Procurement Fridays: Why moderation matters

Our latest Procurement Fridays session, attended by 605 people, focused on the important role of moderation – one of the most critical stages of the procurement process.

Led by procurement law expert Kieran McGaughey, the session explained why moderation is not simply an administrative step, but a decisive moment that can determine contract outcomes, supplier relationships and legal risks.

Moderation: where decisions are really made

While evaluation work begins long before bidders submit their tenders, the session highlighted that moderation meetings are the point at which final quality scores are agreed and where the successful contractor is ultimately decided.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, there is no prescribed method for evaluation or moderation. However, best practice strongly favours a two‑stage process:

Individual evaluators score bids independently and record provisional scores with reasons.
Evaluators then meet, led by a moderator, to agree a single, justified consensus score.

This final consensus score is what appears in assessment summaries, and what may later be scrutinised in the event of a legal challenge.

High-risk area for legal challenge

One of the strongest messages from the session was that moderation meetings remain a high‑risk area for legal challenge, particularly around allegations of irrational scoring or the use of undisclosed sub‑criteria.

Previous legal challenges were discussed, reinforcing that the courts treat moderation as a “solemn exercise of critical importance”. Poor record‑keeping, unclear reasoning or inconsistent treatment of bidders can all quickly unravel a defence if challenged.

As Kieran noted, debrief feedback is only ever as strong as the moderation process that sits behind it.

Preparation is everything

A recurring theme throughout the session was that successful moderation begins weeks or even months in advance. Practical steps include:

Designing clear, bid‑focused evaluation questions
Using a scoring matrix that genuinely allows differentiation
Appointing the right evaluators — and the right number of them
Training evaluators and moderators on both process and legal principles
Managing conflicts of interest properly, with individual declarations and a procurement-wide conflicts assessment
Reviewing draft scores in advance to identify potential issues early

The message was clear: prevention is always better than cure.

The role of the moderator

It was explained that the role is not to passively record opinions, but to actively lead discussion, challenge inconsistencies and filter out irrelevant considerations.

Effective moderators must:

Lead the meeting with confidence and authority
Ensure evaluators explain and justify their scores
Challenge scores that do not align with the scoring matrix
Prevent the introduction of undisclosed criteria or irrelevant experience
Capture clear, contemporaneous reasons for any changes in scoring

As Kieran memorably put it during the session: don’t be a postbox, which is just a mechanism for passing on messages, be a sieve and filter out what is wanted from what is unwanted.

Keep robust records

With the introduction of assessment summaries that explain not only why a bidder received a particular score, but why they did not score higher, the bar for record‑keeping has risen significantly.

Moderation notes do not need to be perfect or verbatim, but they must clearly show:

How scores were reached
Why scores changed
How evaluators applied the published methodology

Without this audit trail, contracting authorities risk being unable to defend their decisions if challenged.

Looking ahead

The session concluded with a clear warning: courts will continue to take evaluation and moderation very seriously under the Procurement Act 2023. Organisations that fail to invest time in training, preparation and robust processes now may find themselves exposed later.