Price scoring: how a price becomes points

Price as an award criterion

The most advantageous bid wins the award (PPA Art. 41; IAPP Art. 41). That need not be the cheapest: besides price and quality, the contracting authority may consider, for example, timeframes or life cycle costs (PPA Art. 29 para. 1; IAPP Art. 29 para. 1).

Only for standardised services may the lowest price alone decide (IAPP Art. 29 para. 4), and for the Confederation only if the specification ensures high sustainability requirements (PPA Art. 29 para. 4).

No formula in the law

The law prescribes no formula for the price; the rules developed by the courts apply (St. Gallen Administrative Court, B 2023/210 consid. 3). The choice of method falls within the broad discretion of the contracting authority (BGE 130 I 241 consid. 6.1). The lowest bid must, however, always come out best on the price criterion; deductions on the grounds that the price is implausible or does not cover costs are not allowed (BGE 143 II 553 consid. 7.1).

Three types of formula

Shown here with a scale from 0 to 5:

• Linear with a price span: score = 5 × (zero price − bid) ÷ (zero price − lowest price). The zero price lies above the lowest price by the price span; from there on the score is 0. According to the Federal Administrative Court this model is widespread and permissible, but the price span must be realistic (B-7603/2024 consid. 4.6).
• Proportional: score = 5 × lowest price ÷ bid. The score never reaches 0. This weakens the weight of the price and, together with a 20 % weighting, led to an unacceptable result (BGE 129 I 313 consid. 9.2 and 9.3).
• With an exponent: score = 5 × (lowest price ÷ bid)². Here too the score never reaches 0. The Guide romand of the French-speaking cantons lists this method as T2. The St. Gallen Administrative Court holds that curves which never reach zero can distort the weight of the price (B 2023/210 consid. 3.3.2).

Worked example

An invented example: price counts 40 %, quality 60 %. Bid A costs CHF 100,000 and scores 3.5 for quality, bid B costs CHF 120,000 and scores 4.2. A, the lowest bid, scores 5 under all three formulas and reaches 4.10 (5 × 0.4 + 3.5 × 0.6). For B the formula decides:

• Linear, price span 50 % (zero price CHF 150,000): price score 5 × 30,000 ÷ 50,000 = 3.00, total 3.72 (3.00 × 0.4 + 4.2 × 0.6). A wins.
• Proportional: price score 5 × 100,000 ÷ 120,000 = 4.17, total 4.19. B wins.
• Squared: price score 5 × (100,000 ÷ 120,000)² = 3.47, total 3.91. A wins.

Minimum weight of the price

Even for complex procurements the price must count at least 20 %, and the scoring method must not further weaken a low weighting (BGE 143 II 553 consid. 6.4). For the simplest contracts it must be at least 60 % (Federal Supreme Court, 2C_802/2021 consid. 3.9).

These rulings concern the previous law. On the law now in force the courts do not agree. The Federal Administrative Court upholds the 20 % for the PPA too (B-2229/2025 consid. 5.3.2), the Aargau Administrative Court upholds both values for the IAPP (WBE.2023.371 consid. 2.3). The Graubünden High Court, by contrast, treats the 60 % as outdated under the IAPP and does not rule out less than 20 % either (VR1 25 73 consid. 3.5.3 and 3.5.4).

Why you need to know the weighting and the formula

Without them you cannot estimate what a price difference costs. The contracting authority must state the weighting in the tender or in the documents, unless the procurement concerns solutions, possible solutions or procedures (PPA Art. 29 para. 3; IAPP Art. 29 para. 3).

According to the St. Gallen Administrative Court, it is not obliged, even under the new law, to announce the formula with the tender (B 2023/210 consid. 3.2). If it does announce a method, it is in principle bound by it (Basel-Landschaft Cantonal Court, 810 25 277 consid. 4.2 and 6.4). According to the Zurich Administrative Court, it may set a price span it has not stated later on, but must then give better reasons for its choice (VB.2024.00155 consid. 4.4.2). KBOB's guide on construction work and the Guide romand provide for announcing the formula.

If the formula is in the documents available with the tender, its significance is apparent and you consider it inadmissible, you must challenge it together with the tender (PPA Art. 53 para. 2; IAPP Art. 53 para. 2; Federal Administrative Court, B-1714/2022 consid. 4.4). In the invitation procedure under the IAPP the invitation is not a tender: you raise the defect in the appeal against the next decision that can be challenged, usually the award (BGE 152 II 325 consid. 3.3.2).

Before you calculate your price

• Look for the weighting, the formula, the price span and the scoring scale in the documents. If something is missing, ask within the deadline for questions.
• Clarify which amount counts. In a Zurich case, price counted 40 %, of which 5 % for the daywork rates (VB.2025.00270 consid. 4.2).
• Work out what one percent above the lowest price costs. In the example with a 50 % span it is 0.04 points. One whole point on the quality score brings 0.6 and so offsets 15 %.
• Follow the pricing rules in the documents. Anyone who breaks them can be excluded (BGE 152 II 211 consid. 5.5.2).
• Do not count on a later price round. The contracting authority dispenses with bidding rounds (PPA Art. 11 let. d; IAPP Art. 11 let. d).
• Keep your calculation ready. If your price seems abnormally low, the contracting authority must ask (PPA Art. 38 para. 3; IAPP Art. 38 para. 3).
• TEXFY shows the eligibility and award criteria on the detail page, as far as simap provides them.