---
title: "Structure an evaluation record without scoring the bids"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/government-procurement-and-tendering/structure-an-evaluation-record-without-scoring-the-bids"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A50-R20260922-2"
practice_area: "Government Procurement & Tendering"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Structure an evaluation record without scoring the bids

> Organise the evaluation criteria and the tender excerpts the officials have tagged into a record template with empty score and comment fields.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/government-procurement-and-tendering/structure-an-evaluation-record-without-scoring-the-bids  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Government Procurement & Tendering](https://ailawframework.com/practice/government-procurement-and-tendering.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Organise the evaluation criteria and the tender excerpts the officials have tagged into a record template with empty score and comment fields. |
| What the lawyer must review | Do not adopt a generated score or ranking Check the record contains the officials' own reasons |
| Written for / versions | — |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The template is a place for officials to write. Scores and the value-for-money conclusion are not generated.

- What the AI does: Organise the evaluation criteria and the tender excerpts the officials have tagged into a record template with empty score and comment fields.
- What the lawyer does: The officials and the lawyer complete the scores, comments and the value-for-money assessment under the rules.
- Who reviews: Lawyer competent in the matter and the forum
- Basis: Planning guidance checked against the linked public sources on 22 September 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.
- Why: The traffic light follows the consequence of an error and how much of the output the lawyer must check before it is used.
- Restriction: The lawyer leads the substantive decision. Any assistance stays inside the preparation described for this task.
- Written for: AU

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Use the criteria from the approach to market, not a generic set.
2. Leave score and reason fields empty.
3. Confirm the tool is allowed to hold the tender text.
4. Officials write the assessment.

## Notes

- Suggested working checks from the linked public sources. Read the source and confirm it applies to this forum and this date. The checks do not approve software or record that the work is done.

## Practical guide

Jurisdiction: The Commonwealth entity’s procurement, or the state process the lawyer has named

**Deliverable**: An evaluation record with criteria and excerpts, and blank fields for scores and reasons.

**Inputs**

- The evaluation criteria from the approach to market
- Tender excerpts officials have already tagged

**Example**: A cheaper bid is not ranked first by the template. The price sits in a column. A person writes what it means.

**Stop and escalate when**

- The template contains a suggested score, rank or value-for-money sentence.
- Excerpts were pulled from tenders nobody has been authorised to process in the tool.

Checked 2026-09-22.

## Sources

- [Department of Finance: Commonwealth Procurement Rules](https://www.finance.gov.au/government/procurement/commonwealth-procurement-rules) (checked 2026-09-22)
- [Commonwealth Procurement Rules, 17 November 2025 (PDF)](https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Commonwealth-Procurement-Rules-2025.pdf) (checked 2026-09-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*