Guide · Building a bid

Maximising quality points in public procurement – analysing the award criteria and optimising strategically

In public procurement, quality is not assessed on subjective impressions, brand or marketing communication. When a contracting authority chooses the most economically advantageous bid on the basis of the best price-quality ratio (Procurement Act, section 93), quality has been broken down into award criteria that are announced in advance and measured numerically.

Updated 7 July 2026 · Tendera

A bidding company's success depends on its ability to analyse these criteria systematically and optimise its bid to match them precisely. This article covers the mechanisms for maximising quality points at the bidding stage, lawfully and strategically.

1. The difference between minimum requirements and award criteria

The first step in maximising quality points is to tell two legal concepts apart: the mandatory minimum requirements and the actual award criteria.

Minimum requirements: These are the criteria a bid must meet in order to be accepted into the comparison at all. Exceeding a minimum requirement earns no extra points as a rule, unless that is expressly stated.
Quality award criteria: These are the factors used to rank the accepted bids. Under the Procurement Act, award criteria must always relate to the subject matter of the procurement (technical merit, the qualifications of the experts, environmental impact or delivery terms, for example).

A bidder must make sure it does not offer needless over-quality on points defined only as minimum requirements, because that typically raises the price of the bid without a corresponding benefit in the scoring.

2. Analysing the scoring model mathematically

Maximising quality points is fundamentally mathematics and an interpretation of the needs analysis the contracting authority has made. Before writing a single bid document, a company should model the scoring formula in the tender documents.

The ratio of quality to price determines the bidding strategy:

A quality-weighted model (price 30 %, quality 70 %, for example): In a model like this the significance of price is marginal. It pays to offer the most capable experts or the most advanced technology on the market even if that raises the price, because lost price points are easily recovered through quality points.
A price-weighted model with a coarse quality scale: If quality carries a low weight (30 %, for example) and is scored on a coarse scale (0, 3 or 5 points, for example), standing out on quality is mathematically difficult. The strategy must then lean on cost efficiency, and quality should be optimised to the level that secures the middle or top scoring band without disproportionate extra cost.

3. Presenting evidence and making quality verifiable

A contracting authority cannot award points for promises, only for verifiable facts. A bidder must be able to demonstrate quality objectively.

The experience of the experts: When the award criterion is the experience of named experts, it must be tied to clearly defined references. If the tender documents require experience of "comparable projects", the bidder must describe precisely in the experts' CVs how earlier projects match this procurement in scope and content.
Usability and technical features: In software and equipment procurement, quality may be scored on the basis of qualitative descriptions, expert assessment or separate user testing. The descriptions in the bid must be written to answer directly the assessment criteria (clarity, security features or integrability, for example) set out in the tender's scoring matrix.

4. The contracting authority's discretion and the bidder's response

Case law gives contracting authorities wide discretion in how they apply quality award criteria, as long as they follow the model announced in the tender documents and treat all bidders equally.

This puts the onus on the bidder to raise ambiguities in good time. If the award criteria are unclear, open to interpretation or leave the contracting authority unlimited freedom of choice (a criterion such as "general goodness" with no clarifying scoring matrix), the criterion is probably contrary to the Procurement Act.

A professional bidder uses the clarification questions available during the bidding period. By requiring the contracting authority to specify how quality is scored, the bidder both secures a fair comparison and gains valuable information about what the authority really values and weights.

Frequently asked questions

What are quality points made of?

Award criteria announced in advance and measured numerically (section 93) — technical merit, the qualifications of the experts or environmental impact, for example. Brand and impressions earn no points.

Why is offering over-quality a mistake?

Exceeding a minimum requirement earns no extra points as a rule, unless that is expressly stated. Over-quality raises the price of the bid without a corresponding benefit in the scoring.

How should the scoring model be analysed?

Model the scoring formula before writing the bid. In a quality-weighted model (quality 70 %, for example) it pays to offer the best expertise even at a higher price; in a price-weighted model, optimising the price decides.