Award Criteria

Award criteria are the standards used by contracting authorities to evaluate tenders and determine the winning offer in a public procurement procedure. Defined by Article 67 of Directive 2014/24/EU, award criteria assess the quality, price, and overall value of the tender itself, as distinct from selection criteria which assess the capacity and suitability of the economic operator submitting the bid. The proper design and application of award criteria is central to achieving value for money in public procurement.

How It Works

When a contracting authority launches a procurement procedure, it must define and publish the award criteria in the contract notice and the procurement documents. These criteria tell potential suppliers exactly how their tenders will be scored and ranked, enabling them to tailor their offers accordingly.

The contracting authority has three main approaches for structuring award criteria, all falling under the overarching principle of the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT):

Best price-quality ratio. This is the most common approach. The authority defines both price-related and quality-related criteria, assigns numerical weightings to each, and evaluates tenders by scoring them against all criteria. For example, a procurement might weight technical quality at 60% and price at 40%. Each tender receives scores for quality sub-criteria (methodology, experience, innovation) and a score for price, and the combined weighted score determines the ranking.
Cost-effectiveness approach. Instead of using purchase price alone, the authority uses a life-cycle costing model that considers all costs over the product or service lifetime, including acquisition, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life disposal. This approach is encouraged by Article 68 of Directive 2014/24/EU and is particularly relevant for energy-using equipment, vehicles, and construction projects where operating costs vastly exceed purchase costs.
Lowest price only. The authority awards the contract to the tenderer offering the lowest price. While permitted, this approach is increasingly discouraged by EU policy, and several Member States have restricted or banned its use for certain contract types. It remains suitable for standardized commodities where quality differences are negligible.

Regardless of the approach chosen, criteria must be weighted. The authority must either assign numerical percentage weights to each criterion or, at minimum, list criteria in descending order of importance. Sub-criteria must also be weighted if they could affect the ranking of tenders. The weighting must be published in advance; it cannot be changed after the deadline for receipt of tenders.

The evaluation process itself involves a panel of evaluators who independently score each tender against the published criteria, typically using a predefined scoring methodology (e.g., 0-10 scale per criterion). The panel then discusses and agrees on consensus scores or averages individual scores. Price evaluation typically uses a formula such as awarding maximum points to the lowest price and proportionally fewer points to higher prices.

Legal Framework

Article 67 of Directive 2014/24/EU is the core legal provision governing award criteria. It establishes that contracting authorities shall award contracts based on the most economically advantageous tender, which shall be identified on the basis of the price or cost, using a cost-effectiveness approach such as life-cycle costing, and may include the best price-quality ratio.

The article provides a non-exhaustive list of quality-related criteria that authorities may use: technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, accessibility and design for all users, social characteristics, environmental characteristics, innovative character, trading and delivery conditions, organization and qualification and experience of personnel assigned to the contract, after-sales service and technical assistance, and delivery conditions.

Article 67(4) requires that award criteria must be linked to the subject matter of the contract. This means an authority cannot, for example, award points for a supplier's general corporate social responsibility activities unless those activities directly relate to the performance of the specific contract. The Court of Justice of the European Union has developed extensive case law clarifying the boundaries of the "link to subject matter" requirement.

Article 67(5) requires that criteria be accompanied by specifications that allow the information provided by tenderers to be effectively verified. Award criteria must be precise, objective, and non-discriminatory. Vague criteria such as "general impression" or "innovative approach" without further definition are not permitted.

Member States have implemented these provisions with varying degrees of additional guidance. In Germany, the VgV (Vergabeverordnung) specifies detailed rules on how award criteria must be published and applied. In France, the Code de la commande publique requires the weighting of criteria (or, exceptionally, their ranking) and extensive administrative case law governs evaluation methodology. In the Netherlands, the Aanbestedingswet 2012 closely follows the directive, with the PIANOo competence center providing detailed guidance on best-value procurement.

Practical Examples

Example 1: IT Services Procurement. A government ministry procures managed IT services for its data center. The award criteria are weighted as follows: technical quality 50% (comprising solution architecture 20%, security measures 15%, and service level commitments 15%), price 30%, and social value 20% (including local employment, training placements, and environmental sustainability of data center operations). Eight tenderers submit bids. The evaluation panel scores each tender against sub-criteria using a 0-100 scale, applies the published weightings, and adds the price score. The winning tender offers the second-lowest price but scores highest overall due to superior technical architecture and a strong sustainability plan.

Example 2: Medical Equipment Supply. A hospital network procures diagnostic imaging equipment. Rather than lowest price, the authority uses life-cycle costing as the primary award criterion, considering purchase price (30%), energy consumption over 10 years (15%), maintenance and calibration costs (25%), training and support (15%), and image quality performance (15%). This approach reveals that the cheapest upfront option would cost significantly more over its lifetime due to high maintenance fees and energy consumption.

Example 3: Catering Services. A university procures campus catering services. Award criteria include price (35%), menu quality and nutritional balance (25%), sustainability of food sourcing (20%), and staff qualifications and training plan (20%). The sustainability criterion specifies measurable indicators including percentage of organic produce, food waste reduction targets, and packaging reduction commitments.

Key Considerations for Suppliers

Study the weighting carefully before deciding to bid. The distribution of weights between price and quality tells you whether the authority is looking primarily for value (quality-heavy weighting) or cost savings (price-heavy weighting). A 70/30 quality-to-price split rewards investment in a detailed, high-quality proposal. A 40/60 split means price competitiveness is essential, and your quality proposal needs only to meet the minimum standard convincingly.

Answer exactly what is asked. Award criteria sub-criteria function as a scoring rubric. Structure your tender response to mirror the criteria structure, making it easy for evaluators to find and score your answers. If the criteria specify "methodology for quality assurance" worth 15%, provide a dedicated section titled accordingly, with specific, measurable commitments rather than generic statements.

Beware of abnormally low tender verification. Under Article 69 of Directive 2014/24/EU, if your tender appears abnormally low in relation to the works, supplies, or services, the contracting authority must request an explanation before rejecting it. However, an unusually low price can also raise concerns about quality delivery. Ensure your pricing is defensible and that you can demonstrate how you will deliver the promised quality at the proposed price.

Use award criteria trends to position your business. Across the EU, there is a clear trend toward greater use of quality criteria, environmental sustainability requirements, and social value considerations. Investing in certifications (ISO 14001, SA8000), developing sustainability credentials, and building a portfolio of successful contract deliveries will increasingly differentiate you in evaluations where price alone is not decisive.

Seek clarification during the tender period. If any award criterion or sub-criterion is unclear, use the formal question-and-answer mechanism to seek clarification before the tender deadline. Misinterpreting a criterion can mean your response misses the mark entirely, even if your underlying offer is strong.

MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) — The overarching principle that award criteria implement, requiring evaluation based on best value rather than price alone.
Lowest Price — The simplest form of award criterion, using price as the sole basis for evaluation.
Selection Criteria — Criteria used to assess whether the tenderer has the capacity to perform the contract, evaluated separately from the tender itself.
Award — The decision to select the winning tender based on the application of award criteria.
Tender — The offer submitted by economic operators, which is evaluated against the published award criteria.
Procedure — The procurement process within which award criteria are defined and applied.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between award criteria and selection criteria?

Selection criteria assess the tenderer — their financial standing, technical capacity, professional qualifications, and track record. They determine whether a company is capable of performing the contract. Award criteria assess the tender itself — the specific offer, methodology, pricing, and proposed solution. Selection criteria are pass/fail (you either meet the minimum requirements or you do not), while award criteria produce a score that ranks tenders relative to each other. Article 67(2)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU explicitly prohibits using tenderer qualifications as award criteria except for the qualification of specific personnel assigned to execute the contract.

Can award criteria be changed after the contract notice is published?

No. Once the contract notice is published and the deadline for receipt of tenders has passed, the award criteria, their weightings, and the evaluation methodology are fixed. Changing them would violate the principles of equal treatment and transparency. If the authority discovers that the published criteria are inadequate, it must either proceed with the published criteria or cancel the procedure and restart. Even during the tender period, any clarification of criteria must not alter their substance.

How many award criteria should a procurement have?

There is no legal maximum or minimum number of criteria (beyond the requirement to have at least price or cost). Best practice suggests using 3-5 main criteria with clear, distinct sub-criteria. Too few criteria may fail to differentiate between tenders; too many can make evaluation unwieldy and reduce the impact of each individual criterion. Each criterion should be meaningful — if a criterion carries less than 5% weight, it is unlikely to influence the outcome and may add unnecessary complexity.

Want to monitor procurement opportunities? Start your free trial or subscribe to our newsletter for weekly insights.