# How Do You Create a Weighted Scoring Model to Align Technical and Financial Evaluation Criteria in an Rfp? ▴ Question

**Published:** 2025-08-10
**Categories:** Question

---

![A central glowing blue mechanism with a precision reticle is encased by dark metallic panels. This symbolizes an institutional-grade Principal's operational framework for high-fidelity execution of digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-core-enabling-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution.jpg)

![A sleek, pointed object, merging light and dark modular components, embodies advanced market microstructure for digital asset derivatives. Its precise form represents high-fidelity execution, price discovery via RFQ protocols, emphasizing capital efficiency, institutional grade alpha generation](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-grade-digital-asset-rfq-execution-system-microstructure.jpg)

## Concept

The creation of a [weighted scoring model](https://prime.greeks.live/area/weighted-scoring-model/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) represents a fundamental shift in how an organization approaches strategic procurement. It moves the Request for Proposal (RFP) process from a subjective comparison of features and price points to the construction of a rigorous, data-driven decision system. At its core, this model is an exercise in translating an organization’s strategic priorities into a quantifiable, defensible framework.

The central challenge it addresses is the inherent asymmetry between [evaluation criteria](https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-key-differences-between-traditional-rfp-criteria-and-agile-rfp-criteria/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) ▴ technical specifications, implementation timelines, support quality, and financial costs are measured in different units and carry different strategic importance. A [weighted scoring model provides](https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-market-makers-inventory-position-influence-the-quotes-it-provides-to-clients/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) the mechanism to normalize these disparate inputs, creating a common language for evaluation.

This process begins with the explicit articulation of value. Before any weights can be assigned, stakeholders from across the organization ▴ spanning technology, finance, operations, and legal ▴ must collaboratively define what constitutes a successful outcome. This initial phase is a critical diagnostic of organizational alignment. The subsequent assignment of weights to each criterion is the mathematical encoding of this consensus.

A higher weight on cybersecurity, for instance, is a direct, quantitative statement that risk mitigation is a greater strategic priority than near-term cost savings. This act of weighting transforms the RFP from a simple procurement document into a strategic instrument.

The model’s power lies in its ability to impose objectivity and transparency on a process that can otherwise be dominated by persuasive salesmanship or internal political pressures. By pre-defining the criteria and their relative importance before proposals are even received, the organization commits to a consistent evaluation logic. Each vendor proposal is then processed through this system, with scores calculated based on how well their submission meets each defined criterion.

The final output, a single [weighted score](https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) for each vendor, provides a clear, rank-ordered list that is directly tied to the organization’s stated strategic goals. This creates a defensible audit trail, demonstrating that the final decision was the result of a structured, impartial, and logical process designed to select the partner offering the optimal balance of technical capability and financial value.

![A central illuminated hub with four light beams forming an 'X' against dark geometric planes. This embodies a Prime RFQ orchestrating multi-leg spread execution, aggregating RFQ liquidity across diverse venues for optimal price discovery and high-fidelity execution of institutional digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-engine-orchestrating-high-fidelity-execution-and-optimal-price-discovery.jpg)

## The Foundation of a Strategic Evaluation System

Developing a [weighted scoring](https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-is-the-difference-between-simple-scoring-and-weighted-scoring-in-an-rfp/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) model is fundamentally an act of strategic design. The goal is to build a system that not only selects the best vendor but also reinforces the organization’s strategic objectives. This requires a methodical approach to defining the evaluation architecture, beginning with the identification and categorization of criteria. These criteria form the bedrock of the model and must be comprehensive, mutually exclusive, and directly relevant to the project’s success.

The initial step involves extensive collaboration with all relevant stakeholders. This process ensures that the full spectrum of requirements is captured, from the granular technical needs of the end-users to the high-level financial constraints imposed by the executive team. These requirements are then grouped into logical categories, which typically fall into two primary domains ▴ Technical/Functional and Financial/Commercial. However, more nuanced models may include additional categories such as Implementation & Support, [Vendor Viability](https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) & Risk, and Strategic Partnership.

> A well-designed scoring model makes the final decision almost inevitable by ensuring the evaluation framework perfectly reflects the project’s core objectives.

![Abstract layers in grey, mint green, and deep blue visualize a Principal's operational framework for institutional digital asset derivatives. The textured grey signifies market microstructure, while the mint green layer with precise slots represents RFQ protocol parameters, enabling high-fidelity execution, private quotation, capital efficiency, and atomic settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-layered-rfq-protocol-for-digital-asset-execution-system.jpg)

## Defining Evaluation Criteria Categories

The categories serve as the primary pillars of the evaluation. A clear structure ensures that all aspects of a vendor’s proposal are assessed in a balanced manner. Here is a breakdown of typical categories and the types of criteria they encompass:

- **Technical and Functional Fit.** This category assesses the core capabilities of the proposed solution. Criteria here are focused on how well the offering meets the specified requirements. Examples include adherence to technical standards, feature set completeness, scalability, and performance benchmarks.

- **Financial and Commercial Terms.** This pillar evaluates the [total cost of ownership](https://prime.greeks.live/area/total-cost-of-ownership/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) and the commercial viability of the proposal. It extends beyond the initial purchase price to include licensing models, maintenance fees, payment terms, and any potential for cost savings or return on investment.

- **Implementation and Support Services.** A solution’s value is heavily dependent on its successful deployment and ongoing support. Criteria in this category assess the vendor’s implementation plan, training programs, service level agreements (SLAs), and the quality and availability of their support organization.

- **Vendor Viability and Risk Profile.** This category addresses the long-term stability and reliability of the potential partner. It includes criteria such as the vendor’s financial health, market reputation, client references, and their approach to data security and regulatory compliance.

![A spherical Liquidity Pool is bisected by a metallic diagonal bar, symbolizing an RFQ Protocol and its Market Microstructure. Imperfections on the bar represent Slippage challenges in High-Fidelity Execution](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-optimization-within-principals-market-microstructure-framework.jpg)

## The Art and Science of Assigning Weights

Once the criteria are defined and categorized, the next critical step is assigning weights. This is where the model is calibrated to reflect the unique priorities of the organization for a specific project. Weighting is typically done on a percentage basis, with the sum of all weights equaling 100%. The distribution of these weights is a powerful statement of strategic intent.

For instance, a project involving critical infrastructure might assign a 50% weight to the Technical and Functional Fit category and a 20% weight to Vendor Viability & Risk, signaling that performance and security are paramount. In contrast, the procurement of a less critical commodity service might place a 50% weight on Financial and Commercial Terms.

The table below illustrates two different strategic weighting approaches for the same RFP, highlighting how priorities can shift based on the project’s context.

| Evaluation Category | Weighting for “Critical Infrastructure” Project | Weighting for “Commodity Service” Project |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Technical and Functional Fit | 50% | 25% |
| Financial and Commercial Terms | 20% | 50% |
| Implementation and Support Services | 15% | 15% |
| Vendor Viability and Risk Profile | 15% | 10% |

![An intricate, transparent cylindrical system depicts a sophisticated RFQ protocol for digital asset derivatives. Internal glowing elements signify high-fidelity execution and algorithmic trading](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-protocol-architecture.jpg)

## Establishing a Scoring Scale

With weights in place, the final component of the strategic framework is the [scoring scale](https://prime.greeks.live/area/scoring-scale/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite). This scale is used by evaluators to rate how well a vendor’s proposal meets each individual criterion. A consistent scale is essential for ensuring that all evaluators are applying the same standard of judgment. Common scales include a 1-5 or 1-10 point system.

It is crucial to define what each point on the scale represents. For example, a 5-point scale could be defined as follows:

- **Unacceptable.** The proposal fails to meet the criterion or presents a significant risk.

- **Poor.** The proposal partially meets the criterion but has significant deficiencies.

- **Acceptable.** The proposal meets the minimum requirements for the criterion.

- **Good.** The proposal exceeds the minimum requirements for the criterion.

- **Excellent.** The proposal significantly exceeds the requirements and offers additional value.

By establishing these strategic pillars ▴ clear criteria, deliberate weights, and a defined scoring scale ▴ the organization creates a robust and transparent system for making complex decisions. This framework ensures that the evaluation process is aligned with strategic goals and that the final selection is both defensible and optimized for value.

![Two sleek, pointed objects intersect centrally, forming an 'X' against a dual-tone black and teal background. This embodies the high-fidelity execution of institutional digital asset derivatives via RFQ protocols, facilitating optimal price discovery and efficient cross-asset trading within a robust Prime RFQ, minimizing slippage and adverse selection](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-prime-os-microstructure.jpg)

## The Operational Playbook

The successful execution of a weighted [scoring model](https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-is-the-difference-between-simple-scoring-and-weighted-scoring-in-an-rfp/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) transforms it from a theoretical framework into a dynamic and effective decision-making engine. This operational phase requires meticulous planning, disciplined execution, and clear communication. The following playbook outlines the key steps to implement the model, ensuring a fair, transparent, and strategically aligned [vendor selection](https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-selection/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) process.

![A luminous digital market microstructure diagram depicts intersecting high-fidelity execution paths over a transparent liquidity pool. A central RFQ engine processes aggregated inquiries for institutional digital asset derivatives, optimizing price discovery and capital efficiency within a Prime RFQ](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-high-fidelity-execution-principal-operational-framework-price-discovery.jpg)

## Phase 1 Pre-RFP Finalization

- **Assemble the [Evaluation Committee](https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-committee/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite).** Identify and formally appoint a cross-functional team of evaluators. This committee should include representatives from every department impacted by the procurement decision, including IT, finance, legal, and the primary business unit. Formalizing their roles and responsibilities is a key first step.

- **Finalize Criteria and Weights.** Conduct a workshop with the evaluation committee to review, refine, and finalize the evaluation criteria and their corresponding weights. This collaborative session is critical for securing buy-in and ensuring that the model accurately reflects the collective priorities of the organization. The output should be a signed-off evaluation matrix.

- **Define the Scoring Scale and Guidelines.** Agree on the scoring scale (e.g. 1-5) and develop clear, unambiguous definitions for each score level. Provide written guidelines to all evaluators on how to apply the scale consistently, including instructions on how to handle situations where information is missing from a proposal.

- **Incorporate the Model into the RFP Document.** Transparency is paramount. The RFP document sent to vendors should explicitly state the evaluation criteria, the major categories of evaluation, and their relative weights. This allows vendors to tailor their proposals to the organization’s stated priorities, leading to more relevant and easily comparable submissions.

![Abstract forms illustrate a Prime RFQ platform's intricate market microstructure. Transparent layers depict deep liquidity pools and RFQ protocols](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/high-fidelity-rfq-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-primeos.jpg)

## Phase 2 Proposal Evaluation

- **Conduct an Initial Compliance Screen.** Upon receiving proposals, the procurement lead should first conduct a pass/fail review to ensure that all mandatory requirements have been met. Any non-compliant proposals are eliminated at this stage, saving the committee valuable evaluation time.

- **Distribute Proposals for Individual Evaluation.** Each member of the evaluation committee receives the compliant proposals and a personal scoring sheet. They should be instructed to conduct their initial scoring independently, without consulting other committee members. This prevents “groupthink” and ensures that a diverse range of perspectives is captured.

- **Enforce Scoring Discipline.** Evaluators must be required to provide a brief written justification for every score they assign. This practice forces a more thoughtful evaluation and provides a valuable record for later discussion and debriefing.

![Polished metallic blades, a central chrome sphere, and glossy teal/blue surfaces with a white sphere. This visualizes algorithmic trading precision for RFQ engine driven atomic settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-rfq-engine-high-fidelity-digital-asset-atomic-execution-microstructure.jpg)

## Phase 3 Consensus and Selection

- **Compile and Normalize Scores.** The procurement lead collects all individual scoring sheets and compiles them into a master spreadsheet. This master sheet calculates the weighted score for each criterion (Score × Weight) and then sums these scores to generate a [total weighted score](https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) for each vendor from each evaluator.

- **Hold a Consensus Meeting.** The evaluation committee convenes to discuss the results. The meeting should focus on areas with significant scoring discrepancies between evaluators. The written justifications for scores become critical here, as they allow evaluators to explain their reasoning. The goal of this meeting is not to force everyone to the same score, but to understand the different perspectives and reach a collective agreement on the final ranking.

- **Conduct Due Diligence on Shortlisted Vendors.** Based on the consensus scores, a shortlist of the top two or three vendors is created. This is the stage for deeper due diligence, including vendor presentations, product demonstrations, reference checks, and financial stability assessments.

- **Make the Final Selection and Award.** The insights gained from the due diligence phase are used to make the final selection. The weighted scoring model provides the data-driven foundation for this decision, ensuring it is based on a comprehensive and objective assessment. The final decision, along with a summary of the evaluation process, should be documented and communicated to all stakeholders.

![An abstract geometric composition visualizes a sophisticated market microstructure for institutional digital asset derivatives. A central liquidity aggregation hub facilitates RFQ protocols and high-fidelity execution of multi-leg spreads](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/optimized-rfq-execution-framework-for-digital-asset-derivatives-trading.jpg)

## Quantitative Modeling and Data Analysis

The core of the weighted scoring model is the quantitative engine that translates qualitative assessments and financial data into a single, comparable metric. This section details the data analysis process using a hypothetical RFP for a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platform. The evaluation involves three vendors ▴ Vendor A, Vendor B, and Vendor C.

The evaluation committee has established four main categories with the following weights ▴ [Technical Fit](https://prime.greeks.live/area/technical-fit/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) (40%), Financials (30%), Implementation & Support (20%), and Vendor Viability (10%).

![A central toroidal structure and intricate core are bisected by two blades: one algorithmic with circuits, the other solid. This symbolizes an institutional digital asset derivatives platform, leveraging RFQ protocols for high-fidelity execution and price discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-hub-integrating-algorithmic-intelligence-for-high-fidelity-price-discovery-and-liquidity-aggregation.jpg)

## Detailed Criteria and Scoring

The table below shows the detailed criteria within each category, along with the raw scores (on a 1-5 scale) assigned by the evaluation team to each of the three vendors. This represents the foundational data collected during the evaluation process.

| Category (Weight) | Criterion | Vendor A Score | Vendor B Score | Vendor C Score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Technical Fit (40%) | Core CRM Functionality | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| | Integration Capabilities (API) | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| | Scalability and Performance | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| | User Interface and Ease of Use | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Financials (30%) | Total 5-Year Cost | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| | License and Payment Terms | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Implementation & Support (20%) | Implementation Plan and Timeline | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| | SLA and Support Quality | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Vendor Viability (10%) | Financial Stability | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| | Customer References | 4 | 5 | 4 |

![A meticulously engineered mechanism showcases a blue and grey striped block, representing a structured digital asset derivative, precisely engaged by a metallic tool. This setup illustrates high-fidelity execution within a controlled RFQ environment, optimizing block trade settlement and managing counterparty risk through robust market microstructure](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/precision-engineered-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution.jpg)

## Calculating the Weighted Scores

The next step is to calculate the weighted score for each criterion. The formula is straightforward ▴ **Weighted Score = Raw Score × Category Weight**. However, since a category contains multiple criteria, we must first calculate an average raw score for each category, and then multiply that by the category weight. The formula for the final score is the sum of these category-level weighted scores.

**Category Score = (Average Raw Score for Category) × Category Weight**

Let’s perform this calculation for each vendor.

**For Vendor A** ▴ 

- Technical Fit Average Score ▴ (5+4+4+3) / 4 = 4.00. Weighted Score ▴ 4.00 40% = 1.60

- [Financials Average Score](https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) ▴ (3+4) / 2 = 3.50. Weighted Score ▴ 3.50 30% = 1.05

- Implementation & [Support Average Score](https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) ▴ (4+5) / 2 = 4.50. Weighted Score ▴ 4.50 20% = 0.90

- [Vendor Viability Average Score](https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) ▴ (5+4) / 2 = 4.50. Weighted Score ▴ 4.50 10% = 0.45

- **Total Score for Vendor A ▴ 1.60 + 1.05 + 0.90 + 0.45 = 4.00**

**For Vendor B** ▴ 

- Technical Fit Average Score ▴ (4+5+4+5) / 4 = 4.50. Weighted Score ▴ 4.50 40% = 1.80

- Financials Average Score ▴ (4+4) / 2 = 4.00. Weighted Score ▴ 4.00 30% = 1.20

- Implementation & Support Average Score ▴ (3+4) / 2 = 3.50. Weighted Score ▴ 3.50 20% = 0.70

- [Vendor Viability Average](https://prime.greeks.live/question/in-procuring-a-complex-saas-platform-how-should-an-rfp-balance-technical-requirements-with-vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) Score ▴ (4+5) / 2 = 4.50. Weighted Score ▴ 4.50 10% = 0.45

- **Total Score for Vendor B ▴ 1.80 + 1.20 + 0.70 + 0.45 = 4.15**

**For Vendor C** ▴ 

- Technical Fit Average Score ▴ (4+3+5+4) / 4 = 4.00. Weighted Score ▴ 4.00 40% = 1.60

- Financials Average Score ▴ (5+3) / 2 = 4.00. Weighted Score ▴ 4.00 30% = 1.20

- Implementation & Support Average Score ▴ (5+4) / 2 = 4.50. Weighted Score ▴ 4.50 20% = 0.90

- Vendor [Viability Average Score](https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) ▴ (3+4) / 2 = 3.50. Weighted Score ▴ 3.50 10% = 0.35

- **Total Score for Vendor C ▴ 1.60 + 1.20 + 0.90 + 0.35 = 4.05**

![Robust institutional-grade structures converge on a central, glowing bi-color orb. This visualizes an RFQ protocol's dynamic interface, representing the Principal's operational framework for high-fidelity execution and precise price discovery within digital asset market microstructure, enabling atomic settlement for block trades](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-prime-os-engine.jpg)

## Final Analysis and Visualization

The final calculated scores provide a clear, quantitative basis for comparison. The results can be summarized in a final analysis table.

| Vendor | Technical Fit (40%) | Financials (30%) | Implementation & Support (20%) | Vendor Viability (10%) | Total Weighted Score | Rank |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor A | 1.60 | 1.05 | 0.90 | 0.45 | 4.00 | 3 |
| Vendor B | 1.80 | 1.20 | 0.70 | 0.45 | 4.15 | 1 |
| Vendor C | 1.60 | 1.20 | 0.90 | 0.35 | 4.05 | 2 |

The data analysis reveals that Vendor B is the leading candidate with a total weighted score of 4.15. Vendor C is a close second, while Vendor A lags behind. This data-driven conclusion is defensible and directly traceable to the criteria and weights established at the beginning of the process. The model clearly shows that Vendor B’s superior technical fit and strong financial proposal outweighed its slightly weaker implementation plan.

> The quantitative model does not make the decision; it illuminates the decision that needs to be made by structuring data in alignment with strategic intent.

![Sleek, metallic components with reflective blue surfaces depict an advanced institutional RFQ protocol. Its central pivot and radiating arms symbolize aggregated inquiry for multi-leg spread execution, optimizing order book dynamics](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-rfq-microstructure-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives.jpg)

## Predictive Scenario Analysis

The true strategic power of a weighted scoring model is realized when it is used not just as a static scoring tool, but as a dynamic system for predictive analysis. By adjusting the weights assigned to different criteria, an organization can simulate how different strategic priorities would impact the outcome of the evaluation. This capability is invaluable for building consensus among stakeholders and for stress-testing the decision against potential future shifts in business strategy.

Let us consider the case of a mid-sized manufacturing company, “Stark Industries,” which is selecting a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. This is a massive, multi-million dollar investment with long-term consequences, making the decision process highly political and complex.

The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is primarily concerned with cost control and a rapid return on investment. The Chief Operating Officer (COO), on the other hand, is focused on operational efficiency, which requires a system with powerful, flexible, and highly scalable manufacturing and [supply chain](https://prime.greeks.live/area/supply-chain/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) modules. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) is most concerned with the system’s technical architecture, security, and ease of integration with existing legacy systems. After a contentious initial RFP round, three vendors are on the shortlist ▴ OmniCorp, CyberDyne Systems, and Tyrell Corporation.

The evaluation committee has developed a scoring model, but there is significant disagreement on the weighting of the main evaluation categories. To resolve this, they decide to run three distinct scenarios, each reflecting the primary concerns of one of the key executive stakeholders.

The baseline scores, on a 1-10 scale, have been agreed upon by the [technical evaluation](https://prime.greeks.live/area/technical-evaluation/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) teams and are held constant across all scenarios. The only variable is the weighting of the categories.

![A futuristic, dark grey institutional platform with a glowing spherical core, embodying an intelligence layer for advanced price discovery. This Prime RFQ enables high-fidelity execution through RFQ protocols, optimizing market microstructure for institutional digital asset derivatives and managing liquidity pools](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-prime-os-intelligence-layer.jpg)

## Scenario 1 the CFO’s Austerity Model

In this scenario, the CFO’s priorities are dominant. The weighting heavily favors financial considerations, with less emphasis on technical features and long-term vendor partnership. The objective is to identify the most economically advantageous solution that meets the minimum acceptable technical threshold.

**Weighting Distribution** ▴ 

- Financials ([Total Cost](https://prime.greeks.live/area/total-cost/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) of Ownership, ROI) ▴ 50%

- Technical Fit (Modules, Scalability) ▴ 25%

- Implementation & Support (Timeline, SLAs) ▴ 15%

- Vendor Viability (Stability, Roadmap) ▴ 10%

Under this model, Tyrell Corporation, with its aggressive pricing and favorable licensing terms, emerges as the clear winner. Its lower scores in technical fit and vendor viability are offset by the heavy weighting on cost. The COO’s preferred vendor, CyberDyne Systems, which offers a technically superior but more expensive solution, scores poorly. This scenario quantitatively demonstrates that a purely cost-focused decision would lead to the selection of Tyrell, a conclusion that gives the COO and CIO significant pause, as they are aware of the potential long-term operational and technical debt associated with this choice.

![A central engineered mechanism, resembling a Prime RFQ hub, anchors four precision arms. This symbolizes multi-leg spread execution and liquidity pool aggregation for RFQ protocols, enabling high-fidelity execution](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-framework-enabling-multi-leg-spread-strategies-for-optimized-liquidity.jpg)

## Scenario 2 the COO’s Operational Excellence Model

Next, the committee runs a scenario reflecting the COO’s vision. Here, the focus is on acquiring the most powerful and efficient operational tool, with cost being a secondary, though still important, consideration.

**Weighting Distribution** ▴ 

- Technical Fit (Modules, Scalability) ▴ 50%

- Financials (Total Cost of Ownership, ROI) ▴ 20%

- Implementation & Support (Timeline, SLAs) ▴ 20%

- Vendor Viability (Stability, Roadmap) ▴ 10%

The results shift dramatically. CyberDyne Systems, which received the highest scores for its advanced manufacturing and supply chain modules, now moves into first place by a significant margin. Its high cost is mitigated by the lower weight on the financial category. OmniCorp, a balanced but less spectacular performer, remains in second place.

Tyrell Corporation drops to last. This scenario provides a powerful argument for the COO, demonstrating that if operational excellence is the primary strategic driver, CyberDyne is the logical choice. The CFO, however, points to the high total score and questions if the operational benefits justify the cost premium.

![A deconstructed mechanical system with segmented components, revealing intricate gears and polished shafts, symbolizing the transparent, modular architecture of an institutional digital asset derivatives trading platform. This illustrates multi-leg spread execution, RFQ protocols, and atomic settlement processes](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/deconstructed-principal-trading-system-revealing-core-mechanics-of-digital-asset-derivatives-execution.jpg)

## Scenario 3 the CIO’s Risk Mitigation Model

Finally, the CIO proposes a scenario focused on long-term stability, security, and seamless integration. This model prioritizes a low-risk, sustainable partnership over cutting-edge features or rock-bottom prices.

**Weighting Distribution** ▴ 

- Vendor Viability (Stability, Roadmap) ▴ 35%

- Technical Fit (Modules, Scalability) ▴ 30%

- Implementation & Support (Timeline, SLAs) ▴ 20%

- Financials (Total Cost of Ownership, ROI) ▴ 15%

This simulation produces yet another outcome. OmniCorp, a large, established player with a strong balance sheet and a reputation for reliable support, now rises to the top. While its technology is not as advanced as CyberDyne’s and its price is not as low as Tyrell’s, its high scores in vendor viability and support make it the winner in this risk-averse model. This scenario highlights the value of a stable, long-term partner, a point that resonates with both the CFO and COO, who are concerned about the risks of implementation failure with a more volatile or less proven vendor.

By running these three predictive scenarios, the Stark Industries executive team is able to move beyond their entrenched positions. The analysis provides a common language and a quantitative framework for their debate. They can see, in concrete numbers, how their individual priorities influence the outcome.

This process facilitates a more strategic conversation, leading to a consensus decision to proceed with OmniCorp, which the model showed to be the most balanced choice, offering a good compromise between technical capability, cost, and long-term risk mitigation. The predictive analysis did not just pick a winner; it forged a strategic consensus.

![Abstract geometric structure with sharp angles and translucent planes, symbolizing institutional digital asset derivatives market microstructure. The central point signifies a core RFQ protocol engine, enabling precise price discovery and liquidity aggregation for multi-leg options strategies, crucial for high-fidelity execution and capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/principals-operational-framework-optimizing-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-for-alpha-generation.jpg)

## System Integration and Technological Architecture

A weighted scoring model, while conceptually a decision-making framework, is operationally a data processing system. To maximize its value and efficiency, it must be integrated into the organization’s broader technological architecture. Treating the scoring model as an isolated spreadsheet exercise limits its potential and introduces risks of manual error and data silos. A modern, systems-based approach views the model as a module within the larger procurement and enterprise data ecosystem.

![A sophisticated proprietary system module featuring precision-engineered components, symbolizing an institutional-grade Prime RFQ for digital asset derivatives. Its intricate design represents market microstructure analysis, RFQ protocol integration, and high-fidelity execution capabilities, optimizing liquidity aggregation and price discovery for block trades within a multi-leg spread environment](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-grade-proprietary-architecture-driving-high-fidelity-digital-asset-derivatives-execution-via-rfq-protocols-and-optimized-market-microstructure-dynamics.jpg)

## Integration with E-Procurement Platforms

Most mature procurement organizations utilize e-procurement or source-to-pay (S2P) software suites. These platforms are the natural home for a weighted scoring model. Integrating the model directly into the e-procurement system offers several advantages:

- **Centralized Data Management.** All RFP documents, vendor communications, proposals, and scoring sheets are stored in a single, unified system. This creates a single source of truth and a complete audit trail for the entire procurement event.

- **Automated Score Calculation.** Evaluators can enter their scores directly into the platform, which then automatically calculates the weighted scores and overall totals in real-time. This eliminates the need for manual spreadsheet compilation and reduces the risk of calculation errors.

- **Controlled Access and Workflow.** The platform can manage the evaluation workflow, ensuring that evaluators complete their scoring independently before a consensus meeting is held. Access controls can ensure that only authorized individuals can view or modify scores.

![A dark central hub with three reflective, translucent blades extending. This represents a Principal's operational framework for digital asset derivatives, processing aggregated liquidity and multi-leg spread inquiries](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-rfq-protocol-engine-for-high-fidelity-digital-asset-derivatives.jpg)

## API-Driven Data Enrichment

The scoring model can be further enhanced by integrating it with other enterprise systems via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). This allows for the automated population of certain evaluation criteria, making the assessment more data-rich and objective.

- **Financial System Integration.** An API connection to the organization’s financial system (e.g. an ERP) can be used to pull in data for vendor viability checks. For example, the system could automatically verify a vendor’s status in the master vendor file or retrieve historical payment performance data.

- **Third-Party Risk Data Feeds.** The model can be connected to third-party services that provide data on vendor financial health, cybersecurity ratings, or legal and regulatory compliance. This automates the collection of critical risk data, replacing manual research with real-time, data-driven inputs for the Vendor Viability category.

![A futuristic, metallic structure with reflective surfaces and a central optical mechanism, symbolizing a robust Prime RFQ for institutional digital asset derivatives. It enables high-fidelity execution of RFQ protocols, optimizing price discovery and liquidity aggregation across diverse liquidity pools with minimal slippage](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-engineered-platform-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-optimized-execution-management-system-with-robust-liquidity-sourcing.jpg)

## Data Visualization and Business Intelligence

The output of the weighted scoring model is a rich dataset that can provide valuable strategic insights when analyzed correctly. Integrating the scoring data with a business intelligence (BI) platform like Tableau or Power BI allows for the creation of dynamic dashboards for executive review.

These dashboards can provide:

- **Visual Comparison of Vendors.** Instead of static tables, stakeholders can view interactive charts that compare vendor performance across different categories.

- **Scenario Analysis Tools.** BI tools can be used to build interactive sliders that allow stakeholders to adjust category weights in real-time and immediately see how these changes impact the final vendor rankings, replicating the predictive scenario analysis in a dynamic, user-friendly interface.

- **Historical Performance Analysis.** Over time, the data from multiple [RFP scoring](https://prime.greeks.live/area/rfp-scoring/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) events can be aggregated to analyze vendor performance trends and identify which partners consistently deliver the most value to the organization.

By architecting the weighted scoring model as an integrated component of the enterprise technology stack, an organization elevates it from a simple decision tool to a strategic asset. This systems-level approach ensures that the process is efficient, data-driven, auditable, and capable of delivering insights that support not just individual procurement decisions, but the organization’s long-term strategic goals.

![Precision metallic bars intersect above a dark circuit board, symbolizing RFQ protocols driving high-fidelity execution within market microstructure. This represents atomic settlement for institutional digital asset derivatives, enabling price discovery and capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-precision-systemic-framework.jpg)

![Two reflective, disc-like structures, one tilted, one flat, symbolize the Market Microstructure of Digital Asset Derivatives. This metaphor encapsulates RFQ Protocols and High-Fidelity Execution within a Liquidity Pool for Price Discovery, vital for a Principal's Operational Framework ensuring Atomic Settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-high-fidelity-execution-liquidity-aggregation-optimizing-market-microstructure-principal-trading-best-execution-atomic-settlement.jpg)

## References

- Saaty, Thomas L. _The Analytic Hierarchy Process ▴ Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation_. McGraw-Hill, 1980.

- Bender, R. and J. M. Naumann. “A generic framework for the evaluation of tender offers.” _Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management_, vol. 4, no. 1, 1998, pp. 49-61.

- De Boer, L. et al. “A review of methods supporting supplier selection.” _European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management_, vol. 7, no. 2, 2001, pp. 75-89.

- Ho, William, et al. “Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection ▴ A literature review.” _European Journal of Operational Research_, vol. 202, no. 1, 2010, pp. 16-24.

- Bhutta, Khurrum S. and Faizul Huq. “Supplier selection problem ▴ a comparison of the total cost of ownership and analytic hierarchy process.” _Supply Chain Management ▴ An International Journal_, vol. 7, no. 3, 2002, pp. 126-135.

- Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. and Sushil Kumar. “Analytic hierarchy process ▴ An overview of applications.” _European Journal of Operational Research_, vol. 169, no. 1, 2006, pp. 1-29.

- Kahraman, Cengiz, et al. “A fuzzy multi-criteria methodology for the selection of a supplier in a supply chain.” _International Journal of Production Research_, vol. 41, no. 15, 2003, pp. 3603-3617.

- Weber, Charles A. et al. “Vendor selection criteria and methods.” _European Journal of Operational Research_, vol. 50, no. 1, 1991, pp. 2-18.

![A precision optical component stands on a dark, reflective surface, symbolizing a Price Discovery engine for Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives. This Crypto Derivatives OS element enables High-Fidelity Execution through advanced Algorithmic Trading and Multi-Leg Spread capabilities, optimizing Market Microstructure for RFQ protocols](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-optimal-execution-system-microstructure.jpg)

## From Decision Tool to Strategic System

Ultimately, the construction of a weighted scoring model is an exercise in organizational self-awareness. The process forces a clear-eyed assessment of what truly drives value and compels the articulation of strategic priorities in a language of unambiguous logic. The framework itself, with its weights and criteria, becomes a durable artifact of strategic intent, a blueprint for how the organization defines success for a given initiative. Viewing this model not as a disposable tool for a single RFP, but as a core component of a larger system for capital allocation and risk management, opens up a more profound perspective.

Each application of the model refines the organization’s ability to make complex trade-offs, and the accumulated data from these decisions creates an invaluable repository of institutional knowledge. The question then evolves from “Which vendor should we choose?” to “How can we continuously improve our system for choosing the right partners to advance our strategic objectives?” The answer lies in the disciplined, iterative refinement of this powerful analytical structure.

![A transparent blue sphere, symbolizing precise Price Discovery and Implied Volatility, is central to a layered Principal's Operational Framework. This structure facilitates High-Fidelity Execution and RFQ Protocol processing across diverse Aggregated Liquidity Pools, revealing the intricate Market Microstructure of Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-system-microstructure-principal-framework.jpg)

![A polished, dark teal institutional-grade mechanism reveals an internal beige interface, precisely deploying a metallic, arrow-etched component. This signifies high-fidelity execution within an RFQ protocol, enabling atomic settlement and optimized price discovery for institutional digital asset derivatives and multi-leg spreads, ensuring minimal slippage and robust capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/quantitative-finance-driven-rfq-workflow-for-best-execution-in-digital-assets.jpg)

## Glossary

<a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/weighted-scoring-model/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A sleek, segmented cream and dark gray automated device, depicting an institutional grade Prime RFQ engine. It represents precise execution management system functionality for digital asset derivatives, optimizing price discovery and high-fidelity execution within market microstructure](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-rfq-engine-optimal-institutional-digital-asset-execution-system.jpg)

## Weighted Scoring Model

Meaning ▴ A Weighted Scoring Model constitutes a systematic computational framework designed to evaluate and prioritize diverse entities by assigning distinct numerical weights to a set of predefined criteria, thereby generating a composite score that reflects their aggregated importance or suitability. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-market-makers-inventory-position-influence-the-quotes-it-provides-to-clients/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Geometric forms with circuit patterns and water droplets symbolize a Principal's Prime RFQ. This visualizes institutional-grade algorithmic trading infrastructure, depicting electronic market microstructure, high-fidelity execution, and real-time price discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-engine-prime-os-microstructure-analytics.jpg)

## Weighted Scoring Model Provides

A market maker's inventory dictates its quotes by systematically skewing prices to offload risk and steer its position back to neutral. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-key-differences-between-traditional-rfp-criteria-and-agile-rfp-criteria/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A sleek, bi-component digital asset derivatives engine reveals its intricate core, symbolizing an advanced RFQ protocol. This Prime RFQ component enables high-fidelity execution and optimal price discovery within complex market microstructure, managing latent liquidity for institutional operations](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-engine-optimal-execution.jpg)

## Evaluation Criteria

Agile RFPs procure adaptive partners for evolving goals; traditional RFPs procure vendors for fixed, predictable tasks. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A precision-engineered component, like an RFQ protocol engine, displays a reflective blade and numerical data. It symbolizes high-fidelity execution within market microstructure, driving price discovery, capital efficiency, and algorithmic trading for institutional Digital Asset Derivatives on a Prime RFQ](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/high-fidelity-execution-engine-core-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-price-discovery.jpg)

## Weighted Score

A counterparty performance score is a dynamic, multi-factor model of transactional reliability, distinct from a traditional credit score's historical debt focus. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-is-the-difference-between-simple-scoring-and-weighted-scoring-in-an-rfp/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Angular metallic structures intersect over a curved teal surface, symbolizing market microstructure for institutional digital asset derivatives. This depicts high-fidelity execution via RFQ protocols, enabling private quotation, atomic settlement, and capital efficiency within a prime brokerage framework](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-execution-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-via-rfq-protocol-microstructure-optimization.jpg)

## Weighted Scoring

Simple scoring offers operational ease; weighted scoring provides strategic precision by prioritizing key criteria. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Two dark, circular, precision-engineered components, stacked and reflecting, symbolize a Principal's Operational Framework. This layered architecture facilitates High-Fidelity Execution for Block Trades via RFQ Protocols, ensuring Atomic Settlement and Capital Efficiency within Market Microstructure for Digital Asset Derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-prime-os-execution-protocol.jpg)

## Vendor Viability

Meaning ▴ Vendor Viability defines the comprehensive assessment of a technology provider's enduring capacity to deliver and sustain critical services for institutional operations, particularly within the demanding context of institutional digital asset derivatives. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/total-cost-of-ownership/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A stacked, multi-colored modular system representing an institutional digital asset derivatives platform. The top unit facilitates RFQ protocol initiation and dynamic price discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-engine-15.jpg)

## Total Cost of Ownership

Meaning ▴ Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) represents a comprehensive financial estimate encompassing all direct and indirect expenditures associated with an asset or system throughout its entire operational lifecycle. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/scoring-scale/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A complex, multi-faceted crystalline object rests on a dark, reflective base against a black background. This abstract visual represents the intricate market microstructure of institutional digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-prime-os-execution-architecture.jpg)

## Scoring Scale

Meaning ▴ A Scoring Scale represents a structured quantitative framework engineered to assign numerical values or ranks to discrete entities, conditions, or behaviors based on a predefined set of weighted criteria, thereby facilitating objective evaluation and systematic decision-making within complex operational environments. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-selection/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Abstract visualization of institutional digital asset RFQ protocols. Intersecting elements symbolize high-fidelity execution slicing dark liquidity pools, facilitating precise price discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-rfq-protocol-execution-intelligence-layer.jpg)

## Vendor Selection

Meaning ▴ Vendor Selection defines the systematic, analytical process undertaken by an institutional entity to identify, evaluate, and onboard third-party service providers for critical technological and operational components within its digital asset derivatives infrastructure. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-is-the-difference-between-simple-scoring-and-weighted-scoring-in-an-rfp/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Central polished disc, with contrasting segments, represents Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives Prime RFQ core. A textured rod signifies RFQ Protocol High-Fidelity Execution and Low Latency Market Microstructure data flow to the Quantitative Analysis Engine for Price Discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-core-system-high-fidelity.jpg)

## Scoring Model

Simple scoring offers operational ease; weighted scoring provides strategic precision by prioritizing key criteria. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-committee/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A sophisticated digital asset derivatives trading mechanism features a central processing hub with luminous blue accents, symbolizing an intelligence layer driving high fidelity execution. Transparent circular elements represent dynamic liquidity pools and a complex volatility surface, revealing market microstructure and atomic settlement via an advanced RFQ protocol](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-high-fidelity-execution-framework-optimizing-market-microstructure-price-discovery-intelligence-layer.jpg)

## Evaluation Committee

Meaning ▴ An Evaluation Committee constitutes a formally constituted internal governance body responsible for the systematic assessment of proposals, solutions, or counterparties, ensuring alignment with an institution's strategic objectives and operational parameters within the digital asset ecosystem. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Abstract spheres and a sharp disc depict an Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives ecosystem. A central Principal's Operational Framework interacts with a Liquidity Pool via RFQ Protocol for High-Fidelity Execution](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-framework.jpg)

## Total Weighted Score

A counterparty performance score is a dynamic, multi-factor model of transactional reliability, distinct from a traditional credit score's historical debt focus. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/technical-fit/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A central luminous, teal-ringed aperture anchors this abstract, symmetrical composition, symbolizing an Institutional Grade Prime RFQ Intelligence Layer for Digital Asset Derivatives. Overlapping transparent planes signify intricate Market Microstructure and Liquidity Aggregation, facilitating High-Fidelity Execution via Automated RFQ protocols for optimal Price Discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-prime-os-intelligence-layer.jpg)

## Technical Fit

Meaning ▴ Technical Fit represents the precise congruence of a technological solution's capabilities with the specific functional and non-functional requirements of an institutional trading or operational workflow within the digital asset derivatives landscape. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A segmented circular diagram, split diagonally. Its core, with blue rings, represents the Prime RFQ Intelligence Layer driving High-Fidelity Execution for Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/high-speed-prime-os-rfq-digital-asset-derivatives-trade-execution.jpg)

## Financials Average Score

A counterparty performance score is a dynamic, multi-factor model of transactional reliability, distinct from a traditional credit score's historical debt focus. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A dark, robust sphere anchors a precise, glowing teal and metallic mechanism with an upward-pointing spire. This symbolizes institutional digital asset derivatives execution, embodying RFQ protocol precision, liquidity aggregation, and high-fidelity execution](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-microstructure-1.jpg)

## Support Average Score

A counterparty performance score is a dynamic, multi-factor model of transactional reliability, distinct from a traditional credit score's historical debt focus. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A central processing core with intersecting, transparent structures revealing intricate internal components and blue data flows. This symbolizes an institutional digital asset derivatives platform's Prime RFQ, orchestrating high-fidelity execution, managing aggregated RFQ inquiries, and ensuring atomic settlement within dynamic market microstructure, optimizing capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-trading-system-facilitating-high-fidelity-rfq-protocol-optimization-for-best-execution-and-atomic-settlement.jpg)

## Vendor Viability Average Score

A counterparty performance score is a dynamic, multi-factor model of transactional reliability, distinct from a traditional credit score's historical debt focus. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/in-procuring-a-complex-saas-platform-how-should-an-rfp-balance-technical-requirements-with-vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A precise digital asset derivatives trading mechanism, featuring transparent data conduits symbolizing RFQ protocol execution and multi-leg spread strategies. Intricate gears visualize market microstructure, ensuring high-fidelity execution and robust price discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/high-fidelity-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-framework.jpg)

## Vendor Viability Average

A successful SaaS RFP architects a symbiotic relationship where technical efficacy is sustained by verifiable vendor stability. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-counterparty-performance-score-differ-from-a-traditional-credit-score/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Intersecting metallic structures symbolize RFQ protocol pathways for institutional digital asset derivatives. They represent high-fidelity execution of multi-leg spreads across diverse liquidity pools](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-framework-optimizing-multi-leg-spreads-and-liquidity-aggregation-for-best-execution.jpg)

## Viability Average Score

A counterparty performance score is a dynamic, multi-factor model of transactional reliability, distinct from a traditional credit score's historical debt focus. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/supply-chain/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A sophisticated teal and black device with gold accents symbolizes a Principal's operational framework for institutional digital asset derivatives. It represents a high-fidelity execution engine, integrating RFQ protocols for atomic settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-core-engine-for-best-execution.jpg)

## Supply Chain

Meaning ▴ The Supply Chain within institutional digital asset derivatives refers to the integrated sequence of computational and financial protocols that govern the complete lifecycle of a trade, extending from pre-trade analytics and order generation through execution, clearing, settlement, and post-trade reporting. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/technical-evaluation/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Geometric shapes symbolize an institutional digital asset derivatives trading ecosystem. A pyramid denotes foundational quantitative analysis and the Principal's operational framework](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-system-microstructure.jpg)

## Technical Evaluation

Meaning ▴ Technical Evaluation represents a rigorous, systematic process for assessing the functional capabilities, performance characteristics, and architectural soundness of technology solutions, trading algorithms, or infrastructure components intended for institutional digital asset operations. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/total-cost/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Precision-engineered metallic tracks house a textured block with a central threaded aperture. This visualizes a core RFQ execution component within an institutional market microstructure, enabling private quotation for digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-rfq-execution-framework-precision-microstructure-component.jpg)

## Total Cost

Meaning ▴ Total Cost quantifies the comprehensive expenditure incurred across the entire lifecycle of a financial transaction, encompassing both explicit and implicit components. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/rfp-scoring/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Abstract planes illustrate RFQ protocol execution for multi-leg spreads. A dynamic teal element signifies high-fidelity execution and smart order routing, optimizing price discovery](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-optimization.jpg)

## Rfp Scoring

Meaning ▴ RFP Scoring defines the structured, quantitative methodology employed to evaluate and rank vendor proposals received in response to a Request for Proposal, particularly for complex technology and service procurements within institutional digital asset derivatives. </a>

**Tags:** [Evaluation Committee](https://options.greeks.live/area/evaluation-committee/), [RFP Scoring](https://options.greeks.live/area/rfp-scoring/), [Financial Criteria](https://options.greeks.live/area/financial-criteria/), [Strategic Sourcing](https://options.greeks.live/area/strategic-sourcing/), [Vendor Selection](https://options.greeks.live/area/vendor-selection/), [Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis](https://options.greeks.live/area/multi-criteria-decision-analysis/)	

## Discover More

- 
### [What Are the Most Effective Strategies for Weighting RFP Scoring Criteria?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-effective-strategies-for-weighting-rfp-scoring-criteria/)
![A precision optical component stands on a dark, reflective surface, symbolizing a Price Discovery engine for Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives. This Crypto Derivatives OS element enables High-Fidelity Execution through advanced Algorithmic Trading and Multi-Leg Spread capabilities, optimizing Market Microstructure for RFQ protocols.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-optimal-execution-system-microstructure.jpg)

Effective RFP scoring weights translate strategic intent into a quantifiable, defensible procurement decision.

- 
### [What Are the Most Common Pitfalls in Rfp Evaluation and Scoring?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-common-pitfalls-in-rfp-evaluation-and-scoring/)
![A sleek, modular institutional grade system with glowing teal conduits represents advanced RFQ protocol pathways. This illustrates high-fidelity execution for digital asset derivatives, facilitating private quotation and efficient liquidity aggregation. The precise architecture suggests optimized market microstructure and atomic settlement for Bitcoin options and Ethereum futures.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-ecosystem-powering-high-fidelity-rfq-execution-and-optimal-liquidity-discovery.jpg)

A robust RFP evaluation protocol mitigates risk by systematically converting subjective inputs into objective, weighted, and defensible procurement decisions.

- 
### [When Is a Price-Focused Rfp Evaluation Model the More Appropriate Strategic Choice?](https://options.greeks.live/question/when-is-a-price-focused-rfp-evaluation-model-the-more-appropriate-strategic-choice/)
![A segmented rod traverses a multi-layered spherical structure, depicting a streamlined Institutional RFQ Protocol. This visual metaphor illustrates optimal Digital Asset Derivatives price discovery, high-fidelity execution, and robust liquidity pool integration, minimizing slippage and ensuring atomic settlement for multi-leg spreads within a Prime RFQ.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-flow-1.jpg)

A price-focused RFP is the optimal choice when procuring a commoditized good or service with rigorously defined specifications.

- 
### [How Can Quantitative Scoring Models in RFP Software Be Adjusted for Different Strategic Priorities?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-can-quantitative-scoring-models-in-rfp-software-be-adjusted-for-different-strategic-priorities/)
![A sleek, translucent fin-like structure emerges from a circular base against a dark background. This abstract form represents RFQ protocols and price discovery in digital asset derivatives. It symbolizes high-fidelity execution, liquidity pool optimization, and market microstructure of a Prime RFQ for institutional trading.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-protocol.jpg)

Adjusting RFP scoring models involves re-weighting evaluation criteria to directly reflect the primacy of specific corporate strategies.

- 
### [What Are the Key Differences in the Evaluation Criteria between the Rfp and Rfq Phases?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-key-differences-in-the-evaluation-criteria-between-the-rfp-and-rfq-phases/)
![A dark, precision-engineered module with raised circular elements integrates with a smooth beige housing. It signifies high-fidelity execution for institutional RFQ protocols, ensuring robust price discovery and capital efficiency in digital asset derivatives market microstructure.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-rfq-system-core-high-speed-price-discovery-module.jpg)

An RFP's evaluation criteria assess a vendor's holistic value and problem-solving capability; an RFQ's criteria measure price for a known item.

- 
### [What Are the Most Common Pitfalls in Designing an Effective RFP Evaluation Criteria Matrix?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-most-common-pitfalls-in-designing-an-effective-rfp-evaluation-criteria-matrix/)
![Precision-engineered, stacked components embody a Principal OS for institutional digital asset derivatives. This multi-layered structure visually represents market microstructure elements within RFQ protocols, ensuring high-fidelity execution and liquidity aggregation. It enables atomic settlement and efficient portfolio margin for crypto options.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/principal-os-architecture-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq.jpg)

An effective RFP evaluation matrix translates strategic priorities into a quantifiable, objective, and defensible decision architecture.

- 
### [What Are the Best Methods for Establishing Objective Rfp Scoring Rubrics?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-best-methods-for-establishing-objective-rfp-scoring-rubrics/)
![Highly polished metallic components signify an institutional-grade RFQ engine, the heart of a Prime RFQ for digital asset derivatives. Its precise engineering enables high-fidelity execution, supporting multi-leg spreads, optimizing liquidity aggregation, and minimizing slippage within complex market microstructure.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-engineering-underpinning-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq.jpg)

An objective RFP rubric is a decision engineering system that translates strategic requirements into a quantifiable, defensible vendor selection.

- 
### [What Is the Most Common Pitfall When Setting Rfp Scoring Weights?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-is-the-most-common-pitfall-when-setting-rfp-scoring-weights/)
![Engineered components in beige, blue, and metallic tones form a complex, layered structure. This embodies the intricate market microstructure of institutional digital asset derivatives, illustrating a sophisticated RFQ protocol framework for optimizing price discovery, high-fidelity execution, and managing counterparty risk within multi-leg spreads on a Prime RFQ.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-stack-optimization.jpg)

The most common pitfall in setting RFP scoring weights is the misalignment of weights with true strategic value, often overvaluing price.

- 
### [How Should an Rfp Scoring Model Be Adjusted for Different Industries or Project Sizes?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-should-an-rfp-scoring-model-be-adjusted-for-different-industries-or-project-sizes/)
![A proprietary Prime RFQ platform featuring extending blue/teal components, representing a multi-leg options strategy or complex RFQ spread. The labeled band 'F331 46 1' denotes a specific strike price or option series within an aggregated inquiry for high-fidelity execution, showcasing granular market microstructure data points.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-protocol-1.jpg)

An RFP scoring model is adjusted by re-calibrating criteria and weights to mirror the specific risks and value drivers of the industry and project scale.

---

## Raw Schema Data

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
    "itemListElement": [
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 1,
            "name": "Home",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 2,
            "name": "Question",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live/question/"
        },
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 3,
            "name": "How Do You Create a Weighted Scoring Model to Align Technical and Financial Evaluation Criteria in an Rfp?",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live/question/how-do-you-create-a-weighted-scoring-model-to-align-technical-and-financial-evaluation-criteria-in-an-rfp/"
        }
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "Organization",
    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization",
    "name": "Greeks.Live",
    "url": "https://greeks.live/",
    "description": "Greeks.live is the definitive toolkit for the professional options trader, dedicated to empowering our users with institutional-grade data, advanced analytics, and a comprehensive suite of trading tools designed to provide a decisive edge in the market. Every article and guide published under the Greeks.live name is a product of our deep commitment to data-driven analysis and our mission to support the global trading community.",
    "email": "support@greeks.live",
    "logo": {
        "@type": "ImageObject",
        "url": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Greeks.Live-Logo-Icon.svg"
    },
    "hasPart": [
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "About Us",
            "url": "https://about.greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "App Download Page",
            "url": "https://about.greeks.live/#/download/basic_trade"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Newcomers' Guide",
            "url": "https://twisty-sign-c8b.notion.site/Guide-for-Greeks-live-X-Deribit-Newbies-5a08a3052822427d800af6eaf3704c8d"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Knowledge Base",
            "url": "https://linktr.ee/greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Option Terminology",
            "url": "https://greekslive.notion.site/88dfc00e7c584d4d8969b6302a79a12f?pvs=4"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Terms of Service",
            "url": "https://greeks.live/#/tos"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Disclaimer",
            "url": "https://greeks.live/#/disclaimer"
        }
    ],
    "sameAs": [
        "https://x.com/greekslive",
        "https://youtube.com/@greeks_live?si=-KjT0Lkw4WUCI0tD",
        "https://t.me/greekslive_notifications",
        "https://t.me/greekslive",
        "https://pinterest.com/greekslive/"
    ],
    "makesOffer": [
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "RFQ Platform",
                "url": "https://rfq.greeks.live",
                "description": "Execute institutional-grade block trades for crypto options and futures. This platform provides deep, over-the-counter (OTC) liquidity via a professional Request for Quote system.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Lending Tools",
                "url": "https://lend.greeks.live",
                "description": "Manage crypto lending and borrowing activities to earn yield or secure loans. This suite of tools helps users analyze interest rates and manage collateralized debt positions.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Data Lab",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/datalab/BTC",
                "description": "Analyze historical and real-time options data with advanced metrics. This tool is designed for backtesting strategies and identifying market trends through comprehensive data visualization.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Profit & Loss Analysis (PnL)",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/pnl_analysis",
                "description": "Track and analyze the Profit and Loss (PnL) of your options portfolio. This tool provides detailed performance metrics to help traders evaluate and refine their strategies.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Position Visualization",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/pv/BTC",
                "description": "Visualize complex options positions and their corresponding risk profiles. This tool generates payoff diagrams to help traders intuitively understand potential profit, loss, and exposure.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Options Calculator",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/calculator",
                "description": "Calculate the theoretical price and risk parameters ('the Greeks') of crypto options. An essential tool for pricing new trades and analyzing the sensitivity of existing positions.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live Main Platform",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/",
                "description": "The central hub for the Greeks.live suite of professional cryptocurrency options and derivatives trading tools. Access analytics, manage positions, and explore the ecosystem.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Community Forum",
                "url": "https://t.greeks.live",
                "description": "Join the official Greeks.live community. Connect with other traders, share insights, and receive the latest updates directly from the team.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live for Deribit",
                "url": "http://deribit.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated interface for trading on the Deribit exchange. This platform leverages Greeks.live's advanced analytics and tools specifically for users of Deribit's options and futures markets.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live for OKX",
                "url": "http://okx.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated interface for trading on the OKX exchange. This platform integrates Greeks.live's powerful analytics with the OKX marketplace, focusing on its options and derivatives products.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "GLVS.AI Trading Platform",
                "url": "https://www.glvs.ai/",
                "description": "An AI-powered platform for automated crypto options trading. Leverage advanced algorithms and data-driven signals to develop and deploy sophisticated, hands-free trading strategies.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "API Testnet & Sandbox",
                "url": "https://test.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated testnet environment for developers to test their API integrations and automated trading strategies. This sandbox allows for full functionality testing without risking real funds.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        }
    ],
    "subOrganization": [
        {
            "@type": "Organization",
            "name": "GreeksLive HK Co., Limited",
            "email": "support@greeks.live",
            "telephone": "+852-56418949",
            "address": {
                "@type": "PostalAddress",
                "streetAddress": "Unit 11, 27/F, K. Wah Centre, 191 Java Road",
                "addressLocality": "Hong Kong",
                "addressRegion": "North Point",
                "addressCountry": "CN",
                "postalCode": "0000"
            },
            "geo": {
                "@type": "GeoCoordinates",
                "latitude": "22.2932357",
                "longitude": "114.2022026"
            },
            "image": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wah-Centre-Hong-Kong.jpg"
        }
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "Article",
    "mainEntityOfPage": {
        "@type": "WebPage",
        "@id": "https://options.greeks.live/question/how-do-you-create-a-weighted-scoring-model-to-align-technical-and-financial-evaluation-criteria-in-an-rfp/"
    },
    "headline": "How Do You Create a Weighted Scoring Model to Align Technical and Financial Evaluation Criteria in an Rfp? \u25b4 Question",
    "description": "A weighted scoring model is a system for translating strategic priorities into a quantitative, defensible framework for vendor selection. \u25b4 Question",
    "url": "https://options.greeks.live/question/how-do-you-create-a-weighted-scoring-model-to-align-technical-and-financial-evaluation-criteria-in-an-rfp/",
    "datePublished": "2025-08-10T00:46:47+00:00",
    "dateModified": "2025-08-10T00:46:56+00:00",
    "articleSection": [
        "Question"
    ],
    "author": {
        "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
    },
    "publisher": {
        "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
    },
    "image": {
        "@type": "ImageObject",
        "url": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/high-speed-prime-os-rfq-digital-asset-derivatives-trade-execution.jpg",
        "caption": "A segmented circular technical diagram, split diagonally, illustrates a Prime RFQ for Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives trading. Its central core, with blue rings, embodies the Intelligence Layer and Execution Engine ensuring High-Fidelity Execution for Options Trading. Outer segments detail RFQ protocols managing Liquidity Pools and Order Book Dynamics, enabling Price Discovery and Private Quotation. This system optimizes Capital Efficiency and mitigates Counterparty Risk in Market Microstructure."
    },
    "keywords": [
        "Analytical Hierarchy Process",
        "Evaluation Committee",
        "Financial Criteria",
        "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis",
        "Procurement Process",
        "RFP Evaluation",
        "RFP Matrix",
        "RFP Scoring",
        "Scoring Scale",
        "Strategic Sourcing",
        "Supplier Evaluation",
        "Supply Chain",
        "Technical Evaluation",
        "Technical Fit",
        "Total Cost",
        "Total Cost of Ownership",
        "Vendor Selection",
        "Vendor Viability",
        "Weighted Scoring Model"
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "WebSite",
    "url": "https://options.greeks.live/",
    "potentialAction": {
        "@type": "SearchAction",
        "target": "https://options.greeks.live/?s=search_term_string",
        "query-input": "required name=search_term_string"
    }
}
```


---

**Original URL:** https://options.greeks.live/question/how-do-you-create-a-weighted-scoring-model-to-align-technical-and-financial-evaluation-criteria-in-an-rfp/
