Two contractors bid for the same World Bank-financed bridge package. Bidder A is 11% more expensive. Bidder B is the cheapest compliant bid and, in a lowest-price world, the obvious winner. When the evaluation report comes out, Bidder A has the contract.
Nothing irregular happened. The bidding documents gave 60% of the marks to rated criteria, Bidder A’s technical proposal scored well against them, and Bidder B’s method statement read like a brochure. Under World Bank rated criteria, the quality of what you write in the technical envelope can outweigh a meaningful price gap.
This article explains how rated criteria work under the Procurement Regulations (seventh edition, September 2025), how technical scores combine with price, and what bidders and evaluation committees should do differently.
What rated criteria are, and when they apply
The Regulations define rated criteria as evaluation criteria for the non-price attributes of a bid, including quality, risks and mitigations, value for money, sustainability and other technical aspects. The Bank made them the default approach for most international procurement from 1 September 2023. Its rated criteria page now describes their use as mandatory for most international procurement in Bank-financed projects, covering goods, works and non-consulting services.
Paragraph 5.50 of the Regulations is the operative rule. For any international competitive procurement where Standard Procurement Documents (SPDs) must be used, rated criteria apply, except for pharmaceuticals, vaccines and commodities. The criteria and the methodology must be specified in detail in the Request for Bids, the weightings must be stated, and evaluation must use two envelopes: technical first, price second (paragraph 6.29).
The Bank lists typical areas: management systems, key personnel and organisation; methodology, work plan and mobilisation; health and safety, quality and environmental management; track record and past performance; sustainable procurement; and sector-specific criteria. It also publishes a Rated Criteria Library of illustrative examples and a guidance note, Evaluating Bids and Proposals (third edition, February 2025).
The direction of travel is clear. In its 18 July 2025 press release, the Bank said the measures introduced in March 2025 include a stronger focus on quality in bid evaluation, with life-cycle costs, innovation, sustainability and local job creation given adequate weight on high-value contracts. The same release introduced the 30% local labour requirement, whose skills proposals can themselves be scored as rated criteria.
How much quality counts: the weighting matrix
The Borrower does not choose the weighting freely. Paragraph 5.50 and Annex X set bands by procurement risk and contract value. Contracts estimated at or above US$10 million count as high value.
| Procurement risk | Contract value | Weight for rated criteria |
|---|---|---|
| High or substantial | High (US$10m or more) | 50% to 80% |
| High or substantial | Low | 60% to 100% |
| Moderate or low | High (US$10m or more) | 10% to 40% |
| Moderate or low | Low | 20% to 30% |
The Borrower places each contract in the matrix and explains the choice in the Project Procurement Strategy for Development (PPSD). For prior-review contracts the Bank approves the weightings; for post-review contracts it checks compliance, and Annex X warns that misapplying the matrix may lead to misprocurement.
How technical scores combine with price
Under paragraph 5.69, when rated criteria are used, the Most Advantageous Bid is the qualified, substantially responsive bid that is highest ranked. Lowest evaluated cost alone decides only where rated criteria are not used (paragraph 5.70). Annex X adds that the financial score is inversely proportional to price.
The Bank’s guidance illustrates a comparative method. The highest technical score is set to 100 and the others are scaled against it. The lowest evaluated cost scores 100 and each other bid scores lowest cost divided by its cost. Each score is multiplied by its weight and the two are added. The exact formula, any minimum quality threshold and the evaluated cost basis (adjusted bid price or life-cycle cost) are set in each bidding document, so read the evaluation section before you price.
Back to the opening example, with hypothetical figures. Bidder A scores 90 on rated criteria at US$10.0 million; Bidder B scores 70 at US$9.0 million. With a 60/40 split, A gets 60 + 36 = 96 and B gets 46.7 + 40 = 86.7. A wins. With a 20/80 split, A gets 20 + 72 = 92 and B gets 15.6 + 80 = 95.6. B wins. The weighting band, not just the price, decides who is competitive.
Two guardrails matter. Bids that fall below a stated minimum quality threshold can be rejected before the price envelope is considered. And a very low price does not buy a free pass: under paragraphs 5.65 to 5.67, a potentially abnormally low bid triggers written clarification and price analysis, and is rejected if the bidder cannot show it can deliver for that price.
Why technical proposals score low
The guidance gives an illustrative 0 to 4 scale: 0 where the feature is absent, 1 where it is present but deficient or unclear, 2 where it meets the requirement, 3 and 4 where it marginally or significantly exceeds it. That scale explains most low scores I see:
- Generic text. A method statement lifted from another project shows a feature is present but rarely shows how this site, this river crossing or this traffic plan will be handled. That is a 1, not a 3.
- No evidence. Claims about experience or safety performance without completion certificates, references, statistics or named CVs leave evaluators nothing to score against.
- Ignoring the structure. If the criterion asks for risk identification and mitigation, a proposal that buries risks in an appendix makes evaluators hunt. Many will not.
- Missing the PPSD risks. The guidance links criteria to the risks identified in the PPSD. A proposal that does not address the obvious project risks, such as land access, a wet season or a constrained supply chain, misses the point of the criterion.
- Promises you cannot keep. Over-ambitious personnel or training commitments may score well, but check how the contract treats them. The Bank’s local labour fact sheet, for example, says skills proposals become part of the works specification.
What contractors should do
- Read the evaluation section first. Note the weighting, the criteria, sub-criteria, the scoring scale and any minimum threshold before you plan the bid.
- Mirror the criteria. Use the same headings and order as the bidding documents so each sub-criterion has an obvious answer.
- Write to the descriptors. For each sub-criterion, state plainly how you meet it and how you exceed it, then prove it.
- Make it project-specific. Name the site constraints, the sequence, the plant and the people. Specific beats long.
- Price what you promise. Every commitment in the technical envelope should have a cost line in the price envelope.
- Ask for a debrief. If you lose, use the debriefing to learn how each criterion was scored, and consider whether a complaint is justified during the standstill period.
What Employers and evaluation committees should do
- Keep criteria few and pointed. The guidance says the number of rated criteria should be kept to the essential minimum, because too many dilute what matters.
- Tie each criterion to a PPSD risk and state the evidence bidders must provide. Do not repeat pass/fail qualification tests as scored criteria without a reason.
- Set thresholds realistically. The guidance warns that a minimum quality threshold set too high may result in most or all bids being rejected.
- Score individually, then moderate. Evaluators should score independently and then agree a justifiable consensus score, which the guidance says should not simply be an average.
- Keep an evidence trail. Record the reasoning for each score and the strengths and weaknesses in the evaluation report. Under paragraph 5.74, the Notification of Intention to Award must show technical scores, combined scores and the ranking, so every score will be read by losing bidders during the ten Business Day standstill period.
How to measure it
- For bidders: average technical score as a share of the winning score, tracked across tenders, and win rate where you were not the lowest price.
- For bidders: sub-criteria scored 1 or below in debriefs, by theme.
- For Borrowers: spread between evaluators’ individual scores before moderation.
- For Borrowers: complaints received per tender and the share upheld.
- For both: delivery against technical commitments after award (key personnel retained, plans delivered).
The bottom line
World Bank rated criteria turn the technical envelope from a compliance exercise into a scored competition. Contractors who still treat it as boilerplate are giving away marks that a price cut may not buy back. Borrowers who design vague criteria or score without records invite complaints they will struggle to defend. Treat the technical proposal and the evaluation file the way you would treat a claim: specific, evidenced and written for someone who will check every line, as discussed in how to prepare a claim.
If you are preparing a technical proposal for a World Bank-financed works contract, or designing rated criteria and scoring for a PIU, and want an independent view, get in touch at amirmehdi@amasghari.com.
This article is general information, not legal advice. How rated criteria are applied depends on the bidding documents, the Bid Data Sheet, the Particular Conditions, the financing agreement and the governing law of each contract. Check your documents and take specific advice before acting.
Sources
- World Bank, Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers, seventh edition (September 2025)
- World Bank, Evaluating Bids and Proposals, including Use of Rated Criteria (Procurement Guidance, February 2025)
- World Bank, Project Procurement: Rated Criteria
- World Bank, press release, 18 July 2025: World Bank Group Strengthens Procurement Requirements to Support Job Creation, Skills Development
- World Bank, Local Labor: Supporting Job Creation through Operations Procurement (fact sheet)
- World Bank, feature story, 8 March 2023: Rated Criteria, a Game Changer for Promoting Value in World Bank Procurement