes and risk. Write for all of them.
Types of evaluation criteria
Government tenders typically include several categories of criteria:
Technical capability and methodology. How will you deliver the work? This is usually the highest-weighted criterion and is where you demonstrate your approach, your understanding of the requirements, and your technical expertise. Evaluators want specificity — not "we will use best practice" but "we will deploy three supervisors across two shifts using the following quality inspection regime."
Relevant experience. Have you done this before? Evaluators want specific project examples: client name, contract value, scope, duration, and outcomes. The more similar to the current tender, the better. Government experience is valued more highly than private sector experience in most evaluations.
Key personnel. Who will actually do the work? Provide named individuals with relevant CVs, qualifications, and specific experience. Government evaluators want to see that your proposed team has collectively delivered similar work successfully.
Price. Assessed against a value-for-money framework, not simply lowest price. Price is often the last criterion evaluated — the panel assesses quality first, then looks at price in the context of the quality offered.
Local content and social outcomes. Increasingly, criteria include local employment, Indigenous participation, sustainability practices, and social enterprise engagement. These are evaluated with the same rigour as technical criteria.
Understanding weighting systems
Most government tenders assign percentage weightings to each criterion. A typical weighting might be:
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Technical capability and methodology | 35% |
| Relevant experience | 25% |
| Key personnel | 15% |
| Price | 25% |
These weightings are not decorative — they're the mathematical formula that determines who wins. If methodology is worth 35% and you score 7/10, that's 24.5 weighted points. If a competitor scores 9/10 on methodology, they get 31.5 points — a gap that's very difficult to close through price alone.
The strategic implication is clear: invest your response effort proportionally to the weightings. The sections with the highest weighting should contain your strongest content. For more detail, read our tender evaluation criteria guide.
How scoring actually works
Most government panels use a numerical scoring system, typically 0-5 or 0-10, with defined descriptors for each score level. A common framework:
- 0: Non-compliant or not addressed
- 1-2: Poor — significant concerns or gaps
- 3-4: Satisfactory — meets minimum requirements
- 5-6: Good — competent response with demonstrated capability
- 7-8: Very good — strong evidence, well-detailed approach
- 9-10: Excellent — outstanding, best-practice approach with compelling evidence
The critical insight is that moving from "satisfactory" to "good" requires providing specific evidence, not just assertions. Moving from "good" to "excellent" requires demonstrating innovation, best practice, or exceptional relevant experience.
Maximising your score
Address every criterion explicitly. Use the same headings and numbering as the evaluation criteria. Don't make the panel search for your answers.
Provide evidence for every claim. Assertions without evidence score in the "satisfactory" range at best. Specific project examples, data, and references push you into the "good" and "very good" ranges.
Tailor to the specific tender. Generic responses are immediately obvious to experienced evaluators and score poorly. Reference the specific agency, the specific requirements, and the specific context of this procurement.
Use AI for quality assurance. AI tools can review your draft response against the evaluation criteria and flag gaps, missing evidence, or criteria you haven't addressed. This pre-submission check mimics what the evaluation panel will do — see our article on using AI to analyse tender requirements.
After the evaluation
Most government procurement processes offer a debriefing to unsuccessful tenderers. Always request a debrief. Understanding where you scored well and where you lost points is invaluable intelligence for future bids.
Track your debrief feedback across multiple tenders and look for patterns. If you consistently score well on experience but poorly on methodology, invest in improving your methodology writing. If price is consistently flagged, review your pricing approach.
The businesses that win the most government tenders are the ones that understand evaluation criteria as more than just a list of requirements. They understand them as a scoring system — and they optimise their responses accordingly. Start with our comprehensive guide on how to win government tenders for the full framework.