Tender Selection Criteria: How to Respond and Score Well

Every tender tells you how it will be judged. The selection criteria, sometimes called evaluation criteria or award criteria, set out what the buyer will assess and how much each part counts. Suppliers who read them closely and write to them directly give evaluators an easy job. Suppliers who skim them and write a general pitch make evaluators search for marks.

This guide covers selection criteria in tenders and public procurement: the standards buyers use to score supplier responses. If you are applying for an Australian Public Service job and need to address selection criteria in a job application, that is a different task, and this guide is not the one you need.

What are tender selection criteria?

Selection criteria are the conditions and assessment standards a buyer publishes in the tender documents to compare responses fairly. They let a panel of evaluators score different suppliers against the same yardstick and document why one response won.

Terminology varies by country and buyer:

• Australia: Commonwealth tenders usually describe “conditions for participation” (the minimum requirements to be considered) and “evaluation criteria” (the factors used to assess responses), all in service of achieving value for money. State and local government buyers use similar terms.
• New Zealand: Government procurement guidance uses “evaluation criteria” and describes several evaluation models, including weighted attribute and price-quality methods.
• UK: Under the Procurement Act 2023, buyers set “conditions of participation” for supplier suitability and “award criteria” for assessing tenders. Older documents and many private sector buyers still say “selection criteria”.

Whatever the label, criteria usually fall into two groups: requirements you must meet to stay in the process, and factors you are scored on. For a broader view of where evaluation sits in the procurement timeline, see the guide to the tender process.

Mandatory criteria versus weighted criteria

The distinction between these two groups shapes your whole response.

Mandatory criteria decide whether your response is evaluated at all. Treat them as a checklist with zero tolerance for gaps. If the tender asks for a certificate of currency, attach it. If it asks for a signed declaration in a particular form, use that form. Evaluators often have no discretion to accept a near miss.

Weighted criteria decide where you rank. Each criterion carries a weighting that reflects its importance to the buyer. When the tender publishes the weightings, they tell you how to divide your effort: a criterion that carries a large share of the score deserves more of your best evidence than one that carries a small share. When the tender only lists criteria in order of importance, read that order as a guide to the same priorities.

How weightings and scoring scales usually work

Evaluators typically score each weighted criterion on a numbered scale, with a written descriptor for each point on the scale. The descriptors are the most useful part of the tender for a bid writer, because they define what a top score looks like.

Scales and wording differ between buyers, but descriptors often follow a pattern like the illustrative one below:

Each criterion’s raw score is then multiplied by its weighting, and the weighted scores are combined, often alongside the price assessment, to rank the responses. Moderation meetings resolve differences between individual evaluators.

Two practical lessons follow. First, the difference between “acceptable” and “excellent” is usually evidence. A response that claims capability without proving it rarely reaches the top band. Second, a strong answer to one criterion cannot rescue a weak answer elsewhere, because each criterion is scored separately.

Value for money and how price is assessed

Public buyers in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK are generally required to achieve value for money, which is a broader test than lowest price. Value for money weighs price against quality, fitness for purpose, risk, whole-of-life costs, the supplier’s experience and performance, and the wider benefits a supplier offers. In the UK, the Procurement Act 2023 frames the award decision around the “most advantageous tender”.

For bidders, that means:

• Show the value behind the price. Explain what is included, what it costs to run over the contract term, and how your approach lowers risk for the buyer.
• Keep price and solution consistent. If your methodology promises a dedicated account manager, the pricing schedule should include one. Evaluators compare the two.
• Follow the pricing format exactly. Price schedules are often assessed mechanically, and missing or reformatted lines can cause errors or exclusion.
• Address non-price benefits the buyer has asked about. Where the tender includes local content, Indigenous participation, sustainability, or social value criteria, respond to them with the same rigour as the technical criteria.

Read the criteria before you write a word

The most common way to lose marks is to start drafting before you understand how the response will be scored. Before anyone writes, extract every criterion into a compliance matrix. For each line, record:

• The criterion, quoted in the buyer’s words
• Whether it is mandatory or weighted, and its weighting if published
• The scoring descriptors that apply to it
• The page or word limit and the response location
• The evidence or attachments required
• The owner responsible for drafting it

This matrix becomes the outline of your response and the checklist for your final review. It also helps you decide whether to bid at all. If you cannot meet a mandatory criterion, or your evidence for the most heavily weighted criteria is thin, a go/no-go decision at this point saves your team from an expensive loss.

Read the rest of the tender alongside the criteria too. The statement of requirements, the draft contract, and any buyer background documents often explain why a criterion matters, which helps you answer it in terms the buyer cares about.

How to structure each criterion response

Evaluators usually score one criterion at a time, often with the scoring guide open beside your response. Make it easy for them to find the evidence that earns each mark.

1. Use the criterion as your heading. Number and title each section exactly as the tender does, so the evaluator can match your answer to their score sheet.
2. Answer directly in the opening lines. State plainly how you meet the criterion before you add detail. An evaluator should know your position from the first paragraph.
3. Mirror any sub-points. If the criterion lists several elements, address each one in the same order, using sub-headings or a short list.
4. Prove each claim. Attach a specific example, a named process, a qualification, or a result to every claim you make.
5. Connect it to the buyer. Explain how your approach fits this buyer’s situation, risks, and priorities, using their terminology.
6. Respect the limits. Stay within page and word limits and the required format. Content beyond a limit may not be read.

A simple skeleton for each criterion:

[Criterion number and title, exactly as written in the tender]

Summary: [One or two sentences that answer the criterion directly.]

[Sub-point 1 from the criterion]
- How we meet it: [Approach, process, or capability]
- Evidence: [Example, qualification, result, or attachment reference]

[Sub-point 2 from the criterion]
- How we meet it:
- Evidence:

Benefit to [buyer name]: [Why this approach lowers risk or adds value for them.]

The wider guide to writing a tender response covers how these criterion sections fit with the executive summary, pricing, and attachments.

Use evidence and structured examples

Evaluators can only award marks for what they can see. Strong responses replace general claims with evidence from comparable work, and the STAR structure (situation, task, action, result) is a reliable way to present it.

• Situation: the client, context, and scale, described so the evaluator can see it resembles their contract.
• Task: what you were engaged to deliver, and the constraints or risks involved.
• Action: what your team did, including methods, people, and decisions specific to that job.
• Result: the outcome, with measured results where you have them and a referee where possible.

Here is a short illustration for a fictional supplier responding to a criterion on transition planning:

Situation: A regional health service needed to move its facilities maintenance from an incumbent supplier without interrupting clinical services.

Task: We were engaged to take over planned and reactive maintenance across several sites within the contract’s transition period.

Action: We ran joint site inspections with the incumbent, mapped every asset and open work order, and staffed each site with a supervisor who attended the handover.

Result: All sites transferred on the scheduled date, and the client’s facilities manager is available as a referee.

Other strong forms of evidence include certifications, named key personnel with relevant experience, process documents, sample reports, and client testimonials. Keep a library of verified examples so writers can pick the most relevant one for each criterion. The guidance on tender writing best practices shows how to build that evidence into a persuasive narrative, and your capability statement is a useful place to keep the core facts consistent.

Win themes help here. A small set of buyer-specific messages, repeated with fresh evidence across criteria, gives the evaluator a consistent reason to prefer you. The guide on how to win a bid explains how to develop them from customer insight.

Common mistakes when responding to selection criteria

• Missing a mandatory requirement. A forgotten certificate or unsigned declaration can end the bid before any scoring. Check every mandatory item twice.
• Answering the question you wanted. Reusing a polished answer that addresses a different question scores poorly. Tailor each answer to the criterion as written.
• Ignoring the weightings. Spreading effort evenly across criteria wastes your strongest evidence on low-value sections.
• Claims without proof. Statements like “we have extensive experience” give the evaluator nothing to score. Name the work.
• Hiding the answer. Long introductions and company history before the actual answer make evaluators search. Lead with the answer.
• Breaking the format. Exceeding page limits, changing the response template, or reformatting pricing schedules can cost marks or lead to exclusion.
• Inconsistency across sections. Different staff names, figures, or methods in different answers undermine confidence. One final reviewer should read the whole response against the compliance matrix.
• Skipping the debrief. Buyers often offer feedback to unsuccessful bidders. Ask for it, and use the scores to strengthen your next response.

Scale your criterion responses without losing quality

Teams that bid often find that many criteria repeat across tenders: experience, quality management, work health and safety, transition, and key personnel come up again and again. The work is finding the best approved evidence quickly and tailoring it to each buyer’s wording. The guide to AI in the tender process covers where automation helps and where people need to stay in control, and tender management covers the operating model around it.

AutoRFP.ai supports this work for teams responding to government and enterprise tenders. It drafts each criterion response from content your team has already approved, cites the sources behind every answer, and routes anything it cannot support to a person, so writers start from verified evidence and spend their time tailoring it to the buyer. See how it works on the RFP software page.