What an evaluation grid contains
In a Québec call for tenders for professional services, quality is scored against a grid published with the tender documents. For a public body (a ministry, a health institution, a school service centre), the framework comes from the Regulation respecting certain service contracts of public bodies. The grid has at least three criteria. Each criterion carries a weight, and the weights add up to 100%. Each criterion is scored out of 100 points.
The tender documents must also describe, for each criterion, the elements of quality required to reach an "acceptable level of performance". Read those elements before anything else. They state in plain words what the evaluator will look for in your text, and people tend to skim past them to get to the mandate.
On the municipal side, the Act respecting contracting by municipal bodies, in force since April 1, 2026, replaces the old rules of the Cities and Towns Act and the Municipal Code of Québec. When the price is opened only after quality has been evaluated (a "system in which knowledge of the price is deferred"), the grid has at least four criteria and none may be worth more than 30 points out of 100.
Here is a typical grid, invented for the example:
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Understanding of the mandate | 15% |
| Firm's experience in comparable mandates | 20% |
| Project manager's experience | 25% |
| Composition of the team | 15% |
| Methodology and schedule | 25% |
Who scores, and how
Proposals are evaluated by a selection committee. For a public body, the committee has a secretary, who coordinates its work, and at least three members. It evaluates quality without knowing the price, which is why the price and the demonstration of quality must be submitted separately.
For a municipality, the committee has at least three members who do not sit on council, assisted by a secretary. Each member first evaluates each proposal alone. The committee then meets and assigns each proposal a score, criterion by criterion. No member knows the price during this evaluation, and the municipal body does not disclose who the members are.
So don't try to reach a committee member. Communicating or trying to communicate with one of them to influence them is an offence carrying a fine, under both regimes. Questions go through the person named in the tender documents.
Filing
The demonstration of quality and the price arrive separately.
Quality evaluation
The committee scores each criterion without knowing the price.
Under 70 points
The proposal is rejected. Its price is not opened.
Prices opened
Only for the proposals that reach 70.
Formula and ranking
Lowest adjusted price, or highest final score.
The 70-point pass mark
For a public body, the final score for quality is the sum of the weighted scores. A proposal is acceptable if that score reaches 70 points. Below that, it is rejected, whatever its price.
The tender documents may also require at least 70 points on a specific criterion, and that detail catches people out. Take the example grid again with these scores:
| Criterion | Weight | Score out of 100 | Weighted score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding of the mandate | 15% | 12.00 | |
| Firm's experience in comparable mandates | 20% | 15.00 | |
| Project manager's experience | 25% | 16.25 | |
| Composition of the team | 15% | 10.50 | |
| Methodology and schedule | 25% | 21.25 | |
| Final score | 100% | 75.00 |
70, acceptable level
At 75, the proposal passes. But if the tender documents require 70 on the project manager's experience, it is rejected for that single 65, and a methodology scored at 85 changes nothing.
The municipal rule is similar. A proposal whose interim score falls short of 70, or that misses the minimum set for a criterion, is rejected. Its price is not even looked at: a price envelope received electronically is destroyed unopened.
Why well-written text still loses points
In our view, a proposal rarely loses points because it is badly written. It loses them because the committee can't find what it is looking for.
The evaluator scores what they find, where they look for it. A relevant project tucked into an appendix on page 47 may be noticed. Placed in the section named after the criterion, it will be scored.
A claim gives them nothing to score. "Our team has solid experience managing municipal projects" earns almost nothing. "The project manager led four planning mandates for municipalities of 10,000 to 50,000 residents between 2021 and 2025" gives them a fact.
Their reference stays the list in the tender documents. If they expect four elements for the understanding of the mandate and you cover three very well, one is still missing, and the score will show it.
Recycled text is easy to spot, sometimes by another client's name left in a paragraph, more often by an issue that has nothing to do with this tender.
Then there is the most frustrating case: an elegant paragraph with no fact in it. The committee member rereads it, finds nothing to score, and gives it the same score as a clumsy paragraph that is just as empty.
Read the grid before you write
The method that pays best fits in one table, filled in before you draft:
- the criterion and its weight
- the elements expected for the acceptable level, copied from the tender documents
- the section of your proposal that will answer it
- the proof you will bring (which project, which résumé, which figure)
- what you are missing
Then spread your effort by weight. A criterion worth 25% deserves more time than one worth 10%, even if it is less pleasant to write. Reuse the headings and numbering of the tender documents, so the evaluator finds each element without searching. The last line of the table is the one that helps most, because it shows before you file where points are likely to go missing.
How Clarido does it
Clarido reads the grid as a table, not as running text. For each criterion it records the code, the label, the points and the expected elements, then checks that the quotation really appears in the document and that the figure kept is the one in that row. When an addendum changes a criterion, the grid follows.
At the decision step, each criterion of the grid shows the strength of your proof: solid, thin or missing. The Positioning screen then sets each of the client's expectations against the projects and résumés in your library that answer it. You see where you are likely to lose points before you write the first line, and the first draft starts from that proof.
After the result, ask for feedback
For a public body, each tenderer receives the result of the quality evaluation of its proposal, at the latest 15 days after the contract is awarded. Within 30 days of that notice, you can ask in writing for your results on each criterion and a summary of the reasons. The public body must answer within 30 days.
The request takes a few lines, and the answer is worth a lot. Over two or three calls for tenders, it shows which criterion keeps costing you points.
For municipalities, we found no equivalent obligation in the new Act. Nothing stops you from asking for a debriefing meeting.
Sources
- Regulation respecting certain service contracts of public bodies, CQLR c. C-65.1, r. 4 (updated to July 1, 2026), s. 16 (price and quality submitted separately), s. 26 (selection committee), s. 28 (notice of results and feedback), Schedule 2, ss. (1) to (7) (grid, weights, 100-point scale, acceptable level at 70, minimum per criterion, final score). legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/rc/C-65.1,%20r.%204
- Act respecting contracting by municipal bodies, CQLR c. C-65.01 (updated to August 12, 2026; sections cited in force since April 1, 2026), s. 43 (30 points maximum per criterion, minimum per criterion), s. 55 (selection committee), s. 66 (at least four criteria), s. 70 (evaluation without knowing the price), s. 71 (minimum interim score of 70), s. 126 (communicating with a committee member). legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/lc/C-65.01
- Act respecting contracting by public bodies, CQLR c. C-65.1, s. 27.10.1 (communicating with a member of a selection committee). legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/lc/C-65.1