Structural cost dominance in QCBS: evidence from procurement and an alternative framework

Quality- and cost-based selection (QCBS) is a widely used procurement method for selecting consulting services, intended to balance technical quality with financial efficiency. While existing procurement literature has examined contractor selection and bid evaluation mechanisms, limited attention has been paid to the structural dominance of financial scoring over technical evaluation in final bidder selection under QCBS frameworks. This study examines the behaviour of QCBS using observed procurement data from competitive bidding processes in India and evaluates an alternative range-normalised financial scoring model. The analysis demonstrates that standardised technical evaluation rubrics often produce limited differentiation among technically qualified bidders, thereby increasing the relative influence of financial scores on final rankings. This asymmetry creates a structural condition in which cost exerts a disproportionate influence, frequently overriding meaningful differences in technical quality. Alternative approaches, including median-based thresholds, are examined but found to be insufficient due to the non-linear nature of conventional financial scoring functions under QCBS. The proposed range-normalised model reduces cost-driven distortions while preserving competitive discipline and improving the relative role of technical evaluation in final selection outcomes. The study contributes to the public procurement literature by proposing an alternative procurement evaluation framework to strengthen QCBS-based bidder selection.