Great evaluations are simple, transparent, and defendable. A clear scoring matrix aligns decision-makers, reduces bias, and turns vendor proposals into apples-to-apples comparisons. This guide shows you how to design criteria, set weights, run scoring workshops, and award with confidence across Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Visual: From RFQ to Award
Why Scoring Works
A published scoring sheet removes guesswork. Vendors respond to what you value; evaluators compare like with like; finance and legal see a traceable decision. The result: fewer rounds, clearer trade-offs, and faster sign-off.
How-To: The Scoring Framework
- Define outcomes — What must change by the end of the contract?
- Select criteria — Capability, approach, risk, delivery plan, price/value.
- Weight criteria — e.g., Capability 30, Approach 25, Delivery 20, Price/Value 25.
- Set gates — Eligibility rules (must-have certificates, local presence, insurance).
- Score independently — Evaluators submit scores + comments before calibration.
- Calibrate — Remove outliers, check evidence, apply tie-break rules.
- Decide & record — Summarize rationale, assumptions, and next steps.
Stakeholders & Message Angles
| Stakeholder | Main Concern | Message Angle | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procurement | Compliance, fairness | Published criteria, blind gating | Matrix v1.0, audit trail |
| Marketing/Owner | Quality & fit | Capability, case relevance | References, samples |
| Finance | Value & predictability | TCO, milestones | Phasing, SLA credits |
| Legal | Risk allocation | Liabilities, IP, data, permits | Contract schedule |
Good / Better / Best Options (for vendors & internal alignment)
| Option | Scope Highlights | Risk Controls | Investment | When to Choose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good | Core deliverables; standard QA | Weekly stand-up; 5% contingency | $$ | Pilot or single market |
| Better | Enhanced scope; added channels | Risk register; 7% contingency | $$$ | Growth across 2–3 markets |
| Best | Flagship; advanced analytics | Exec steering; 10% contingency | $$$$ | Category leadership |
KPI Scorecard (Evaluation & Delivery)
| Area | Metric | Target Range | Owner | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Process | Time to shortlist | 5–10 working days | Procurement | Complete RFQ & gates |
| Quality | Proposal completeness | 90–100% | Vendors | Template + checklist |
| Decision | Cycle time | -20% vs baseline | Steering | Pre-booked workshop |
| Value | TCO vs benchmark | -5% to -15% | Finance | Phased scope |
| Delivery | SLA adherence | 95–99% | Vendor | Clear SLAs |
Mini Case Snapshots
Case A — Multi-country shortlist
Common matrix across EG/SA/AE cut 2 weeks from evaluation; winner delivered phased rollout with milestone billing.
Case B — Regulated sector
Eligibility gates (licenses, data controls) removed 4 misfits early; calibration produced a unanimous award.
Case C — Price vs value
Weighted “approach” and “risk” outranked lowest bid; post-mortem showed +12% output at same budget after scope phasing.
Playbooks
Scoring Workshop (45 minutes)
- Confirm outcomes & weights (5 min)
- Per-vendor readout: highs/lows (15 min)
- Evidence check & tie-breaks (15 min)
- Decision & next steps (10 min)
Vendor Q&A Doc (before proposals)
“Please answer only what’s asked. Use our headings. If an item isn’t applicable, write ‘N/A’. Include assumptions and risks.”
Pursue / Pause / Decline
| Signal | Pursue | Pause | Decline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Readiness | Criteria & weights set | Weights pending | No outcomes defined |
| Timeline | ≥ 4–6 weeks | 2–3 weeks | < 2 weeks, no authority |
| Budget | Range + phasing | Range only | Unknown & fixed scope |
| Decision | Steering booked | Stakeholders unclear | No access to approver |
Faster Shortlisting (without quality loss)
- Eligibility first — Remove misfits early with hard “pass/fail”.
- Two closest wins — Ask vendors for context-matched cases.
- Paid discovery — When scope is unclear, buy clarity before delivery.
Documentation & Governance (light but strong)
- Matrix v1.0 with weights & definitions
- Individual scores + comments
- Calibration notes & tie-breaks
- Award memo with assumptions and risks
Risk & Operational Controls
- RAG Matrix with triggers & owners; publish twice weekly.
- Parallel workstreams for contracting, compliance, and delivery prep.
- Go/No-go gates tied to permits, data, and payment milestones.
RFQs & Entasher (as your speed lane)
Use a structured RFQ and scoring sheet to attract stronger proposals from verified providers. Shortlist quickly, then run a tight decision workshop.
- Event Management Agencies — Egypt
- Event Management Agencies — Saudi Arabia
- Event Management Agencies — UAE
You keep the strategic edge; Entasher accelerates sourcing and comparability.
RFQ Example (Scoring-friendly brief)
Multi-Channel Awareness Campaign — Q4 (Cairo & Riyadh)
Live component: copy & reuse in other pages.
Service & Blog Clusters (Recommended)
Services (shortlist by capability)
Blog Knowledge (how-tos & templates)
FAQs
How many criteria should we use?
Five to eight criteria keep decisions focused and fair. If you need more, group them under main headings.
Should price be the highest weight?
Only if scope is fully standardized. For creative or complex work, balance capability, approach, and delivery with price/value.
Can we change weights mid-process?
Avoid it. Publish weights upfront and stick to them. If you must adjust, document rationale and get sign-off.
Where do we find verified vendors fast?
Use shortlists from Entasher categories like Digital Marketing (EG) or Digital Marketing (KSA) and request comparable proposals.
