Professional Documents
Culture Documents
06 Guide To Tender Evaluation
06 Guide To Tender Evaluation
06
1.
Introduction
The purpose of evaluation is to identify which bid in a process offers the most economically advantageous proposal based on the criteria specified in the invitation to tender or quote document. 2. Pre Qualification Questionnaires
A Pre Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) is used to identify a short-list of suitable companies to invite to tender in the restricted and competitive dialogue procedures. The questionnaire should only seek to identify the relevant capacity (financial and resources), experience and expertise of the company. It must not be used to evaluate possible solutions that the company may offer and any criteria used at the pre-qualification stage should not be used again or revisited when evaluating the invitation to tender. Many elements are Pass / Fail during PQQ stage and may require input from specialist officers such as Finance to undertake a financial assessment of bidders to be shortlisted. Please see Toolkit 30 Financial assessment of suppliers for more information. Where sections of the PQQ are to be scored in order to rank bidders, the process detailed within this toolkit for applying weightings and scoring structures can be applied. If references are required these must be obtained at PQQ stage as once a company is short listed, you can no longer assess their performance in this way. When using an open tender procedure, the questions normally asked at PQQ, should be asked as part of the invitation to tender. The evaluation of the tenders should be undertaken in the same manner as a restricted procedure, first assessing the capability and capacity of all bidders (stage 1) to identify any which can be eliminated on that basis and to produce a short list to assess at stage 2. 3. Evaluation Criteria
Tenders should be assessed on the value for money they offer the authority that is, the optimum balance of whole-life costs and benefits that meet the customers requirements. To achieve this, a cost / quality ratio should be applied to the evaluation methodology to reflect the risk and value of the contract. The following can be used as a guide:
Page 1 of 9
The Procurement Toolkit Good Practice Guides Version Date: October 2010
06
Risk
Costs should always be considered based on the whole life cost (wlc) involved with the goods / works / services to be procured. Whole life costs comprise all costs to the council of acquiring, owning, maintaining and disposing of goods, services or works. If the duration of a contract is unknown due to maintenance, licensing etc, assume the value of the contract at 48 months (4 years) and structure the cost evaluation to consider costs for this period. The list below provides an indication of the types of costs that may be included in whole life costs. Those to be included will vary dependent on the goods / services / works being procured. Initial price Delivery and installation Costs of operation In-house management resources Consumables Spare parts Licences Taxes Maintenance Energy / water consumption Depreciation Disposal Environmental impact Storage / retainer Upgrade Staff Re-procurement
It is important that the pricing schedule allows and encourages bidders to include all whole life costs associated with the project.
Page 2 of 9
The Procurement Toolkit Good Practice Guides Version Date: October 2010
06
5.
Quality Criteria should represent the key issues for consideration when assessing the suitability of the bid proposal. The list below provides an indication of the types of criteria that may be included. These will vary dependent on the goods / services / works being procured. 6. Technical merit Aesthetic and functional characteristics Environmental characteristics Running costs Cost effectiveness After sales services Technical assistance Delivery date, delivery period and period of completion Weightings
Each quality criteria should have a number of marks available allocated to signify to bidders the relative importance of each area. The maximum marks available should equal the quality ratio applied. E.g. For a Routine procurement with Cost 60%, Quality 40%. There should be a maximum of 40 marks available, split between the quality criteria to reflect the relative importance of each criteria. When the scoring model is applied, the response to each criteria will then be awarded a proportion of the marks available dependent on the score they achieve. A fully worked up model of this scoring methodology is available at Appendix 1. 7. Key Principles of Evaluation All tender or quote evaluations must be undertaken in a fair manner. This means each bid deserves equal treatment and assessment and scores should be applied consistently. All bids during a tender process are confidential and should not be discussed with any person not involved in the evaluation process. All bid documentation must be stored securely during the evaluation period. Hard copies should not be removed from Council premises or left on desks overnight. Any electronic versions should be transferred using secure encryption methods.
Page 3 of 9
Fairness
Confidentiality
Security
The Procurement Toolkit Good Practice Guides Version Date: October 2010
06
Evaluation criteria
Bid content
Scoring
8.
Evaluation Panels
Evaluation panels should be identified prior to the issue of invitation documents to ensure that the panel are engaged in the process and understand and agree with the evaluation criteria to be applied. The panel should be proportionate to the project and should include representation from the key stakeholder areas. A panel should have a minimum of 2 members for smaller projects limited to one area and a minimum of 3 members for larger projects or those affecting multiple areas / teams. For larger projects, Project Managers may join the panel to evaluate or to facilitate the process as appropriate. Evaluation panels should be kept consistent throughout the tender process where possible. Evaluation panel members have a responsibility to understand the specification and the evaluation criteria as it relates to their area. Prior to the receipt of bids, the panel must decide who will evaluate which sections. In most cases, all members will evaluate all sections to provide a holistic view however in some circumstances, specific sections may be evaluated by specialist areas e.g. eServices may evaluate technical responses. The panel must ensure that all areas can be competently assessed by officers with suitable knowledge and understanding of the respective area they are evaluating. Panel members must also ensure they understand the time commitment and resource they will be required to contribute in order to evaluate the responses. Where this is unclear, guidance should be sought from the lead project officer. 9. Evaluation Process
The following guidelines provide a framework that will be suitable for many tender evaluation processes.
Page 4 of 9
The Procurement Toolkit Good Practice Guides Version Date: October 2010
06
9.1.
9.6.
In addition to awarding a score, panel members must write notes justifying the score they have selected. Notes are used in the scoring moderation and to compile feedback for bidders, which is a legal requirement. All notes may also be the subject of a future FOI request therefore it is crucial that notes are maintained throughout and are considered, accurate and relate solely to the relevant criteria. Panel members should input their scores on their electronic scoring matrix and ensure they take an electronic or printed copy to the moderation meeting. The evaluation panel should convene and look at each response by each bidder for each criteria. The panel should discuss their individual scores and reach agreement on a moderated score and justifying comments, taking into account each panel members perspective. It is important that scores are not formulated by taking an average of the individual scores as this does not account for any panel members misunderstanding of the response or different perspectives of the panel. An average score also does not enable meaningful notes to be made. A moderated score sheet should be created at this meeting to provide a record of the scores awarded. Eliminate any bidder which scores 0 on any single criteria.
9.7. 9.8.
9.9.
9.10. Prices should be added to the moderated score sheet and the overall marks calculated using the process described in Appendix 1 to identify the highest scoring bidder.
Page 5 of 9
The Procurement Toolkit Good Practice Guides Version Date: October 2010
06
10.
Clarification
Where elements of a bid are unclear, you may need to seek clarification from the bidder. Where this is done, ensure clarification is requested and returned in writing and you maintain a fair approach to this with regards to all bidders. You may decide to incorporate site visits to the supplier, or a customer of the supplier as part of the evaluation process. Presentations or demonstrations may also be used in circumstances where it is pertinent that the proposal is viewed i.e. systems procurement. Where such additional clarification is undertaken, the following guidance must be adhered to: An agenda must be provided to the bidders stating what they will be expected to demonstrate to you The evaluation panel should make notes and can ask clarification questions about what they have been shown. Where any areas are not addressed by the bidders, further questions cannot be asked by the panel to prompt responses. Scores can only be amended where areas are addressed in the clarification. They can be increased or decreased accordingly. Where any areas are not addressed at a clarification session, scores cannot be amended. Site visits cannot be used to assess the bidders capacity or capability in any way they must only focus on aspects of the bid submitted. 11. Tender Records
All decisions made must be fully documented and all paperwork produced from the evaluation process must be kept in the tender file. European Tender regulations require certain elements of feedback to provide to all unsuccessful bidders so it is essential that accurate and objective records are kept to ensure that constructive feedback can be provided. Tender processes may also be subject to Audit and FOI requests. 12. Post Evaluation
Ensure notification is made through the appropriate channels (http://scms.alito.co.uk) and all required information is provided regarding the decision and justification. Template letters are available here. Ensure the Legal team are prepared for your requirements in terms of contract award.
Page 6 of 9
The Procurement Toolkit Good Practice Guides Version Date: October 2010
06
13.
14.
The Procurement Toolkit Good Practice Guides Version Date: October 2010
06
Page 8 of 9
Appendix 1
Evaluation Example
Below is an example of how bidders scores are calculated using an restricted ITT example (assessing proposal not company) 0 (Inadequate) 0 marks awarded 1 (Concerns) available marks awarded 2 (Potential) available marks awarded 3 (Capable) All available marks awarded Significant indications that the proposal lacks certain requirements in this area to achieve the required standard of service delivery / information totally inadequate Some concerns that the proposal may lack certain requirements in this area to meet the required standard of service delivery Information indicating potential to deliver outcomes
Comprehensive and strong information indicating proposal capable of delivering outcomes to required standard
Step 1: Each bidders response is awarded a 'score' for each criteria using the matrix above. This identifies for each criteria whether the bidder is awarded all, some or none of the marks available. If a score of 0 is awarded for any one criteria, the bid will be eliminated. Quality: 60% Evaluation Criteria Product Quality Design / Fitness for purchase Durability and lifespan Compatibility with existing products Delivery Responsiveness and ability to deliver on time Ability to reduce packaging Customer Service Customer services team standards Ability to respond to queries timely Total marks awarded** Total score for quality Bidder 1 Score Marks Awarded* 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 20.0 5.0 1.7 15.0 3.3 5.0 5.0 55.0 60.0 Bidder 2 Score Marks Awarded* 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 13.3 3.3 3.3 15.0 1.7 5.0 3.3 45.0 49.1 Bidder 3 Score Marks Awarded* 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 20.0 3.3 1.7 15.0 5.0 3.3 5.0 53.3 58.2
Marks Available 20 5 5 15 5 5 5
Step 2: Each bidders total quality mark is used to identify their relative positions on a 0-60 price scale. This is done by allocating the highest scoring quality bid 60 quality points and calculating the remaining bidders scores in relation to this scale. Step 3: Each bidders price is used to identify their relative positions on a 0-40 price scale. This is done by allocating the lowest priced bid 40 price points and calculating the remaining bidders scores in relation to this scale. Price: 40% Bid price Total score for price*** Bidder 1 14,000 32.9 Bidder 2 11,500 40.0 Bidder 3 18,000 25.6
Step 4: Each bidders quality score and price score are added to identify the highest scoring bidder. Where clarification is used to finalise scores (presentations, demonstrations etc) information obtained through that process may be used to adjust the preliminary scores allocated at step one. Steps two to four will then be repeated to recalculate all formulas. Bidder 1 Total evaluation score (total quality score + total price score) Rank 60.0 + 32.9 = 92.9 1 Bidder 2 49.1 + 40.0 = 89.1 2 Bidder 3 58.2 + 25.6 = 83.7 3
* (available marks / 3) x score ** quality percentage x (total bid quality marks / highest quality marks) *** price percentage x (lowest price / bid price)