Appendix H – quality scoring criteria
Published 23 March 2026
Applies to England
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-buildings-construction-framework-2025/appendix-h-quality-scoring-criteria
The following scoring methodology shall be used for school schemes unless the Department for Education (DfE) otherwise agrees. For non-school schemes, framework users may use their own scheme-specific scoring criteria.
| Term | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent response | 10 | The response is clear, detailed, comprehensive and meets the requirements in answering all elements of the question, and the panel determines overall there are no missing details that would undermine confidence in the delivery of the contract, with no risks to the framework user evident. |
| Good response | 8 | The response addresses the stated elements of the question and details how the requirements will be met through the delivery of the contract, but in some minor areas the response lacks fullness, clarity and detail or contains minor omissions, and the panel determines overall there are minor omissions that carry limited impact in relation to delivery of the contract, with limited risks to the framework user evident. |
| Satisfactory response | 5 | The response mostly addresses some of the stated requirements of the question but lacks some detail, part of the proposals to meet the requirements lack fullness, clarity or detail, which is more than minor only, and the panel determines overall there is a satisfactory level of confidence in response, but the omissions amount to a more significant but acceptable risk to the framework user. |
| Poor response | 2 | The response only partly addresses the question and the detail missing is significant or a significant part of the proposals are unsatisfactory, and the panel determines there is limited confidence in the response and the risk to the framework user is high. |
| Unacceptable response | 0 | The response is substantially deficient across most or all areas or no response given, and the panel determines there is no confidence in response and the risk to the framework user is unacceptable. |