Procurement preparation
Event weighted scoring matrix
Three proposals are on the table, each strong in a different way, and the committee wants a decision it can explain.
Opens WhatsApp with a draft you can edit before sending. Nothing is sent automatically.
The short answer
A weighted scoring matrix turns your priorities into numbers before you see the bids. You list the criteria, give each a weight that totals 100, define what each score means and then score every eligible proposal the same way.
The matrix supports judgement; it does not replace it. If the top score reads wrong, ask why before you accept it.
Fix the rules before bids open
Weights decided after reading the proposals are weights chosen to favour someone. Agree criteria, weights and the scoring scale with the committee, and put them in the invitation so bidders know what matters.
Only suppliers who passed the eligibility checklist are scored.
Decision sequence
- List four to seven criteria that reflect what this event needs. Fewer criteria with clear meaning beat many overlapping ones.
- Give each criterion a weight and make the total 100. Price is one criterion among others, and its share should reflect the real trade-off your committee accepts.
- Define a 0 to 5 scale with a plain sentence for each level, so a 3 means the same to every scorer.
- Normalise the quotes first so price compares like with like. The supplier quote normaliser flags missing inclusions instead of treating them as free.
- Have each scorer mark independently, with a short written reason for any score of 0, 1 or 5.
- Meet to moderate. Discuss large gaps between scorers, agree final scores and record the reasoning.
- Check the result against your instinct and against the risks, then write the recommendation memo.
A scoring scale scorers can share
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | No response, or the requirement is not met. |
| 1 | Weak: major gaps or unclear how it would be delivered. |
| 2 | Below expectation: partly meets, with notable gaps. |
| 3 | Meets the requirement as written. |
| 4 | Meets it and adds something of clear value. |
| 5 | Exceptional: strong evidence and low delivery risk. |
Calculating the weighted score
For each criterion, divide the score by 5 and multiply by the weight. Add the results. A score of 4 on a criterion weighted 30 gives 24 points.
For price, agree the method in advance. A common approach gives the lowest compliant total price the full weight and scales the others by lowest price divided by their price. Whatever you choose, state it in the invitation.
Common pitfalls
- Setting a minimum quality threshold only after seeing that a cheap bid scored high.
- Scorers who talk before scoring and so move together.
- Giving price a weight of 70 and then being surprised by a thin proposal.
- Treating a 2-point gap as a clear winner. Near ties deserve a second look at risk and references.
- Scoring a supplier on reputation instead of on what the proposal says.
Worked example · Fictional example
Three audiovisual proposals scored on five criteria
Fictional organisation and figures, for illustration only.
A fictional professional-development body weights five criteria: price 30, fit with specification 30, relevant experience and references 20, team and delivery plan 15, risk and terms 5. Three suppliers pass eligibility and are scored 0 to 5 after moderation.
Supplier A scores 4, 3, 5, 4, 3 and totals 77. Supplier B scores 5, 4, 3, 3, 4 and totals 79. Supplier C scores 3, 5, 4, 5, 2 and totals 81. The gap between first and third is four points, so the committee asks the memo to describe C's weak risk and terms score and to check whether B's lower experience is acceptable, before choosing.
| Criterion | Weight | Supplier A | Supplier B | Supplier C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 30 | 24 | 30 | 18 |
| Fit with specification | 30 | 18 | 24 | 30 |
| Experience and references | 20 | 20 | 12 | 16 |
| Team and delivery plan | 15 | 12 | 9 | 15 |
| Risk and terms | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Total | 100 | 77 | 79 | 81 |
Use this yourself
Weighted scoring matrix worksheet
Copy into a spreadsheet. Fix the first three columns before bids open, then add one score column per supplier and scorer.
| Criterion | What good looks like | Weight (total 100) | Supplier score 0-5 | Weighted points | Scorer's reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price (method stated) | |||||
| Fit with specification | |||||
| Experience and references | |||||
| Team and delivery plan | |||||
| Risk and terms | |||||
| Total | 100 |
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- Few proposals, clear specification and a committee that agrees what matters.
- Scorers are experienced and can mark independently.
- Finance has already given you a price scoring method.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- The committee cannot agree weights, or each member wants a different winner.
- Proposals are hard to compare because they bundle services differently.
- A funder or board needs a documented, defensible evaluation.
Need the matrix built before the bids arrive?
An Event Blueprint can include evaluation criteria and weights drawn from your brief, the scoring scale, a moderation step and a worksheet ready to use. The scoring and the award decision stay with your committee.
Questions organisers ask
How much weight should price carry?
There is no correct figure. It reflects how much your committee will trade quality for cost. Agree it with finance and the chair, write it down before bids arrive and keep it unchanged.
Should scorers see each other's marks?
Not before they have finished. Independent first scores avoid copying. Afterwards, meet to moderate and record the reason for any change.
What if the highest score feels wrong?
Look at which criterion drives it and at the risks. If a weight or scale did not reflect what you value, report that rather than quietly adjusting scores. Follow your own procurement rules on re-running an evaluation.
Can we add a minimum score on a criterion?
Yes, if you state it in the invitation, for example a minimum of 3 on fit with specification. Adding it later is unfair to bidders.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.