technical presentation evaluation criteria

Mayo's Clinics

• Email Subscription

Use Clear Criteria and Methodologies When Evaluating PowerPoint Presentations

Dr. Fred Mayo explains the three major methods for presentation evaluation: self, peer and professional. An added bonus: ready-made student evaluation form.

By Dr. Fred Mayo, CHE, CHT

In the last issue, we discussed making interactive presentations and this month we will focus on evaluating presentations. For many of us, encouraging and supporting students in making presentations is already a challenge; assessing their merit is often just another unwelcome teaching chore.

There are three major methods for evaluating presentation – self evaluations, peer evaluations, and professional evaluations. Of course, the most important issue is establishing evaluation criteria.

Criteria for Evaluating Presentations One of the best ways to help students create and deliver good presentations involves providing them with information about how their presentations will be evaluated. Some of the criteria that you can use to assess presentations include:

• Focus of the presentation
• Clarity and coherence of the content
• Thoroughness of the ideas presented and the analysis
• Clarity of the presentation
• Effective use of facts, statistics and details
• Lack of grammatical and spelling errors
• Design of the slides
• Effective use of images
• Clarity of voice projection and appropriate volume
• Completion of the presentation within the allotted time frame

Feel free to use these criteria or to develop your own that more specifically match your teaching situation.

Self Evaluations When teaching public speaking and making presentations, I often encouraged students to rate their own presentations after they delivered them. Many times, they were very insightful about what could have been improved. Others just could not complete this part of the assignment. Sometimes, I use their evaluations to make comments on what they recognized in their presentations. However, their evaluations did not overly influence the grade except that a more thorough evaluation improved their grade and a weak evaluation could hurt their presentation grade.

Questions I asked them to consider included:

• How do you think it went?
• What could you have done differently to make it better?
• What did you do that you are particularly proud of accomplishing?
• What did you learn from preparing for and delivering this presentation?
• What would you change next time?

Peer Evaluations One way to provide the most feedback for students involves encouraging – or requiring – each student evaluate each other’s presentation. It forces them to watch the presentation both for content and delivery and helps them learn to discriminate between an excellent and an ordinary presentation. The more presentations they observe or watch, the more they learn.

In classes where students are required to deliver presentations, I have students evaluate the presentations they observe using a form I designed. The students in the audience give the evaluation or feedback forms to the presenter as soon as it is over. I do not collect them or review them to encourage honest comments and more direct feedback. Also, students do not use their names when completing the form. That way the presenter gets a picture from all the students in the audience – including me – and cannot discount the comments by recognizing the author.

A version of the form that I use is reproduced below – feel free to adopt or adapt it to your own use and classroom situation.

Professional Evaluations When conducting your professional evaluation of a presentation, remember to consider when and how to deliver oral comments as opposed to a completed form. I complete a written evaluation (shown above) along with all the students so they get some immediate feedback. I also take notes on the presentation and decide a grade as well. After the conclusion of the presentation, whether it was an individual or team presentation, I lead a class discussion on the presentation material. That way, students get to hear some immediate comments as well as reading the written peer evaluations.

I usually ask for a copy of the presentation prior to the delivery date. (Getting the PowerPoint slides ahead also helps me ensure I have all the presentations loaded on the projector or computer so we do not waste class time.) Students either email it to me or place it on our classroom management system. I will provide their letter grade and make comments on the design of the presentation on the copy they gave me. However, I don’t explain the final grade right after the presentation since it is often hard for students who have just made a presentation to hear comments.

Summary Each of these suggestions may prompt you to try your own ideas. Remember that students improve when they receive thoughtful and useful feedback from their peers and you as their teacher. I encourage you to use this form or develop a form so that the criteria used to evaluate the presentations are clear and explained ahead of time. Now, you can enjoy evaluating their presentations.

Dr. Fred Mayo, CHE, CHT, is retired as a clinical professor of hotel and tourism management at New York University. As principal of Mayo Consulting Services, he continues to teach around the globe and is a regular presenter at CAFÉ events nationwide.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Tips for Successful Solicitation & Evaluation

• Price Evaluation

Technical Evaluation

Key question: what techniques can contracting professionals use for evaluating agile contractor capability.

Use presentations as part of the technical evaluation

• Consider including language in the solicitation that the Government intends to require oral presentations as part of the offeror’s technical portion of its quote or proposal. This will enable the Government to determine whether an offeror truly knows Agile software development. This is not mandatory, but has proven to be effective for some agencies.
• Oral presentations need to be tightly controlled and recorded to ensure that all offerors are treated equally, that the Government does not inadvertently open discussions, and to create a defendable record of the agency’s actions.
• If using oral presentations, consider using them after the competitive range is established.
• The Government should clearly spell out the intended use of oral presentations in the Evaluation Criteria if it chooses to use them.

Integrate agile into the technical factors in the Request for Quote (RFQ)

Factor 1 – Performance Work Statement: Offerors shall provide a Performance Work Statement in response to the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and this RFQ. The proposed solution shall include an explanation of how project and contract management, communication/collaboration with the Government, security and privacy requirements, documentation, and reporting will function in conjunction with the proposed Agile methodology.

Factor 2 – Product Development Roadmap: Offerors shall propose an Agile product development roadmap which correlates how the stated objective aligns with the timeframe for implementation and the offeror’s proposed Agile methodology. The product development roadmap shall demonstrate where testing, training, security, privacy, and cut over planning, will be included.

Factor 3 – Notional Quality Control Plan (QCP): Offerors shall describe the QCP and Performance Measurement approach, including how proposed performance standards will be monitored, evaluated, and reported. The purpose of the notional QCP is to provide evaluators with an understanding of how measures and metrics will be applied based on the proposed technical solution.

Request agile software development-specific information from offerors

• As part of the technical evaluation, request information from the offerors addressing how they manage Agile implementation, techniques for release planning, plans for engaging end users, methods for capturing and applying lessons learned, testing processes, reasons behind the composition of their Agile teams and the rationale behind the proposed development talent and project oversight (tied to Product Vision), how they will make resources available within schedule and budget constraints, and their approach to configuration management.

Evaluate demonstrated experience with agile

• As part of the past experience evaluation criterion, include demonstrated experience with successfully developing software using an Agile approach. This could include a sample of code written and the results of that code.

The contract requirements description for Agile software development contracts and the fact that technical requirements are developed through the Agile process should not increases the risk of protest. Requirements must be defined to the SOO level to allow for vendors to know if they want to compete, and the Government must evaluate based on stated evaluation factors and apply the evaluation criteria consistently among offerors. This is really no different than long-standing requirements applicable to all competitively awarded contracts. Of course, a good debriefing may also help to ward off protests by helping an unsuccessful offeror to understand its weaknesses and how it can be more competitive in future competitions.

Key Question: If system requirements are refined after the contract has been awarded, how can an agency ensure work was evaluated as part of the initial competition and is not considered an out of scope modification in violation of FAR 6.001(c) ?

To ensure that all work is within the scope of the contract, as requirements are refined, the software releases (including the end product) must fall within the scope of the Product Vision described in the statement of work, and the agency must give offerors reasonable notice that the scope of the project includes using Agile techniques.

FAR generally requires competing the work that is called for after contract award if the work is not within the scope of the contract. Under long-standing case law, a modification falls within the scope of the original procurement if potential offerors would have reasonably anticipated such a change prior to initial award. In the context of Agile software development, this ultimately means that the MVP, which emerges out of user testing, must fall within the scope of the Product Vision described in the statement of work or statement of objectives. As explained above in Section C, to give offerors reasonable notice, the agency should describe the requirements sufficiently so potential offerors can understand the scope of the project (which should be enough to produce a high level budgetary estimate) and make clear that Agile techniques will be used. This will alert offerors that refinement of technical requirements will occur post-award using a highly-disciplined process of testing and customer feedback. Furthermore, the Government should alert offerors to technical constraints (e.g., platforms) that may be applicable to the effort.

Software requirement changes are expected to be refined and managed as part of the process agreed to up front, addressed in the solicitation, and reflected in the resulting contract. The mere fact that system requirements are refined to reflect the experience from completed iterations does not mean they are out of scope.

To ensure work remains in scope, the Government and contractor should agree to performance standards and the method for assessing the contractor’s work against these standards – which should be aligned with the Product Vision. A service level agreement will be used to specify the levels of service including minimum acceptable service level, target service level, performance standards applicable to each level of service, how service will be measured, the weight assigned to each measure, the frequency of measurement, and the office responsible for measurement. As long as the features support the Statement of Objective (SOO) and are delivered within the set schedule and budget, they should be considered within the scope of the contract. This process is analogous to that used for performance-based acquisitions in FAR 37.6 where the Government issues a SOO defining its outcomes that allows for industry to provide innovative solutions that are measured under a quality assurance surveillance plan.

FAR requires that the Government must describe the general scope, nature, complexity and purpose of what it is acquiring so potential offers can make an informed decision as to whether they want to submit an offer. To enable a prospective offeror to decide whether to submit an offer, the Government needs to clearly state in the SOO that Agile methodology sprint/release framework will be used and that the contractor must propose a method for planning and sizing the work.

The scope should state broad goals and also include functional areas. The Government should fix the schedule/timeframe in which the work is to be completed, so the contractor can propose the number of sprints and the work required in the sprints. If a baseline is available from prior similar work, the Government may be able to propose the set number of sprints to be completed in the schedule/timeframe. To ensure that the prospective offerors understand the environment in which they may be working, the SOO should contain all applicable IT and environmental constraints, including legacy software, privacy, and security requirements or policies that may impact the development of the software. See Sample Language for Government Contracts for Agile Software Development Services in Resources>Learning Center.

Additional resources

Innovative Evaluation Techniques

Discover new ways to evaluate Agile proposals in the Evaluation column of the Periodic Table of Acquisition Innovations.

Technical Challenges

Use this Technical Challenge Playbook for a creative method of evaluating a vendor's technical agility.

Tools, Templates & Samples

Use these artifacts to get a head start on your work.

Case Studies

Learn from the good work of your peers, or contribute your own!

Learning Center

Advance your career by building new skills.

Contract Solutions & Vehicles

Don’t reinvent the wheel before checking out these ready-made solutions.

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites always use a .gov or .mil domain. Before sharing sensitive information online, make sure you’re on a .gov or .mil site by inspecting your browser’s address (or “location”) bar.

This site is also protected by an SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) certificate that’s been signed by the U.S. government. The https:// means all transmitted data is encrypted  — in other words, any information or browsing history that you provide is transmitted securely.

• What is NITAAC
• Federal Authorities
• Contract Holder Capabilities
• Ordering Process
• CIO-SP3 Small Business
• CIO-CS | The Store
• Assisted Acquisitions
• Government-Wide Strategic Solutions
• Technical Assessments
• Virtual Industry Day
• Contract Holder Directory
• NITAAC University
• Training and Events
• Tools and Templates
• E-GOS SIGN IN | SIGN UP

Technical Evaluation Template

This tool provides guidance for Technical Evaluation, as the Technical Evaluation assesses the Offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's requirements specified in the Order Request.

This sample is for informational purposes only. Modification is required before use.

Last updated: March 26, 2024

How to Use This Tool

• Review your agency requirements for format and content regarding documenting evaluations.  
• This template may be used for your evaluators to document the results of their evaluation. Check out other templates for more examples.

Related Video

Streamlining the Task Order Evaluation Process

At NITAAC, we encourage using evaluation procedures that streamline the award of task or delivery orders. and multi-phase down-selects. In this video, we discuss three potential techniques that can be beneficial in streamlining the order process: Comparative Analysis, Oral Presentations, and Multiphase Downselects. Check with your agency to see if they have further guidance regarding these and other streamlined approaches. And check out NITAAC’s videos and website for tools and templates on this subject. NITAAC.NIH.gov 1.888.773.6542 [email protected]

Frequently Asked Questions

Are evaluation criteria required.

As a best practice, NITAAC recommends providing the award evaluation criteria in all solicitations, and under FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii), an evaluation criteria is required where the anticipated value of the award is expected to exceed $5M.

What is NITAAC’s position on performance-based contracting?

NITAAC follows the guidance of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) which strongly encourages, but does not mandate, the use of Performance-Based Contracting (PBC).

Does NITAAC provide evaluation scoring sheets?

Yes, sample scoring sheets are available on our Tools and Templates page . However, the procuring agency contracting officer would be best suited to determine the adequacy of an evaluation scoring sheet based on the evaluation criteria established.

Related Resources

Have a question.

Get in touch with NITAAC Support

You have unlimited possibilities for success at Tennessee State University. We're a leading institution of higher learning and provide students with the opportunity to experience academic and personal growth. Through our eight colleges and schools, we offer 45 bachelor's degrees, 24 master's degrees and seven doctorate degrees. You'll receive instruction from top-notch faculty and be immersed in research, service learning and student life activities, including internships, cultural and study abroad opportunities.

Our world-class faculty will teach you how to apply what you learn in the classroom to real-world situations. As a student, you will become a problem solver and critical thinker. You may begin the admissions process by submitting your application. The university also assists in providing information on financial aid services, work-study, fellowships and scholarships based on eligibility and other rules and regulations established by the agencies.

Tennessee State University is committed to excellence and has been consistently listed in the U.S. News & World Report's "Guide to America's Best Colleges" for more than a decade. Founded in 1912, TSU is a comprehensive, urban, co-educational, land-grant institution in Nashville, Tennessee. The university has been served by seven presidents, including Dr. Glenda Baskin Glover, who is currently serving as our eighth president.

Tennessee State University students are go by the motto: "Think. Work. Serve." But we also realize a little fun should be part of the collegiate experience to create a holistic approach to learning. With a variety of social, professional and civic clubs for students to participate in, there are many opportunities for you to share your time and talents and enjoy connecting with your fellow students to create the work/life balance needed for success in college and beyond.

Tennessee State University counts on the generous contributions of alumni and friends to fulfill our mission of providing a top-notch, affordable education to the best and brightest students. Every gift, no matter the size, makes a difference. When you support TSU, you help provide critically needed scholarships, departmental support and other special project funding that benefits our students.

Tennessee State University is engaging in cutting-edge research to address critical challenges in our society. Our research arm supports faculty and students by taking their ideas from conception to fruition in critical areas such as biotechnology, homeland security and agriculture, to name a few. Our Centers of Excellence encourage collaborative and experimental learning opportunities and help expand the boundaries of science, education and technology.

Tennessee State University Athletics is part of the Ohio Valley Conference (OVC) NCAA Division ? and offers football, men's basketball, women's basketball, track and field, golf, tennis, softball and volleyball. We provide student-athletes with a positive academic and social environment to excel on and off the field. Our mission is to blend physical, emotional and intellectual development into one experience. We not only build winning-teams, but leaders in the classroom, in the community and in your profession of choice.

Tennessee State University is a world-class university known for academic excellence, incredible students, inspiring faculty, exceptional value and an amazing campus and community. We invite you to learn more about TSU and our academic programs, admissions process, tuition and financial aid, campus visits, student housing and more.

Tennessee State University is dedicated to helping students develop the skills needed for the real world. Our vibrant campus life, leadership opportunities, rigorous academic programs, access to scholarships and student services are just a few of the student services we offer. We are preparing career-ready professionals today for knowledge-based jobs tomorrow. The Tiger legacy continues with you.

TSU loves parents! And we encourage you to stay involved with your Tennessee State University student. We strive to make the transition to college and beyond flow as smoothly as possible for everyone. We'll keep you up-to-date on campus happenings through a monthly eNewsletter, a helpful Parent Guide and through many other programs and events. We're here to help you and your student make the most out of your TSU experience.

At Tennessee State University, our blood runs blue! We enjoy connecting, socializing and sharing news about the great things our alumni are doing across the globe. From our annual Homecoming celebration to donor events and volunteer activities, TSU alumni always find time to celebrate what it means to be a Big Blue Tiger. We welcome you back to campus anytime to rekindle your most memorable experiences.

Welcome to Tennessee State University, located in the heart of one of the nation's most progressive cities! Whether you are here for your first visit, planning a campus tour or returning after many years away, TSU welcomes you to enjoy our facilities, hospitality and our unique history and contributions.

Tennessee State University is proud to have 1,200 distinguished administrators, faculty and staff members as part of our team. With outstanding reputations for teaching, research and service, these professionals make valuable contributions to our community of scholars and ensure that TSU is a thriving public institution of higher learning.

Oops! We can't find that page.

Maybe you can find what you're looking for via:

• the Search Box in the upper right (where you can search for any term, name, etc.),

the main menu,

these links:

Centennial (the Centennial site has been archived to the Library)

Food Safety for Older Adults

Looking for another department?

Please browse our website using the top menus in order to find the department or information you need or use the links below:

Academic Departments

Administrative/Operational Departments

or the Phone/Email Directory

A guide to RFP evaluation criteria: Basics, tips and examples

When issuing an RFP, it’s important to create your RFP evaluation criteria early. In fact, it should be one of the very first steps in your RFP process. An RFP without evaluation criteria is like a ship without a rudder ⁠— it may eventually get to the destination, but the trip there will be meandering, time consuming and difficult. Clearly defining your RFP evaluation criteria gives your procurement project focus and direction.

In this blog, I’ll explore everything you need to know about RFP evaluation criteria. To start, I’ll provide an overview of the basics including the definition, strategies for organizing RFP criteria and a few real-world examples. Then, you’ll learn how to establish customized RFP criteria as a part of your RFP process. Finally, I’ll offer some best practices and tips to help you get started.

What is RFP evaluation criteria?

Ways to organize your rfp evaluation criteria, rfp evaluation criteria examples, how to write rfp evaluation criteria.

Best practices for using RFP evaluation criteria

Request for proposal (RFP) evaluation criteria is a set of standards that guide the scoring of vendor proposals. When put into practice, your RFP evaluation criteria standardizes scoring and removes subjectivity from the process. Proposal issuers use criteria to organize the proposal evaluation process and select the right vendor for their procurement projects.

Generally, both internal and external teams receive the RFP evaluation criteria. Specifically, vendors review scoring criteria as a part of the RFP documentation. And, your internal stakeholders who will participate in RFP scoring use it as a reference document.

In addition to improving confidence in vendor selection, having clear evaluation criteria sets expectations, ensures high-quality RFP responses and delivers fairness and transparency to the process. Indeed, scoring guidelines help to guide vendors to focus on the issues and areas of the RFP that are most important to you.

As you might expect, the evaluation criteria will vary depending on the project at hand. So, you can create a standard RFP evaluation scoring guide, but you will need to use it as a template and update it for each project.

Simple evaluation criteria

The most straightforward approach to RFP evaluation criteria is a simple list. If your RFP project is a low-risk, simple purchase, you may not need to develop a complicated scoring system.

In this case, note your highest priority factors along with minor considerations in the introduction and background section of your RFP. Then, when you’re ready to score the proposals, remind your evaluators of the stated criteria. Finally, verify your results by comparing your selected supplier’s responses to the criteria.

RFP evaluation criteria matrix

One of the most popular ways to organize your scoring data is in an RFP evaluation criteria matrix. Often created in a spreadsheet, it can be as simple or complex as needed.

For example, a simple matrix lists criteria on the left hand side with the potential vendors along the top, allowing scorers to broadly evaluate and compare options. On the other hand, a detailed matrix breaks down scoring to the question level. This enables you to focus on detailed components and nuanced responses. Typically, strategic sourcing projects use detailed evaluation criteria matrixes.

RFP weighted scoring

The weighted scoring approach breaks down your RFP evaluation criteria and assigns a value to each question or section. For example, your RFP criteria may consider questions of technical expertise, capabilities, data security, HR policies and diversity and sustainability. Weighted scoring prioritizes the criteria that are most important to your business by assigning them a point or percentage value. So your weighted scoring criteria may look like this:

• Technical expertise – 25%
• Capabilities – 40%
• Data security – 10%
• HR policies – 10%
• Diversity and sustainability – 15%

Want to learn more about weighted scoring? Watch this webinar to learn how to put it into practice.

A note about RFP evaluation: As you can imagine, managing RFP scoring in spreadsheets gets messy quickly. And, when it comes to complex strategic sourcing projects with more than three vendors, manual evaluation is time consuming. Consequently, the cost of procurement increases.

For many procurement teams, RFP software provides a solution. An RFP management system delivers efficiency with digital proposal responses, RFP automation and collaborative scoring.

Admittedly, unless you see it in action, RFP evaluation criteria is hard to picture. So, the best way to understand it is to see it in practice. Below are examples of how evaluation criteria appears in an RFP.

Simple RFP criteria example – RFP for marketing services

Basic weighted scoring criteria example – RFP for employee benefits

This RFP evaluation criteria example is both weighted and fairly simple. Results are broken down into three main categories: experience, approach and budget.

Multi-factor RFP evaluation criteria – RFP for data analytics platform

This RFP breaks down the proposal scoring process into four rounds. Interestingly, the first two are pass/fail criteria that are deal breakers. This staggered evaluation helps vendors quickly understand if they will be eligible to win the business.

1. Determine requirements with stakeholders

The first step in your RFP process, after identifying a need, is to collect information from stakeholders and executives. Consider this your first draft of your RFP requirements discovery process.

To start, gather a list of requirements from those involved. It may help to provide a list of standard criteria for evaluation of RFP to start.

Sample RFP evaluation criteria:

• Technical capabilities
• Vendor experience
• Local vs. global
• Project approach
• Total price
• Customer success practices
• Reputation and customer references
• Social policies
• Data security
• Terms and conditions

Encourage them to brainstorm without considering budget (we’ll get to that later). Compile your list of possible features and capabilities and note which items were mentioned repeatedly.

2. Define project scope

Next, use your full list of considerations and narrow it down. Categorize each item into one of three categories: must have, nice to have and not needed. Then, use the results to write corresponding RFP questions. For must-have elements, try to ask close-ended questions. This makes objective evaluation easier.

Naturally, questions about these factors will be spread among different sections. So, as you build your RFP be sure to keep track of which are deal-breaker questions.

3. Establish RFP priorities

RFP evaluation is all about give and take. If you can get exactly what you want in one area, but must sacrifice in another how does that impact a vendor’s score? Your RFP criteria should communicate your priorities. The best way to do that is to establish values for the most important sections of your RFP. Often, we see capabilities and experience most heavily weighted. Surprisingly, in most cases, price isn’t the highest priority.

Best practices for RFP evaluation criteria

Be as transparent and upfront as possible.

Vendors spend a great deal of time and energy creating proposals. Truly, they want to provide you compelling and relevant responses. However, they need to know what matters most to you. Therefore, the more you can tell them about your needs and priorities, the better responses you’ll get. Include your RFP evaluation criteria in the RFP as well as the weighting you plan to use.

Don’t deviate from your RFP criteria

Once established, your RFP evaluation criteria should be the foundation and guide to your scoring process. Of course, things happen, so if you need to update your criteria, also make sure vendors are aware.

For example, a vendor offers a service you didn’t consider, but after review believe is necessary. In this case, you should issue a follow up note to the other vendors and give them an opportunity to meet the new requirement. Not only does this give suppliers a fair playing field, but it also ensures you avoid potential risk and compliance issues.

Create an RFP evaluation guide

Some of the complexity of proposal evaluation comes from internal ambiguity around scoring expectations. To solve this challenge, it’s a good idea to create a short guide for your stakeholders to follow when scoring RFPs. Include the original list of considerations along with their assigned priority. If possible, provide explanations or context for subjective questions.

To help you get started, here are three examples of internal documentation for RFP evaluators.

• University of North Dakota RFP evaluators guide
• The University of Texas RFP evaluation guide 
• Oakland County Michigan – RFP evaluation team handbook

Engage individual stakeholders

As with most complex procurement and strategic sourcing projects, the procurement manager running the RFP, may need help to evaluate vendor proposals. For example, if you are seeking a new employee benefits system, your HR team who will use the system should have input on which of the potential vendors delivers the most value.

I recommend engaging each stakeholder individually rather than as a group. It may seem like more work, but it’s worth it. Here’s why ⁠— in large groups, RFP evaluation tends to be influenced by the loudest voices or strongest opinions. Admittedly, manually scoring individual responses is tricky but automated scoring with an RFP management system makes it fast and easy.

Keep contributors focused

While I recommend individual stakeholder scoring, I also know that adding scorers draws out the RFP timeline. So, how do you strike a balance between involving the right people and a speedy conclusion?

The best way to avoid unnecessary bottlenecks and delays is to keep contributors focused. Consequently, that means only sending them the sections and questions that they need to score. Indeed, assign questions based on their area of expertise. For instance, using the employee benefits example from above, while your IT team may need to review and score the section about the provider’s data security, they don’t need to read responses about the fees involved in 401K accounts.

If you undertake this manually, you can send the questions via spreadsheet and compile the results. Alternatively, RFP software automates this process. Simply assign each section or question to the teams or individuals responsible for evaluating the response and monitor their progress. Then, the system records the scores, compiles and compares them and creates helpful visualizations.

Discuss discrepancies

In RFP evaluation, disagreement is normal. Scorers interpret questions differently and score them based on their own understanding. As you review individual scores, watch for any major discrepancies in evaluator scores. These differences may indicate a question that was unclear or misunderstood by the vendor or evaluator. Collaborate with the scorers and develop an understanding of the reason behind the different scores.

RFPs are designed to make vendor selection easier. Likewise, establishing RFP scoring criteria simplifies the process. The benefits of creating scoring criteria include keeping stakeholders involved, improving vendor engagement and ensuring transparency. Ultimately, it’s a key element to keep your RFP process running smoothly and efficiently.

• Vendor selection process: Reduce stress with these pro tips
• How to issue an IT RFP: Tips, templates and examples
• The RFQ: A request for quotation how-to guide with template

RD is a senior copywriter at Responsive. He has more than 15 years of experience in writing, content development, and creative strategy. Connect with RD on LinkedIn .

Ready to see Responsive in action?

Find out why leading response teams across the world turn to Responsive for their Strategic Response Management and RFP software needs.

Learn more about RFP software

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies
• Marketing Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more read our Cookie Policy .

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, serve personalized ads or content, and analyze our traffic. By choosing to leave these enabled, you consent to our use of cookies.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

Evaluating Business Presentations: A Six Point Presenter Skills Assessment Checklist

Posted by Belinda Huckle  |  On April 18, 2024  |  In Presentation Training, Tips & Advice

In this Article...quick links

1. Ability to analyse an audience effectively and tailor the message accordingly

2. ability to develop a clear, well-structured presentation/pitch that is compelling and persuasive, 3. ability to connect with and maintain the engagement of the audience, 4. ability to prepare effective slides that support and strengthen the clarity of the message, 5. ability to appear confident, natural and in control, 6. ability to summarise and close a presentation to achieve the required/desired outcome, effective presentation skills are essential to growth, and follow us on social media for some more great presentation tips:, don’t forget to download our presenter skills assessment form.

For many business people, speaking in front of clients, customers, their bosses or even their own large team is not a skill that comes naturally. So it’s likely that within your organisation, and indeed within your own team, you’ll find varying levels of presenting ability. Without an objective way to assess the presenter skills needed to make a good presentation, convincing someone that presentation coaching could enhance their job performance (benefiting your business), boost their promotion prospects (benefiting their career) and significantly increase their self confidence (benefiting their broader life choices) becomes more challenging.

So, how do you evaluate the presenting skills of your people to find out, objectively, where the skill gaps lie? Well, you work out your presentation skills evaluation criteria and then measure/assess your people against them. 

To help you, in this article we’re sharing the six crucial questions we believe you need to ask to not only make a professional assessment of your people’s presenting skills, but to showcase what makes a great presentation. We use them in our six-point Presenter Skills Assessment checklist ( which we’re giving away as a free download at the end of this blog post ). The answers to these questions will allow you to identify the presenter skills strengths and weaknesses (i.e. skills development opportunities) of anyone in your team or organisation, from the Managing Director down. You can then put presenter skills training or coaching in place so that everyone who needs it can learn the skills to deliver business presentations face-to-face, or online with confidence, impact and purpose.

Read on to discover what makes a great presentation and how to evaluate a presenter using our six-point Presenter Skills Assessment criteria so you can make a professional judgement of your people’s presenting skills.

If you ask most people what makes a great presentation, they will likely comment on tangible things like structure, content, delivery and slides. While these are all critical aspects of a great presentation, a more fundamental and crucial part is often overlooked – understanding your audience .  So, when you watch people in your organisation or team present, look for clues to see whether they really understand their audience and the particular situation they are currently in, such as:

• Is their content tight, tailored and relevant, or just generic?
• Is the information pitched at the right level?
• Is there a clear ‘What’s In It For Them’?
• Are they using language and terminology that reflects how their audience talk?
• Have they addressed all of the pain points adequately?
• Is the audience focused and engaged, or do they seem distracted?

For your people, getting to know their audience, and more importantly, understanding them, should always be the first step in pulling together a presentation. Comprehending the challenges, existing knowledge and level of detail the audience expects lays the foundation of a winning presentation. From there, the content can be structured to get the presenter’s message across in the most persuasive way, and the delivery tuned to best engage those listening.

Flow and structure are both important elements in a presentation as both impact the effectiveness of the message and are essential components in understanding what makes a good presentation and what makes a good speech. When analysing this aspect of your people’s presentations look for a clear, easy to follow agenda, and related narrative, which is logical and persuasive.

Things to look for include:

• Did the presentation ‘tell a story’ with a clear purpose at the start, defined chapters throughout and a strong close?
• Were transitions smooth between the ‘chapters’ of the presentation?
• Were visual aids, handouts or audience involvement techniques used where needed?
• Were the challenges, solutions and potential risks of any argument defined clearly for the audience?
• Were the benefits and potential ROI quantified/explained thoroughly?
• Did the presentation end with a clear destination/call to action or the next steps?

For the message to stick and the audience to walk away with relevant information they are willing to act on, the presentation should flow seamlessly through each part, building momentum and interest along the way. If not, the information can lose impact and the presentation its direction. Then the audience may not feel equipped, inspired or compelled to implement the takeaways.

Connecting with your audience and keeping them engaged throughout can really be the difference between giving a great presentation and one that falls flat. This is no easy feat but is certainly a skill that can be learned. To do it well, your team need a good understanding of the audience (as mentioned above) to ensure the content is on target. Ask yourself, did they cover what’s relevant and leave out what isn’t? 

Delivery is important here too. This includes being able to build a natural rapport with the audience, speaking in a confident, conversational tone, and using expressive vocals, body language and gestures to bring the message to life. On top of this, the slides need to be clear, engaging and add interest to the narrative. Which leads us to point 4…

It’s not uncommon for slides to be used first and foremost as visual prompts for the speaker. While they can be used for this purpose, the first priority of a slide (or any visual aid) should always be to support and strengthen the clarity of the message. For example, in the case of complex topics, slides should be used to visualise data , reinforcing and amplifying your message. This ensures that your slides are used to aid understanding, rather than merely prompting the speaker.

The main problem we see with people’s slides is that they are bloated with information, hard to read, distracting or unclear in their meaning. 

The best slides are visually impactful, with graphics, graphs or images instead of lines and lines of text or bullet points. The last thing you want is your audience to be focused on deciphering the multiple lines of text. Instead your slides should be clear in their message and add reinforcement to the argument or story that is being shared. How true is this of your people’s slides?

Most people find speaking in front of an audience (both small and large) at least a little confronting. However, for some, the nerves and anxiety they feel can distract from their presentation and the impact of their message. If members of your team lack confidence, both in their ideas and in themselves, it will create awkwardness and undermine their credibility and authority. This can crush a presenter and their reputation. 

This is something that you will very easily pick up on, but the good news is that it is definitely an area that can be improved through training and practice. Giving your team the tools and training they need to become more confident and influential presenters can deliver amazing results, which is really rewarding for both the individual and the organisation.

No matter how well a presentation goes, the closing statement can still make or break it. It’s a good idea to include a recap on the main points as well as a clear call to action which outlines what is required to achieve the desired outcome.

In assessing your people’s ability to do this, you can ask the following questions:

• Did they summarise the key points clearly and concisely?
• Were the next steps outlined in a way that seems achievable?
• What was the feeling in the room at the close? Were people inspired, motivated, convinced? Or were they flat, disinterested, not persuaded? 

Closing a presentation with a well-rounded overview and achievable action plan should leave the audience with a sense that they have gained something out of the presentation and have all that they need to take the next steps to overcome their problem or make something happen.

It’s widely accepted that effective communication is a critical skill in business today. On top of this, if you can develop a team of confident presenters, you and they will experience countless opportunities for growth and success.

Once you’ve identified where the skill gaps lie, you can provide targeted training to address it. Whether it’s feeling confident presenting to your leadership team or answering unfielded questions , understanding their strengths and weaknesses in presenting will only boost their presenting skills. This then creates an ideal environment for collaboration and innovation, as each individual is confident to share their ideas. They can also clearly and persuasively share the key messaging of the business on a wider scale – and they and the business will experience dramatic results.

Tailored Training to Fill Your Presentation Skill Gaps

If you’re looking to build the presentation skills of your team through personalised training or coaching that is tailored to your business, we can help. For nearly 20 years we have been Australia’s Business Presentation Skills Experts , training & coaching thousands of people in an A-Z of global blue-chip organisations. All our programs incorporate personalised feedback, advice and guidance to take business presenters further. To find out more, click on one of the buttons below:

• Work Email Address * Please enter your email address and then click ‘download’ below

Written By Belinda Huckle

Co-Founder & Managing Director

Belinda is the Co-Founder and Managing Director of SecondNature International. With a determination to drive a paradigm shift in the delivery of presentation skills training both In-Person and Online, she is a strong advocate of a more personal and sustainable presentation skills training methodology.

Belinda believes that people don’t have to change who they are to be the presenter they want to be. So she developed a coaching approach that harnesses people’s unique personality to build their own authentic presentation style and personal brand.

She has helped to transform the presentation skills of people around the world in an A-Z of organisations including Amazon, BBC, Brother, BT, CocaCola, DHL, EE, ESRI, IpsosMORI, Heineken, MARS Inc., Moody’s, Moonpig, Nationwide, Pfizer, Publicis Groupe, Roche, Savills, Triumph and Walmart – to name just a few.

A total commitment to quality, service, your people and you.

Newly Launched - AI Presentation Maker

Researched by Consultants from Top-Tier Management Companies

AI PPT Maker

Powerpoint Templates

Icon Bundle

Kpi Dashboard

Professional

Business Plans

Swot Analysis

Gantt Chart

Business Proposal

Marketing Plan

Project Management

Business Case

Business Model

Cyber Security

Business PPT

Digital Marketing

Digital Transformation

Human Resources

Product Management

Artificial Intelligence

Company Profile

Acknowledgement PPT

PPT Presentation

Reports Brochures

One Page Pitch

Interview PPT

All Categories

Top 7 Technical Evaluation Templates With Examples And Samples

Taranjeet Singh

The world is changing so quickly that making informed technical decisions within a suitable time has become the ultimate parameter for business success. Having a structured approach to evaluating potential vendors, assessing project proposals, and analyzing technical solutions is the need of the hour. 

With this in mind, we have developed readymade technical evaluation templates with a systematic framework to streamline the process and ensure comprehensive assessments.

Develop winning technical proposals 10x faster with our technical proposal PowerPoint templates.

We have developed these pre-designed forms that outline the criteria, parameters, and scoring mechanisms for evaluating technical aspects of your product, service, or solution business. These PowerPoint templates serve as a guide, ensuring that all essential factors are considered and assessed consistently. Furthermore, these PPT templates help standardize the evaluation process and promote faster decision-making.

Transform technical words into impactful reports quickly with our technical report templates .

Here are five reasons why SlideTeam is your go-to destination for top-notch technical evaluation templates:

• Expertise in Technical Domains : SlideTeam understands the challenges of technical evaluations across various industries and domains, such as IT, engineering, manufacturing, or any other technical field.
• Comprehensive Coverage : Our PowerPoint templates cover technical evaluation criteria, including performance, reliability, scalability, security, and compliance. You can mold these templates to align with your organization's unique requirements.
• Ease of Use : SlideTeam's templates are intuitive and easy to use, designed with user experience in mind. Clear instructions and user-friendly formats make the evaluation process efficient and effective.
• Flexible Customization : We understand that every evaluation scenario is unique. That's why our templates are highly customizable. You can easily modify criteria, add new parameters, or adjust scoring mechanisms to suit your needs.
• Professional Design : Experts believe that presentation matters, even in technical evaluations. SlideTeam's templates are professionally designed, ensuring that your evaluation documents are informative and visually appealing and help present your findings effectively to stakeholders.

Master evaluation proposals with our PowerPoint templates .

Our technical evaluation templates allow you to streamline your evaluation processes, make informed decisions, and drive success in your technical projects. They are content-ready and 100% editable as well.

Let’s begin!

Template 1: Technical Evaluation of Contractor Proposal PowerPoint Deck

Our PowerPoint Deck is your gateway to precision and efficiency as it contains essential PPT slides such as project details, cost analysis, case studies, and terms and conditions, ensuring every aspect of your contractor proposals is addressed. Furthermore, this complete deck offers a strategic framework to assess contractor proposals with precision and confidence, leading to better decision-making. Moreover, you can go through challenging evaluations with clarity and authority, showcasing your expertise to stakeholders. Leave your competitors behind by downloading our PPT bundle today!

Download Now!

Template 2: Technical Feasibility Evaluation Action Plan PowerPoint Theme

Our PowerPoint template works for you when leading a project in a critical technical evaluation. At that moment, you need to assess the feasibility of your project swiftly and accurately to keep your team on track and your stakeholders confident. This powerhouse tool offers a straightforward, structured approach to evaluate technical feasibility. You will concentrate on the essential content and make informed decisions that propel your project forward with actionable insights that drive results with this PPT Slide. Download it today!

Template 3: Supplier Technical Capability Assessment PowerPoint Layout

Find your true potential to dominate the market with our PowerPoint Layout. This PPT Slide helps your path to success just like a skilled craftsman carves a masterpiece. It's a strategic tool to keep you away from guesswork and make data-driven decisions, as it offers clarity. You can explore comprehensive insights into your supplier's capabilities (technical support in installation, readiness to train staff on-site, response time to query, and response time to maintenance), giving you the correct information to make informed choices. Get your PowerPoint Template now to remain in the competition.

Download now

Template   4: Vendor Evaluation Checklist with Technical Support Metrics PowerPoint Framework

Making business decisions has a positive effect on business. Our PPT Slide can help you with the solid data and analysis of every decision you make. This powerful tool helps you evaluate potential vendors precisely, focusing on significant technical support metrics that drive business success. This PPT Theme covers everything from performance benchmarks to reliability indicators, assisting you to select vendors that align perfectly with your needs and goals. What can you do further? Download this PPT today.

Template 5: Technical Vendors Evaluation Matrix for Shortlisting Potential Suppliers PowerPoint Template

Shortlist the best technical vendors with our PowerPoint PPT. As a skilled architect maps out a blueprint for a robust structure, this PowerPoint template offers a strategic roadmap to identify top-notch suppliers on the same pattern. It helps you systematically assess and compare technical vendors based on important metrics (secured web access, shared calendar functionality, outlook email integrations, outlook calendar integrations, and many more), ensuring you select partners who meet your exacting standards. This resource will ease your work of vendor evaluation process, saving time and resources while securing the best partnerships for your projects. Speed up your supplier selection process with this essential tool by downloading it.

Template 6: Technical Risk Assessment in Software Programming PowerPoint Theme

Companies are tired of software programming projects running into technical risks that delay their timelines and drain their resources. Do you feel you are in the same situation? Worry not! Our PowerPoint PPT is the ultimate tool to anticipate, assess, and address potential pitfalls in software programming projects. It injects confidence into you to explore complex technical challenges and ensure project success with insightful analysis and actionable recommendations (such as risk, triggers, probability, impact, value, strategy, and action plan). You won't face any project delays and budget overruns with this PPT, as it delivers exceptional results every time. Download the PPT today!

Template 7: Technical Stack for Evaluating Confidential Computing Solutions PowerPoint Template

Get to know the actual power of secure computing with our PowerPoint PPT. It provides you with the knowledge and tools to assess confidential computing solutions. You can go into a comprehensive breakdown of technical evaluations, ensuring you are always in the first place for secure data management. There will be no place for vulnerabilities as you can have the latest solutions (cryptographic building blocks, hardware vendors, infrastructure providers, application software vendors). Achieve peace of mind, knowing your data is safeguarded with the latest confidential computing solutions. Download the PPT today!

Empowering Your Technical Journey with SlideTeam's PowerPoint Templates

In conclusion, adopting technical evaluation templates is important in helping businesses explore modern technology with confidence and efficiency. Organizations can make well-informed decisions, mitigate risks, and optimize costs by using these PowerPoint templates. SlideTeam's commitment to providing a comprehensive and customizable range of templates ensures businesses can access the tools they need to streamline their technical evaluation processes. Companies can enhance their decision-making capabilities and improve their overall operational effectiveness with the proper templates.

Related posts:

• Top 10 Evaluation Plan Example Templates with Samples
• Top 7 Training Scorecard Templates with Samples and Examples
• Top 10 Worker Evaluation Templates with Examples and Samples
• Top 10 Sales Review Templates with Samples and Examples (Free PDF Attached)

Liked this blog? Please recommend us

Learn To Create Animated Map Location in PowerPoint [Animation Tutorial #6]

Must-have Executive Summary Dashboard Templates with Samples and Examples

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA - the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

--> Digital revolution powerpoint presentation slides

--> Sales funnel results presentation layouts

--> 3d men joinning circular jigsaw puzzles ppt graphics icons

--> Business Strategic Planning Template For Organizations Powerpoint Presentation Slides

--> Future plan powerpoint template slide

--> Project Management Team Powerpoint Presentation Slides

--> Brand marketing powerpoint presentation slides

--> Launching a new service powerpoint presentation with slides go to market

--> Agenda powerpoint slide show

--> Four key metrics donut chart with percentage

--> Engineering and technology ppt inspiration example introduction continuous process improvement

--> Meet our team representing in circular format

+44 (0) 1494 452 450

• News & Blogs
• Stay connected #CP3P
• 8.2 Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Process Regulations

You are here

• FREE ONLINE TRAINING
• About the PPP Guide
• Acronym List
• Acknowledgements
• 1 PPP Introduction and Overview
• 1 a PPP Introduction and Overview - Appendix A - Project Finance
• 1 b PPP Introduction and Overview - Appendix B - Sharia Finance
• 2 Establishing a PPP Framework
• 3 Project Identification and PPP Screening
• 3 A Project Identification and PPP Screening - Appendix A: Screening Report Example of Outline
• 4 Appraising PPP Projects
• 4 a Appraising PPP Projects - Appendix A - Procurement Procedures
• Introduction
• 1. Objectives of this Phase and Where We are in the Project Cycle
• 2. Overview of the Structuring Phase
• 3. Summary Description of Main Tasks to be Carried Out in the Structuring Phase
• 4. Financial Structuring (from the Public Perspective): Defining the Financial Structure and Payment Mechanism
• 5. Risk Allocation and Structuring[32]
• 6. Testing, Marketing and Communicating the Project before Project Launch
• 7. Defining Qualification Criteria: Structuring and Drafting the RFQ
• 8.1 Proposal Requirements
• 8.3 The Case of Competitive Dialogue, Interaction, and Best-and-Final Offers (BAFO) Type Procurement Processes
• 9. Defining and Drafting Other Commercial Terms and Contract Provisions [82]
• 10. Control Check and Approvals before Launching the Tender, and Planning Ahead
• 11. Summary of Outcomes of this Phase
• Appendix A– Description of Main Risks in a PPP and its Potential Allocation
• 5 a Appendix Structuring and Drafting the Tender and Contract - Describing Main Risks
• 6 Tendering and Awarding the Contract
• 6 a Appendix Bid Preparation and Submittal the private sector perspective
• 7 Strategy Delivery and Commissioning
• 7 A Strategy Delivery and Commissioning - Appendix A: Case Studies
• 8 Operations and Handback

Evaluation criteria

Broadly speaking, there are two main types of processes in terms of evaluation criteria.

• Processes based only on price (also referred to as least cost selection) in which the technical factors are evaluated on a pass/fail basis. This is sometimes called an auction; however it is more appropriate to use the term “auction” for asset monetization PPPs only, that is, PPPs that are concessions out of existing revenue-making infrastructure, or greenfield or yellowfield user-pays projects that are likely to generate an excess of revenue over costs. In this circumstance, the price criteria is based on who offers the highest value share to the procuring authority.
• Processes based on price in combination with qualitative factors, basically related to the quality of the technical offer (approach to construction and project design, and approach to O&M). This may be referred to as Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) or more frequently as Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT).

A price only evaluation is sometimes undertaken by evaluating the quantity/product offered for a certain price of the total budget allocated by the contract, for example, the number of homes supplied for a water distribution project or the number of kilometres of road offered for a certain price. This quantitative approach is not advisable for most PPPs, as the project solution defined by the government should reflect the total need assessed in project selection and/or the scope should be clearly defined as the required solution (with the scope adapted if necessary for affordability constraints).

In all cases, objectivity and transparency should be an essential driver when structuring and defining the evaluation methodology, even for pass/fail considerations, as the criteria are the basis on which the awardee will be selected and called for contract signature.

The criteria will usually reflect requirements within the procurement framework (for example, inclusion [or not] of qualitative criteria, maximum or minimum weightings for price versus qualitative criteria, and so on). However, many sub-criteria (especially those of a qualitative nature) will need to be adapted or defined ad hoc for the specific project.

Price only (or only objective or numerical) evaluation

When a selection is based only on price (for example, the lowest size of availability payment required by the bidder, the lowest size of a grant financing in a user-pays PPP that is not commercially feasible on a stand-alone basis, or the highest concession fee offered by the bidder), the technical criteria will be pass/fail. This means that only bids that meet the minimum bar of the technical criteria will be assessed in terms of price, but among the technical qualifying bids, price will be the only factor considered.

A price-only evaluation is dangerous for the authority as it may create an auction situation with overly aggressive bids that may compromise either quality or reliability. When using a price-only approach in greenfield projects, the procuring authority should be sure about what is wanted. A price-only evaluation is typically suited to simpler projects or infrastructure with no particular complexities or technical challenges.

A way to limit the potential dangers of “price only” criteria is not only to set out an overall technical pass/fail, but to also include specific and relative high qualitative scoring for key quality/technical sub-criteria. For example, a weighted average score of 6 out of 10 may be required for a technical pass, but a score of 7 or 8 or more may be required for key elements of the technical offer.

However, it should be noted that sometimes price may be in the form of more than one factor in addition to the basic price of the contract, that is, the payment requested by the bidder (or the price to be paid by the bidder in a high return user-pays PPPs). The RFP may request that bidders also present and bid for other quantitative aspects (for example, the percentage of certain revenues to be shared with the government above a revenue baseline, and so on).

In some cases, the additional quantitative factors may relate to something other than strictly price. They may also be referred to as “numerical criteria” or “criteria scored under numerical formulas”, but usually referring to cost or measurable efficiency rather than quality. For example, bidders could be asked to propose the construction term required. However, an evaluation based on a bidders’ ability to shorten the construction period required for the project is undesirable, as discussed earlier. This is especially the case if the revenue regime or the payment mechanism already creates an incentive to accelerate construction — and this of itself may result in a more competitive price.

In each of these cases, with a technical pass/fail evaluation and multiple quantitative factors, each numerical criteria should have its specific weighting clearly set out in the RFP as well as the scoring formula. Potential redundancies in some of these evaluation factors should be carefully considered (for example, scoring on the basis of the lower availability payment, and scoring also on the basis of shorter construction terms is redundant in some projects, as the former evaluation factor also naturally incentivizes the bidder to consider a shorter construction term).

In government-pays PPPs, there are various forms in which the procuring authority can ask bidders to submit the price. The most common alternatives are to quote a single price (for example, the shadow toll to be applied in the first year, the size of the availability payment to be made during the first year, or the maximum toll in a road project) or to require bidders to present (or have the authority calculate) an NPV of the revenues or payments.

Generally, for government-pays projects where all bidders must base their payments on the same payment profile and indexation over the term of the contract, it may be more appropriate to submit one single price for the payment requested by the bidder, rather than relying on NPV calculations. If bidders can propose different payment profiles or different indexation factors, NPV calculations are necessary for comparison purposes. The particular case of government-pays PPPs where the government is co-financing has already been discussed in section 4.2.

An exception in some more sophisticated approaches (for example, the Chilean approach to evaluate real toll PPP roads) is to offer and evaluate on the basis of the NPV of revenues. This is not only a price-evaluation mechanism, but also a risk-sharing mechanism, as the concession term will be variable to meet the NPV offered [75] .

Price and quality

The other most often used approach to evaluation (probably more common than price-only) is to evaluate based on both price and quality. Sometimes this approach is referred to as “criteria subject to qualitative assessment”, while the price-only approach is referred to as “criteria not subject to qualitative assessment” or scored under numerical formulas. Price and quality evaluation is the most typical approach in the EU where the procurement regime allows for some flexibility regarding the criteria under the “most economically advantageous tender” concept [76] .

When technical and economic criteria coexist, the appropriate weighting of each category of criteria (technical/quality versus economic) should be expected to depend upon the type of project. For example, for projects regarded as very innovative, the proposed approach, means, and methods involved will be much more important than in a more conventional project.

Evaluation approaches with a significant weight on price or other objective/numerical factors are most common. In a number of countries/jurisdictions, it is common that the economic/objective or numerically assessable criteria have a weighting of at least 50 percent (for example, typically in Spain and some Latin American countries) to provide a significant weighting to pure objective criteria.

In some countries, when price or other quantitative criteria represent less than 50 percent, it is customary to constitute an expert committee or an expert evaluation panel with robust checks and balances in the evaluation process (for example, in Australia and New Zealand).Qualitative criteria should be objective to the maximum extent possible and clearly defined or explained. Transparency and clarity are essential and are a general legal requirement in jurisdictions such as the EU.

In general terms, in addition to informing the weighting split between “price” versus “technical/quality”, each criteria (within these two groups) should have a specific weighting reflecting the relative importance of the different objectives and informing the bidders of the government’s priorities. However, some projects may present a second layer of criteria (sub-criteria), and in some cases there are no weightings for this second layer. When a weighting is not provided, it is customary to at least provide a “list of factors” that will be considered when assessing and scoring the respective criteria or sub-criteria. Figure 5.11 represents an approach to defining a long list of criteria with the specific weightings. These are presented as grouped into “main criteria” (while some could describe it as a list of criteria and sub-criteria). There is no universal approach for the organization of the criteria and the information on weightings and factors to be considered. For example, some projects directly present a long list of criteria (see example BOX 5.26), while others create categories (see example in BOX 5.27)

There are some cases/countries where the process relies significantly on qualitative criteria, Australia being one principal case. There, the RFP typically provides the evaluation criteria but does not provide significant information on the scoring methodology or evaluation procedures. Relying significantly on qualitative assessment may be possible when there is significant confidence in the equality and fairness of the evaluation process, which will only be possible in countries/markets with a high recognition in the investor community.

FIGURE 5.11: Categories, Criteria, and Sub-Criteria

Note: QA= Quality Assurance; QC= Quality Control; QMS= Quality Management System.

Responsiveness and minimum scoring/minimum quality

The RFP should state clearly how proposals may be rejected or disqualified when not respecting the prescribed requirements that are clearly set out in the RFP documents, that is, proposals not regarded as responsive to quality/technical matters. Beyond that, it is also customary to provide a minimum score to achieve a minimum quality bar, that is, a score above what would represent a mere pass For example, requiring an average score in technical overall criteria of 7 out of 10 and/or specific minimum scores requested for some specific sub-criteria.

Other technical or qualitative criteria and sub-criteria issues

It is essential to develop a clear list of technical and/or quality criteria.

It is good practice to assign to each of the criteria a specific weighting in the overall scoring, or the maximum number of points that will be allocated, out of the total scoring considered for the technical criterion. For some projects, a weighting for the second layer of criteria or “sub-criteria” may be provided.

It is customary and good practice that for every criteria, the RFP describes a definition or explanation for transparency purposes — and even a description of the main factors that will be considered when assessing the respective sub-criteria. However, to split the scoring/weighting into too many factors may be dangerous since that may introduce excessive rigidity and place too much emphasis on individual sub-components.

Typical qualitative and/or technical criteria include [77] :

• Construction matters, which may include criteria such as quality and reliability of the project design offered (usually under a pre-design format), the reliability of the construction period estimated, the quality assurance methods proposed for construction oversight, and so on.
• Operational matters, which may include criteria such as quality and reliability of operating procedures and manuals, commitment of means, service or O&M quality management systems or plans, and so on.
• Maintenance matters, including criteria such as quality and reliability of the maintenance plans and programs, renewal/major maintenance programs, specific plan for hand-back, and so on.
• Evaluation criteria for environmental compliance and environmental sustainability (for example, landscape factors)
• Evaluation criteria on health and safety plans
• Other qualitative criteria such as criteria related to benefits for minority or disadvantaged populations (usually set as a minimum bar or condition, for example, the number of members of the minority community provided with employment by the project or the consortium), financing reliability, and so on.

The list of criteria and sub-criteria should not be so large as to create undue complexity in the evaluation and make it difficult for bidders to focus on the fundamental objectives of the government (see examples in boxes 5.25 and 5.26).

The financial package is sometimes subject to evaluation in terms of reliability, such as the commitment level shown by the equity investor, the level of confidence in the financing availability, and the degree of robustness of the project finance structure. In processes with staged evaluation, it can be difficult to manage the evaluation of the financial package without information on the reliability and robustness of the financial structure that would allow the appraiser of the offers to know in advance or infer the price offered. Strict instructions should be provided to bidders, emphasizing that the financial package documentation should not disclose the overall price offered.

Another controversial issue is the potential role of experience as an evaluation factor. In a number of jurisdictions, including experience as an evaluation factor is prohibited by law because using experience as a selection criteria creates a risk of perpetuating the status quo where the most experienced bidders frequently win the projects. If experience has already been used to qualify bidders (or even to short list), it should not be necessary to also use experience as a criteria in evaluating the bids.

As PPPs focus on performance and PPP specifications are mostly based on outputs rather than inputs, the technical requirements in the RFP should not be prescriptive. It should provide only a reference design in a pre-design form or a “functional design”, but the service requirements should be focused on the results/quality of the service through key performance indicators (KPIs), rather than the amount of inputs or activities.

Consequently, the technical proposal evaluation should not be based on inputs committed (for example, the number of workers or professionals to develop certain functions), but should check that the means proposed by the bidder respond to the minimum requirements established in the RFP. It should also evaluate (using reasonable judgment) the extent to which the means and methods proposed by the bidder will result in quality and reliability of the output.

Evaluation procedures and process

Typically, the evaluation process and procedures (details of factors that will be considered in the assessment, evaluation team composition, mechanics for evaluation as an individual assessment versus a collective assessment or in groups, and so on) are not described in the RFP beyond the methodology inherent to the criteria, and the weighting and scoring formula. However, the time to be spent by the authority in evaluating and publishing the award decision should be stated in the RFP.

Also, when the opening of the bid envelopes will be done in public (which is compulsory in some frameworks), this will be indicated in the RFP.

Finally, there is a feature in the evaluation process that is sometimes (in some countries) described and committed to in the RFP: some jurisdictions will consecutively evaluate the technical and financial criteria. This means that the financial (price) criteria will be only evaluated (and the financial envelope will only be opened) once technical evaluation is finished and scorings are assigned to each proposer. This is the case in the EU where procurement regulations universally adopt this approach.

Chapter 6 further describes the evaluation process since it is more of a management issue than a matter regulated in the RFP.

[75]   See E. Engel and others (2002). A New Approach to Private Roads . This article describes the “Least-Present-Value-of-Revenue” criterion used to award toll road PPP concessions in Chile.

[76] While the evaluation criteria should be settled in advance, in competitive dialogue this is not until after the dialogue finalizes and the authority calls for the offer (or final offer sometimes). In such cases, EU regulation allows for the criteria in the “descriptive document” (the basis for initiating the dialogue) to avoid defining the weightings of the criteria and the need to explain them in detail, but they should be listed in decreasing order of importance.

[77] The EPEC´s Guide to Guidance (page 23) provides further discussion of evaluation criteria. The World Bank toolkit for PPPs in the water and sanitation sector provides examples of evaluation criteria in water sector user-pays PPPs ( http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/water-sanitat... ).

Add a comment

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research on comprehensive performance evaluation method for frontier fundamental research project for future aircraft engines.

Share and Cite

Qu, G.; Yang, X.; Yuan, Q.; Liu, Z.; Si, Y. Research on Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Method for Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 6205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146205

Qu G, Yang X, Yuan Q, Liu Z, Si Y. Research on Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Method for Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines. Sustainability . 2024; 16(14):6205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146205

Qu, Guixian, Xu Yang, Qiyu Yuan, Zhenxin Liu, and Yang Si. 2024. "Research on Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Method for Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 6205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146205

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals