IV.A.1. Proposals Evaluated and Winner Selected

Estimated Execution Time

3-4 weeks

Objective

To fairly and transparently evaluate submitted proposals against predefined exclusion, selection and award criteria included in the tender documents, ensuring the selection of the best-fit solution that meets technical, financial, legal, and end-user requirements. The process aims to uphold procurement principles (transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination) while fostering innovation and value-for-money. It also should include criteria that allow to evaluate the capacity of execution of the teams, not just economical solvency but flexibility and coachability.

Who is Involved

Tender Evaluation Committee – comprised of voting members with administrative, technical, legal and financial expertise. Will be in charge of opening the bids and checking their general administrative compliance with the conditions on the content and format of the Tender.
Technical Evaluation Panel – subject matter experts who score the qualitative criteria based on technical/functional/capacity merit.
Core procurement team (section III.A.I) – assesses pricing, cost realism, and budget compliance.
Legal and IPR Advisor – verifies legal compliance, especially IPR terms and contractual obligations.
Patient User Representative – participates in evaluating user relevance, feasibility, and desirability.
Procurement Lead – manages the overall process, ensures documentation integrity and fairness. Also, coordinates timelines, manages logistics and panel communications.

Activities / Tasks

IV.A.1.1 Prepare the Evaluation Set Up and Team

Develop a detailed evaluation protocol based on the criteria published in the tender documents. This protocol should contain in detail how the bids will be evaluated, how much weight each criterion is given and how the score will be calculated.
Define the clarification process, communication rules, and documentation requirements, if clarifications are permitted.
Prepare standardized evaluation forms for individual and consensus assessments, including scoring methodology, thresholds and weightings
Define clear guidance for evaluators on how to apply each criterion.
Organize briefing sessions for all evaluators to ensure consistent understanding of the process and criteria.
Collect signed confidentiality and conflict of interest declarations from all panel members.
Assign clear roles and responsibilities within the evaluation structure.

IV.A.1.2 Conduct Multi-Phase Evaluation

Eligibility and Administrative Compliance Check – Verification of compliance with exclusion and selection criteria
Open submitted bids and verify compliance with formal and procedural requirements.
Compile a report of the opening session, documenting all bids received.
Exclude non-compliant tenders from further evaluation.
Technical and Functional Assessment
Technical experts conduct individual scoring using the standardized evaluation forms.
Evaluate technical merit, capacity of execution, flexibility, and coachability of teams.
Record evidence references, key risks, assumptions, and implementation constraints per criterion.
Review financial sustainability and value-for-money considerations.
Financial Evaluation
Assess pricing, cost realism, and budget compliance.

IV.A.1.3 Finalize Selection and Award Decision

Schedule interviews with top-ranked candidates to verify team capacity and commitment.
Assess flexibility, coachability, and execution capability as part of the delivery capacity assessment.
Request and document clarifications strictly within the procedure rules, ensuring equal treatment of all tenderers.
Hold consensus meetings to consolidate individual evaluations, resolve discrepancies, and draft the evaluation summary report.
Review all scoring rationale and ensure fairness and transparency.
Finalize award recommendation and prepare official decision documentation.
Issue notification letters to all tenderers (successful and unsuccessful).
Archive all evaluation records for audit and transparency purposes.

Tips / Common Pitfalls

✅ Include external advisors with concrete expertise in all critical elements of the proposed solutions.

✅ Include experienced evaluators to detect misleading or vague bids.

✅ For PPIs, if needed, request to send samples of the offered product.

✅ Award the contract to the best scoring provider(s), based on MEAT (MEAT = Most Economically Advantageous Tender) criteria.

❌ Allow experts to evaluate out of their expertise area.

Outcome / Deliverables

Evaluation documentation:
- Evaluation protocol and finalized scoring matrix.
- Conflict of interest and confidentiality declarations.
- Individual and consensus evaluation forms.
- Evaluation summary report with scoring rationale.
- Financial and legal compliance review notes.
- Award recommendation and official decision.
- Notification letters to all tenderers.
- Archived records of evaluation proceedings.

Resources

Guidelines for Innovation Procurement (PCP/PPI) How to Set Up & Manage HE PCP/PPI Grants - European Commission

Need expert support for this step?

Browse Experts

Browse our directory of experts who can provide professional guidance.

Implement