The following is a synthetic illustration, not a comparison of real suppliers. Both proposals are assessed against the default weights; all scores shown are after evidence caps.
| Criterion | Weight | Proposal A | Proposal B |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1. Workflow fit | 15 | 5 | 4 |
| C2. Specialist depth | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| C3. Migration | 12 | 2 | 5 |
| C4. Implementation | 12 | 2 | 4 |
| C5. Integrations | 10 | 4 | 4 |
| C6. Security | 10 | 4 | 4 |
| C7. Adoption | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| C8. Administration | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| C9. Reporting | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| C10. TCO and terms | 10 | 2 | 4 |
| C11. Exit | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| C12. AI assurance | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Weighted total | 100 | 66.6 | 82.0 |
| Evidence coverage | 58% | 100% | |
| Gate status | Hold | Pass |
In this example, A has stronger demonstrated workflow and reporting features, but C3, C4, C8, C10 and C11 remain below E3 evidence quality. Those rows account for 42% of the weighting, leaving 58% coverage.
B provides stronger migration proof and a more substantiated delivery and operating proposal. Its 82.0 is a reason to advance to approval—not proof that implementation will succeed.
A’s correct outcome is resolve and retest, or reject if the gaps cannot be closed. Do not convert its unproven areas into claims that the product cannot perform them.
What decision thresholds should the committee use?
The desk proposes the following starting policy:
| Result | Proposed decision |
|---|---|
| 80–100, gates passed, coverage at least 90% | Eligible for award recommendation, subject to critical-criterion floors, sensitivity review and executable contract terms |
| 70–79, with no failed gate | Conditional shortlist; close material gaps and rescore before approval |
| Below 70 | Redesign the proposal, narrow the scope or consider another option |
| Any gate on hold | No final award approval until the hold is resolved |
| Any failed gate | Not eligible in its present form, regardless of total |
Before evaluation begins, designate critical criteria that must each earn at least 3. The default candidates are C1, C3, C4, C6, C10 and C11, plus C2 and C5 where specialist depth or integrations are essential.
The 80-point and 90%-coverage thresholds are governance choices, not evidence-based success probabilities. Adjust them prospectively if needed; do not change them retrospectively to favour the preferred supplier.