Construction Bid Evaluation Criteria: How Government Agencies Score Your Bids

Introduction

Understanding how government agencies evaluate construction bids is crucial for developing winning proposals. While the lowest price often wins in simple sealed-bid procurements, many government contracts use best value evaluation methods that consider multiple factors beyond just cost.

This guide demystifies the bid evaluation process, explaining the criteria agencies use, how they weight different factors, and what you can do to improve your evaluation scores across all categories.

Key Evaluation Approaches

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA): Price wins if you meet minimum standards
Best Value Tradeoff: Agencies weigh price against other factors
Lowest Responsive Responsible Bidder: Traditional sealed bid approach
Qualifications-Based Selection: Common for A/E services, price negotiated later

Evaluation Methods

Government agencies use different evaluation methods depending on the procurement type and project complexity. Understanding which method applies helps you tailor your bid strategy.

Sealed Bidding (IFB)

Traditional sealed bidding uses the lowest responsive, responsible bidder approach. The agency evaluates bids for:

Responsiveness: Did you follow all requirements?
Responsibility: Can you perform the work?
Price: Lowest bid wins among qualified bidders

Common for straightforward construction projects with clear specifications where technical approach differences are minimal.

Negotiated Procurement (RFP)

Request for Proposal procurements allow evaluation of multiple factors:

Technical approach and methodology
Past performance and experience
Management capability and key personnel
Price/cost reasonableness
Small business participation

Used for complex projects where approach matters as much as price.

Best Value Tradeoff Analysis

Approach	Description	When Used
Price Primary	Technical factors used to break ties	Commodity-like construction
Equal Weight	Price and technical equally important	Balanced complexity/cost projects
Technical Primary	Agency will pay more for better approach	Complex, high-risk projects

Price Evaluation Factors

Price evaluation goes beyond simply looking at the total bid amount. Agencies analyze pricing in multiple ways to ensure value and reasonableness.

Price Reasonableness

Agencies evaluate whether your price is realistic for the scope of work:

Comparison to independent government estimate (IGE)
Comparison to other bidders
Historical pricing for similar work
Analysis of cost breakdown by line item

Price Realism

Particularly for cost-reimbursement contracts, agencies assess whether your proposed costs realistically reflect the work required:

Are labor rates consistent with market rates?
Is the proposed level of effort adequate?
Are indirect rates supported and reasonable?
Do subcontractor costs align with their proposed scope?

Unbalanced Pricing

Agencies check for unbalanced bids where line items are over or underpriced relative to actual costs:

Front-loading: Higher prices for early work items
Back-loading: Lower early prices, higher later
Mathematically unbalanced: Line items don't reflect actual costs
Materially unbalanced: Unbalancing affects contract award or payment

Total Evaluated Price

The total evaluated price may include:

Base contract price
Option year pricing
Unit prices for estimated quantities
Life-cycle cost considerations
Prompt payment discounts

Technical Evaluation Factors

Technical evaluation assesses your proposed approach to completing the work. Strong technical proposals demonstrate understanding and capability.

Common Technical Factors

Factor	What Evaluators Look For
Technical Approach	Methodology, means, methods, sequencing
Understanding	Comprehension of scope and requirements
Schedule	Realistic timeline, critical path, milestones
Quality Control	QA/QC processes, inspection plans
Safety	Safety program, OSHA compliance, EMR
Risk Management	Risk identification and mitigation strategies

Technical Rating Scales

Agencies typically use adjectival ratings such as:

Outstanding/Exceptional: Exceeds requirements, innovative approach
Good/Highly Acceptable: Meets requirements with strengths
Acceptable/Satisfactory: Meets minimum requirements
Marginal: Fails to meet some requirements, correctable
Unacceptable: Fails to meet critical requirements

Past Performance Evaluation

Past performance is often one of the most heavily weighted non-price factors. Agencies believe past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

What Agencies Evaluate

Quality of work on similar projects
Schedule adherence and timeliness
Cost control and financial management
Customer satisfaction and responsiveness
Problem resolution and communication
Safety record

Sources of Past Performance Information

CPARS/PPIRS: Federal past performance databases
References provided: Your submitted past performance references
Questionnaires: Agency surveys sent to references
Agency files: Records from previous contracts with the agency
Other sources: Industry databases, interviews

Relevance Factors

Agencies assess how relevant your past projects are to the current opportunity:

Relevance Factor	Consideration
Scope Similarity	Similar work types and complexity
Size/Magnitude	Comparable contract values
Recency	Completed within past 3-5 years
Environment	Government vs commercial, location

Addressing Limited Past Performance

New contractors or those with limited relevant experience can still compete:

Past performance of key personnel
Predecessor company experience
Teaming partner or subcontractor experience
Commercial project experience (if applicable)
"Neutral" rating for no relevant experience (cannot be used negatively)

Management and Capability Factors

Agencies evaluate your organizational capability and management approach to determine if you can successfully perform the contract.

Key Personnel

Evaluation of proposed key personnel typically includes:

Relevant experience and qualifications
Education and certifications
Proposed role and availability
Commitment level to the project
Retention and succession plans

Organizational Capability

Company experience and track record
Equipment and facility resources
Financial capacity and stability
Geographic presence and local capabilities
Current workload and available capacity

Management Approach

Project management methodology
Communication and reporting procedures
Subcontractor management plans
Problem escalation and resolution processes
Transition and phase-in plans

Small Business Participation

For contracts with small business subcontracting requirements, agencies evaluate your subcontracting plan:

Percentage goals by small business category
Identified small business subcontractors
Outreach and mentoring commitments
Past performance meeting subcontracting goals

The Scoring Process

Understanding how evaluators actually score proposals helps you address what matters most in your submission.

Evaluation Team Composition

Technical evaluators: Subject matter experts reviewing technical approach
Cost/price analysts: Reviewing pricing reasonableness and realism
Past performance evaluators: Reviewing references and databases
Contracting officer: Overall evaluation oversight
Source selection authority: Makes final award decision

Evaluation Documentation

Evaluators document their assessments identifying:

Strengths: Aspects exceeding requirements or providing benefit
Weaknesses: Aspects increasing risk but not disqualifying
Deficiencies: Failure to meet requirements (may be disqualifying)
Uncertainties: Lack of definition requiring clarification

Competitive Range Determination

For RFP procurements, agencies may establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals for discussions before final evaluation.

Source Selection Decision

The source selection authority reviews evaluator findings and makes the award decision, documenting the rationale for tradeoff decisions between price and non-price factors.

How to Improve Your Scores

Strategic actions can significantly improve your evaluation scores across all categories.

Price Scoring Improvements

Develop accurate, supportable cost estimates
Maintain competitive labor rates
Minimize overhead and indirect costs
Consider teaming to reduce costs
Avoid obvious unbalancing in line items

Technical Scoring Improvements

Address every requirement in the solicitation
Use evaluator-friendly formatting and organization
Be specific rather than generic in approach descriptions
Identify and mitigate project risks
Offer value-added innovations when appropriate

Past Performance Improvements

Maintain relationships with references
Monitor and respond to CPARS evaluations
Document performance achievements in real-time
Address any negative performance proactively
Select references relevant to the opportunity

Management Scoring Improvements

Assign experienced key personnel with strong resumes
Demonstrate adequate resources and capacity
Show specific, tailored management approaches
Build credible small business teams
Address turnover and continuity proactively

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I find out my evaluation scores after award?

For federal contracts, you can request a debriefing after award to understand your strengths and weaknesses. You will typically learn your adjectival ratings and relative ranking, but not competitors' specific proposal details.

How important is price in best value procurements?

It depends on the solicitation. Some RFPs state price is most important, others say technical factors are equal or more important. Always read the evaluation criteria carefully—the solicitation must state the relative importance of factors.

What if I have no past performance?

FAR prohibits agencies from rating lack of past performance as a negative. You should receive a "neutral" rating. However, in competitive situations, this may put you at a disadvantage against established competitors with strong past performance.

Can I protest evaluation decisions?

Yes, if you believe the evaluation was improper. Protests can be filed with the agency, GAO, or Court of Federal Claims. Common grounds include failure to follow stated criteria, unequal treatment, or mathematical errors.

How do I know what factors are most important?

The solicitation must state evaluation factors and their relative importance. Look for language like "technical factors are significantly more important than price" or "factors are listed in descending order of importance."

Conclusion

Success in government construction bidding requires understanding how agencies evaluate proposals and tailoring your submissions accordingly. Focus on the stated evaluation criteria, address each requirement thoroughly, and demonstrate your value through concrete evidence and relevant experience.

Building strong past performance, maintaining competitive pricing, and clearly articulating your technical approach are the foundations of successful bid evaluations. Study solicitation evaluation criteria carefully and allocate your proposal development effort proportionally to factor weights.

Find Opportunities Matching Your Strengths

ConstructionBids.ai helps you find government opportunities that align with your capabilities and experience. Get alerts for projects where your past performance and technical expertise give you competitive advantage.

Start Finding Matching Opportunities →