How to explain public tender results
Give each assessed supplier a clear account of its scores and the tender evidence behind them. Unsuccessful suppliers also receive the winning tender’s assessment information, with justified redactions. Keep the explanation useful after redaction. For factory evidence supporting a bid, contact Cambridge China Bridge.
Confirm which process you are explaining
This guide concerns assessment summaries for public contracts following competitive tendering under the procurement legislation covered by Cabinet Office guidance. Give summaries to suppliers that submitted assessed tenders simultaneously, before publishing the contract award notice. An ordinary private purchase from a factory is a different exercise; use our guide to comparing supplier quotes for that. For participation questions, see our guide to approved suppliers in public tenders.
In a procedure with successive assessment stages, suppliers rejected before the final assessment do not qualify for the statutory assessment summary on that basis. The guidance nevertheless recommends prompt written notification and feedback appropriate to the stage reached. Identify the recipient’s position before choosing the feedback format.
Build the summary from the assessment record
Include the recipient’s name, postal address, email address and unique identifier. Set out the award criteria and assessment methodology, or summarise the criteria and indicate where the full version is accessible. A criteria summary must include each criterion’s title, relative importance, assessment approach and available scores.
Show the awarded scores for criteria and assessed sub-criteria, together with the total and any subtotals required by the methodology. For an unsuccessful tender, explain any additional reason for non-award. Where assessment stopped after a failed requirement, explain the stopping point and the criteria actually assessed; do not invent scores for unassessed material. For supplier eligibility, see our guide to public tender participation conditions.
Explain what earned each score
For every assessed criterion and sub-criterion, explain the score by referring to relevant information in the tender. Repeating the criterion or saying that the response was satisfactory does not show the reasoning. The guidance treats explaining why a higher score was not achieved as best practice, and sometimes necessary to make the awarded score understandable.
Use a drafting pattern: identify the criterion, point to the tender passage, describe what it demonstrated and connect that finding to the scoring description. For a goods tender, refer to the submitted inspection plan or specification response rather than adding factory assurances obtained later. Our product specification guide helps organise the underlying product evidence. For specification wording, see our guide to naming brands in public tenders.
Give unsuccessful suppliers the winning assessment
The unsuccessful supplier’s summary must also contain the assessment information supplied to the successful supplier, redacted where required. A direct comparison between competing tenders is not required. Provide recognisable explanations of the winning tender’s scores so the recipient can read the assessments together and understand the relative advantages.
Prepare the winning assessment as a separate attachment, then check that every unsuccessful recipient receives the appropriate version. Keep assessment information distinct from the winning tender document itself: the guidance requires assessment information, rather than circulation of the complete bid. Use consistent criterion names and document references throughout.
Working out your own order? Send us the product on WhatsApp and we reply the same working day: WhatsApp us
Protect information without removing the explanation
The guidance permits withholding information to protect national security, or where information is commercially sensitive and an overriding public interest supports withholding it. A supplier’s confidentiality label alone does not settle the question. Even after redaction, the winning assessment should sufficiently explain the score against each criterion.
Ask suppliers to identify sensitive passages and justify confidentiality when submitting their tenders. Before sending feedback, record the reason for each proposed redaction and read the remaining explanation from the recipient’s perspective. Where the criterion permits, describe demonstrated outcomes without exposing proprietary methods. Keep the approved versions and dispatch record together.
Frequently asked questions
Do successful suppliers need an assessment summary?
Yes, where they submitted an assessed tender in the competitive public procurement covered here. Their summary explains their own assessment and scores.
Must we send the losing supplier the winning bid?
The requirement is to provide the winning tender’s assessment information, with justified redactions where required. It does not require circulation of the complete winning bid.
Can we give scores without explaining them?
No. Explain each assessed criterion and sub-criterion score by referring to relevant tender information. A total score or a repeated criterion does not provide that reasoning.
Can we redact everything marked confidential?
A confidentiality label alone is insufficient. Apply the permitted withholding grounds and preserve a sufficient explanation of the winning score against each criterion.