SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA
International Football Tournament Stadium & Digital Ticketing Project
Prepared by: Alex – Project Manager
Approved by: Ministry Steering Committee
Issue Date: 20 January 2026
- Purpose
This document defines:
- The evaluation methodology
- Weighted scoring model
- Technical and financial assessment rules
- Minimum compliance thresholds
The objective is to ensure selection of the vendor that provides:
Best overall value, not merely lowest cost.
- Evaluation Methodology
The project will use a Weighted Scoring Model.
Evaluation will occur in two stages:
- Technical Evaluation
- Financial Evaluation
Only vendors meeting the minimum technical threshold will proceed to financial evaluation.
- Evaluation Criteria and Weights
3.1 Stadium Construction – Prime Contractor
Criteria | Weight | Evaluation Method |
Technical capability | 30% | Expert panel scoring |
Relevant mega-project experience | 20% | Past project review |
Cost proposal | 20% | Comparative financial analysis |
Risk management approach | 10% | Qualitative assessment |
Financial stability | 10% | Ratio & audit review |
Schedule feasibility | 10% | Timeline realism review |
Total = 100%
3.2 Digital Platform Vendor
Criteria | Weight | Evaluation Method |
System architecture quality | 25% | Technical review |
Scalability capability | 20% | Performance validation |
Cost proposal | 20% | Financial scoring |
Cybersecurity framework | 15% | Compliance review |
Agile delivery maturity | 10% | Process evaluation |
Integration readiness | 10% | API documentation review |
Total = 100%
- Scoring Method
Each criterion is scored from 0–10.
Weighted Score Formula:
Final Score = Σ (Score × Weight)
Example:
Technical capability score 8 × 30% = 2.4 points.
Maximum total score = 10.
- Minimum Technical Threshold
- Minimum technical score required: 7.0/10
- Vendors scoring below threshold are eliminated
- Financial proposals remain sealed until technical phase complete
This ensures quality-first procurement.
- Cost Evaluation Method
Cost scoring formula:
Lowest compliant bid receives full cost score.
Other bids scored proportionally:
Cost Score = (Lowest Bid ÷ Vendor Bid) × Weight
This prevents bias toward unrealistically low bids.
- Risk Assessment Component
Each proposal must include:
- Risk identification
- Mitigation plan
- Interface risk awareness
- Schedule compression strategy
Proposals ignoring integration risk may be downgraded.
- Financial Stability Requirements
Vendors must provide:
- 3 years audited financial statements
- Proof of liquidity
- Bonding capacity
- No pending bankruptcy proceedings
Minimum solvency ratio required.
- Past Performance Review
Evaluated on:
- Delivery on time
- Delivery within budget
- Quality performance
- Dispute history
- Safety record
References must be verifiable.
- Governance & Compliance Requirements
Vendors must confirm:
- Compliance with national procurement law
- No conflict of interest
- Anti-corruption declarations
- Labor law compliance
Failure results in automatic disqualification.
- Evaluation Committee Structure
The evaluation committee shall include:
- Project Manager (Chair)
- Construction Technical Expert
- Digital Architecture Expert
- Financial Controller
- Legal Advisor
- Independent Observer (transparency oversight)
No single individual may approve vendor selection unilaterally.
- Tie-Breaker Rules
If two vendors score within 0.2 points:
Priority order:
- Higher technical score
- Lower schedule risk
- Better past performance
- Documentation & Audit Trail
All evaluations must:
- Be documented
- Be signed
- Include scoring rationale
- Be archived for 10 years
This ensures transparency and audit readiness.
- Approval Authority
Final selection must be approved by:
- Steering Committee
- Ministry Finance Authority
- Minister signature (Prime Contractor only)