Last Updated on June 29, 2026 by Jorge Lynch
The previous article in this series noted that the procurement schedule depends, in part, on the method in use. That observation was made in the context of building realistic timelines for prior review procurement. This article goes further back in the decision chain to address the methods themselves: what they are, how they are selected, how they differ from solicitation tools, how procurement categories shape the choice of method, and how the selected method affects the procurement timeline and project implementation.
The article makes four practical points: method selection begins with the procurement category; solicitation documents do not replace method selection; competitive and non-competitive methods carry different justification requirements; and the selected method determines the realistic procurement timeline.
The governing framework is the World Bank’s Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers (7th Edition, September 2025). The conceptual treatment of procurement methods in this article also draws on Public Procurement: Principles, Categories, and Methods (Lynch, 2nd Edition), which discusses the relationship between procurement principles, procurement categories, procurement methods, and solicitation tools in greater depth.
A Note on Terminology: Procurement Methods and Selection Methods
The UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement uses the expression “methods of procurement”; Chapter II carries that title, and most national procurement frameworks and the general procurement literature follow the same convention. The World Bank Procurement Regulations use “selection methods,” or more precisely “approved selection methods,” reflecting the Bank’s framing of selection as one component of a broader procurement process that also encompasses planning, market approach, risk assessment, contract management, and review arrangements.
This article uses both terms. Where the World Bank Regulations are the specific reference, “selection method” is the precise term. In the broader procurement sense, “procurement method” remains equally accurate. The important point is not the label, but the governed decision behind the label: the procedure selected to approach the market, receive offers, evaluate submissions, and recommend contract award.
What Procurement Methods Are – and What They Are Not
Procurement methods, or selection methods in the Bank’s terminology, are the procedural frameworks that determine how procurement is conducted. They define the process through which a Borrower or procuring entity selects suppliers, contractors, service providers, or consultants. They determine how the market is approached, how offers are received, how submissions are evaluated, and how the contract award decision is made.
A distinction that is frequently overlooked, and that creates persistent confusion in procurement practice, is the difference between the procurement decision and the solicitation document used to implement that decision. In general procurement theory and many national systems, the method and the solicitation document are distinct. The method defines what procurement approach is being applied and why it is justified. The solicitation tool is the instrument through which that approach is carried out.
The World Bank’s current terminology requires careful handling because some labels operate in more than one way. Under the current Regulations, RFB, RFP, and RFQ are approved selection method labels for Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services. At the same time, the same labels correspond to the documents used to invite bids, proposals, or quotations. This overlap is precisely why practitioners must understand the underlying procurement decision, not merely the document title.
The RFQ/Shopping example illustrates the point clearly. In earlier World Bank procurement practice and in many national systems, Shopping referred to the low-value, straightforward procurement approach based on obtaining and comparing competitive price quotations from multiple sources, while the Request for Quotations was the solicitation document used to collect those quotations. Under the current World Bank Regulations, RFQ is used both as the approved selection method label and as the solicitation tool used to request quotations. This dual use of the same term can create confusion, especially because the same quotation-based approach was historically known in the Bank’s earlier Guidelines, and in many procurement systems, as Shopping.
This is not a semantic distinction. Applying the wrong selection method and then issuing a correctly prepared solicitation document does not remedy the underlying compliance failure. Method selection is a decision that must be made, justified, and recorded in the Procurement Plan before the solicitation document is issued. The document implements the method.
The same logic applies across the full range. Consultant selection methods – QCBS, QBS, FBS, LCS, and CQS – are governed selection frameworks. The Request for Proposals is the document through which proposals are invited under those methods. For Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services, RFB, RFP, and RFQ are the Bank’s current selection method labels, but practitioners must still understand the substantive procurement approach represented by each label and the justification for using it.
This is especially important with RFPs. An RFP is a solicitation tool, but the title alone does not tell the reader what procurement category or selection method is being used. An RFP may be used for Consulting Services under methods such as QCBS, QBS, FBS, LCS, or CQS. It may also be used under the World Bank framework for Goods, Works, or Non-Consulting Services where a proposal-based approach is appropriate. Therefore, referring simply to an “RFP process” is incomplete. The real procurement decision is the category and selection method selected, the reason that method was appropriate, and whether it was properly justified, approved, and recorded.
Procurement Categories: Why They Come First
Before a method can be selected, the procurement requirement must be correctly classified by category. Under the World Bank Procurement Regulations, the main procurement categories are Goods, Works, Non-Consulting Services, and Consulting Services.
The category determines which methods are available, which standard procurement documents apply, what type of evaluation criteria are appropriate, and how the procurement should be planned.
This is why procurement categorization comes before method selection. A procuring entity cannot properly select the method until it has first understood the nature of what is being procured.
The distinction between Non-Consulting Services and Consulting Services is one of the most consequential classification decisions in project procurement.
Non-Consulting Services are generally task-oriented and operational. Their outputs can normally be defined in advance, measured objectively, and evaluated on the basis of compliance with the requirements and the evaluated cost of performance.
Consulting Services are different. They are intellectual, advisory, or professional in nature. Their value lies in the quality of analysis, judgment, methodology, professional input, and experience. For that reason, the selection of consultants requires an approach that evaluates technical quality, methodology, qualifications, and, depending on the method, cost.
When a consulting assignment is wrongly classified as a non-consulting service, the procurement process is distorted from the beginning. The assignment may be procured using a bidding-based method suited to operational services, rather than a consultant selection method designed to assess professional judgment and technical quality. The process may appear internally consistent, yet still be based on an incorrect classification.
That error will carry through the entire procurement process. It affects the method selected, the solicitation document used, the evaluation criteria applied, and the basis on which the contract award is recommended. It may also surface later during prior review, post review, audit, complaint handling, or contract implementation.
Correct categorization is therefore not an administrative formality. It is the first substantive procurement decision. If the category is wrong, the method selection is likely to be wrong as well.
The Two Major Classifications: Competitive and Non-Competitive Methods
Procurement methods can be grouped into two broad classifications: competitive and non-competitive.
This distinction is fundamental in public procurement. Competition is the normal mechanism through which public procurement seeks to achieve value for money, transparency, fairness, and accountability. Non-competitive procurement is exceptional and must be justified.
Competitive methods are those in which qualified participants are invited to compete, and the contract award is made on the basis of pre-established criteria applied consistently to all submissions. Competition may be open or limited, international or national, depending on the market approach and the requirements of the procurement framework.
Under the World Bank framework, open competitive procurement is generally the preferred approach. Departures from open competition require justification.
Competitive methods for Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services
For Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services, competitive procurement under the current Regulations includes the following approved selection methods: RFB, RFP, and RFQ. These are Bank selection method labels, but they are also closely associated with the solicitation documents used to invite bids, proposals, or quotations. That dual use of the same terminology is a practical source of confusion and should be handled deliberately in procurement planning and documentation.
The Request for Bids (RFB) is used where the Borrower’s requirements can be clearly specified in advance and bidders respond to defined technical and commercial requirements. Evaluation may consider price after responsiveness and qualification are established, or may include rated criteria where the nature of the procurement warrants it. Modern procurement frameworks increasingly recognize that value for money may require more than the lowest evaluated price. Quality, sustainability, performance, risk, and delivery methodology may all be relevant depending on the complexity of the requirement and what the applicable framework requires.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) is used where the nature and complexity of the procurement require bidders or proposers to offer customized solutions or proposals. Evaluation is conducted using rated criteria, weightings, and an evaluation methodology, allowing the assessment of the degree to which proposals meet or exceed the requirements. RFP is normally conducted in a multi-stage process.
The Request for Quotations (RFQ) is the Bank’s selection method for low-value, straightforward procurement, such as limited quantities of readily available goods, standard commodities, or simple civil works of small value. In substance, RFQ corresponds to the quotation-based approach commonly known as Shopping in earlier Bank practice and in many national systems. The key point for practitioners is that the selection of RFQ must still be justified by the nature, value, risk, and simplicity of the requirement. It should not be treated merely as the preparation of a quotation form.
Competitive methods for Consulting Services
For Consulting Services, selection methods are structured differently. The process must assess the quality of the proposed approach, methodology, qualifications, experience, and, depending on the method used, cost.
For consulting firms, the approved selection methods under the current Regulations include Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS), which evaluates both technical quality and financial proposal and is the standard method for most consulting assignments; Quality-Based Selection (QBS), used where the intellectual contribution is of such importance that cost should not be a determining factor; Fixed Budget Selection (FBS), used where the Borrower has a fixed budget for the assignment; Least-Cost Selection (LCS), intended for standard or routine assignments where the methodology is well established; and Consultant’s Qualification-Based Selection (CQS), available for small assignments where competing proposals would be disproportionate to the value of the work.
Each of these methods reflects a different balance between quality, cost, complexity, and the nature of the assignment. They are not interchangeable. Applying LCS to an assignment that warrants QCBS, for example, is a method selection error that post review may identify.
The selection of individual consultants follows a different approach. It focuses primarily on the individual’s relevant qualifications, experience, capability, availability, suitability for the assignment, conflicts of interest, comparison with other candidates where required, and contract negotiation. Because individual consultant selection raises issues that differ from the selection of consulting firms, it is not addressed in detail in this article and will be covered separately.
Non-competitive methods
Non-competitive methods differ from competitive methods because they do not involve open competition. Participation is either limited to a single source or restricted to a very small group of sources. These methods are not shortcuts; they are exceptions that may be used only when the conditions established by the applicable procurement framework are met.
Under the World Bank framework, non-competitive procurement across categories is generally referred to as Direct Selection, which involves approaching and negotiating with only one firm. Direct Selection may be appropriate only in limited circumstances, such as when there is only one suitable firm; when there is a justified preferred firm; when continuation of previous work is necessary; when compatibility or standardization is required; when emergency conditions make competitive procedures impractical; when the procurement is of very low value and low risk, as agreed in the Procurement Plan; or when other specific conditions recognized by the Regulations apply.
None of these conditions is self-certifying. A claim of urgency must be supported by facts. A claim of technical exclusivity must be supported by evidence showing that only one qualified source can meet the requirement. A justification based on continuity must explain why changing the contractor, supplier, service provider, or consultant would create unacceptable technical, operational, or economic consequences. A low-value justification must still be consistent with the Procurement Plan, applicable thresholds, risk assessment, and review requirements.
Direct Selection therefore requires careful documentation. The absence of competition increases the need for a clear and defensible justification. During review or audit, the question will not be whether the Borrower preferred the supplier or consultant. The question will be whether the conditions for using a non-competitive method were actually met.
Limited or restricted competition occupies a position between fully open competition and direct contracting. It still involves competition, but it does not involve an open market invitation. Because access to the opportunity is restricted, the reason for limiting competition must also be justified and documented.
How Methods Are Selected Under the World Bank Framework
Under the World Bank framework, method selection is not supposed to be an improvised decision made when procurement is about to begin. It forms part of the broader procurement approach determined during project preparation.
The Project Procurement Strategy for Development (PPSD) is where the Borrower analyzes the procurement requirements, market conditions, implementation risks, procurement capacity, and the most appropriate procurement arrangements for the project. The Procurement Plan then records the agreed procurement approach contract by contract.
The procurement approach includes several related decisions: the market approach, the selection method, the selection arrangement, and the type of contract. These decisions are connected and should not be made in isolation.
The market approach determines whether the procurement will be international or national, open or limited, single-stage or multi-stage, and whether prequalification, initial selection, or other arrangements are needed. The selection method determines the procedural framework. The solicitation document – the RFB, RFP, RFQ, or the relevant consulting services document – is then the instrument used to implement that method. The type of contract determines how performance, risk, payment, and contract administration will be structured.
The PPSD provides the rationale. The Procurement Plan records the decision. A method listed in the Procurement Plan without a sound analytical basis in the PPSD is weak – it may appear compliant as a planning entry, but it lacks the strategic justification that the Bank’s framework expects.
When the method used during implementation differs from the method recorded in the Procurement Plan, the plan must be amended. The amendment must be submitted, reviewed, and approved before the revised method is used. This is where many delays begin. The issue is often not that Bank review takes excessive time, but that the initial planning did not properly assess the requirement, the market, the category, or the realistic procurement approach.
The practical factors that inform method selection are not mysterious. They include the estimated value, the nature and complexity of the requirement, the procurement category, the condition of the relevant market, the urgency of the need, the level of risk, and whether there is a justified basis for departing from open competition. These factors should be assessed before implementation starts. When they are discovered late, the project pays for that delay through amendments, rework, postponed activities, and compressed implementation schedules.
Methods and the Procurement Timeline
The selected method drives the procurement timeline.
Competitive methods require more time by design. Open competitive procurement involves preparation of procurement documents, advertisement or invitation, minimum bidding or proposal periods, receipt and opening of submissions, evaluation, approvals, and award. If the procurement is subject to prior review, Bank review and no-objection requirements must be added at the relevant stages. For internationally advertised competitive procurement, minimum bidding or proposal periods must be respected. Consulting assignments may involve additional steps: expressions of interest, shortlisting, issuance of the Request for Proposals, technical evaluation, financial evaluation, combined evaluation, negotiations, and contract finalization.
The result is that a competitive prior review procurement is normally measured in months, not weeks. As the previous article in this series explained, a realistic schedule for a complex prior review contract typically spans six months or more, and Borrower internal approvals add further time beyond what the Bank review windows account for.
Non-competitive methods do not eliminate lead time. They change the nature of the lead time. A Direct Selection contract may avoid the time required for open competition, but it still requires justification, internal review, approvals, documentation, and, where applicable, Bank review and no-objection. In some cases, the time saved by not advertising is offset by the time required to prepare and defend a proper justification – particularly where Direct Selection is proposed late, after a procurement process has already failed or after implementation delays have become serious.
The method also affects the budget and the workplan. A procurement method that takes six months to complete cannot support an activity that is expected to begin in two months. A consulting assignment requiring an expression of interest, shortlisting, proposal preparation, evaluation, negotiation, and Bank review cannot be treated as if it were a simple purchase. A works contract requiring international competition cannot be inserted into the annual workplan without allowing enough time for the full procurement cycle.
Unrealistic procurement timelines lead directly to delayed disbursements, implementation pressure, weak justifications, rushed evaluations, incomplete documentation, and avoidable requests for plan amendments. Selecting the right method, and planning the timeline around that method from the beginning, is therefore not a theoretical exercise. It is one of the most practical controls available to a PIU.
What Practitioners Should Know
Three points matter most for practitioners working in World Bank-financed projects.
First, the distinction between selection methods and solicitation tools is structural, not merely terminological. Under the World Bank’s current Regulations, RFB, RFP, and RFQ are approved selection method labels for Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services, while those same labels are also associated with the documents used to invite bids, proposals, or quotations. RFQ is the clearest example because it corresponds in substance to the quotation-based approach historically and commonly known as Shopping. Practitioners should therefore focus on the governed decision: what selection framework was chosen, why it was appropriate, and whether it was justified and recorded in the Procurement Plan before the solicitation document was issued.
Second, method selection begins with category. The procurement category determines which methods are available, which documents apply, and what evaluation approach is appropriate. Misclassifying the requirement – particularly by treating consulting services as non-consulting services – creates an error that affects the entire procurement process.
Third, the selected procurement method drives the timeline. Competitive methods require time because competition requires notice, response periods, evaluation, approvals, and, where applicable, Bank review. Non-competitive methods require justification and approval. Neither competitive nor non-competitive procurement is a shortcut when the planning has not been done properly.
For a PIU, the practical lesson is straightforward: classify the requirement correctly, select the method through the PPSD analysis, record it properly in the Procurement Plan, and build the timeline around the method actually selected. That is how procurement planning becomes an implementation control rather than a compliance document prepared after the real decisions have already been made.
This is the final article in the Donor-Funded Procurement series on ProcurementClassRoom.com. The series has addressed the structural features of World Bank-financed procurement that matter most in practice: the primacy of the donor framework over national rules, the key differences from domestic procurement, the relationship between the Procurement Plan and the PPSD, Bank review arrangements, and the selection of procurement methods.
These topics are developed in greater depth in Public Procurement: Principles, Categories, and Methods, which explains procurement principles, categories, methods, the distinction between procurement methods and solicitation tools, and the practical decision-making required to apply these concepts correctly. The book is written for practitioners, students, and procurement professionals who need to understand not only the rules, but also how procurement decisions should be made in practice. It is available on Amazon.
In this series:
- When National Procurement Rules Are Not Enough
- Public Procurement vs. Donor-Funded Procurement: Key Differences
- The Procurement Plan in World Bank-Financed Projects: Where It Comes From and How to Keep It Current
- Prior Review and Post Review in World Bank-Financed Projects
- Procurement Methods in World Bank-Financed Projects (this article)