The Supplier Who Passed the Audit
You are procuring a 2.5 million facilities management contract for a public body. The evaluation is weighted 60% price and 40% quality. The incumbent supplier scores highest on price but its quality submission is thin on mobilisation planning and staff retention. During reference checks, a former client says the incumbent "lost half the cleaning staff in the first three months" but declines to put it in writing. The procurement rules require evaluation against published criteria only, and the incumbent is a local employer with political support. A rival bidder has submitted a lower-quality bid at a higher price and is pressing for the scoring to be revisited. Your evaluation panel wants to award to the incumbent.
1. Can you use the verbal reference information in the evaluation? What is the correct course of action?
Read the worked answer
No, you cannot use it as a scoring input. The published criteria govern the evaluation, and an unwritten, unverifiable comment from a reference who will not commit it to paper is not evidence against those criteria. Using it would expose the award to challenge and would be procedurally unfair to the incumbent.
However, ignoring it entirely is also wrong. The information is a risk signal, and the correct place for risk signals is the risk register and the contract design, not the score sheet.
Correct course:
- Score strictly against the published criteria. If the quality submission is thin on mobilisation and retention, that should already produce a lower quality score; if the criteria allow it, the panel should be rigorous here rather than generous.
- Record the reference comment as an unverified risk with its source and limitations, and note that it could not be substantiated.
- If the incumbent wins on the published criteria, build the risk into the contract: a mobilisation plan as a contractual deliverable, retention and staffing KPIs with remedies, a transition period, and a right to step in if staffing falls below an agreed level.
- Tell the rival bidder that the evaluation stands on the published criteria and explain the process, without disclosing confidential information.
Political support for a local employer is not an evaluation criterion and must not influence scoring. Document that the panel scored against the criteria alone.
2. The panel is under pressure to award quickly. What contract and governance safeguards do you insist on before signature?
Read the worked answer
Speed is legitimate; skipping safeguards is not. Insist on a small number of high-value controls that can be put in place within the timetable.
Contract safeguards:
- A mobilisation plan with dated milestones, submitted before contract start and subject to your acceptance.
- Staffing KPIs with a defined minimum headcount, reporting frequency, and a remedy for breach, including a right to require a recovery plan.
- Retention measures tied to payment, so the supplier has a financial reason to keep staff.
- A probationary period with defined exit rights if performance thresholds are missed.
- Clear variation and termination mechanics, so a failing supplier can be replaced without re-procuring from scratch.
Governance safeguards:
- A written evaluation record showing scores against each published criterion, signed by the panel, so the decision is defensible.
- A note of the unverified reference risk and how it was mitigated, placed on the procurement file.
- A short mobilisation assurance review at week four and week twelve, reported to the sponsor.
These measures let you award quickly while managing the specific risk the reference raised. They also protect the public body if the risk materialises, which is the outcome the political supporters should care about most.