Award criteria

Award criteria (tildelingskriterier) are what the contracting authority uses to choose between tenders, for example price, quality, life-cycle costs, environment, social considerations and innovation. The criteria must be linked to what is to be delivered, and cannot be so discretionary that the contracting authority is in practice free to choose as it likes. The contracting authority must state what documentation is to be submitted for each criterion (§ 8-11 and § 18-1 of the Public Procurement Regulations (anskaffelsesforskriften); the § references on this page are to the Regulations unless the Act is named). Award criteria concern the tender. Requirements that concern you as a supplier are qualification requirements.

The rules differ between the parts of the Regulations, which depend on the type of contract and its estimated value. Weighting (vekting, also called relative weight) is how much each criterion counts towards the whole, for example price 40% and quality 60%. In competitions under Part III, which applies at or above the EEA thresholds for supply, service and works contracts, the contracting authority must choose the tender with the best ratio between price or cost and quality, and must then state the weightings. A weighting can be given as a range with an appropriate maximum spread, and according to DFØ (the Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management) the weightings must always add up to 100%. Only where weighting is not possible for objective reasons may the criteria instead be listed in order of priority, from most to least important (§ 18-1 (6)). Lowest price or lowest cost alone can only be used when climate and environment is not used as an award criterion, either because it has been replaced by climate and environmental requirements in the technical specifications, or because the exceptions in the Public Procurement Act (anskaffelsesloven) § 5b or § 5c apply (§ 18-1 (1); DFØ), and never in a competitive dialogue or an innovation partnership (§ 18-1 (8)). The contracting authority may also set a fixed price and let suppliers compete on quality alone (§ 18-1 (1) and (7)).

In competitions under Part II, from NOK 1.3 million up to the EEA thresholds (except health and social services), and for special services (særlige tjenester) from NOK 1.3 million with no upper limit, the criteria must be listed in order of priority, and the contracting authority does not have to state weightings (§ 5-1 (2), § 8-11; DFØ). From NOK 500,000 up to NOK 1.3 million (Part I), the contracting authority must say in advance what will count, but for small purchases it may be enough to say so in general terms (DFØ). Health and social services follow only Part I below NOK 8.7 million, and at or above NOK 8.7 million they follow Part IV, which has its own rules: among other things, the contracting authority may give weight to quality, continuity, user involvement, competence and experience, and may make user choice the only award criterion (§ 30-1).

In procurements that must be advertised, climate and environment must count for at least 30% when the criteria are weighted, and be among the top three when they are listed in order of priority (Public Procurement Act § 5b). The rule does not apply to utilities contracts or concession contracts, nor to defence and security procurement unless a regulation provides otherwise (Public Procurement Act § 2). The requirement can be replaced by climate and environmental requirements in the technical specifications and has exceptions; see the page on the Public Procurement Act.

The Regulations do not say how price and quality are converted into points. The contracting authority chooses the evaluation model, and the model must bring out relevant differences between the tenders (DFØ). The contracting authority does not have to disclose the model, but must have decided on it before the tenders are opened, and the model cannot change the criteria or the weightings (Court of Justice of the EU, case C-6/15 Dimarso; DFØ). If the model has been disclosed, the contracting authority must use it (DFØ). Models vary, and the example below shows that the choice of model can decide who wins.

The award criteria tell you what your tender has to answer. Advice: structure your response by the criteria and sub-criteria, in the same order as in the tender documents, submit the documentation each criterion asks for, and write so that the evaluator can easily find and compare your answers. The evaluation is based on what is in the tender, and in an open or restricted procedure (anbudskonkurranse) you cannot improve your tender after the deadline, because negotiation is not allowed and clarifications must not improve the tender (§ 23-6 (3) and § 23-5 (2)).

Do the maths on the weightings before you set your price. With a linear price model, price weighted at 40% and one quality criterion weighted at 30%, both scored from 0 to 10, one quality point is worth as much as a price difference of 7.5% of the lowest price. That shows how much better quality you can afford to offer, and how far your price must fall to make up for a weaker response. Advice: read the evaluation model if it is disclosed, and ask the contracting authority about it if it is not.

Where climate and environment is a weighted award criterion in a competition that must be advertised, it counts as a rule for at least 30%, almost as much as price in the example below. Advice: treat it as a full quality criterion, with concrete measures for this particular contract and the documentation the criterion asks for.

Once the choice is made, the contracting authority must, under Part II, Part III and Part IV, explain it by reference to the characteristics and relative advantages of the selected tender, assessed against the award criteria (§ 10-1, § 25-1 and § 30-8). Read that explanation against the criteria and weightings in the tender documents. If you believe they have been applied wrongly, the standstill period (karensperiode), where it applies, is the time you have to react before the contract is concluded. Since 1 July 2026, only undertakings established in Norway or another EEA state, or in a state that is party to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) or another agreement binding Norway, have rights under the Act and the Regulations, and the latter only to the extent that agreement gives them rights (Public Procurement Act § 3). Other undertakings may take part in competitions but cannot rely on those rights. See the page on the standstill period.

A municipality advertises an open procedure for cleaning its schools, with an estimated value of NOK 6 million. That is above the EEA threshold of NOK 2.5 million, so Part III applies and the criteria must be weighted. The weightings are price 40%, quality 30% and climate and environment 30%. Three tenders come in. A costs NOK 4.0 million, B NOK 4.8 million and C NOK 6.0 million. On quality they score 3, 6 and 8 points out of 10, and on climate and environment 4, 6 and 7.

In a linear price model, the cheapest tender gets 10 points, and the others lose one point for every 10% they are more expensive. B gets 8 and C 5 points on price. Weighted, the totals are A 6.1 (4.0 + 0.9 + 1.2), B 6.8 (3.2 + 1.8 + 1.8) and C 6.5 (2.0 + 2.4 + 2.1). B wins. Here one quality point is worth NOK 300,000 in price, which is 7.5% of NOK 4.0 million.

If the municipality instead uses a proportional model, where the price points are 10 times the lowest price divided by the tender's price, B gets 8.33 and C 6.67 points on price. The totals then become A 6.1, B 6.93 and C 7.17, and C wins. The same tenders and the same weightings give a different winner. So read which model applies, and do the maths on it before you decide your price.