Why rated criteria are where bids are won
On any Canadian federal RFP with both mandatory and rated criteria, the mandatory check is binary: you cleared every box or you did not. Among the bids that survive, the win goes to the one with the highest combined score, where the rated portion typically carries 60 to 70 percent of the technical weight. The bid that scores 85 percent on the rated side beats the bid that scores 65 percent, even when both passed every mandatory.
That makes rated criteria the actual competition. Most SMB bidders treat them like an extension of mandatory work: write enough to clear the per-criterion minimum, move on. That approach earns the floor. It does not win. The bidders who consistently take the contract are the ones who write rated responses to maximize the score, not to satisfy the requirement.
If you are still figuring out which clauses in a tender are mandatory and which are rated, our guide to mandatory vs desirable criteria in Canadian federal RFPs covers the language patterns that signal each. This piece picks up where that one ends.
How rated criteria are actually scored
Part 4 of a Canadian federal RFP publishes the rubric. The exact scale varies, but the patterns are predictable.
| Rubric pattern | What earns each tier |
|---|---|
| 0 / 5 / 10 (most common) | |
| 0 points | No evidence provided, or evidence does not address the criterion. |
| 5 points | Partial evidence. Claims the requirement is met but provides limited or generic supporting detail. |
| 10 points | Full evidence. Specific named examples, dates, values, and named personnel that clearly demonstrate the requirement. |
| 0 / 3 / 6 / 10 (used for finer differentiation) | |
| 0 / 3 | No or minimal evidence. |
| 6 | Acceptable evidence. Demonstrates the requirement but with some gaps. |
| 10 | Strong, specific, well-tied evidence. The maximum. |
| Custom scales | |
| Varies | Some RFPs use 0/2/4/6/8/10, 0/25/50/75/100 percent of available points, or weighted rubrics within a single criterion. Read the rubric in Part 4 carefully; do not assume. |
Three things matter inside any rubric. Evaluators score independently first, then meet to reconcile. Evaluators score what is on the page, not what they assume your firm can do. The default for vague responses is the low end of the rubric, because a mid- or high-end score has to be defended in committee.
For the broader picture of how evaluation committees operate (mandatory check, rated scoring, basis of selection variants, financial envelope opening), see the federal procurement process pillar.
The minimum-threshold trap
Almost every Canadian federal RFP sets two thresholds, and you have to clear both.
- Per-criterion minimum, often 50 percent. Score below the floor on any single rated criterion and your bid is non-compliant.
- Overall minimum, often 70 percent of total available rated points. Aggregate score below the floor and your bid is non-compliant.
The trap is treating low-point criteria as optional. A bid that scores 100 percent across nine 10-point criteria but writes nothing on one 2-point criterion has 90 out of 92 points, well above any overall threshold, and is still non-compliant because it scored 0 percent on the unanswered criterion. The per-criterion floor caught it.
Read both thresholds in Part 4 before you decide what to skip. The honest answer is usually that you should not skip anything. Even small criteria need at least one specific piece of evidence to clear the per-criterion floor cleanly.
The claim → evidence → tie-back structure
Every rated-criterion response should follow the same three-part pattern. Most amateur bids skip the third step. That is where most of the mid-range scores live.
1. Claim. One or two sentences that directly state how your firm meets the criterion, using the criterion's own language. Do not be coy; do not bury the answer.
2. Evidence. The specifics that back the claim: named projects with dates and dollar values, named personnel with credentials, certifications by number, methodology references, measurable outcomes. The more concrete, the higher the score the evaluator can defend.
3. Tie-back. One sentence that explicitly maps the evidence back to the criterion. Why does the evidence satisfy the specific requirement? Make the connection for the evaluator. Do not leave them to infer it.
Side by side, the difference looks like this:
The strong version is longer, but every additional sentence adds a fact an evaluator can read and a defensible reason to score the maximum. Long is not the same as padded. Specific is what wins, not verbose.
Specificity beats generic claims, every time
Evaluators are bound by what is in your bid. A claim like "extensive experience" tells them nothing they can verify or compare to other bids. A claim with three named projects, dates, contract values, scope descriptions, and named clients is something they can read, weigh, and award points for.
Generic claims default to the low end of the rubric. Specific, evidenced claims default to the high end. Here is the substitution to make on every rated criterion:
| Replace this generic claim | With this specific evidence |
|---|---|
| "Extensive experience" | "Three projects, 2021 to 2024, contract values $640K, $890K, $1.4M" |
| "Highly qualified PM" | "Project Manager L. Wong, P.Eng., 12 years heritage experience, CV at Annex 5" |
| "Federal government experience" | "PSPC contracts PS-23-001, PS-22-014, and DCC contract HER-21-007" |
| "Proven methodology" | "NHPMS-compliant restoration methodology, documented at Annex 6 §3.2" |
| "Excellent client references" | "References from PSPC Project Manager J. Tremblay (contact at Annex 4) and DCC project officer M. Patel (contact at Annex 4)" |
| "Strong safety record" | "COR certified through ACSA since 2019, zero lost-time incidents on 14 federal projects 2021-2025" |
The right-hand column adds words but earns points. Most rated criteria reward a single high-evidence response over five generic ones. Write for the rubric.
Is this RFP worth the 40 hours to score well?
Paste any CanadaBuys URL. BidFit reads the mandatory and rated criteria in 30 seconds so you can decide before you start writing.
Weight your writing effort by point value
A 10-point criterion deserves materially more writing than a 2-point criterion. Inside each criterion, every named requirement needs at least one specific piece of evidence so the evaluator can mark each box. This sounds obvious; teams routinely violate it under deadline pressure.
A practical rule of thumb when you sit down to write:
| Criterion weight | Effort guidance |
|---|---|
| 10 points or more | Long detailed response, multiple pieces of named evidence, full claim → evidence → tie-back, internal review before submission |
| 5 to 8 points | Solid response with two to three pieces of evidence, tie-back explicit |
| 2 to 4 points | Compact but specific. At least one piece of named evidence. Do not skip; per-criterion floor still applies |
| 1 point | Short, named-evidence response. Treat it like an easy mandatory you cannot afford to miss |
The expensive shortcut is padding the small criteria with generic text and skimping on the big ones. The right move is the opposite. Lean into the criteria that carry the most points, and only spend on small criteria what is required to clear their floor cleanly.
For the operational tool that maps every rated criterion to a planned response, weight, and owner, our free compliance matrix template has columns built for exactly this.
What evaluators actually see
This is the part most bidders never think about. An evaluator opens your bid and sees only what is printed on the page. Not your reputation, not your relationship with the contracting officer, not what you said in a pre-bid meeting. They score what is in front of them.
Three things follow from that.
Write for the reader who knows nothing about your firm. Each rated response should be self-contained. Do not rely on the evaluator remembering claims from a different criterion or another section. Repeat key evidence if a different criterion needs it.
Make the evaluator's job easy. Use the criterion's own headings in your response. Number your evidence so it lines up with the rubric. Cross-reference annexes by exact section and page number. If the evaluator has to hunt for evidence, the median committee score drops because the hunters score lower than the easy readers.
Independent scoring before reconciliation. A committee of at least three evaluators scores each criterion independently before they meet. A vague response that one evaluator might give the benefit of the doubt to often gets a lower median across the committee. Write to the most skeptical evaluator, not the most generous one.
Five rated-criteria mistakes that cost real points
The mistakes that keep showing up in losing bids. Avoid these and you are usually inside the top scorers on a given RFP.
1. Treating rated like mandatory. A mandatory needs enough evidence to clear the bar. A rated needs enough evidence to win the maximum. "We comply" earns the floor and nothing more.
2. Skipping low-point criteria. The per-criterion floor catches you. Even a 1-point criterion needs a real response.
3. Generic claims without named evidence. "Extensive experience" is a sentence you wrote. It is not evidence. Without named projects, dates, dollar values, and personnel, the evaluator has nothing to score against.
4. Skipping the tie-back. Listing evidence is not enough. You have to explicitly map the evidence back to the criterion. Without the tie-back, evaluators may not connect the dots, and the response defaults to the partial-credit middle of the rubric.
5. Cross-referencing without specifics. "See Annex 3" is not a cross-reference. "Annex 3, Section 2.1, project sheets PS-1 through PS-3" is. Make the evaluator's hunt one click, not a scavenger hunt.
Most of these are not writing problems. They are planning problems. The teams that consistently score full marks on rated criteria do their compliance read with the rubric open, weight their writing time by point value, follow the claim → evidence → tie-back pattern on every response, and have a reviewer who has never seen the bid read it before submission to catch the gaps. None of that is sophisticated. All of it is rare. That gap is your opportunity. Before you commit the hours, run the tender through the 5-question bid/no-bid framework so you know it is worth scoring well in the first place. If you are construction, the construction pillar guide covers what to do once you commit. And if you have not read the actual tender notice with care, the CanadaBuys notice walkthrough is a fast prerequisite.
The contractors who keep winning rated criteria are not better writers than you. They write to the rubric instead of around it. That is the whole game.