Procurement in a Nutshell: Scoring criteria
19th June, 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell
19th June 2026
Procurement in a Nutshell: Scoring criteria
Find out more
In a previous nutshell, we outlined the Provider Selection Regime (PSR) decision CR0049-26 and why the panel concluded that Northern Care Alliance Trust (NCA) scoring criteria had breached the PSR regulations.
Click here for the previous nutshell.
Click here to read the decision.
This nutshell provides a deeper dive into NCA’s scoring criteria and why the wording of your scoring criteria is crucial for a successful tender.
NCA’s scoring criteria
| Score label | Score | Definition of Score |
| Good | 3 | The response meets the required standing in all the points raised, demonstrates a good understanding of all the requirements, and provides evidence that the bidder will deliver the service to the requirements set out, and its tailored to the Contracting Authority’s needs. |
| Excellent | 4 | The response supports an excellent degree of confidence in the Bidder’s ability to deliver and/or exceeds the Contracting Authorities specified requirements and/or expectations.
The response is tailored to the Contracting Authority’s needs. Where appropriate, the response is well evidenced, and/or of a quality and/or level of detail, the understanding that provides either a very high certainty of delivery or is considered likely to offer added value, likely to result in improved: · Quality and/or · Performance and/or · Efficiency and/or · Outcomes. |
Issues the scoring criteria presented
The scoring criteria was a contested issue as Endocare, in its representations to the Panel, said that NCA “misapplied the published scoring methodology” when evaluating bidders’ proposals. Endocare had been awarded a score of 3 (Good) for failing to “exceed the contracting authorities specified requirements and/or expectations”.
The issue with the scoring criteria stems from the methodology using “and/or” throughout the ‘4 – Excellent’ criteria. The choice between “and/or” therefore set out more than one valid route by which a bidder could achieve a score of 4. The Panel noted the “and/or” criteria could result in many different pathways for an answer to achieve a score of 4. Specifically, the Panel identified 637 possible combinations of the factors set out in the definition that would result in an answer bring eligible for a score of 4.
NCA asserted to achieve a score of 4, one would have to “exceed the Contracting Authority’s specified requirements and/or expectations” or be “considered likely to offer added value”. However, the Panel found it was not necessary for an answer to exceed NCA’s requirements or expectations or demonstrate added value, to be eligible for a score of 4.
Instead, an answer could be eligible for a score of 4 if it “supports an excellent degree of confidence in the Bidder’s ability to deliver”, is “tailored to the Contracting Authority’s needs”, and “is well evidenced, and of a quality that provides a very high certainty if delivery”.
The Panel also found that there was a mismatch between what bidders were told in the tender documentation about what was necessary to be awarded a score of 4 and the apparent, but unrecorded definition that was applied by NCA. This meant that some answers were potentially eligible for a score of 4 set out in the definition set out in the tender documentation may not have been awarded the score therefore they were not transparent in their scoring.
What can we take from this?
The “and/or” criteria is clearly confusing. As the Panel identified, if a bidder hit the criteria for a 3, they could also possibly have fit the criteria for a score of 4. The 637 identified possible combinations highlights extreme difficulty in ensuring consistency in which bids scored a 4.
Going forward, when considering your own scoring criteria, the following should be taken into account:
- Make scoring explanations as short as possible whilst still covering the necessary detail.
- Follow what you have said you will do in your published documents.
- Pay close attention to the language used throughout these documents.
- Step in as moderator when evaluators’ justifications are inconsistent with the scoring criteria
- Ensure the evaluator training guidance covers the specific scoring matrix used in the procurement. The Panel noted that did not happen in this case.
For further information, please contact Tim Care or Melanie Pears in our Public Sector team.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
