Writing the organisation and methodology

Where most of the technical points are

Under PRAG, the European Commission’s procurement rules for EU external action, the technical offer for a service contract has two scored parts: the organisation and methodology, and, for fee-based contracts, the key experts. In the standard grid for fee-based contracts, the methodology carries 60 of the 100 technical points and the key experts 40. The key experts’ share must stay between 40 and 60, so the methodology is never worth less than 40. In global price contracts it carries all 100 points by default, and any key experts are assessed as part of the strategy.

Two rules raise the stakes. Only tenders averaging 75 points or more reach the financial evaluation, so a weak methodology ends the bid before anyone looks at the price. And a tender that is incomplete or deviates substantially from the award criteria is rejected without a score: your methodology may add to the terms of reference, but it must in no way detract from them.

The document also outlives the evaluation. The organisation and methodology becomes Annex III of the contract, so whatever you promise in it, you sign. The rules here come from PRAG 2021.1 and its standard service tender documents; check the edition named in your tender dossier. Other funders use their own technical proposal formats, but they reward the same things.

What the template asks for, and what each part is worth

Write it in the format of Annex III to the draft contract. Its sections map onto the evaluation grid, with these default points:

The contracting authority can change the split, so the grid in your tender dossier is the one that counts, and its maximum scores cannot change after the deadline for clarifications. Some terms of reference also ask for a logical framework: a results chain from impact to outcomes to outputs, each with indicators, baselines, targets and sources of data, consistent with the objectives in the terms of reference.

Rationale and strategy: understanding first, then a plan

Rationale

The template asks for your comments on the terms of reference, in particular on the objectives and results (outputs, outcomes and impact), your view of the key issues, and the risks and assumptions that affect the contract. Evaluators must justify every score against the project needs described in the terms of reference and record strengths and weaknesses, so write for that.

The standard terms of reference run from background, objectives and expected outputs, and assumptions and risks, to scope of work, logistics and timing, requirements and reports. Your rationale answers the first three. Name the issues the background sections describe, say which matter most for the results and why, and turn each risk into an assumption you will monitor and a response.

Strategy

The strategy is the approach, the tasks you consider necessary to reach the objectives, and the inputs and outputs. PRAG gives examples of what evaluators may look at: the use of technical and professional resources available in the partner country, the work schedule, whether the resources fit the tasks, the support for experts in the field, and the complementarity of consortium members.

Number your tasks against the outputs in the terms of reference, so an evaluator can tick each one off; the logical framework template likewise asks for activities linked to outputs through clear numbering. Every output needs at least one task, every task an owner among your experts, and every claim a reason that comes from this country and this client.

Back-up, subcontracting and the consortium

Back-up function. Describe the support your organisation gives the team in the field: staff and units, permanent staff who regularly work as experts on similar projects, expertise in your own region and in partner countries, quality control systems and knowledge tools. Evaluators are told to see permanent staff as an advantage and a firm that only uses freelance experts as having weaker backstopping, and they may also credit design, research or laboratory functions, or links with academic research centres.

Subcontracting. Describe every subcontracting arrangement, including firms that only provide experts, with the tasks each will carry out, and state that subcontractors and capacity providers are eligible.

The consortium. Describe each member’s input and how tasks and responsibilities are shared and interact. A single firm gets the full points for this part, so a consortium has to earn them. If you relied on another entity’s capacity to meet the selection criteria, include its written commitment here. A tender shortlisted only thanks to capacity providers whose commitments are missing is asked to supply them, and rejected if it does not. Our guide to forming a JV covers those roles.

Timetable and working days

The timetable gives the timing, sequence and duration of each task, including travel time, and the major milestones, with how each is reflected in the reports the terms of reference require. In the standard terms of reference template those are an inception report no later than a month after the start, progress reports every six months, a draft final report a month before the end, and a final report. Put each one on the timetable.

For fee-based contracts, annex the working-days worksheet from the budget spreadsheet: the days each category of expert works each month. Leave the rates out, because no financial information may appear in the technical offer. Evaluators check whether the days are enough to achieve the terms of reference, and for non-key experts that is the only thing they assess. After award, the project manager uses the same work plan to check the days you invoice. Our pricing guide covers the financial side of the same days.

Worked example: why 72 points is a loss

Take a single firm bidding on a fee-based contract with the default grid. An internal review scores the first draft, then the team rewrites the strategy (every output in the terms of reference gets numbered tasks with inputs and outputs) and the timetable (milestones tied to the required reports, and days per expert per month). The scores are illustrative; evaluators use judgement, and PRAG does not prescribe points for particular content.

The first draft scores 72: good experts, a sensible approach, and still eliminated, because the threshold is absolute and the price is never opened. Seven more points in strategy and timetable lift it to 79. Notice where they came from: the two parts that carry 40 of the 60 methodology points, and where a vague draft loses the most.

The threshold applies to the average of the evaluators’ scores, rounded to two decimals. If three evaluators give 74, 77, 73, the average is 74.67, and the tender fails; one generous evaluator does not save it. Aim well above 75, not at it.

Mistakes that cost points or the tender

• Copying the terms of reference back. It shows no understanding, and the rationale is scored on understanding.
• Leaving out or contradicting a requirement. You may add to the terms of reference but not detract from them, and a substantial deviation gets the tender rejected without a score.
• Putting prices in the technical offer. The working-days schedule goes in; the rates and the budget breakdown do not.
• Generic back-up and consortium sections. These are small criteria, but a single firm gets the consortium points for free, and boilerplate gives evaluators nothing to credit.
• Promising what you cannot staff. The document becomes part of the contract, and its work plan is what your invoices are checked against.
• Missing commitments from capacity providers. Without them, a tender that relied on those entities to be shortlisted is rejected.

Sources

• European Commission, Contract procedures for European Union external action: a practical guide (PRAG). The current edition and its annexes.
• European Commission, PRAG 2021.1 (PDF), the edition checked for this guide. Sections 2.9.3 (missing commitments from capacity providers), 3.4.4 (award criteria and the methodology) and 3.4.10.3 (technical evaluation and the 75-point threshold).
• European Commission, PRAG 2021.1 annexes (ZIP). Instructions to tenderers (B8b), terms of reference for fee-based contracts (B8e), organisation and methodology (B8g), evaluation grids (B8m1 and B8m2) and the evaluator’s grids with their guidelines (B12a and B12b).