Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technical and
Financial Proposals and
Preparation of Evaluation
Reports
Selection and
Employment of
Consultant
May, 2014
Preface
Consultants employed by public authorities are selected and employed according to the
Public Procurement Regulations, 2013 Government Notice No. 466 of 2013 (hereinafter
referred to the Regulations). The Regulations specify the procuring entities obligations to
submit reports to the tender board during the selection process:
a)
b)
a technical evaluation report subject to prior review by the tender board, such
as the tender boards approval prior to opening the financial proposals; or
the combined technical/financial evaluation report;
This document sets out the format of a sample evaluation report. It is provided to procuring
entities to facilitate the evaluation of consultants proposals and the subsequent review of
these proposals by the tender boards.. The evaluation must be in accordance with the criteria
spelt out in the Request for Proposals and carried out by qualified evaluators. The Request
for Proposals should be prepared in accordance with the Regulations 287.
The evaluation report includes nine sections:
Section I:
ii
Users of this sample evaluation report are invited to submit comments on their experience
with the document to:
Chief Executive Officer
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority,
P.O. Box 49,
Dar es Salaam
iii
iv
Contents
Section I:
Section II:
Section III:
Section IV:
Form IVA.
Form IVB.
Form IVC.
Section V:
......................................................................20
Section VI:
.........................................................25
Section VII.
Section VIII.
............................................................................................. 33
Section IX.
Annexes ........................................................................................................35
Annex I(i). Individual Evaluations ...................................................................... 36
Annex I(ii) Individual Evaluations Key Personnel ....................................... 37
Annex II
Annex III
..................................................................... 40
.............................................. 41
...................................................... 42
47
Section I:
1.
2.
Committee
Committee
Composition
1.1
Evaluation committee
b)
Negotiation team
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.
4.
5.
Quorum
Proposal
opening
Duties of the
Evaluation
committee
b)
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
b)
c)
6.
7.
8.
Duties of the
negotiations
Committee
Disclosure of
the names of
the firms to the
committees
Disability of
member of the
committee on
account of
interest in
contracts
d)
e)
6.1
6.2
7.1
7.2
8.1
8.2
Section II:
9.
10.
8.3
8.4
Evaluation
Procedure
Marking system
9.1
b)
10.1
10.2
10.3
11.
Evaluation of
technical
quality of the
proposal
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
b)
c)
12.
Points given to
main evaluation
criteria.
12.1
General qualifications;
Age;
Education level;
Experience in similar assignments;
Publications on relevant subjects;
Specialization;
Language capability;
Professional experience and status;
Training experience; and
Career attainment.
d)
e)
Technical
Assistance and
training
Firms general
Understanding Qualifications Local Firms Participation Knowledge
experience,
of the Terms of
of Key
participation by national
of the
reputation and
Reference,
Personnel
experts
country
experience in
Methodology
similar assignments and work plan
5 15
25 40
55 60
5 15
5 10
5 10
Total
100
Pre-investments
and feasibility
studies
10 15
30 40
45 -60
5 15
5 10
5 10
100
Engineering
/design
10 15
25 40
45 60
10 15
5 10
5 10
100
Implementation
and supervision
10 15
25 40
45 - 60
10 15
5 10
5 10
100
13.
14.
Clarification
of proposals
Grading of
the technical
proposals
13.1
b)
13.2
14.1
Report for
the tender
board
15.1
15.2
10
16.
Tender
boards
review of the
technical
evaluation
report
16.1
16.2
Section III:
(b)
17.
Background
17.1
18.
The selection
process (prior
to technical
evaluation)
18.1
Technical
evaluation
19.1
19.
Section III applies to Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS), Quality Based Selection (Quality Based), Fixed
Budget Selection ( Fixed-Budget) and Least Cost Selection (Least-Cost). Provide appropriate information in the case
of selection based on Qualifications (Qualifications) and Single Source Selection (SS).
11
19.2
19.3
Weaknesses:
19.5
12
Form IVB.
Form IVC.
Section IV applies to Quality and cost-Based Selection (QCBS), Quality-Based Selection (Quality-Based),
Fixed-Budget Selection (Fixed Budget), and Least-Cost Selection (Least-Cost). Supply appropriate data in
cases of Selection Based on Qualifications (Qualifications) and Single-Source Selection (Single-Source) in
Form IVA.
2
13
Form IVA:
1.
Name of Project
2.
Client:
(b)
(c)
name
address, phone, facsimile
3.
4.
Method of selection.3
QCBS
5.
TZS.
6.
Yes
Quality-Based
No
Shortlist:
(a) name/nationality of
Firms/associations (mark
Domestic firms and firms
that had expressed interest)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3 See Regulations
4 Required for large contracts (see Regulations).
5 Indicate whether expressions of interest advertised in Web or hardcopy edition
14
b)
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
c)
8.
9.
10. Contract:
a)
Public Procurement Authority
Simple
Yes
No
Time-Based
Price adjustment: Yes
b)
c)
d)
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Other (describe)
11.
Pre-proposal conference:
a) minutes issued
Yes
Yes
No
No
12.
Proposal submission:
a)
two envelopes (technical and
financial proposals)
b)
one envelope (technical)
c)
original submission
d)
extensions(s)
Yes
Yes
Date
Date
Time
Time
13.
Location
14.
Date
15.
16.
Evaluation committee6:
Members names and titles
(Technical Proposal minimum 5)
(Financial Proposal minimum 3)
15
1.
2.
3.
Time
No
4.
5.
17.
1.8
Date
Date
Evaluation Criteria/subcriteria7:
a)
Consultants experience
(i)
(ii)
Weight
Weight
b)
c)
Methodology
(i)
(ii)
Weight
Weight
Key staff
(i)
individual(s)
(A)
(B)
(C)
Weight
Weight
Weight
(ii)
d)
e)
group(s)
(A)
(B)
(C)
Weight
Weight
Weight
Training (optional)
(i)
(ii)
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
16
Time
Time
19.
Consultants names
Technical scores
1.
2.
3.
4.
20
Evaluation report:
(a)
submission to the tender board
for approval
17
Date
Form IVB:
Evaluation Summary
Technical Scores/Ranking
Consultants names
Criteria
[insert name of
Consultant 1]
[Insert name of
Consultant 2]
[Insert name of
Consultant 3]
[Insert name of
Consultant 4],
etc
Scores
Scores
Scores
Scores
Experience
Methodology
Proposed staff
Training
Local input
Total scorea
Rank
a. Proposals scoring below the minimum qualifying score of [number] points have been rejected.
18
Form IVC:
Consultants
Names
[Insert name
of Consultant
1]
Criteria
Experience
A
B
C
D
[Insert
name of
Consultant
2]
[Insert
name of
Consultant
3]
[Insert name of
Consultant
4],etc
AVa
Methodology
Key staff
Training
Local input
Total
a. A, B, C, and D = scores given by evaluators; AV = average score, see Annex I(i).
Note:
Please see the Preface.
Financial proposals must not be opened before the approval of the appropriate tender board on
the technical evaluation. The technical evaluation (technical scores in particular) cannot
be changed following the opening of the financial proposals.
19
Section V:
20. Selection
Consideration
21. Acceptable
methods of
evaluation of
proposals
20.1
20.2
20.3
21.1
b)
20
c)
22. Details of
acceptable
methods
21.2
21.3
21.4
22.1
21
22.3
22.4
c)
22
24. Unacceptable
methods
23.1
23.2
24.1
24.2
a)
Weighting:
b)
24.3
23
Section VI:
25.
Evaluation
Procedure
25.1
ii)
iii)
24
d)
Evaluation of
the financial
proposals
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
25
27
Combined
quality and
h)
i)
j)
26.2
26.3
27.1
a)
b)
26
cost
evaluation
27.3
27.4
27
Taxes may not be taken into account in the financial evaluation whereas reimbursable should be taken
into account
Applies to QCBS, Fixed-Budget, and Least-Cost. For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source provide relevant
information as indicated.
28
Section VIII:
Form VIIIA.
Form VIIIB.
Form VIIIC.
Form VIIID.
Applies to QCBS, Fixed-Budge, and Least-Cost. For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source, provide
relevant information as indicated.
29
2.
Date
Date
3.
4.
5.
6.
Time
1.
2.
3.
4.
Submission of final
technical/financial evaluation
report to the tender board
(Quality-Based, Qualifications,
Single-Source)
QCBS
Date
Consultant Technical
Name
scores
Financial
scores
Final
scores
(b)
Award recommendation
(c)
Fixed-Budget: best
technical proposal within
30
Technical
scores
Proposal Evaluated
prices
prices
Least-Cost: lowest
evaluated price proposal
above minimum qualifying
score
31
Name
Name
Form VIIIB:
Consultants
Name
Proposals pricesa
Adjustments
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
10
Evaluated
Conversion to currency
of evaluation
Financial
Scoresd
(3)=(1)
+(2)
Exchange Proposals
Rate(s)e
Prices
(4)
(5) = (3)(4)
(6)
Comments, if any (e.g., exchange rates); three foreign currencies maximum, plus local
currency.
Arithmetical errors and omissions of items included in the technical proposals.
Adjustments may be positive or negative.
As per RFP.
100 points to the lowest evaluated proposal; other scores to be determined in accordance
with provisions of RFP.
Value of one currency unit in the common currency used for evaluation purposes,
normally the local currency (e.g., 1 US$ = Tshs. 1350). Indicate source as per RFP.
32
Consultants
names
Award
recommendation
a.
b.
c.
d.
Technical
Financial
Combined
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Technical Weighted
Financial Weighted Scores
Scoresa
scores
Technical Scoresc
Scoresc
S(t) T +
S(t)
S(t) x Tb
Rank
S(f)
S(f) x Fd
S(f) F
33
Rank
Form VIIID:
Consultants names
Award
recommendation
a.
b.
11
Fixed-Budget Selection
Technical
Evaluated
a
scores
pricesb
Least-Cost Selection
Technical
Evaluated
scores
prices
34
Individual Evaluations
Form IX Annex I (i). Individual Evaluation
Form IX Annex I (ii). Individual Evaluation Key Personnel
Annex II.
Annex III.
Annex IV.
Annex V.
35
12
Annex I applies to Quality-Based, Fixed-Budget and Least-Cost. For Qualifications and Single-Source, it is replaced by a
review of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, which may be amended by one or several evaluators
Maximum
Scores
Evaluators
3
Average
Scores
Experience
Methodology
Key Staff
Transfer of Knowledge
(Traininga)
Participation by
Nationalsa
Total
a.
If specified in the RFP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
100
Evaluators Name:
Evaluators Name:
Evaluators Name:
Evaluators Name:
Evaluators Name:
Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
36
Date:
Date
Date:
Date:
Date:
Consultants Name:
Key Staff
Namesa
Maximum General
Adequacy
Experience Total
Scores
Qualifications For the
In Region
Marks
Assignment
( )b
( )b
( )b
(100)
Scores
Total
a.
b.
Signature:
37
Date:
Annex II:
5.1
Loan/credit/grant
(a) number
(b) date of effectiveness
(c) closing date
(i) original
(ii) revised
5.2
5.3
Date
Name of newspaper(s) and date(s)
5.4
5.5
2
3
Yes
No
Yes
No
38
Annex III:
[The minutes should indicate the names of the participants in the proposal opening session, the
proposal prices, discounts, technical scores, and any details that the Client, at its discretion, may
consider appropriate. All attendees must sign the Minutes.]
39
Annex IV applies to all selection procedures (The Standard Request for Proposals may be used for Qualifications
and Single-Source, with appropriate modifications).
16
40
41
1. General factors
a)
b)
What priority will this project receive from the consultant? How important will it
be to his or her firm?
c)
Does the proposal meet the terms of reference and the intended scope of the study?
d)
e)
f)
g)
What degree of direct consultant client liaison is proposed? Does the consultant
client relationship include a training component for the clients personnel? What
type of training is proposed?
h)
i)
When the project is completed, how does the consultant intend to hand over the
project?
j)
2. Past performance
a)
Is the usual business of the consultant closely related to the proposed work?
b)
Does the references to past experience include activities specifically related to the
requirements of the proposed study?
c)
d)
What reputation does the firm hold in the area of the proposed assignment?
e)
Has the firm worked for this client before, and if so, with what success?
f)
Are the statements of past performance worded so you can identify what work
was actually performed?
42
g)
3. Scope of Work
a)
b)
c)
d)
Has the consultant presented an approach that will achieve the stated objectives?
e)
Is the proposed approach supported with justification of why it should achieve the
objectives?
f)
g)
Has the consultant introduced unanticipated events which may result in a project
overrun or an expanded scope of work?
h)
Does the proposal distinguish between the simpler and the more difficult
performance requirements?
i)
j)
Are the technical problems clearly delineated or are they merely parroted from
the request for proposals?
k)
Have the limits of the problem been specified to show that the proposed
assignment will be restricted to an appropriate scope?
l)
Is these a concise but adequate review of literature? Is the literature review merely
an annotated bibliography or is it a scholarly critique?
m)
Are the specific objectives of the proposal clearly stated? Are these goals realistic in
view of time, equipment, budget and professional experience of the principal
instigator?
n)
o)
p)
4. Personnel
a)
Is it clear which tasks in the assignment specific personnel will be assigned to and
for what amount of time?
43
b)
c)
d)
Are the personnel assigned to specific tasks qualified by training and experience to
perform the tasks successfully?
Is there a clear organization chart depicting project management is there realistic
apportionment of personnel level and time to specific tasks.
What assurances are made concerning the availability of personnel proposed? Was
a contingency plan requested if certain personnel become unavailable.
e)
f)
Does the success of the project depend, to a large degree, upon personnel not
directly associated with the prospective firm?
g)
h)
Does the proposal show the capabilities of the management to handle a project of
the size contemplate?
i)
Is the position for the programmed manager in the overall organization and the
limits of his/her authority and responsibility shown?
j)
Are the type, frequency and effectiveness of management controls and method for
corrective action shown?
l)
Has the work schedule been specified clearly, and is it realistic in terms of time and
money? Does it fit with available personnel?
b)
c)
d)
Does the proposal show that the delivery schedule will be met and how it will be
met?
e)
Are the various technical phases of the project detailed and realistically scheduled.
f)
Are effective review, evaluation and control provided at specific check points?
g)
44
6. Facilities
7.
a)
Are the facilities and equipment needed for successful completion of the study
specified in the proposal?
b)
How does the consultant intend to access facilities not at the clients site?
c)
Does the use of facilities out side the client require a subcontract? If so, is the
proposed subcontract specifically mentioned, along with an explanation of
required qualifications?
d)
Is the planned use of facilities, such as printing, data processing etc realistic?
e)
If computer services are required, are these controls built into the processing so
corrective action can be taken at intermittent points, if necessary?
f)
g)
Are the propose laboratory and test facilities adequate for the requirements of the
technical scope of work?
h)
Cost
a)
b)
What is the relationship between the cost figures and equivalent items in
technical proposal?
c)
Are the personnel costs reasonable according to the tasks to be per formed?
d)
e)
Has expenditure been set aside for subcontracting requirements, such as data
processing?
f)
g)
Does the travel seen reasonable when compared to the tasks to be accomplished?
h)
If consultants or experts are included, is their daily rate reasonable and within the
proper financial range? Is the proposed time reasonable?
i)
j)
k)
45
the
M/s
M/s
etc. ..
b)
That, all knowledge, reports or any other materials not within the public
domain which I may acquire from the evaluation process, by virtue of the
performance of my duties as Member of the said Evaluation Committee,
shall for all time and for all purposes be regarded by me as strictly
confidential and I shall not divulge them to persons not officially
concerned with this evaluation process.
c)
d)
46
this
..
day
of
M/s ..
M/s .
etc .
b)
That, all knowledge, reports or any other materials not within the public
domain which I may acquire from the evaluation process, by virtue of the
performance of my duties as Member of the said Evaluation Committee,
shall for all time and for all purposes be regarded by me as strictly
confidential and I shall not divulge them to persons not officially
concerned with this evaluation process.
c)
d)
47
this
..
day
of