Guidance

Appendix G – quality criteria and maximum weightings

Published 23 March 2026

Applies to England

The following weightings have been set at construction framework level to provide a baseline from which the procurement of school schemes can be standardised where appropriate and ensure quality criteria align to the requirements of the selected procurement route. Please note that framework users procuring any scheme involving construction or refurbishment of school or other educational facilities must, unless agreed by the Department for Education (DfE), apply the range of weightings for evaluation as set out in the tables.

For other schemes, framework users shall set criteria within the maximums and minimums specified and may apply sub-criteria within the criteria. A framework manager may exceptionally, where satisfied that it is justified in the circumstances of the specific scheme, and compliant with the regulations, agree the use of different criteria or weightings.

Price and quality split

Price will normally attract a weighting of 30%, provided that this figure may be increased with the agreement of the DfE framework team. For projects procured post-planning approval, right up to a construct only scheme, these can be adjusted beyond 30% up to 100%.

Quality criteria

The standard weightings for mini-competitions are included in the tables. Also included are the maximum and minimum ranges for each headline criteria that framework users can apply without the approval of the framework team. These have been set to ensure the weightings reflect the nature and requirements of the individual procurement routes. Any changes that fall outside these ranges will need specific approval from the framework team.

For the avoidance of doubt, sub-criteria may be weighted as zero (not used) as relevant to the scheme and procurement route.

Engagement based selection route (EBSR PITT)

Number	Headline criteria	Sub-criteria	Standard sub-weighting	Headline criteria weighting	Headline criteria minimum / maximum
1	Overall delivery and approach	-	-	45%	40% / 50%
1a	Overall delivery and approach	Programme	5%	-	-
1b	Overall delivery and approach	Stakeholder management	10%	-	-
1c	Overall delivery and approach	Information management	5%	-	-
1d	Overall delivery and approach	Supply chain capacity and capability	15%	-	-
1e	Overall delivery and approach	Approach to risk management	10%	-	-
2	Design quality	-	-	25%	20% / 30%
2a	Design quality	Approach to the design process	20%	-	-
2b	Design quality	Carbon reporting strategy	5%	-	-
Total	-	-	-	70%	-

Engagement based selection route (EBSR ITT)

Number	Headline criteria	Sub-criteria	Standard sub-weighting	Headline criteria weighting	Headline criteria minimum / maximum
1	Overall delivery and approach	-	-	8%	5% / 10%
1a	Overall delivery and approach	Information management	4%	-	-
1b	Overall delivery and approach	Stakeholder management	4%	-	-
2	Design quality	-	-	39%	35% / 45%
2a	Design quality	Design proposal: outdoor	12%	-	-
2b	Design quality	Design proposal: building	12%	-	-
2c	Design quality	Environmental strategy	10%	-	-
2d	Design quality	Technology strategy	2.5%	-	-
2e	Design quality	Carbon reporting strategy	2.5%	-	-
3	Social value	-	-	10%	10% / 20%
3a	Social value	Approach to social value	6%	-	-
3b	Social value	Local value	4%	-	-
4	Construction quality	-	13%	10% / 20%
4a	Construction quality	Strategy for construction and defects period	7.5%	-	-
4b	Construction quality	Stage 6 handover	5.5%	-	-
Total	-	-	-	70.00%	-

Submission based selection route (SBSR) ITT

Number	Headline criteria	Sub-criteria	Standard sub-weighting	Headline criteria weighting	Headline criteria minimum / maximum
1	Overall delivery and approach	-	-	36%	30% / 50%
1a	Overall delivery and approach	Pre-construction programme	2%	-	-
1b	Overall delivery and approach	Stakeholder management	10%	-	-
1c	Overall delivery and approach	Information management	4%	-	-
1d	Overall delivery and approach	Supply chain capacity and capability	7.5%	-	-
1e	Overall delivery and approach	Construction programme	5%	-	-
1f	Overall delivery and approach	Approach to managing project risks	7.5%	-	-
2	Design quality	-	-	24%	10% / 30%
2a	Design quality	Outline project proposals	10%	-	-
2b	Design quality	Approach to the design process	10%	-	-
2c	Design quality	Technology strategy	2%	-	-
2d	Design quality	Carbon reporting strategy	2%	-	-
3	Social value	-	-	10%	10% / 20%
3a	Social value	Approach to social value	6%	-	-
3b	Social value	Local value	4%	-	-
Total	-	-	-	70.00%	-

These maximums are intended to apply to the specific procurement routes identified. For procurement routes that are developed through the duration of the framework, minimums and maximums may differ. For procurements taking place later in the RIBA PoW, these will have a different evaluation approach that will be relevant to the design stage and design requirements.

Qualitative questions

For school schemes, DfE has developed local competition technical questions (LCTQs) which provide sub-criteria, sub-weightings, and template questions within the quality criteria in the tables. The LCTQs issued from time to time by DfE are expected to be used for school schemes procured by other framework users. However, framework users are permitted to adapt sub-criteria, sub-weightings, and template questions for scheme-specific reasons or in support of framework user policy.

For non-school schemes involving educational facilities or other non­education facilities, framework users may set their own scheme-specific questions within the maximum weightings set out in the table above.

For the avoidance of doubt, in respect of all schemes, the quality criteria and weightings set out in the final 4 columns above may only be amended with DfE consent.