Scoring sheet template for CMS bids
This page is for the procurement officer who sets up the scoring of a tender for a website or intranet content management system, and for the evaluators who fill it in. It gives a scoring scale, rules that keep scores defensible, and a sheet layout. The weights are blanks: they come from your tender documents, never from this page.
Template - adapt to your procurement rules; not legal advice.
Contents
- Before you score
- A score scale with evidence rules
- The sheet layout
- Individual and consensus scoring
- Scoring status words from vendor documentation
- Pitfalls
Before you score
- The criteria and their weights must be the ones published in the tender. Most procurement rules forbid adding a criterion after bids are opened.
- Mandatory requirements (pass or fail) are checked first, with the evaluation checklist template of this folder. Only bids that pass are scored.
- Each evaluator declares conflicts of interest before seeing the bids.
- Agree in advance which evidence counts: the written bid, the demo, the proof of concept, the public documentation.
For Exponential, the public documentation is the
doc/directory of the repository, for example the Accessibility standards and Security standards.
A score scale with evidence rules
| Score | Meaning | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not addressed, or contradicted by evidence | none, or evidence that contradicts the claim |
| 1 | Claimed, no evidence | a statement in the bid only |
| 2 | Partly met, with evidence | documentation or demo shows part of it; gaps named |
| 3 | Met, with evidence | documentation and demo or proof of concept show it |
| 4 | Met, with independent or repeatable evidence | the panel reproduced it (proof of concept, test run) or an independent report exists |
Adapt the number of steps to your rules. What matters is that each step names the evidence it needs, so two evaluators reach the same score for the same facts.
The sheet layout
Tender <ref> Bid <bidder> / Exponential <version> Evaluator <initials>
Criterion Weight Score (0-4) Weighted Evidence (link, demo minute, PoC step)
------------------------------ ------- ------------ --------- -------------------------------------
1 Editorial functions <w1> <s> <w1*s> ...
2 Accessibility <w2> <s> <w2*s> doc/eng-us/standards/accessibility.md; demo ...
3 Security <w3> <s> <w3*s> doc/eng-us/standards/security.md; PoC step ...
4 Privacy and data protection <w4> <s> <w4*s> doc/eng-us/standards/privacy.md
5 Languages <w5> <s> <w5*s> ...
6 Hosting and operations <w6> <s> <w6*s> ...
7 Support and maintenance <w7> <s> <w7*s> the support offer
8 Training and documentation <w8> <s> <w8*s> ...
9 Exit and portability <w9> <s> <w9*s> doc/eng-us/install/migration/leaving-exponential.md
10 Price / total cost <w10> <s> <w10*s> the TCO worksheet
------- ---------
Total <100> <sum>Price is often scored by a formula set in the tender rather than on the 0 to 4 scale; follow your rules. The total cost of ownership worksheet in the sibling folder total-cost-of-ownership helps you compare prices on the same basis.
Individual and consensus scoring
- Individual scoring. Each evaluator scores alone and writes the evidence for every score.
- Moderation meeting. A moderator, who does not score, goes through the criteria one by one. Where scores differ by more than one step, the evaluators explain their evidence.
- Consensus score. The panel agrees one score per criterion and records the reason. Do not average: an average hides the disagreement a debrief will ask about.
- Sign-off. Every evaluator signs the consensus sheet.
Scoring status words from vendor documentation
The Exponential standards pages use fixed status words. A fair way to translate them to the scale above:
Status in doc/eng-us/standards/ | Score it as at most | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Complies | 3, or 4 when you reproduced it | the page names the evidence (tests, settings, files) |
| Partly complies | 2 | the page names what is covered and the gaps |
| Unverified | 1 | no assessment was made; for example EN 301 549, Section 508 and OWASP ASVS are "Unverified" |
| Does not comply | 0 | stated plainly, for example unsigned commits in Source control and releases |
A bidder may lift a score with its own evidence, for example an accessibility audit of the public design it builds for you. Score that evidence, not the product documentation alone.
Pitfalls
- Scoring the demo's polish instead of the requirement. Write down which requirement each demo minute showed.
- Rewarding claims of "full compliance" that no document backs. The Exponential documentation itself claims no WCAG conformance and no VPAT (Accessibility standards).
- Letting the price evaluator see quality scores first, or the other way round, when your rules separate them.
- Losing the evidence links: keep them in the sheet.
Related pages
- Evaluation: overview
- Procurement: overview
- Standards: how to read the status
- Free documentation: this page is free to copy, translate and improve under the GNU FDL 1.3.
Become an Exponential Partner
Partners share their information, provide funding, contribute back and develop the products with us, and that is how Exponential grows. A partner website and dashboard are planned for mid-2027: please become a partner today to speed up our growth rate and land new features faster.