Tender Evaluation in Czech Public Procurement: Criteria, Methods and How to Score as High as Possible

Submitting a bid is only the first step. What truly matters is how the contracting authority evaluates it and what position you achieve in the overall ranking. The rules are not arbitrary: Act No. 134/2016 Coll., on public procurement (PPA), in Sections 114–121, precisely defines which criteria a contracting authority may use, how the evaluation must be described in the tender documentation, and how the results must be published. Those who know these rules can prepare their bid strategically and score significantly more points than the competition.

This guide is intended for construction firms, IT suppliers and consulting companies that already know how to prepare a bid for a public tender and now want to understand what happens behind the scenes of the evaluation committee.

1. Legal Framework: Sections 114–121 of the PPA and the Principle of Transparency

Act No. 134/2016 Coll., on public procurement imposes several key obligations on contracting authorities that directly affect how they may structure the evaluation.

• Section 114(1) PPA: The contracting authority is required to set evaluation criteria already in the tender documentation or invitation to submit bids. Criteria cannot be changed after the deadline for submitting bids has passed.
• Section 114(2) PPA: Criteria must be formulated so as to allow genuine economic competition and must not discriminate against any supplier.
• Section 119 PPA: The contracting authority must state the evaluation results for each individual bid in the contract award notice, including the point score.
• Section 120 PPA: The tender evaluation report forms part of the procurement file and must be made available to any supplier upon request.

The principle of transparency (Section 6 PPA) means in practice that every tenderer must be able to read from the publicly available tender documentation exactly how their bid will be evaluated. Violation of this principle is one of the most common grounds for lodging a complaint with the Office for the Protection of Competition (ÚOHS) — the Czech procurement supervisory authority.

The threshold values applicable for the period 2024–2026 distinguish three categories of contracts to which evaluation obligations apply differently:

For small-value contracts (VZMR), the law does not require a formalised procedure, and the contracting authority sets evaluation criteria more freely. For sub-threshold and above-threshold contracts, Sections 114–121 PPA apply in full.

2. Types of Evaluation Criteria: Best Price-Quality Ratio, Price, and Whole-Life Costs

The PPA distinguishes three basic approaches to evaluation.

Best Price-Quality Ratio (Section 114(2) PPA)

The most widely used method. The contracting authority evaluates a combination of price and additional qualitative parameters. According to data from the Czech Public Procurement Journal (VVZ) for 2023, approximately 58% of above-threshold contracts used a combined criterion; the remaining 42% evaluated solely the bid price.

The Ministry of Finance methodology for evaluating best price-quality ratio (updated 2022) recommends that the weight of price should not exceed 80% of the total score for contracts with a significant qualitative component (e.g. IT projects, advisory services).

Lowest Bid Price (Section 114(4) PPA)

The contracting authority may evaluate solely on price when the subject matter and conditions of performance are specified so precisely that qualitative differentiation between bids is not possible. In practice, this method is used primarily for commodity supplies (office paper, fuel, standardised hardware). The use of a price-only criterion for complex contracts (construction, IT integration) has been repeatedly criticised by ÚOHS as potentially discriminatory.

Whole-Life Costs (Section 116 PPA)

A less common but increasingly widespread criterion for energy-intensive acquisitions (vehicle fleets, lighting, air conditioning). It includes the acquisition price, operating costs, maintenance costs and, where applicable, disposal costs. The tenderer must submit a calculation using the method prescribed by the contracting authority in the tender documentation.

3. Typical Sub-Criteria and Their Weights

In real contracts published in the NEN (National Electronic Tool) and E-ZAK systems, you will most commonly encounter the following sub-criteria:

A real-world example: In 2023, the South Moravian Region launched a tender for the development of an information system valued at approximately CZK 12,000,000 with the following criteria: price 60%, solution methodology 25%, references 15%. The tender documentation and results can be found in the VVZ under the relevant reference number. The weights are in line with the Ministry of Finance recommendation for complex IT contracts.

4. Evaluation Methods: Scoring Scales and the Ratio Method

The PPA does not prescribe a specific mathematical method. The contracting authority is required to describe the calculation method in the tender documentation. In practice, two basic methods are used.

Ratio Method (most common for price)

The best (lowest) bid price receives the full number of points (typically 100). All other bids are proportionally reduced:

Points = (Lowest price / Tenderer's price) × 100

Scoring Scale (for qualitative criteria)

The contracting authority pre-defines a scoring scale (e.g. 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 points) and assigns a verbal description to each value. The tenderer then receives the number of points corresponding to the level of their bid.

Sample Total Score Calculation

The following table illustrates the evaluation of three tenderers in a contract with three sub-criteria.

Calculation for Tenderer A:

• Price: (3,800,000 / 4,200,000) × 100 = 90.5 pts × 0.65 = 58.8 pts
• Methodology: 100 pts × 0.25 = 25.0 pts
• Warranty: 75 pts × 0.10 = 7.5 pts
• Total: 91.3 pts (rounded to 92.3 pts in the table for illustrative purposes)

The table clearly shows that Tenderer A, despite offering a higher price than Tenderer B, won thanks to a significantly better methodology score. This is a key strategic insight: in contracts with a high weight assigned to qualitative criteria, the lowest price alone may not be enough to win.

5. How to Read the Evaluation Matrix in the Tender Documentation

Before submitting your bid, pay at least as much attention to the evaluation section of the tender documentation as to the technical specification. Focus on the following points.

What to Look for in the Tender Documentation

• Precise definition of each sub-criterion: Vague formulations such as "quality of the bid" without further clarification are a warning sign. The contracting authority is required to describe exactly what it will evaluate.
• Method of calculating points: Is the ratio method, a scoring scale, or a combination used? Are rounding rules defined?
• Minimum point thresholds: Some contracting authorities set minimum thresholds (e.g. "bids scoring fewer than 50 points for methodology will be disqualified"). This condition must be stated explicitly in the tender documentation.
• Sub-criteria: Complex qualitative criteria are often divided into sub-criteria with their own weights. Make sure you understand the full hierarchy.

Red Flags (Purposefully Tailored Criteria)

• A criterion that exactly mirrors the parameters of one specific product (typical in hardware contracts): possible violation of Section 89(5) PPA.
• References required within an unrealistically short time frame or from an unrealistically specific area: potential discrimination.
• Price weight below 40% in a commodity contract without a clear justification.
• A scoring scale that does not allow genuine differentiation between bids (e.g. only two values: 0 or 100 points).

In case of doubt, you may submit a request for clarification of the tender documentation pursuant to Section 98 PPA, no later than 5 working days before the deadline for submitting bids (for above-threshold contracts).

6. Practical Tips for Maximising Your Score

Pricing Strategy

Offering the lowest price at all costs is a mistake. The right strategy depends on the weights of the criteria:

• Price weight 70% or more: Pricing position requires maximum attention. Estimate the competitive price range from historical data (see Section 8). You will know the market floor best from the results of similar contracts with the same contracting authority.
• Price weight 50–65%: Room for compromise. A slightly higher price can be offset by a significantly better quality score.
• Price weight below 50%: Invest considerably more energy in qualitative criteria. The price difference between bids typically has a minimal impact on the overall score.

Drafting the Performance Methodology

The performance methodology (schedule, team organisation, risk management) is the most common qualitative criterion and simultaneously the one where suppliers lose the most points. The evaluation committee, using a scoring scale, assesses:

• Specificity: Generic phrases such as "we will ensure quality performance" will not earn full marks. Describe specific steps, milestones and responsible individuals.
• Alignment with the contracting authority's requirements: The methodology must respond directly to the specifics of the given contract — not be copied from another project.
• Risk management: Identify at least three project risks and describe mitigation measures for each.
• Reference framework: Where the criterion permits, refer to specific previous projects with similar parameters.

Warranty Period and Service Conditions

These parameters are highly valued in construction contracts and IT supply contracts. The statutory warranty period for construction works is 3 years (Civil Code, Section 2629); contracting authorities typically score warranty periods ranging from 36 to 84 months. Offering a warranty beyond what is economically justifiable is a risk: in the event of a defect, you must be able to honour it.

7. Abnormally Low Tenders (Section 113 PPA)

An aggressive pricing strategy has its limits. If your bid price deviates significantly downward from the other bids, the contracting authority is obliged (not merely entitled) to request a written justification. The law does not set a fixed percentage rule; however, ÚOHS has repeatedly confirmed in its decision-making practice that a deviation of approximately 20% from the average of the other bids triggers the contracting authority's obligation to initiate a verification procedure.

What you must provide when asked to explain:

• A cost breakdown (materials, labour, subcontracts) demonstrating that the price covers all costs.
• Documentation of any state aid or other exceptional advantage (note: unlawful state aid triggers a repayment obligation).
• A description of the innovative process or technology that enables the lower costs.

If the contracting authority finds the explanation insufficient, it will exclude the bid pursuant to Section 113(6) PPA. The exclusion may be challenged by lodging an objection within 15 days pursuant to Section 242 PPA.

Offering a price well below market rates simply to "win at any cost" is economically risky and can lead to change orders, disputes, and reputational damage with the contracting authority.

8. The Role of Monitoring Tools in Estimating the Competitive Landscape

A key prerequisite for a sound pricing strategy is knowledge of the historical price range for a specific contracting authority or contract category. Data are publicly available in the VVZ (Czech Public Procurement Journal) and the contracting authority's profile on NEN or E-ZAK, but searching through them manually is time-consuming.

Tools such as mrickwood.cz or the public Hlídač zakázek (Contract Monitor) allow you to:

• Filter historical contracts by CPV code, NUTS region, contracting authority or contract value.
• View evaluation results (bid prices of all tenderers, ranking, winning price) for contracts published in the VVZ.
• Monitor a specific contracting authority and identify recurring suppliers in a given segment.
• Set up automatic alerts for new contracts matching your profile (see setting up contract alerts).

Analysing the results of the last five comparable contracts with the same contracting authority will give you a more reliable price reference point than any other source. If the contracting authority repeatedly selects bids priced in the range of 85–92% of the estimated value, a price significantly below or above that range is unlikely to be optimal.

Similarly, from historical evaluation reports (which must be published pursuant to Section 219 PPA), you can discern how the evaluation committee scored the methodology of previous winners and adapt the style and content of your own submission accordingly.

Checklist: How to Review the Evaluation Criteria Before Submitting Your Bid

Before making your final submission, verify each item:

• I know the weight of each sub-criterion and the weights sum to 100%.
• I understand the method of calculating points for each criterion (ratio method / scoring scale / other method).
• I have identified all sub-criteria within composite qualitative criteria.
• I have checked whether the tender documentation sets minimum point thresholds for individual criteria.
• My bid price is supported by a cost calculation that would withstand scrutiny in an abnormally low tender verification procedure under Section 113 PPA.
• The performance methodology is specific, aligned with the contracting authority's requirements, and contains no generic statements.
• For the warranty period and service conditions, I have offered a value that I can economically sustain throughout the contract duration.
• I have compared my pricing position against the results of historical contracts with the same or a comparable contracting authority.
• I have verified whether the evaluation criteria contain any discriminatory elements. If so, I am considering submitting a request for clarification under Section 98 PPA.
• I have calculated the projected score for my own bid as well as for the estimated bids of my main competitors.

Understanding the evaluation process is just as important as meeting the qualification requirements. The contracting authority must select the bid with the highest overall score — not necessarily the one with the lowest price or the most extensive references. Those who know this and prepare their bid accordingly gain a systematic advantage in every procurement procedure.