Practical Guides 24 April 2026 · 11 min read

Award Criteria Under the LCSP: How to Define Them Correctly

Award criteria are the engine of the most economically advantageous tender. Article 145 of the Spanish LCSP requires them to be linked to the contract object, objective and independently verifiable. Poorly drafted, they become the leading cause of appeals upheld by the TACRC. This practical guide explains how to distinguish quantitative criteria from value-judgement criteria, which price formulas are defensible, how to calibrate abnormally low bids and which errors the tribunal annuls systematically.

In this article

  1. 1. Why poorly defined criteria are the #1 cause of appeals
  2. 2. Regulatory framework: LCSP articles 145 to 148
  3. 3. Quantitative vs qualitative (value-judgement) criteria
  4. 4. The 50% rule: when an expert committee is mandatory
  5. 5. Formulas for the price criterion
  6. 6. Abnormally low or disproportionate bids
  7. 7. Social and environmental criteria (strategic clauses)
  8. 8. How to draft an "improvements" criterion without subjectivity
  9. 9. Weighting between envelopes and opening order
  10. 10. Errors the TACRC systematically annuls
  11. 11. Validation checklist before publishing
  12. 12. Frequently asked questions

1. Why poorly defined criteria are the #1 cause of appeals

When a tenderer reviews a specification, the first section they scrutinise is the award criteria. And it makes sense: these decide who wins. A subjective, non-verifiable or ambiguously worded criterion turns the tender into a lottery, and a lottery is incompatible with the principles of transparency and equal treatment required by article 1 LCSP.

The Central Administrative Tribunal for Contractual Appeals (TACRC) and its regional counterparts have spent years publishing rulings that repeat the same pattern: award criteria that grant unlimited discretion to the committee, undefined scoring scales and opaque formulas. Those are the three defects upheld most often.

Context: A special appeal upheld on grounds of poorly defined criteria typically results in the procedure being rolled back to the approval of the specification. That means redrafting, re-publishing and restarting deadlines. Months of delay for a service that was probably urgent.

The good news is that well-drafted criteria are not a matter of luck but of discipline. With a clear structure and a couple of robust templates, any specification can be shielded against 90% of the typical grounds for appeal.

2. Regulatory framework: LCSP articles 145 to 148

The essential regulatory block for award criteria is concentrated in four articles of Law 9/2017 on Public Sector Contracts:

  • Article 145 — general requirements: link to the object, objectivity, respect for the principles of equality and transparency.
  • Article 146 — application: criteria that can be quantified automatically versus criteria dependent on value judgement.
  • Article 147 — tie-breaker criteria.
  • Article 148 — definition of price as a criterion.

To this legal base must be added article 149 (abnormally low bids), European directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU, and Court of Justice of the EU case law, which has been incorporated into TACRC doctrine in recent years.

3. Quantitative vs qualitative (value-judgement) criteria

The first structural decision when drafting criteria is their classification. The LCSP distinguishes two categories:

  • Criteria quantifiable by formula (automatic criteria): price, reduced execution timeline, extended warranty, specific coefficients. Evaluated by applying a mathematical formula to an objective data point in the bid.
  • Criteria dependent on value judgement: technical quality, methodology, work plan, improvements. They require expert evaluation and cannot be reduced to an automatic formula.

Key rule: both types are evaluated in separate envelopes. The value-judgement envelope is opened first (technical envelope), scored, and only then is the envelope with automatic criteria opened. Reversing this order is a cause of automatic nullity because it would compromise the impartiality of the technical report.

4. The 50% rule: when an expert committee is mandatory

When criteria whose evaluation depends on value judgement exceed automatic criteria in weighting (that is, they represent more than 50% of the total points), article 146.2 LCSP requires the technical evaluation to be carried out by a committee of at least three experts not integrated into the contracting body, or by a specialised technical organisation.

This requirement is often overlooked in smaller councils, where the tender committee traditionally handles the technical evaluation directly. If the specification falls in that scenario (more than 50% in value judgement) and the committee evaluates without an expert panel, the disadvantaged bidder has an almost guaranteed appeal.

Practical solution: calibrate the weighting so that quantitative criteria add up to at least 51% of the total when no external expert committee is available. If the contract necessarily requires deep qualitative evaluation (intellectual services, architecture projects), plan the committee designation well in advance.

5. Formulas for the price criterion

Price is the automatic criterion par excellence and also one of the most appealed when its formula distorts competition. There are three main families of formulas, each with different effects:

  • Direct proportionality: assigns points proportional to the difference between the bid price and the base budget. Simple but barely rewards aggressive discounts.
  • Inverse proportionality: awards the maximum score to the cheapest bid and distributes the rest inversely. The most widely used, but it can amplify predatory discounts if not combined with thresholds.
  • Formulas with mean or reference discount: value against the average of bids or a percentage of the budget. They reduce the effect of extreme discounts but are more opaque.

Operational recommendation: include the exact formula in the Administrative Clauses, with a worked numerical example. The tenderer must be able to calculate its score without ambiguity. If the formula introduces saturation thresholds (a discount level beyond which no more points are awarded), justify it in the report to avoid appeals on grounds of discouraging discounts.

6. Abnormally low or disproportionate bids

Article 149 LCSP requires the specification to set the threshold above which a bid is considered abnormally low and must be submitted to the contradictory justification procedure. If the specification does not define this threshold precisely, the parameters of Royal Decree 1098/2001 apply by default, but it is far safer to calibrate them to the specific contract.

The classic threshold for tenders with three or more bids is the arithmetic mean of the bids minus 10 percentage points. For two bids, the lowest bid reduced by a percentage. For a single bid, a discount exceeding a set percentage of the base budget.

The solution: set thresholds specific to the type of contract (works have different margins from intellectual services) and anticipate what documentation the tenderer will have to provide to justify viability (applicable collective agreement, production plan, unit prices). The clearer the justification procedure, the more robust any subsequent exclusion if the bid is not justified.

7. Social and environmental criteria (strategic clauses)

The LCSP expressly encourages the inclusion of social criteria (labour integration, equality, job stability) and environmental criteria (energy efficiency, carbon footprint, waste management) as award criteria. But their inclusion must meet two conditions: link to the contract object and possibility of objective verification.

A correct example: in a building cleaning contract, valuing the commitment to hire people with disabilities above the legal minimum, with progressive scoring based on percentage. An incorrect example: valuing generically "the tenderer's commitment to corporate social responsibility", which is subjective and not linked to this specific contract.

The solution: draft each social or environmental criterion as a measurable commitment (percentages, number of hours, certifiable indicators) and require submission of the corresponding certification in the bid or at the start of the contract. If there is no way to verify compliance, the criterion is not valid.

8. How to draft an "improvements" criterion without subjectivity

The improvements criterion is probably the most poorly used in Spanish public procurement. Article 145.7 LCSP establishes that improvements can only be valued if they are expressly provided for in the specification, with indication of their specific requirements, limits and modalities. The open phrase "the improvements proposed by the tenderer will be valued" is systematically annulled.

The solution: define a closed catalogue of admissible improvements in the Administrative Clauses, with their specific scoring and limits. For example: "Improvement 1 — extension of the warranty period beyond the 12-month minimum: 3 points for every additional 6 months, up to a maximum of 12 points". The tenderer ticks the ones it accepts and the evaluation is automatic.

9. Weighting between envelopes and opening order

The relative weighting between automatic and value-judgement criteria is not neutral: it conditions the type of competition the contract will generate. A 70% price / 30% technical weighting rewards tenderers most aggressive on price. A 30% price / 70% technical weighting rewards quality but requires the expert committee.

The envelope opening order is fixed: first the value-judgement envelope (technical), then the automatic criteria envelope (economic). Opening them in reverse order or simultaneously contaminates the technical evaluation and is grounds for nullity. In addition, the technical score must be published before opening the economic envelope to guarantee traceability.

10. Errors the TACRC systematically annuls

Compiling the consistent case law of the TACRC and regional tribunals, these are the defects that have been generating upheld appeals for years:

  • Criteria that mix solvency and award (once solvency is accredited, experience cannot be valued again as an award criterion).
  • Undefined scoring scales ("0 to 10 based on quality" with no further detail).
  • Open improvements without a closed catalogue or limits.
  • Price formulas that discourage discounts.
  • Absence of abnormally low bid threshold.
  • Evaluation by the tender committee of value-judgement criteria exceeding 50% without an expert committee.
  • Social or environmental criteria without link to the contract object.

11. Validation checklist before publishing

10-point review

1. Link to object

Each criterion is directly related to the contract deliverable.

2. Defined scales

All criteria have a detailed scoring scale (no open ranges).

3. Envelope separation

Value-judgement criteria are in an envelope separate from the economic one.

4. 50% rule

If value-judgement criteria exceed 50%, the expert committee is planned.

5. Price formula

Included literally in the Administrative Clauses with a worked example.

6. Abnormal bids

Threshold defined for one, two, and three or more bids.

7. Improvements

Closed catalogue with scoring and quantitative limits.

8. Social criteria

Verifiable by certification and linked to the object.

9. Tie-breaker

Article 147 criteria applicable.

10. Consistency

Sum of maximum scores is exactly 100.

This 10-point routine, applied systematically before sending the specification to the internal auditor, eliminates the vast majority of common grounds for appeal. It is consistent with the preventive approach we recommend in our article on common errors in procurement specifications.

Tools like LicitadIA integrate this validation directly into the drafting flow: when you generate an Administrative Clauses document, the system flags criteria that fail any of these ten checks and proposes reformulations. If you want to see it applied to your usual contract types, the simplest way is to request a free demo.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use price as the sole award criterion?

Yes, but only in service or supply contracts where the deliverables are perfectly defined and no significant technical variation between bids is possible. Article 145.3 LCSP permits a single-criterion price approach in these cases, but the contracting body must expressly justify it in the file. For works and intellectual services it is rarely defensible: the Advisory Committee recommends combining price with at least one technical criterion.

How do I prevent the tender committee from having excessive discretion?

By breaking down each value-judgement criterion into sub-criteria with defined scoring scales. Instead of "work plan: 20 points", write "work plan: methodology (8 points based on X, Y, Z), timeline (6 points), resource allocation (6 points)". The more granular the scale, the less discretion the committee has and the harder it is to appeal the award on grounds of arbitrariness.

Can improvements be unlimited in the specification?

No. Article 145.7 LCSP requires improvements to be expressly provided for in the specification, directly related to the contract object, and with their requirements and quantitative or qualitative limits clearly established. An open clause such as "the improvements the tenderer deems appropriate will be valued" is systematically annulled by the TACRC for breaching the principle of transparency and equal treatment among tenderers.

Draft bullet-proof award criteria from the first draft

LicitadIA automatically validates each criterion against the LCSP and TACRC case law, and suggests reformulations when it detects appeal risk. Less drafting time, fewer challenges.

Request free demo