Interactive Contract Management Demonstration

Source Selection Simulator

Compare three supplier proposals using technical eligibility, evaluated-price normalization and weighted best-value criteria, then observe how late material information can change the award recommendation.

Demonstration Overview

Move from scored proposals to a defensible best-value source-selection decision.

The worked scenario compares Atlas, Beacon and Crest across Technical Capability, Evaluated Price, Delivery Confidence, Contract Risk and Past Performance. Suppliers must meet a minimum technical score of 70/100 before they are eligible for the final ranking.

Suppliers Atlas · Beacon · Crest
Technical Threshold 70 / 100
Baseline Leader Atlas
Learning Principle Manipulate → Observe → Explain → Challenge → Recommend
Guided Demonstration

Source Selection Simulator — Step by Step

Eight locked stages move from source-selection context through weights, technical capability, price, delivery/risk, past performance, a clarification shock and management review.

Current Stage 1 of 8
Leading Eligible Supplier Not assessed
Progress Establish context
Learning stages
Foundation Stage 1 of 8

Establish the Source Selection Context

Current Instruction
Interactive Source Selection Dashboard

Best-Value Supplier Ranking

Reveal the source-selection context to begin.

100%
Selection status: Establish the source-selection context.
Interpretation

Eligibility first, normalized evaluation second, award judgement last.

Technical threshold

The simulator uses a minimum 70/100 technical score. Suppliers below the threshold remain visible for learning but are excluded from the final eligible ranking.

Price normalization

Price Score = Lowest Eligible Evaluated Price ÷ Supplier Evaluated Price × 100. This is illustrative; actual procurement methods may differ.

Weighted best value

Technical, Price, Delivery, Risk and Past Performance scores are multiplied by normalized evaluation weights to produce a composite result.

Evidence and sensitivity

A narrow scoring gap or weak evidence confidence should trigger additional management scrutiny, not arbitrary score changes.

Normalized Weight= Raw Criterion Priority ÷ Sum of Raw Priorities.

Price Score= Lowest Eligible Evaluated Price ÷ Supplier Evaluated Price × 100.

Overall Best-Value Score= Σ (Criterion Score × Normalized Weight).

Eligibility Rule= Technical Capability ≥ 70/100.

Important: this is an illustrative learning model. Actual source selection must follow the approved solicitation, evaluation plan, procurement law/policy, conflicts rules, clarification procedures, delegated authority and award approvals.

Experiment Mode

Build Your Own Source Selection Scenario

Experiment Mode is isolated from the guided demonstration. Change all evaluation weights, supplier scores, prices and evidence confidence freely.

Check Your Understanding

Quick Knowledge Check

Choose an answer, then check it.
Quick Reference

Source Selection Cues

Freeze the Method First

Approve criteria, weights, thresholds and evaluation rules before proposal results are known.

Check Eligibility

Apply mandatory requirements and minimum thresholds consistently before ranking eligible suppliers.

Normalize Price Consistently

Use the approved price methodology and make evaluated-price adjustments consistently and transparently.

Document the Score

Every material technical, delivery, risk and past-performance score should have evidence and rationale.

Test Sensitivity

A narrow top-two gap deserves additional scrutiny of assumptions, evidence, arithmetic and permitted clarifications.

Award with Governance

Confirm due diligence, conflicts, approvals, funding, contract terms and source-selection authority before award.

Key Takeaway
The highest score is only defensible when eligibility, methodology, evidence and governance are also sound.

Use consistent criteria, normalize price transparently, document the score drivers, test sensitive results and confirm the complete award basis before source selection is finalized.