Tender Evaluation Template (V7 5 February 2009)

Notes for completing the tender evaluation template

1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

The Quality Criteria Scores worksheet is used only to evaluate a tenders technical and quality award criteria. It does not relate to price.
The scores will be automatically updated in the Price and Quality Combined Worksheet.
The template can be used to evaluate any type of tender including those for supplies, works and services.
Key decisions relating to the appropriate ratio between price and quality, the quality criteria to be used and the relative weighting of those criteria,
must be made before tenders are issued. This information must be included within the European Union (EU) advertisement where appropriate, or
within the tender documents themselves.
The template can be used to test different price and quality criteria weighting scenarios to assist in these decisions.
Tendered prices should reflect the whole life cost of the procurement where possible. In all cases the prices entered in the template must represent a
like for like comparison between bidders.
In the example Tenderer 1 scores highest overall when the price and quality scores are combined, albeit that it is not the lowest priced bid.
Scoring for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), Supported Businesses and so on must be proportionate
Procurement Portfolio Specialists (PPS) will provide an APUC Supplier Enablement Co-ordinator with the answers submitted by all tenderers to
paragraph 5, Appendix 1 together with the Lead-In Period dates and the Commencement Date. This will give early notification to the e-Procurement
Scotland (ePS) Team of an impending Contract/Framework Agreement award to enable them to plan activities needed to be undertaken during the
Lead-In Period.
It is important to ensure that Schedule 7 questions are copied directly into the evaluation criteria on the template.
Cells shaded yellow should be used to enter data. Other cells are locked to ensure that they cannot be overtyped, as they contain formulae that
calculate the scores and perform the ranking for each tender.
The template assumes three tenders have been returned. More can be added by copying and pasting the relevant cells.
The formulae that may need to be amended if more tenders are to be evaluated are contained in cell D27 which calculates the average tendered
price, and cells J33, N33 and R33 which calculate the relative rankings of the tenders. These cells have not been locked.
It is important to decide who will be evaluating the tenders. For example, will the PPS evaluate all sections, which questions will be evaluated by the
User Intelligence Group (UGI) members etc
It may be that a form for each UIG member is used and all information therein be transferred to a master.
From the initial use of the evaluation template as a master, several sheets may be added to, for example, hold the results of the bid clarification, any
Post-Tender Negotiation (PTN) and so on.
It is essential to ensure that the justification section is completed. It is suggested that this section be completed in respect of all questions to
represent best practice and mandatory for any questions where an acceptable score hasn't been achieved.
The evaluation panel should keep a complete record of the decision making process as this will enable the team to provide better debriefing to
unsuccessful bidders and will assist in the event of any challenge to the award decision.
Example Scoring Rationale:
0= no submission/submission not relevant
1= submission partially relevant but poor
2= submission partially relevant and acceptable
3= submission completely relevant and acceptable
4= submission completely relevant and good
5= submission completely relevant and exceptional

NOTES FOR COMPLETING FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLIERS FOR OPEN PROCEDURES

IF A SUPPLIER FAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT BELOW THEY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Process for PPSs to follow to evaluateITT responses
If item 1 below (Scorecheck Grade) scores a FAIL, eliminate the supplier from the process
If item 1 below (Scorecheck Grade) scores a PASS, items 2-4* inclusive must then all also score a PASS to achieve an overall PASS
*items 2-3 if item 4 is not applicable

Equifax Scorecheck mark must be Grade D or above which should be categorised as a PASS

Scorecheck
grade = [insert]

If not, the supplier should be eliminated from the tender process.

PASS/FAIL:
[insert]

NB: if the supplier is categorised by the Scorecheck as G, I, NA*, NR or O then the supplier should be eliminated from the tender
* unless a new company/charity/SME follow procedure for New Business, Charities, and SMEs (if applicable) in the Financial
Analysis of Accounts procedure
2 Is the annual contract value greater than 25% of the main supplier turnover?
If No, this equates to a PASS. If Yes, the supplier should be considered a high risk. Refer to APUCs Finance Manager for
justification and a decision

Does the supplier have sufficient cash to meet its immediate working capital needs? Calculate using the Current Ratio (current
assets divided by current liabilities) from the audited accounts

Current Ratio
result = [insert]

If the score is less than 1, the supplier should be categorised as a FAIL

NOTE TO PPS THIS WORKING CAPITAL QUESTION TO BE ADDED WHEN APPLICABLE FOR THE COMMODITY BEING
PROCURED

PASS/FAIL:
[insert]

Opinion to the Auditors Report to the Accounts if applicable the Audit opinion must be unqualified to score a PASS. If it is
qualified, the supplier should be categorised as a FAIL
4

PASS/FAIL &
JUSTIFICATIO
N: [insert]

Audit
Opinion=unquali
fied/qualified
PASS/FAIL:
[insert]

OVERALL RESULT: PASS/FAIL:

[insert]

APUC LTD - Tender Evaluation Template

Please note you should only type in cells highlighted in yellow. Type shown in italics is for illustation

Use template to also record bid evaluation, clarification, & PTN results

purposes only. Actual criteria, weightings and data will vary from project to project.

Procurement title:

Project X

Project technical & quality weighting (%):

Project price weighting (%):

60
40

Members of Tender Board:

Board member 1, Board member 2, Board member 3

Overall Quality Threshold (optional):

QUALITY SCORES

60

Tenderer 1

Example Technical & Quality Criteria

Functionality
Methodology
Future Developments
Training
After sales assistance and support
Security
Ease of use & aesthetic characteristics
Quality Totals (MUST EQUAL 100)
Is overall quality threshold reached?
PRICE SCORES
Tender price (whole life costs)
Price score
(mean price =)

Individual
Quality
Threshold
(optional)
0
0
0
0
0
1
3

Criteria
Weight
(must total
100)
30
30
20
5
5
5
5
100

426,666.67 = 50 points

Quality Threshold
reached?

Score (out of 5)

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

4.8
3.7
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
4.6

Tenderer 1 price =
Tenderer 1 price score =

Tenderer 2
Weighted
Score
28.8
22.2
12.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
4.6
79.0
Yes
430,000.00
49.2

Quality
Threshold
reached?

Score (out of 5)

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

3.0
3.3
4.0
3.6
4.0
3.6
4.4

Tenderer 2 price =
Tenderer 2 price score =

Tenderer 3
Weighted
Score
18.0
19.8
16.0
3.6
4.0
3.6
4.4
69.4
Yes
370,000.00
63.3

Quality
Threshold
reached?

Score (out of 5)

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

3.2
4.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
4.6

Tenderer 3 price =
Tenderer 3 price score =

Weighted
Score
19.2
27.0
12.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
4.6
74.2
Yes
480,000.00
37.5

OVERALL SCORES
Project quality weighting x quality score
Project price weighting x price score

Overall score
Order of tenders (ranking)

60% x 79.0 =
40% x 49.2 =

47.4
19.7

67.1
1

60% x 69.4 =
40% x 63.3 =

41.6
25.3

67.0
2

Comments

Signed by members of the Tender Board

(for file copy )

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

Date____________________________________

60% x 74.2 =
40% x 37.5 =

44.5
15.0

59.5
3

Q1

Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17

Example Technical & Quality Criteria

Functionality

Tenderers must descibe what reports are available

What categories of data can be appended

What functionality
Methodology
Describe how the system
What processes
Future Developments

Training

After sales assistance and support

Security

Ease of use & aesthetic characteristics

Example Scoring Rationale

Section
Weighting Question
%
Weighting
30

No answer/Poor answer that does not

meet minimum requirements
0-1

No answer/non-relevant response 0;
Reporting capabilities poor, does not
80% meet minimum requirements 1

No answer/non relevant response 0;

Less than minimum expected
10% categorisation 1
10%
30
70%
20%
10%
20
50%
50%
5
60%
20%
20%
5
100%
5
40%
40%
20%
5
60%
40%

Adequate/Acceptable 2-3
2-3

Barely adequate reporting capabilities

that just meet minimum requirements 2;
Acceptable reporting capabilities that fully
meet but do not exceed minimum
requirement 3;

Barely adequate levels of categorisation

that just meet minimum requirements 2;
Acceptable response detailing how the
system fully meets minimum
categorisation requirements 3

ationale

Tenderer 1

Better than average/Exceptional

4-5

Good reporting capabilities that demonstrably

go beyond the minimum requirements 4;
Exceptional reporting capabilities that
demonstrably far exceed the minimum
requirements 5
Good response detailing clearly how the tool
will deliver categorisation above and beyond
the minimum requirements 4; Excellent
response which demonstrates the tools ability
to deliver useful categorisation far in excess
of minimum requirements 5

Score (out of 5)

Weighted Score

4
4

0.4
0.4

4
3
3

2.8
0.6
0.3

3
3

1.5
1.5

4
3
5

2.4
0.6
1

3
4
3

1.2
1.6
0.6

5
4

3
1.6

Section Score
4.8

3.7

3.0

4.0

4.0
3.4

4.6

Tenderer 2
Justification for
scoring and
additional
comments
Score (out of 5)

Weighted Score

2.4

3
3

0.3
0.3

4
2
1

2.8
0.4
0.1

5
3

2.5
1.5

3
5
4

1.8
1
0.8

4
4
2

1.6
1.6
0.4

4
5

2.4
2

Section Score
3.0

3.3

4.0

3.6

4.0
3.6

4.4

Tenderer 3

Score (out of 5)

Weighted Score

2.4

4
4

0.4
0.4

5
3
4

3.5
0.6
0.4

3
3

1.5
1.5

4
3
5

2.4
0.6
1

3
4
3

1.2
1.6
0.6

5
4

3
1.6

Section Score
3.2

4.5

3.0

4.0

4.0
3.4

4.6

8.1

TECHNICAL
AND
QUALITY
CRITERIA

8.1.1

FUNCTIONALITY

8.1.1.1

Reports

Contractors to inform what reports they can provide from the

master list. They also need to confirm if they can split into
National, Sectoral and regional reports. Must also include abc
analysis. They need to confirm that they can provide granular level
of detail from their reports ie. getting back to raw data. Reports
must be user-friendly, predefined and requiring little or no
configuration. Reports should be exportable to Excel and
powerpoint. They will score 3 marks for all of the above. We will
score 4 marks for the provision of extra reporting capabilities,
including the provison of user defined reports. The award of an
extra point (5 marks) will be given to exceptional additional
reports.

Technical &
Quality Criteria
overall
Section
Percentage
Percentage Score

Percenta
Actual
ge Score
Score
Company Company
A For
A For
Input
Input

Overall
percenta
Percentag ge score
for each
e Score
Company question
of tender
A

65.00%
40.00%

5.00%

12.50%

0.000%

Actual
Score
Company
A For
Input

Percenta
ge Score
Company
A For
Percentage Score
Input
Company A

0.00%

12.50%

Overall
percenta
ge score
for each
question
of tender

0.000%

Percenta
Actual
ge Score
Score
Company Company
A For
A For
Input
Input

0.00%

Overall
percenta
Percentag ge score
for each
e Score
Company question
of tender
A

12.50%

0.000%

Example of a Bid Cost Evaluation

When the total cost of each bid has been established, these costs should be converted to a score out of 100.
Since the lower the cost the better, the lowest cost should be awarded a score of 100.
All other bids should be scored using the formula:
Bid's Score = 100 x (lowest total cost / bid cost)
Example:
Three bids are received. The total cost for each is:
Bid A
Bid B
Bid C

120,000
124,000
142,000

The cost score for each bid is:

Bid A =
Bid B =
Bid C =

100 x 120/120 =
100 x 120/124 =
100 x 120/142 =

100
96.8
84.5

a score out of 100.

Evaluation - Criterion Matrix

Price
Score

Price

Company A
Score

187,500.00

Weighted score (40 %)

Price

Company B
Score

Price

Company C
Score

41.1314 214,379.00 25.5246 167,700.00 52.6279

16.4526
10.2098
21.0512

Formula for Price Score Score =

Mean Price - Bid Price

Mean Price

Mean Price 172,226.00

Based on Daily Costs

x100

)+50

Company D
Price
119,325.00

Company D
Score

80.716
32.2864