Move beyond theory. Give learners the experience of evaluating, challenging and defending real procurement decisions.
Not a ranking handed down by the tool. Every figure traces back to a criterion, a weighting the panel agreed, a score someone had to justify, and a decision taken where the panel and the benchmark read the evidence differently.
Six things that make it an evaluation rather than a scoring exercise.
Managed learning services, sustainable packaging, national logistics, managed print, colonoscopy equipment and an enterprise HR platform. Each with its invitation to tender, specification, qualification packs and priced bids, and the evidence annexes a panel has to read.
Mandatory criteria pass or fail on the evidence, capability questions scored, and a supplier who fails does not proceed. Students learn the distinction most textbooks skip.
Every member scores privately and submits. The panel then settles each difference by discussion and records what settled it. The written reason is what is assessed, not the number.
An AI reads the same evidence and scores it at both stages, quoting what it relied on. It is sometimes wrong, which is the point: the panel decides which reading the evidence supports and says why.
The cost criterion is calculated from the bid prices by formula, with the working shown, so students see where judgement ends and arithmetic begins.
The weighted result and the workings behind it, every disagreement and how it was settled, the risks in the winning bid and how the panel would manage each. Panels export one report; members export their own.
Running a module? One access code per cohort. Facilitators create the panels, open each stage in turn as the teaching requires, and watch every group from a single console. Groups can work as a shared panel, or score individually first and then moderate. Nothing to install, and nothing for students to download: they open the link, enter the code, and start.