Criteria and impartial evaluation

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is criteria and impartial evaluation. By the end, you should be able to ensure verifiable bid comparisons. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. Procurement risk spans need, selection, amendments and payment. Public procurement law has a defined scope. A private purchasing control example does not itself make the transaction public procurement.

Article 55 criteria must enable verification and competition. Article 21 conflict controls protect impartiality. Criteria must not be tailored to a known preferred winner.

Apply the following rule: Paragraphs 3–7 of the procedure approved by Resolution 1133 cover state and municipal institutions and specified enterprises, private entities with at least 50 workers, and certain regulated activities regardless of workforce. Separate conditions apply to subordinate bodies using a parent channel and entities with 50–249 workers sharing resources. Branches with at least 250 workers need a separate channel. A service provider does not take over examination and decision-making.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Set and publish applicable criteria in advance, check conflicts and justify scores with bid evidence and rules. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

At each step, compare the information available with what is still needed for the decision. Arrange continuity when the designated worker is absent. A substitute receives only the information needed for the task, and their actions must remain verifiable.

Mark an unanswered question as a fact to verify. Identify who could confirm it and what access they actually need. A correct exercise choice alone does not show that the reasoning is understood. If the answer depends on an additional fact, state that condition explicitly.

For the workplace task, name the person who can approve the change and the person who will check that it works. Produce a concrete verifiable action, rather than only a promise to follow rules. Check effects on access rights and user information. Record questions that your organisation still needs to resolve.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

After bids arrive, the team wants a criterion favouring its preferred supplier. This changes competition conditions. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does a convenient outcome justify changing criteria? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Follow the published applicable procedure and lawful amendment conditions. Independent reviewers need scoring reasons.

One mistake to avoid is: changing criteria for a preferred supplier.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A group proposes one shared channel for every branch. What must be checked in Lithuania?

Identify each entity, workforce and activities. Paragraphs 3–7 contain conditions for public bodies, regulated activities and sharing. Entities with 50–249 workers may share under the applicable conditions, while branches with at least 250 workers need a separate channel. Using the same technical provider does not itself resolve these requirements or give that provider the right to make examination decisions.