When two security bids have similar total scores, the organisation should be able to explain why one ranks higher. For a business in Ankara, this involves more than checking spreadsheet formulas. Do the criteria, scores and weights represent the differences the organisation actually values?
Sensitivity checking helps reveal the assumptions on which a ranking depends. Its strongest use is when designing the evaluation approach before a tender or procurement exercise begins. Changing binding criteria after bids arrive to favour a preferred provider is not its purpose.
The framework provided by research
Saaty’s paper explains AHP, which structures decision judgements through pairwise comparisons and examines inconsistency. [1] UK guidance on multi-criteria decision analysis also recommends testing rankings against different scoring and weighting assumptions. [2] The simplified arithmetic below is not a full AHP or MCDA application and does not claim compliance with Green Book methodology. It uses these sources to clarify the basis of a decision, rather than as Turkish procurement law or a formula proving which company is best.
Separate mandatory conditions from scores
Required eligibility and mandatory procurement conditions should not be treated as ordinary preferences that a strong price score can compensate for. The organisation’s legal and procurement representatives should establish qualification or exclusion conditions in advance.
Differences between comparable bids can then be scored. If a broad criterion such as “professionalism” has no defined evidence basis, assessors may interpret it differently. Keep the reason for each score alongside the number.
See why a ranking changes
Consider two entirely hypothetical bids. Use two scores on comparable scales, with higher values representing better performance: technical suitability and price advantage. Bid A scores 80 and 70; bid B scores 70 and 90.
If technical suitability carries 70% and price advantage 30%:
- A: 80 × 0.70 + 70 × 0.30 = 77.
- B: 70 × 0.70 + 90 × 0.30 = 76.
If another preference considered during evaluation design is 60% and 40%, A scores 76 and B scores 78. The ranking reverses. The useful finding is how strongly the decision depends on the trade-off between technical suitability and price.
Explain what makes a variation reasonable
Instead of changing every weight at random, test alternatives genuinely under discussion within the organisation. Why might this criterion receive a different weight? What does its scoring range mean? Is the same attribute being rewarded twice under different headings?
Uncertainty may also lie in scores rather than weights. A score based on an incomplete supplier explanation can itself be debatable. Where the procurement process permits, an equal and traceable clarification request may resolve missing evidence. Arithmetic cannot make a weak input reliable.
Identify the sensitive point in the decision note
At the end of the check, record which assumptions alter the ranking and which evidence affects the decision. Rather than creating unnecessary document requests for criteria with little influence, focus on uncertainty that matters to the comparison.
A reasoned decision note is more useful than repeating the total score. It shows the organisation’s priorities, the quality of evidence and the limits of comparison together, allowing the procurement team to explain the result consistently.
