How RFP evaluation criteria work
Evaluation criteria are how buyers compare conforming bids: usually weighted scores for method, experience, team, and price. Lowest price alone rarely wins when non-price marks are large.
Key takeaways
- Criteria tell you what earns marks after mandatory gates are passed.
- Relative importance (weights) matters: spend depth where the pack puts weight.
- Under Australian Commonwealth rules, price is not the sole value-for-money factor.
- Those Commonwealth rules bind Commonwealth buyers; other buyers may use similar ideas without the same legal text.
- A cheaper bid can lose if non-price scores are weak on high-weight criteria.
- Use the pack’s published criteria and scale, not a generic five-point internet list.
What RFP evaluation criteria are
RFP evaluation criteria (also searched as evaluation criteria for rfp) are the measures buyers use to rank proposals that already meet mandatory conditions. Typical themes: methodology, relevant experience, key personnel, risk, social or sustainability factors, and price or whole-of-life cost.
They sit next to RFP requirements. Requirements include gates and admin rules. Criteria are usually where comparative marks live.
If weights are published, treat them as your effort map. If only order or a value-for-money narrative is published, still cover every named criterion. Panels rarely ignore a listed factor just because no percentage appears.
Compare
Australian Commonwealth rules that shape scoring
This table summarises selected rules from the Australian Government Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs, effective 1 July 2024), published by the Department of Finance. These rules apply to relevant Commonwealth (Australian Government) entities. They are Australian public procurement rules. State, territory, local, and private buyers are not automatically bound by the CPRs, but many still evaluate on value for money and a mix of price and non-price criteria, so the ideas may be useful even when the legal source is different. Always follow the evaluation section in the pack you received.
| CPR reference | Topic | What it means for a bidder |
|---|---|---|
| 4.4 | Value for money is the core rule | Officials must be satisfied the outcome is value for money, not only that a process was run. |
| 4.5 | Price is not the sole factor | Expect financial and non-financial factors to be weighed together. |
| 4.5(a–f) | Listed non-price considerations | Quality, fitness for purpose, experience/performance history, flexibility/innovation, environmental sustainability, and whole-of-life costs are explicitly in scope (non-exhaustive). |
| 4.6 | Whole-of-life costs | Purchase price can sit beside maintenance, transition-out, licensing, consumables, and disposal. Cheap day-one pricing may not win. |
| 7.12 | Criteria in request documentation | Buyers should put evaluation criteria in the pack so submissions can be compared fairly. |
| 10.6(d) | Relative importance when used | Request docs must describe the criteria and, if applicable, their relative importance (weights or equivalent). |
Source: Australian Government Department of Finance, Commonwealth Procurement Rules (1 July 2024). Curated rule summaries for this page, not a full reprint. Retrieved 2026-07-29.
How to use those Commonwealth rules
If you are bidding to a Commonwealth entity, read the pack’s evaluation clause against this table. If price looks like the only story in a cover email, check the request documentation anyway. The CPRs push officials beyond lowest price.
If you are bidding to someone else (state panel, council, private RFP), do not quote the CPRs as binding on them. Do use the same habit: find the criteria, find any weights, and write to those marks.
The CPRs do not prescribe a single mandatory percentage split (for example “price must be 30%”). Relative importance appears when the buyer chooses to use it. Copy the weights from your pack into the sandbox below.
Weighted score sandbox
Replace the sample criteria with the pack’s names and weights. Try scores out of 5 for your bid and another. See how a strong method score can offset a weaker price score, or fail to.
| Criterion | Weight % | Your score /5 | Other bid /5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Weights total 100%. Scores are out of 5.
Weighted result
You 3.45 vs Other 3.85
On this simple model, the other bid leads. Try raising a high-weight non-price score, or see how much price must move.
How weights work in practice
A simple model multiplies each criterion score by its weight share, then sums. A 4/5 on a 40% criterion beats a 5/5 on a 10% criterion.
That is why technical proposal depth should follow evaluation weight, and why commercial proposal work still matters even when price is not the largest slice.
Some processes use two envelopes, pass/fail quality gates, or qualitative ranking without numbers. The teaching tools on this page assume a transparent weighted score so you can feel the trade-offs. Your pack wins if it describes a different method.
Price-weight offset dial
Set price weight and how much dearer you are. See a rough non-price score you would need under a simple teaching model. Not a pricing recommendation.
Rough non-price target
4.5 / 5
With price at 30% and your price about 15% higher, this model treats your price score as ~2.75/5 (other ~5/5). To match their blended total (~3.95), you need about 4.5/5 on non-price, roughly 1.0 points above their non-price score of 3.5.
Assumptions: one blended non-price score; linear price penalty; other bid gets full marks on price. Real panels use the pack’s own price formula.
Sample evaluation criteria (illustrative)
Searches for rfp evaluation criteria example or sample rfp evaluation criteria usually want a shape. Here is an illustrative set, not a Commonwealth-mandated template:
Methodology (35%): approach, programme, quality controls.
Relevant experience (25%): closest past work with outcomes.
Price (30%): evaluated against the stated price model.
Key personnel (10%): named people, skills, availability.
Replace every line with the buyer’s wording and weights. Sector packs (ICT, construction, consulting) rename criteria; the discipline stays: know the marks, then prove them.
For readiness before you invest drafting days, see how to evaluate a tender.
Tip
Mandatory first, marks second
A high weighted score does not save a non-conforming bid. Clear mandatory requirements and forms before you optimise for criteria marks.
FAQ
Whatever the request documents list, commonly methodology, experience, personnel, risk or sustainability factors, and price or whole-of-life cost. Under Australian Commonwealth Procurement Rules, price is not the sole value-for-money factor for Commonwealth buyers.
There is no universal set of five. Training lists vary. Use the criteria and weights in your pack. Inventing a fixed “five criteria” list is a common mistake.
Same answer as for five: packs differ. Commonwealth value-for-money guidance lists several non-price considerations (quality, fitness for purpose, experience, flexibility, environmental sustainability, whole-of-life costs) alongside price. That is a framework, not a mandatory six-box template for every RFP.
Research funders use their own schemes (significance, methods, team, budget, and so on). This page is about RFP and tender evaluation for goods and services procurement. Follow the scheme guidelines you are applying to.
Not automatically. The Commonwealth Procurement Rules apply to relevant Commonwealth entities. State and territory buyers have their own frameworks. The habit of reading published criteria and weights still applies.
No under the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and often not elsewhere either. Value for money includes non-financial factors and whole-of-life costs, not only the sticker price.
Early access
Write to the marks that matter
Join the list for Proposit early access.
Proposit helps teams check what a pack requires against their own documents before they draft. Request access if that matches how you bid.