As explained in chapter 5, the most common type of evaluation process is based on a combination of criteria.

In this context, as introduced in chapter 5, there are two approaches, which may be regarded as good practice: a streamed process and a consecutive or staged approach. Factors relevant to the choice between these approaches are discussed in box 6.4.

Where the assessment has significant subjective/qualitative elements, it is important to have that evaluation performed by subject matter experts.

In some cases, the subject matter experts may be government employees, in other cases they may be external advisers/consultants.

The first step in evaluation is a review of formal requirements, which is also called the ‘administrative requirements’ of the proposal. This involves confirming that the bid was submitted as required by the RFP, checking that powers and signatures are valid, and confirming that the bid complies with a number of general legal requirements. These may include checking that there are no unresolved issues with the tax authorities or that there are no impending prosecutions for corruption or a fraudulent act.

As with assessment of qualifications, proposals must be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in the RFP. In this sense, there will be an important difference in terms of process between price-only evaluation and a combination of quality and price criteria. The latter is clearly more complex, and the discussion below focuses on this approach.

The information contained in this section is applicable to any process type, including dialogue and interaction processes.

Having separate meetings with each potential bidding organization or consortium can provide better outcomes than only having a single meeting attended by competing organizations. However, meetings with individual bidders also entail a range of risks. The better outcomes arise because meetings with individual bidders enable greater depth of discussion, and potential bidders may be less willing to discuss their concerns or issues in front of competitors but be more willing to do so in a meeting where competitors are not present.

In addition to the need to select or pre-select the candidates in a short list (see chapter 5.6.4), the competitive dialogue processes (and other interactive processes) have a number of particular and common issues.

These relate to the special stage of interaction or dialogue where the technical requirements and commercial drivers of the contract are discussed or even proposed by the prospective bidders (the latter being the case with competitive dialogue in the EU).

In a one-stage process with open tender, qualifications are presented at the same time as the offer. The procuring authority must first assess qualifications before evaluating the bids. Separating these two steps sequentially is generally regarded as good practice, and some jurisdictions regulate the process in this way through their legal framework to protect transparency.

It is common for bidders to formally or informally ask for extensions to the bid submission deadline, claiming a lack of time to prepare the bids.

During the bid submission period, it is good practice to have interim open meetings with prospective bidders to present responses to the questions and facilitate the provision of any information relevant to the process (for example, if a government is retaining the responsibility for land expropriation, progress on this should be reported). Such meetings are usually held with all bidders collectively, although in some processes there may be separate meetings with each individual bidder. See section 8 for further information on the conduct of such meetings.

The procuring agency should be responsive to the requests for clarifications, providing appropriate answers in due time to give prospective bidders the best opportunity to provide high quality bids.