Bid evaluation matrix — weighted scoring template
A reusable scoring matrix for industrial pump bids. Customize weights per service class.
Step 1 — Confirm weights
Adjust the weight column to total 100%. Suggested weights for typical process duty:
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Lifecycle energy cost (TCO over 15 years) | 30% |
| Spare-parts lead time + local stock | 20% |
| CAPEX | 20% |
| References at duty + industry | 15% |
| Documentation completeness | 5% |
| Warranty terms | 5% |
| Compliance / certifications | 5% |
| Total | 100% |
Adjustments by service class:
- Fire pumps (NFPA 20 / NBR 16704): Compliance 30%, References 20%, CAPEX 20%, Lead time 20%, Energy 5%, Documentation 5%
- Critical-process (no redundancy): Energy 30%, Spare-parts 25%, References 20%, CAPEX 15%, Documentation 5%, Warranty 5%
- Utility (intermittent duty): CAPEX 35%, Energy 15%, Lead time 20%, References 10%, Compliance 10%, Warranty 5%, Documentation 5%
Step 2 — Score each bidder per criterion (0-100)
| Criterion | Weight | Bidder A | Bidder B | Bidder C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lifecycle energy cost | 30% | _____ | _____ | _____ |
| Spare-parts lead time + local stock | 20% | _____ | _____ | _____ |
| CAPEX | 20% | _____ | _____ | _____ |
| References at duty + industry | 15% | _____ | _____ | _____ |
| Documentation completeness | 5% | _____ | _____ | _____ |
| Warranty terms | 5% | _____ | _____ | _____ |
| Compliance / certifications | 5% | _____ | _____ | _____ |
| Weighted total (out of 100) | _____ | _____ | _____ |
Step 3 — Scoring rubric
Lifecycle energy cost
- 100 = lowest TCO across all bidders
- Linear interpolation:
score = 100 × (TCO_lowest / TCO_this_bid)
Spare-parts lead time + local stock
| Lead time | Local stock | Score |
|---|---|---|
| ≤ 4 weeks | Yes, in Brazil | 100 |
| 5-8 weeks | Yes, in Brazil | 80 |
| 9-12 weeks | Yes, partial | 60 |
| 13-16 weeks | No | 40 |
| > 16 weeks | No | 20 |
CAPEX
- 100 = lowest CAPEX across all bidders
- Linear interpolation:
score = 100 × (CAPEX_lowest / CAPEX_this_bid)
References at duty + industry
| Sub-criterion | Weight within reference score |
|---|---|
| References at similar duty point (±30% Q, ±20% H) | 40% |
| References in same industry vertical | 30% |
| Reference contact reachable + cooperative | 30% |
For each sub-criterion: 0 (none) / 50 (single / partial) / 100 (multiple / direct).
Documentation completeness
| Item | Present? |
|---|---|
| Performance curve with tolerance bands | Y / N |
| Hydrostatic test cert | Y / N |
| Vibration cert | Y / N |
| Bearing temp log | Y / N |
| Cross-section drawing | Y / N |
| GA with critical dimensions | Y / N |
| O&M manual in Portuguese | Y / N |
| Spare-parts list 5-year | Y / N |
| INMETRO-lab certs (BR) | Y / N |
| Training plan | Y / N |
Score = (count of Y / 10) × 100.
Warranty terms
| Trigger | Period | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioning, ≥ 24 months | 100 | |
| Commissioning, ≥ 18 months | 90 | |
| Commissioning, ≥ 12 months | 80 | |
| Delivery, ≥ 24 months | 80 | |
| Delivery, 12-18 months | 60 | |
| Delivery, < 12 months | 30 |
Compliance / certifications
Binary on each mandatory item — vendor either has it or does not.
| Required cert (per service class) | Has? |
|---|---|
| HI 14.6 (specified grade) | Y / N |
| API 610 / 676 (if applicable) | Y / N |
| NFPA 20 / NBR 16704 (if fire) | Y / N |
| ISO 2858 / ASME B73.1 (if specified) | Y / N |
| CRCC Petrobras (if oil & gas) | Y / N |
| INMETRO-recognized lab certs | Y / N |
Score = 100 if all required Y; 0 if any required N.
A vendor missing any mandatory certification disqualifies for that service class.
Step 4 — Compute weighted total
For each bidder:
Weighted total = Σ (criterion score × criterion weight)
Highest weighted total wins, subject to:
- No mandatory-certification disqualification
- CAPEX within budget envelope
- Lead time within project schedule envelope
If two bidders are within 5 points of each other on weighted total, the tiebreakers (in order) are:
- Lifecycle energy cost — lower wins
- Spare-parts lead time — shorter wins
- References quality — direct wins over partial
Step 5 — Document the decision
A one-page evaluation memo signed by the procurement and engineering leads, attaching the matrix above and the rationale for any tiebreaker calls. File in the procurement record for audit defensibility.
This decision memo, plus the short-list rationale memo (§2.6 of the playbook), is the auditable record of the procurement decision.