Tender Evaluation Template (V7 5 February 2009)

Notes for completing the tender evaluation template

1 The Quality Criteria Scores worksheet is used only to evaluate a tenders technical and quality award criteria. It does not relate to price.
2 The scores will be automatically updated in the Price and Quality Combined Worksheet.
3 The template can be used to evaluate any type of tender including those for supplies, works and services.
4 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.
5 The template can be used to test different price and quality criteria weighting scenarios to assist in these decisions.
6 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.
7 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.
8 Scoring for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), Supported Businesses and so on must be proportionate
9 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.
10 It is important to ensure that Schedule 7 questions are copied directly into the evaluation criteria on the template.
11 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.
12 The template assumes three tenders have been returned. More can be added by copying and pasting the relevant cells.
13 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.
14 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
15 It may be that a form for each UIG member is used and all information therein be transferred to a master.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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
1 grade = [insert]
If not, the supplier should be eliminated from the tender process. PASS/FAIL:
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
2 Analysis of Accounts
Is the annual contractprocedure
value greater than 25% of the main supplier turnover? PASS/FAIL &
If No, this equates to a PASS. If Yes, the supplier should be considered a high risk. Refer to APUCs Finance Manager for JUSTIFICATIO
justification and a decision N: [insert]

Does the supplier have sufficient cash to meet its immediate working capital needs? Calculate using the Current Ratio (current Current Ratio
3 assets divided by current liabilities) from the audited accounts 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 PASS/FAIL:
PROCURED
Opinion to the Auditors Report to the Accounts if applicable the Audit opinion must be unqualified to score a PASS. If it is Audit
qualified, the supplier should be categorised as a FAIL Opinion=unquali
4 fied/qualified
PASS/FAIL:
OVERALL RESULT: PASS/FAIL:
 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 Members of Tender Board: Board member 1, Board member 2, Board member 3

Project technical & quality weighting (%): 60

Project price weighting (%): 40 Overall Quality Threshold (optional): 60

QUALITY SCORES Tenderer 1 Tenderer 2 Tenderer 3

Individual Criteria
Quality Quality
Quality Weight Quality Threshold Weighted Weighted Weighted
Example Technical & Quality Criteria Score (out of 5) Threshold Score (out of 5) Threshold Score (out of 5)
Threshold (must total reached? Score Score Score
reached? reached?
(optional) 100)
Functionality 0 30 Yes 4.8 28.8 Yes 3.0 18.0 Yes 3.2 19.2
Methodology 0 30 Yes 3.7 22.2 Yes 3.3 19.8 Yes 4.5 27.0
Future Developments 0 20 Yes 3.0 12.0 Yes 4.0 16.0 Yes 3.0 12.0
Training 0 5 Yes 4.0 4.0 Yes 3.6 3.6 Yes 4.0 4.0
After sales assistance and support 0 5 Yes 4.0 4.0 Yes 4.0 4.0 Yes 4.0 4.0
Security 1 5 Yes 3.4 3.4 Yes 3.6 3.6 Yes 3.4 3.4
Ease of use & aesthetic characteristics 3 5 Yes 4.6 4.6 Yes 4.4 4.4 Yes 4.6 4.6
Quality Totals (MUST EQUAL 100) 100 79.0 69.4 74.2
Is overall quality threshold reached? Yes Yes Yes

PRICE SCORES
Tender price (whole life costs) Tenderer 1 price = 430,000.00 Tenderer 2 price = 370,000.00 Tenderer 3 price = 480,000.00
Price score (mean price =) 426,666.67 = 50 points Tenderer 1 price score = 49.2 Tenderer 2 price score = 63.3 Tenderer 3 price score = 37.5

OVERALL SCORES
Project quality weighting x quality score 60% x 79.0 = 47.4 60% x 69.4 = 41.6 60% x 74.2 = 44.5
Project price weighting x price score 40% x 49.2 = 19.7 40% x 63.3 = 25.3 40% x 37.5 = 15.0

Overall score 67.1 67.0 59.5

Order of tenders (ranking) 1 2 3
Comments

Signed by members of the Tender Board _________________________________________________________________________ Date____________________________________

(for file copy ) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
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 No answer/Poor answer that does not
% Weighting meet minimum requirements Adequate/Acceptable 2-3
30 0-1 2-3

Barely adequate reporting capabilities

that just meet minimum requirements 2;
No answer/non-relevant response 0; Acceptable reporting capabilities that fully
Reporting capabilities poor, does not meet but do not exceed minimum
80% meet minimum requirements 1 requirement 3;

Barely adequate levels of categorisation

that just meet minimum requirements 2;
No answer/non relevant response 0; Acceptable response detailing how the
Less than minimum expected system fully meets minimum
10% categorisation 1 categorisation requirements 3
10%
30
70%
20%
10%
20
50%
50%
5
60%
20%
20%
5
100%
5
40%
40%
20%
5
60%
40%
ationale Tenderer 1

Better than average/Exceptional Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score

4-5 4.8

Good reporting capabilities that demonstrably

go beyond the minimum requirements 4;
Exceptional reporting capabilities that
demonstrably far exceed the minimum
requirements 5 5 4

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 4 0.4
4 0.4
3.7
4 2.8
3 0.6
3 0.3
3.0
3 1.5
3 1.5
4.0
4 2.4
3 0.6
5 1
4.0
4 4
3.4
3 1.2
4 1.6
3 0.6
4.6
5 3
4 1.6
 Tenderer 2

Justification for
scoring and
additional
comments Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score
3.0

3 2.4

3 0.3
3 0.3
3.3
4 2.8
2 0.4
1 0.1
4.0
5 2.5
3 1.5
3.6
3 1.8
5 1
4 0.8
4.0
4 4
3.6
4 1.6
4 1.6
2 0.4
4.4
4 2.4
5 2
 Tenderer 3

Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score

3.2

3 2.4

4 0.4
4 0.4
4.5
5 3.5
3 0.6
4 0.4
3.0
3 1.5
3 1.5
4.0
4 2.4
3 0.6
5 1
4.0
4 4
3.4
3 1.2
4 1.6
3 0.6
4.6
5 3
4 1.6
 TECHNICAL
AND
QUALITY
8.1 CRITERIA
8.1.1 FUNCTIONALITY

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
8.1.1.1 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.
 Overall
Actual
Percenta percenta Actual
Technical & Score ge Score Percentag ge score Score
Quality Criteria Company Company e Score for each Company
overall Section A For A For Company question A For
Percentage Percentage Score Input Input A of tender Input

65.00%
40.00%

2 5.00% 12.50% 0.000%

 Overall Overall
Percenta percenta Actual
Percenta percenta
ge Score ge score Score ge Score Percentag ge score
Company for each Company Company e Score for each
A For Percentage Score question A For A For Company question
Input Company A of tender Input Input A of tender

0.00% 12.50% 0.000% 0.00% 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 120,000
Bid B 124,000
Bid C 142,000

The cost score for each bid is:

Bid A = 100 x 120/120 = 100

Bid B = 100 x 120/124 = 96.8
Bid C = 100 x 120/142 = 84.5
a score out of 100.
 Evaluation - Criterion Matrix

Company A Company B Company C Company D

Price Price Score Price Score Price Score Price
Score 187,500.00 41.1314 214,379.00 25.5246 167,700.00 52.6279 119,325.00
Weighted score (40 %) 16.4526 10.2098 21.0512

Mean Price - Bid Price

Formula for Price Score Score = ( Mean Price x100 )+50

Mean Price 172,226.00

Based on Daily Costs
Company D
Score
80.716
32.2864