Four methods promote sustainable outcomes at evaluation: rewarding superior standards and performance, qualitative judgement of suppliers' experience and methods supported by interviews and site visits, fit-for-purpose assessment avoiding under- and over-engineered offers with labels, EPDs, trials and references as evidence, and cost calculation methods reaching true value for money over the life of the contract including expected future costs; negotiation risks eroding sustainability commitments if cost-focused, so outstanding requirements should be tabled and the outcomes should secure the requirements and reporting, agree an action plan for identified risks and influence the supplier's agenda; commitments should be set down in the contract or, if that is not possible, a supplier improvement plan or memorandum; award should be approved by key stakeholders, internal stakeholders informed, and unsuccessful suppliers notified and debriefed on their sustainability credentials.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.