Evaluate every supplier against the same evidence
For requesters, subject evaluators and budget holders sitting on a tender panel.
The worked example follows fictional Northstar Group as it compares three suppliers for a staff scheduling service. All names, scores, costs and dates are illustrative, not a real procurement outcome.
One tender, four stages
Every evaluation in this kit moves through the same four stages: agree the criteria, assess independently, clarify gaps with suppliers through one route, and record a dated decision. Northstar's panel has one requester, two subject evaluators and a procurement lead. Read the stages in order, then use the completed clarification entry and decision record as models for your own paperwork.
Agree the criteria before anyone opens an offer
Criteria set after reading offers tend to favour the offer already preferred
Before offers are opened, the panel agrees what it will judge, how much each criterion counts, and what evidence earns a score. Record this once and give every evaluator the same copy.
Northstar's agreed criteria (scheduling-service tender)
- Service fit, 40%. The response shows how it handles split shifts, shift swaps and public-holiday cover, and documents its HR-calendar integration. The agreed service-fit priority is avoiding manual calendar re-entry while meeting those scheduling needs. Look for described functions, not general claims.
- Implementation effort, 20%. The response gives a named plan, the Northstar roles it needs and a go-live window. Look for the hours asked of Northstar staff.
- Whole-term cost, 30%. Total over the three-year term, including setup, licences, support and stated change charges. The same USD cost bands, agreed on 7 April 2026, apply to every offer: up to $400,000 earns 5; above $400,000 through $450,000 earns 4; above $450,000 through $500,000 earns 3; above $500,000 through $550,000 earns 2; above $550,000 earns 1.
- Support and continuity, 10%. Stated support hours, escalation route and data-export terms.
For non-cost criteria, use the agreed 1–5 evidence scale: 1 means evidence remains missing after clarification or contradicts the requirement; 5 means it fully meets the requirement with detail. During initial assessment, mark an unanswered item as pending clarification. Before calculating final totals, resolve it to a score; unresolved missing evidence receives 1 under this sample scale. Whole-term cost uses the bands above. Note the page or section of the response that justifies every score.
The evaluation sequence
Each step has one owner, so nothing waits on an assumption
-
1
Agree criteria, weights and roles
The procurement lead circulates the criteria sheet. Each evaluator confirms they have no conflict of interest before receiving any offer. -
2
Assess independently
Each evaluator scores every offer on their own, using only the response documents and the agreed scale. No sharing of scores yet. -
3
List the gaps
Each evaluator notes where the response is silent, unclear or inconsistent, and sends the list to the procurement lead by the agreed date. -
4
Send consistent clarification questions
The procurement lead merges the gaps into one set of questions and sends the same question to every supplier with the same gap, with the same reply deadline. -
5
Reconcile the scores
Evaluators meet after clarification, resolve every pending item to a final score, and compare each criterion. Discuss differences of two points or more and record a reason for every changed score. Do not calculate weighted totals with blank criteria. -
6
Record the decision
The procurement lead completes the decision record. The budget holder confirms the decision within their remit and the date is entered.
Independent assessment: what keeps scores comparable
Plain summaries of working habits, not links
- Read the criteria sheet and the scoring scale first
- Declare any past or current relationship with a bidder
- Open only the response documents, not supplier presentations or side emails
- Score one criterion across all offers before starting the next
- Write the evidence reference beside every score
- Mark a silent response pending clarification; at final reconciliation, score unresolved missing evidence as 1 and explain why.
- Submit your scores to the procurement lead before reading anyone else's
- Do not contact suppliers directly; route questions through the lead
- Bring questions about your own score, not opinions about the bidder
Clarification log: a worked entry
A clarification is a written question to suppliers about something their response did not make clear. It is not a chance to improve an offer. Every question and answer is logged and shared with the panel.
One row per question, kept by the procurement lead.
- Question number and the criterion it relates to
- The exact wording sent, identical for every supplier asked
- Date sent and reply deadline
- Date of each supplier's reply and where it is filed
- Evaluators whose scores it may affect
Criterion: Service fit. Sent 28 April 2026 to Suppliers A and C; replies due 5 May 2026.
- Question: "The response describes weekday scheduling but does not specify how public-holiday cover is handled. Please clarify the proposed function and any stated associated cost."
- Supplier A replied 30 April: coverage confirmed, additional charge stated and added to its three-year cost.
- Supplier C replied 4 May: coverage confirmed at no extra charge.
- Evidence filed with each response. Evaluators 1 and 2 re-checked service fit for A and C.
Compared options after reconciliation (fictional)
Consensus scores out of 5 for Northstar's scheduling-service sample tender. Costs are three-year totals in USD. Weighted totals use the 40/20/30/10 weights above.
| Criterion (weight) | Supplier A | Supplier B | Supplier C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service fit (40%) | 3: manual shift import | 5: documented HR integration | 2: integration "on roadmap" only |
| Implementation (20%) | 4: 10-week plan | 4: 12-week plan | 3: 14-week plan |
| Whole-term cost (30%) | 4: $412,000 | 3: $468,000 | 5: $371,000 |
| Support (10%) | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Weighted total | 3.6 | 4.1 | 3.2 |
Decision record: a completed example
Illustrative only: not a recommendation or an approved decision
Tender: Staff scheduling service, Northstar Group (fictional)
Decision date: 14 May 2026
Decision: Select Supplier B.
Options compared
Suppliers A, B and C, scored against the four agreed criteria. Weighted totals: B 4.1, A 3.6, C 3.2 (see the comparison table).
Evidence considered
- Written responses from all three suppliers, received 21 April 2026
- Clarification log CQ-01 to CQ-04, with replies filed on 30 April and 4 May 2026
- Three independent score sheets and the reconciliation notes of 8 May 2026
Rationale
Supplier B is the only offer with a documented integration to the HR calendar, which carries the most weight in the service-fit criterion. This outweighs its higher stated cost, about $56,000 more than Supplier A over three years.
Tradeoffs recorded
- Supplier B costs more than A and C, and its plan runs two weeks longer than A's.
- Supplier C had the lowest cost, but its calendar integration (CQ-04) was only a roadmap item with no documented evidence, so service fit stayed at 2.
- Supplier A fits adequately but relies on manual shift import, which the requester judged a continuing workload.
Responsible roles
Recorded by the procurement lead. Confirmed by the budget holder within their remit. Open points: none. Review this record if the contract scope changes before signature.