Procurement Tender Evaluation with Pricing

Detects weighted evaluation matrices scoring tender responses, including commercial pricing from multiple bidders in government procurement processes.

Type: keyword_proximity
Engine: universal
Confidence: medium
Confidence justification: Medium confidence: multiple scores with prices next to evaluation phrasing are specific to evaluation reports; agency tender numbers are customer-defined, so the reference is a documented label-anchored fallback.
Jurisdictions: au
Regulations: Financial Accountability Act 2009 (Qld)
Frameworks: QGISCF
Data categories: financial, government
Scope: wide
Risk rating: 8

Pattern

(?i)\b(?:tender\s+evaluation|evaluation\s+(?:report|matrix|panel\s+report|committee\s+report)|weighted\s+scores?|value\s+for\s+money\s+assessment|evaluation\s+of\s+(?:tenders|offers|responses))\b

Corroborative evidence keywords

tender, procurement, RFT, RFP, ITT, evaluation, assessment, scoring, price, cost, value for money, confidential, PROTECTED, probity, evaluation committee, financial, fiscal, monetary, accounting, treasury (+25 more)

Proximity: 300 characters

Should match

PROTECTED — Tender Evaluation Report. RFT number 2026-04521: ICT Infrastructure Services. Evaluation committee scoring: Tenderer A — Technical: 78/100, Price: $14.2M. Tenderer B — Technical: 82/100, Price: $16.8M. Value for money assessment: Tenderer A recommended. Probity advisor: approved. — Tender evaluation with multiple bidder pricing and scores (reaches 85)
Commercial-in-Confidence. Procurement evaluation matrix — Road construction RFP 2026-03310. Weighted criteria: Price 40%, Methodology 30%, Experience 30%. Bidder pricing: Company X $45.6M, Company Y $52.1M, Company Z $48.3M. Recommendation to evaluation committee. — Procurement evaluation with competitive pricing comparison (65 discovery only - prose without populated record fields)
PROTECTED — Evaluation committee only. Tender evaluation summary for RFT 2026-08842. Probity-cleared scoring: Tenderer A 86/100 at $9.7M, Tenderer B 79/100 at $11.2M. Value for money: Tenderer A recommended. — Tender evaluation summary with reference number, scores and pricing (reaches 85)
Tender evaluation report — RFT 2026-0417 Harbour Networks: technical 38.5/50, experience 17/20, weighted score 78.2/100, price $418,960 Coastline Data: technical 31/50, experience 15/20, weighted score 69.4/100, price $397,500 Evaluation committee only — commercial-in-confidence. — Populated record with price / score lines reaching 75 and 85 (reaches 85)
Tender evaluation matrix Harbour Networks: technical 38/50, experience 17/20 Coastline Data: technical 31/50, experience 15/20 — Two or more distinct scores with evaluation phrasing, no price (reaches 75)

Should not match

Request for Tender: ICT Infrastructure Services. Submissions close 30 March 2026. Published on QTenders for open public response. — Published tender notice — public procurement advertisement
Procurement Policy Framework — How to evaluate tenders. Template scoring matrix with example criteria and weightings. — Procurement policy template without real evaluation data
The evaluation panel will assess offers against the published criteria and weightings in the invitation to tender. How to evaluate tenders is explained in the procurement guide. — Policy guidance naming the topic without any record (discovery only)
Tender evaluation matrix Tenderer: __________ Technical score: ___/50 Price: $________ Weighted score: ___/100 — Blank evaluation matrix (must stay below 75)
News: after the tender evaluation the contract went to the lowest bidder at $12.4 million, the minister announced on 14/08/2026. — News article naming an evaluation, one price and a date (must stay below 75)

Known false positives

Published tender notices and procurement advertisements on QTenders Mitigation: Exclude documents containing 'submissions close', 'published on QTenders', 'invitation to tender' without evaluation data
Procurement policy templates with example scoring matrices Mitigation: Exclude documents containing 'template', 'example', 'how to evaluate', 'policy framework'