The era of public contracts routinely going to the cheapest tenderer is over. The European directives and the Belgian Act make the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) the standard method. Price remains important, but quality, sustainability and total costs over the lifespan carry increasing weight.
The three award methods
The Act of 17 June 2016 provides three variants of the most economically advantageous tender:
Best price-quality ratio (BPQR). The tender is assessed on a combination of price and qualitative criteria. The authority determines the relative weight of each criterion. This is the true MEAT award.
Lowest price. Only price counts. This is permitted, but the authority must justify it — the directive assumes BPQR as the default.
Lowest cost based on cost-effectiveness. The authority assesses total costs, including life-cycle costs. The price is replaced by a broader cost analysis.
Life-cycle costing (LCC)
The concept
Life-cycle costs comprise all costs associated with a product, service or work over its entire lifespan — from purchase to disposal.
The Act (Article 81) breaks LCC down into:
- Acquisition costs. The purchase price or invoice amount.
- Use costs. Energy consumption, water, maintenance, repairs.
- End-of-life costs. Dismantling, recycling, disposal.
- External costs. Environmental costs such as CO₂ emissions, provided they can be monetarily valued and the calculation method is objective and non-discriminatory.
Application
LCC is particularly used for:
- Buildings and infrastructure. Energy costs over 30 years far exceed construction costs.
- Vehicles. Fuel consumption, maintenance and residual value determine total ownership costs.
- IT equipment. Energy consumption, software licences and replacement cycles are factored in.
- Lighting systems. LED versus conventional lighting — higher purchase, lower operating costs.
The European Commission has developed LCC tools for multiple product groups that authorities can use as a calculation model.
Quality criteria in MEAT
Typical criteria
In addition to price or LCC, the authority applies qualitative award criteria. The most common:
- Technical quality. Quality of the proposed solution, materials or methodology.
- Project plan and planning. Feasibility of the schedule, risk management, milestones.
- Team experience. Qualifications and availability of key personnel.
- Sustainability. CO₂ reduction, circular approach, social value.
- Service delivery. Response time, availability, warranty conditions.
- Innovation. Degree to which the tender proposes innovative solutions.
Weighting
The authority must state the relative weight of each criterion in the specifications — as a percentage, as a range, or in decreasing order of importance. Specifications that do not state the weighting violate the transparency principle.
Common weighting models:
- Price 40% / Quality 60% — the classic distribution for quality-dominated contracts.
- Price 60% / Quality 40% — more price-focused, but with room for quality differentiation.
- Price 30% / Technical quality 30% / Sustainability 20% / Planning 20% — multiple criteria.
Scoring methods
Relative assessment
In relative assessment, the price of each tenderer is measured against the lowest price. The cheapest tender receives the maximum number of points; more expensive tenders receive fewer points proportional to the price difference.
Common formula: Score = (lowest price / offered price) × maximum points.
Absolute assessment
In absolute assessment on quality, tenders are assessed against a predefined expectation — not against each other. A tender that meets all expectations receives the maximum, regardless of what others offer.
Regular price
Some authorities use a regular price method: the score is not linear but has an optimum around the median or the estimate. Both overpriced and underpriced tenders lose points. This discourages strategic low bidding.
Winning strategy in MEAT
Read the scoring methodology. The specifications describe how points are awarded. Study the formula for price and the assessment matrix for quality before you start writing.
Optimise on the heaviest criteria. If quality weighs 60%, invest in an excellent technical note — even if this slightly increases the price.
Be concrete in the quality note. Evaluation committees value measurable commitments over vague promises. State concrete figures, names of team members, certificates and example projects.
Calculate the trade-off. Determine how many extra quality points you need to compensate for a price difference of X euros — or conversely, how much cheaper you need to be to make up for a quality deficit.
Use LCC as a weapon. If the specifications apply LCC, present a detailed calculation demonstrating that your higher purchase price is compensated by lower operating costs.