The sponsor prefers the second bidder
A ministry is procuring the implementation of a document-management system, and you managed the tender. The evaluation criteria - 60% technical, 40% price - were published in the tender documents. Three bids were opened in front of the bidders, and a five-member evaluation committee scored them. Bidder X leads by seven points.
The day before the award is to be announced, the sponsor - a state secretary - asks you to "have the committee look again" at bidder Y, with whom the ministry "has a good history". They suggest raising the weight of the reference-projects criterion, on which Y scored higher.
What should you do?
Pick the option that looks best to you, then reveal the answer.
Answer revealed. The best answer is A. Present the committee's scoring against the published criteria to the sponsor, explain that criteria cannot be changed after bids have been opened, and - if the instruction stands - escalate through the ministry's governance and record it.
See more info
Best answer
APresent the committee's scoring against the published criteria to the sponsor, explain that criteria cannot be changed after bids have been opened, and - if the instruction stands - escalate through the ministry's governance and record it.
This does the two things a project manager owes: give the decision-maker the facts against the rules everyone agreed to, and use the escalation path, in writing, rather than either obeying or going around the sponsor.
The subtlety is that the sponsor is a legitimate authority and the criterion they name is a legitimate one - just not now. Once bids are opened, the rules of the competition belong to the bidders as much as to the buyer, and the only fair way to change them is to have changed them before. Going around the sponsor is tempting because the "right" bidder wins, but it is not the project manager's decision to make alone, and it leaves the ministry with an award its own leadership did not approve. The right answer is undramatic: the facts, the rule, the consequence of ignoring it, and then the escalation route the organisation has - documented, so that whoever decides does so knowing what they are deciding.
Why the other options are tempting but wrong
B. Both halves of the justification are true, and the conclusion is still wrong. Reference projects were a legitimate criterion when the weights were published. Changing weights after the bids are known is the definition of an unfair process, whoever asks for it and whatever the motive - and the sponsor's accountability does not transfer to the person who re-scores.
C. The outcome would be right and the method would not. The sponsor is a legitimate authority over the project and may have to sign the award; an announcement pushed through behind their back substitutes your judgement for the project's governance, and it produces a contract the ministry will not want to operate.
D. A re-tender with weights chosen after seeing the first round's bids is the same manipulation as re-scoring, with a longer paper trail and a further delay. It exposes the ministry to a challenge from bidder X and you to having designed the second round to produce a known result.
Where this sits in PMI
PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct - Fairness 4.2.1 (we demonstrate transparency in our decision-making process), 4.3.1 (we proactively and fully disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest), 4.3.3 (we apply the rules of the organisation without favouritism or prejudice). Conduct Procurements (PMBOK Guide 6th ed., section 12.2). PMBOK Guide 7th ed., principle "Stewardship".
Exam Content Outline tasks (PMP ECO) · 2026
- Process 5 - Plan and manage procurement
- Business Environment 1 - Define and establish project governance
- Business Environment 2 - Plan and manage project compliance
PMP, PMBOK and PMI are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc. The dilemmas are not PMI material and do not replace the official PMP Examination Content Outline.