Editorial answerAccepted answerDo not average the scores yet. First, ask each evaluator to identify the criterion, the proposal evidence, and the reasoning behind the score. Large gaps often come from a missed fact or a different reading of the same criterion.
Correct factual errors and discuss inconsistent interpretations. If a genuine difference in judgment remains, keep it visible instead of forcing a false consensus. When a score changes, preserve the reason for the change according to the team’s evaluation procedure.
For federal negotiated procurements, FAR 15.305 allows several rating methods but requires that the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and risks supporting the evaluation be documented. FAR 15.308 requires the final decision to include the rationale for judgments and tradeoffs. The supporting evidence matters more than a mechanically tidy average.
