RFP Tie-Breaking Procedure: Choosing and Recording the Tie Rule in Advance

When two offerors finish on the same weighted total

A committee finishes tabulating a proposal evaluation and finds two offerors with the same weighted total. The chair looks at the solicitation, the scoring plan and the committee's notes, and finds nothing about what happens next. Someone suggests the group simply discuss which firm "feels" stronger. Someone else suggests re-scoring one criterion. A third member wonders aloud whether the lower price should settle it.

Each of those ideas might be reasonable. The trouble is that the committee now knows the scores, and any choice it makes can be read as chosen to favor a particular result. The losing offeror will read it that way, and so might a monitor reviewing the file later.

This guide covers the common tie rules for weighted rankings, why the rule belongs in the file before anyone scores, and what to record so the file shows how the ranking was reached.

Why a tie rule belongs in the plan before scoring

A tie is a normal outcome of weighted scoring, especially with few evaluators, coarse rating scales or closely matched proposals. What matters is when the rule is chosen. A rule set before scoring applies to every offeror the same way and cannot be tailored to a known result. A rule set afterward looks like a decision about outcomes.

Federal rules point in the same direction. Under 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2)(i), a request for proposals must identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Under 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2)(ii), an entity using the proposals method must have written procedures for conducting technical evaluations and making selections. A tie rule is part of those written procedures. It describes how the selection proceeds when the weighted math does not separate two offers.

Under 2 CFR 200.318(i), records must be detailed enough to show the history of each procurement, including the rationale for the procurement method, the contract type, the contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. A rule written down before scoring lets the file show why one offeror was selected over another.

Local or state law may prescribe how ties are handled, and the solicitation itself may state a rule. Confirm what applies to you with your own procurement policy, your awarding agency or pass-through entity, or counsel. When both a local rule and the federal rules apply, follow the stricter one.

Common tie rules for weighted rankings

The options below are presented as choices, not recommendations. Which one fits depends on your solicitation, your policy and any law that applies to you.

Higher score on the most heavily weighted criterion. The offeror scoring higher on the criterion the solicitation weighted most is ranked first. This follows the relative importance already published, so it is easy to explain. If the top criteria are also tied, the rule needs a second step.

Higher technical score. In a solicitation that scores technical merit separately from price, the offeror with the higher technical total is ranked first. This only works when the technical and price portions are tabulated separately.

Lower evaluated price. The offeror with the lower evaluated price is ranked first. This is only coherent when price is among the evaluated factors. For architectural and engineering services procured by qualifications-based selection, price is not a selection factor under 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2)(iv), so a price tie-break would not fit that method.

Ordered cascade. Several rules are listed in sequence, and each is applied only if the one before it leaves the tie unresolved. A cascade removes the guesswork about what happens when the first rule also ties.

Further discussion or clarification. Some policies allow the committee to ask offerors for clarification or best and final offers. That is a separate procedure and should be authorized by the solicitation and local policy, not improvised after a tie appears.

Random selection. Some policies end a cascade with a drawing, as a last resort. Whether that is permitted is a question for your own policy and applicable law, and the method of the draw should be documented.

Worked example: a tie that the rule resolves

The numbers below are a worked example with round inputs, not data from a real evaluation.

Suppose a solicitation weights three criteria: technical approach at 50, staffing at 30 and past performance at 20. Two offerors each reach a weighted total of 82.0 points. The tie rule written before scoring says: first, the higher score on the technical approach criterion; second, the higher score on staffing; third, a documented drawing if allowed by policy.

Offeror A's weighted contribution on technical approach is 42, and Offeror B's is 40. Under the first step, Offeror A is ranked first. The committee did not need to debate which proposal felt stronger. It applied a rule that was already in the file and records the application.

What to record in the award file

Document the tie rule at three points.

1. In the evaluation plan, before any evaluator scores. Write the rule or cascade, note where it comes from (solicitation, written procedures, local policy or law), and date it. If the solicitation published the rule, cite the section.
2. Alongside the final rankings. Show the weighted totals, state that a tie occurred, identify which step of the rule resolved it, and show the figures used at that step.
3. In the award justification. The selection memo should state the ranking and reference the tie rule, so a reader can follow from scores to selection without relying on memory. The related guide on the award memo and selection memo covers how that document fits the file.

Keep these records with the rest of the evaluation file. The guide to RFP evaluation documentation lists what else belongs there. Under 2 CFR 200.334, records are kept for three years from the date the final financial report is submitted, longer if litigation, a claim or an audit starts before then, and local public-records rules may require longer.

How ties relate to consensus and averaging

Ties arise differently depending on how individual scores become a group result. Averaging independent scores can produce identical totals by coincidence. A consensus meeting can produce them when evaluators settle on the same rating for a criterion. The choice between the two approaches is covered in consensus scoring for RFPs, and the mechanics of weights and rating points are in weighted scoring for RFPs.

Whichever method you use, the tie rule should work on final tabulated figures, not on a discussion that reopens individual scores. Reopening scores after a tie appears is the pattern a challenger will point to.

Sealed bids behave differently. Under 2 CFR 200.320(b)(1), a firm fixed-price contract goes to the responsible bidder whose conforming bid is lowest in price, so a tie there is usually governed by a different set of rules. See the note on lowest responsive, responsible bidders for that method.

Recording the rule in your own file

Before the next evaluation opens, check your written procurement procedures and the solicitation template for a tie rule. If none exists, choose one with whoever owns your procurement policy, put it in the evaluation plan and date it. Then confirm that the rule does not conflict with state or local law, or with requirements from your awarding agency or pass-through entity.

The Evaluator Scoring and Consensus Workbook is designed to record a tie rule chosen in advance alongside the weighted ranking and a rationale for each final score. It is available now at /store/evaluator-scoring-consensus-workbook. You can also join the waitlist to hear when the RFPManagement evaluation workspace opens. It is built to take a tie rule chosen in advance as part of the evaluation setup.

RFPManagement records and computes. It does not give legal or procurement advice. The award decision stays with your organization.