What Etimad Evaluation Committees Actually Look For
Etimad evaluation is not subjective. Every tender publishes an explicit weighted rubric that the committee is required to use. Once you internalize that rubric and stop treating evaluation as a black box, your win rate moves — not because your solution is suddenly stronger, but because you stop spending effort on things the committee doesn't score and start spending it on things they do.
This guide breaks down the criteria committees actually use, the weights you can expect on a typical Etimad tender, and a worksheet you can fill in before submission to estimate your own score.
The evaluation model is published — read it first
Every Etimad booklet contains an evaluation matrix with explicit weights for each criterion. The most expensive mistake we see is teams beginning to draft before they have read the matrix.
Typical weight distribution on an Etimad tender
Weights vary by sector, but the general pattern is remarkably consistent. The chart below reflects what we typically see across IT, operations, consulting, and construction tenders.
Indicative percentages from common Etimad evaluation models. Always confirm the exact weights in your booklet.
The seven criteria that move the score
1. Spec compliance (typically 25–35%)
Literal alignment with every booklet requirement. Committees usually score this on a per-clause basis: complies / partially complies / does not comply. Partial compliance often counts as zero, so wording matters.
2. Methodology (typically 15–25%)
Phases, deliverables, owners, acceptance criteria, and a credible Gantt. Generic "we follow best practices" language scores low; concrete owner-by-deliverable scores high.
3. Past experience (typically 10–20%)
Reference projects similar in scope, sector, contract size, and duration — backed by completion certificates wherever possible.
4. Team & qualifications (typically 10–20%)
Named people with relevant certifications and direct experience on similar projects. CVs that read like generic LinkedIn profiles score below CVs that map directly to the booklet's role descriptions.
5. Saudization (typically 5–10%)
Project-team Saudization rate, supported by a current Nitaqat certificate and a written commitment.
6. Local content (typically 5–10%)
In-Kingdom spend and use of Saudi-made products, supported by a Local Content Authority certificate.
7. QA, risk and support (typically 5–10%)
Risk register, QA plan, warranty terms, and knowledge transfer.
A self-scoring worksheet to use before submission
Fill this in honestly before you submit. If you score yourself below 70, your bid is unlikely to win on technical merit — fix the gaps before the deadline rather than after the result.
| Criterion | Weight | Your score (0–100) | Weighted score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spec compliance | 30% | ||
| Methodology | 20% | ||
| Past experience | 15% | ||
| Team & qualifications | 15% | ||
| Saudization | 7% | ||
| Local content | 7% | ||
| QA, risk & support | 6% | ||
| Total | 100% | /100 |
The weighted score is weight × your score / 100. The total you compute is your projected technical score on this tender.
How a 10-point scoring change actually feels
Small changes in the matrix translate into large outcome changes. The chart below shows the same supplier scoring against three improvement scenarios.
A 22-point improvement is rarely about a stronger solution — it's about closing analysis and evidence gaps.
Where bids most often lose points
Common point losses
- — Reference projects unrelated to the current sector or scope.
- — Methodology with no named owners or acceptance criteria.
- — Saudization rate stated company-wide instead of project-team.
- — Local content claimed without an authority-issued certificate.
- — Risk register copied verbatim from a previous bid.
Defensible practice
- — Top 3 references mapped clause-by-clause to the current scope.
- — Methodology with a named owner and acceptance test per deliverable.
- — Project-team Saudization rate stated explicitly with commitment.
- — Local Content certificate attached with current effective date.
- — Risk register tailored to the current project's specific exposures.
A short example: from 71 to 93
A medium-size IT services firm we worked with bid on a SAR 9M government IT-support tender. Their first internal scoring put them at 71/100. Three rounds of targeted rework — none of which involved changing the underlying solution — moved the projected score to 93.
| Round | Change made | Projected score |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | First draft | 71 |
| 1 | Rewrote methodology with owners and acceptance criteria | 81 |
| 2 | Replaced 5 generic references with 3 closely comparable | 87 |
| 3 | Fixed Saudization rate and re-attached current certificate | 93 |
The bid won. Same team, same solution, twenty-two more points.
How Technical Proposal helps
We auto-extract the evaluation model from each Etimad booklet and apply your draft against it. The Technical, Business, and Legal evaluation agents each score their slice of the matrix and return a per-criterion projected score with specific recommendations to raise your numbers in the highest-weighted criteria before submission. You see your projected score the moment your draft is complete, not the day after the result is published.