Section 3 Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

Section 3: Evaluation and Qualification Criteria
Section 3. Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

A. Evaluation criteria for Geotechnical investigation & Laboratory Testing
This section, read in conjunction with Section 1, Instructions to Consultants and Section 2, Bid Data
Sheet, contains all the factors, methods and criteria that the Public Body shall use to evaluate a bid
and determine whether a Consultant has the required qualifications. No other factors, methods or
criteria shall be used.
1. Professional, Technical, and Financial Qualification Criteria
1.1 Professional Qualifications and Capability of the Consultant (ITC Clause 14)
(a). At least 14 staff currently work for the Consultant;
Minimum
Years of
(i) (ii) Po (iii)Minimum Qualification Remark
Item siti N Experienc
on e
1 Head (Coordinator) of 1 Min.BSc Degree in Geology/ 10 years CV to be

field and Laboratory Civil Engineering and with approved
works further Training or relevant
experience in Geotechnical
Engineering
2 Senior Geotechnical 1 Min. BSc Degree in Civil 5 years CV to be
Engineer/Engineerin Engineering/Geology or approved
g geologist equivalent and with relevant
experience
3 Chief Driller 3 Adequate training in Drilling 5 years
4 Assistant Driller 6 Same as item 3 above 2 years
5. Laboratory Head 1 BSc Degree in Civil 5 years CV to be
Engineering, Geology or approved
equivalent
6 Laboratory 2 Diploma in Engineering 3 years CV to be
Technicians Aide approved
1.2 Technical Qualifications, Competence, and Experience of the Consultant (ITC Clause 16)
(a). The Consultant must submit at least two Certificates of satisfactory execution of contracts provided by
contracting parties to the contracts successfully completed in the course of the past ten years with a bud-
get of above half of this contract price.
RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

Page 1 of 23
1.3 Financial Standing of the Consultant (ITC Clause 15)
(a). The average annual calculated as total certified payments received for contracts in
progress or completed within the last five years must exceed 40% times the amount
of the Financial Proposal;
2. Evaluation of the Technical Proposal
2.1 The Technical Proposals shall be examined to confirm that all documentary evidence
establishing the Consultants' qualifications requested in ITC Clause 18 have been
provided;
2.2 After confirming the Technical Proposals comprise all mandatory documentary
evidence establishing the Consultant's qualification the Public Body will rule on the
legal, technical, professional, and financial admissibility of each bid, classifying it as
compliant or non-compliant with qualification requirements set forth in the Request for
Proposals;
2.3 The Public Body will then analyze the Technical Proposals' conformity in relation to the
Terms of Reference, classifying them technically compliant or non-compliant.
2.4 The Public Body shall continue evaluation of Technical Proposals that have been
determined to be substantially responsive with rectification of nonconformities and
omissions in Proposals, if any.
2.5 Provided all mandatory legal, professional, technical, and financial requirements have
been met Technical Proposals shall be evaluated and scored in accordance with ITC Clause
37 by taking into account the following technical evaluation criteria in order of their
importance and their proportional weight in the total system of evaluation, as specified below:
CRITERIA
Consultant’s
Joint Venture, Consortium or
FACTOR Association Documentatio
Requirement Single
All At Least n Required
Entity Each
Partners One
Partner
Combined Partner
1. Legal Qualification of the Consultant
Must meet
Must meet Must meet Bid Submission
1.1. Nationality Nationality requiremen n/a
requirement requirement Sheet
t
Must meet
1.2. Conflict of Must meet Must meet Bid Submission
No conflict of interest as described requiremen n/a
Interest requirement requirement Sheet
t

Page 2 of 23
CRITERIA
Consultant’s
Requirement Single
Entity Each
Partners One
Partner
Combined Partner
1.3. Registration in Having been registered in the Public Must meet
the FPPA's Procurement and Property requiremen n/a
Suppliers List Administration Agency's Suppliers List t
Not having been debarred by decision
1.4. Debarred by of the Public Procurement Agency Must meet
decision of the from participating in public requiremen n/a
FPPA procurements for breach of its t
obligation under previous contracts
1.5. Valid trade
Having been submitted valid trade
license or
license or business organization Must meet Bid Submission
business Must meet Must meet
registration certificate issued by the requiremen n/a Sheet with
organization requirement requirement
country of establishment must be t attachments
registration
renewed for 2011EC.
certificate
Having been submitted VAT
1.6. VAT Must meet Bid Submission
registration certificate issued by the tax Must meet Must meet
registration requiremen n/a Sheet with
authority (in case of contract value of requirement requirement
certificate t attachments
Birr 100,000.00 and above)
1.7. Valid tax Having been submitted valid tax Must meet Bid Submission
Must meet Must meet
clearance clearance certificate issued by the tax requiremen n/a Sheet with
requirement requirement
certificate authority (Domestic Bidders Only) t attachments
Bidder
Must meet
1.8. Government Must meet Must meet Certification of
Compliance with conditions of ITC requiremen n/a
Owned Entity requirement requirement Compliance with
t
attachments
1.9. Renewed Renewed Reg.
Registration Certificate and
Certificate Bidder
Given from Ministry of Urban Must meet
from OUDB Must meet Must meet Certification of
Development Housing and requiremen n/a
or certificate requirement requirement Compliance with
Construction renewed for 2011EC. t
of compliance attachments
from
MOC&UD.
The Average annual turnover calculated
Bidder
1.10. Average as total certified payments received for Must meet
Must meet Certification of
Annul turn contracts in progress or completed requiremen >50% >70%
requirement Compliance with
over within the last 3 years (5,000,000.00) t
attachments
Eth Birr
Bidders certificate
of Compliance
with attachment.
Copy of External
Submission of audited balance sheets auditor renewed
and other financial statements for the legal certification
Must meet
1.11. Financial last 5 years to demonstrate the current Must meet /valid trade
requiremen >50% >70%
performance soundness of the Bidder's financial requirement license/ with
t
position and its prospective long term audited summary
profitability. report and detail
audited
documents
(Balance sheet
, profit & loss
Page 3 of 23
CRITERIA
Consultant’s
Requirement Single
Entity Each
Partners One
Partner
Combined Partner
statement ) and
receipt of profit
taxes
2.6
(a). The technical evaluation criteria and their weighting points that indicate their level
of importance are determined, as follows:
Propo Documentation Required

rtiona
Priority Name of criteria l
points
in %
Consultants must demonstrate that it will have the
personnel for the key positions that meet the following
requirements; Renewed employment agreement must be
attached for 2011 E.C from labor and social affairs bureau
if not, all value for individual personnel will not be
considered.
(a) Head (Coordinator) of field and Laboratory works Technical Proposal Form
 CV (3% points) Renewed professional License with attachments, all
(3% points) Renewed Employment agreement 9 attachments should be get
(3% points) Authorized bodies
certification and copy of
1 (b) Senior Geotechnical Engineering/Engineering original
Geologist
 CV (2% points) Renewed professional License 8
(3% points) Renewed Employment agreement
(3% points)
(b) Chief Driller 8
(c) Assistant Driller 5
(d) Laboratory Head 8
(e) Laboratory Technicians 7
Total points for criterion (1): 45 %
Adequacy of the proposed methodology and work plan
in responding to the Terms of Reference:
(a) Technical approach and methodology 5
2
(b) Work plan 5
(c) Organization and staffing 5
Total points for criterion (2): 15%
3. The consultant has successfully participated as prime Consultants’ Certification
Specific consultant, in contract within the last six years, two of Compliance with
projects with a value of at least 5,000,000.00 (Five million) attachments ; The

Page 4 of 23
each and above , that have been successfully and document(agreements,

substantially completed and that are similar to the proposed supplementary agreements,
experien Works (in building construction). final payments, good will
 2 Sites 20 performance letters, etc. )
ce of the
to be attached for this
Consulta  1 Site 10 criterion should also be
nts  None certified by the appropriate
relevant Employer also should
to the disclose the date, year
assignm 0 within which the work is
done, & the total project
ent
cost, copies of payment
certificates need to be
explicitly attached.
Suitability of the transfer of knowledge (training)
program:
(a) Relevance of training program 1
4
(b) Training approach and methodology 3
(c) Qualifications of experts and trainers 1
The Consultant must demonstrate access to, or availability Bidder Certification of
of, financial resources such as liquid assets, unencumbered Compliance with
real assets, lines of credit, and other financial means, other attachments
than any contractual advance payments to meet the Current Bank
following cash-flow requirement (2,000,000.00) shall be 5% statement, facilitated
5
submitted from Banks. accesses to credit
original letter from
Bank
6. The 2. drilling machines 5%
equipmen
t for the
assignme 1. drilling machines 5%
nt
Σ Total Points for the Five Criteria (1+2+3+4+5+6) 100
(b). The Public Body will evaluate any technical evaluation criterion using the following
scoring scale:
SCORING DESCRIPTION
Exceeds the requirements of the criteria significantly and

10 Excellent
in beneficial ways/very desirable
Exceeds the requirements of the criteria in ways which are

9 Very Good
beneficial to our needs
7-8 Good Fully meets the requirement of the criteria

Page 5 of 23
SCORING DESCRIPTION
Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criteria.

5-6 Average
May be lacking in some areas that are not critical.
Addresses all of the requirements of the criterion to the

3-4 Poor
minimum acceptable level.
Minimally addresses some, but not all, of the requirements

1-2 Very Poor
of the criteria or lacking in critical areas.
Does not satisfy the requirements of the criteria in any

0 Unsatisfactory
manner.
2.7 Individual weighted scores for all technical evaluation criteria shall be weighted
according to the set proportional weighting factors. The weighted result shall be
calculated by multiplying the score by the proportional weighting point of the individual
criterion.
2.8 Consultants getting score less than 70% in the evaluation shall be rejected and the
envelopes containing the Financial Proposals of those Consultants scoring 70% and
above shall be opened.
3. Evaluation and Comparison of Financial Proposals
According to the methodology defined in the Public Procurement Proclamation and Directive the
Public Body shall select the successful Consultant by applying the following method:
3.1 Quality and Cost Based Selection
(a). In the financial evaluation, the highest point shall be given to the lowest priced Financial Proposal,
and conversely, the lowest point shall be given to the highest priced Financial Proposal; among tech-
nically qualified Proposals. The points given to other Consultants shall be determined depending on
their price offers.
(b). From the total merit points to be given for proposals submitted by Consultants the share of Technical
Proposal shall be 80% and the remaining 20% shall be the share of Financial Proposal.
(c). The Public Body shall then add the technical score to the Financial Proposal Price score to determine
the aggregated (total) Bid Proposal score and final ranking of Proposals.

Page 6 of 23
(d). The Public Body shall award the contract to the Proposal that has the highest point in the total sum
of results of the technical and financial evaluation.
(e). Where two Consultants get equal merit points in the evaluation, preference shall be given to local
Consultants.
(f). The Public Body may require Consultants scoring equal merit points in the evaluation to submit fur -
ther Proposals on certain aspects of the Request of Proposals with a view to identifying the successful
Consultant.
(g). Where by reason of the Consultants scoring equal merit points not submitting final proposals they
are invited to submit, or by reason of the evaluation result of the final proposals submitted by the
Consultants being still equal the successful Consultant cannot be singled out, the successful Consul-
tant shall be determined by casting lot in the presence, as far as possible, of the Consultants con -
cerned
4. Domestic Preference
4.1 If the ITC Clause 34 so specifies, the Public Body will grant a margin of preference to
local consultancy companies for the purpose of bid comparison, in accordance with the
procedures outlined in subsequent paragraphs.
(a). Responsive Financial Proposals shall be classified into the following groups:
(i) Group A: Financial Proposals submitted by local consultancy companies meet-

ing the criteria of ITC Sub-Clause 34.3; and
(ii) Group B: all other Financial Proposals.
4.2 For the purpose of further evaluation and comparison of Financial Proposals only, an
amount equal to 7.5% percent of the evaluated Financial Proposals' prices determined
in accordance with ITC Sub-Clause 34.3 shall be added to all Financial Proposals
classified in Group B.
5. Evaluation of Multiple Contracts
Since in accordance with ITC Sub-Clause 39.6 the Public Body be allowed to award one or multiple lots to
more than one Consultant, the following methodology shall be used for award of multiple contracts:
To determine the lowest-evaluated lot combinations, the Public Body shall:
(a). evaluate only lots or contracts that include at least the percentages of items per lot and quantity per
item as specified in ITC 19.7;
(b). take into account:

Page 7 of 23
(i) the lowest-evaluated Proposal for each lot that meets the requirement of evalua-
tion criteria;
(ii) the price reduction per lot and the methodology for their application as offered
by the Consultant in its Financial Proposal; and
(iii) the contract-award sequence that provides the optimum economic combination,
taking into account any limitations due to constraints in supply or execution ca-
pacity.
B. Evaluation Criteria for Design Revision and Adaptation

This section, read in conjunction with Section 1, Instructions to Consultants and Section 2, Bid Data Sheet,
contains all the factors, methods and criteria that the Public Body shall use to evaluate a bid and determine
whether a Consultant has the required qualifications. No other factors, methods or criteria shall be used.
The following qualification criteria will be applied to Consultants. In the case of bids submitted by
a consortium, these qualification criteria will be applied to the consortium as a whole:
(a) At least 8 staff currently work for the Consultant;
No Position Education Renewed Professional Min. years of Min.

Certificate experience after Number
graduation
MSC/BSC
1 Co-ordinator Architecture Practicing Professional
8/10 1
Architect
2 Architect Architecture Professional Architect 6/8 1
3 Structural engineer Civil Engineering Practicing Professional
8/10 1
Structural Engineer
4 Structural engineer Civil Engineering Professional Structural
6/8 1
Engineer
5 Sanitary engineer Water Technology Professional Sanitary Engineer
6/8 1
or Civil Engineering
6 Electrical engineer Electrical Professional Electrical
6/8 1
Engineering Engineer
7 Quantity surveyor Building Associate Engineering Aide
6/8 1
Technology

Page 8 of 23
8 Cad expert Architecture or Associate Engineer Aid 1,2) 2/4 1

Drafting
(a) The Consultant has successfully completed at least 3 contracts with a budget of at least that of this
contract in the past six years;
(a)The average annual calculated as total certified payments received for contracts in progress or completed
within the last Four years must exceed the amount of the Financial Proposal
provided;
Proposals;
been met Technical Proposals shall be evaluated and scored in accordance with ITC
Clause 37 by taking into account the following technical evaluation criteria in order of
their importance and their proportional weight in the total system of evaluation, as
specified below:
(a) The technical evaluation criteria and their weighting points that indicate their level of importance
are determined, as follows:

Page 9 of 23
Priority Name of criteria Proportional points in %
Qualifications and competence of the key professional staff engaged

in the consultancy service:
a. Co-ordinator
 CV (4% points) Renewed professional License (3% points) 10
Renewed Employment agreement (3% points)
b. Architect
c. Practicing Professional Structural Engineer
d. Professional Structural Engineer
1  CV (2% points) Renewed professional License (2% points) 6
e. Sanitary engineer
f. Electrical engineer
g. Quantity surveyor
h. Cad expert 3
Adequacy of the proposed methodology and work plan
(a) Technical approach and methodology 5
2
(b) Work plan 5
(c) Organization and staffing 5
3. The consultant has successfully participated as prime consultant, in
Specific contract within the last six years, three projects with a value of at least
experien 2,000,000.00 (Two million) each and above , that have been
ce of the successfully and substantially completed and that are similar to the
Consult proposed Works (in building construction). This Specific Experience
ants should be in G+10 and above buildings, neighborhood and mass
relevant housing projects of design works & modification
to the 3 design works & modification 20
assignm
ent 2 design works & modification 14
1 design works & modification 7

Suitability of the transfer of knowledge (training) program:
a) Relevance of training program 2
5 b) Training approach and methodology 2
c) Qualifications of experts and trainers 1
6 Membership of the firm on any relevant professional association 5%
Total Points for the Five Criteria (1+2+3+4+5+6)
Σ 100

Page 10 of 23
(b) The Public Body will evaluate any technical evaluation criterion using the follow-
ing scoring scale:
SCORING DESCRIPTION
Exceeds the requirements of the criteria significantly and in

10 Excellent
beneficial ways/very desirable

9 Very Good
Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criteria. May be

5-6 Average
lacking in some areas that are not critical.
Addresses all of the requirements of the criterion to the minimum

3-4 Poor
acceptable level.
Minimally addresses some, but not all, of the requirements of the

1-2 Very Poor
criteria or lacking in critical areas.
Unsatisfactor Does not satisfy the requirements of the criteria in any manner.
0
y
criterion.
(a) In the financial evaluation, the highest point shall be given to the lowest priced Financial Proposal,
and conversely, the lowest point shall be given to the highest priced Financial Proposal; among

Page 11 of 23
technically qualified Proposals. The points given to other Consultants shall be determined depend-
ing on their price offers.
(b) From the total merit points to be given for proposals submitted by Consultants the share of Techni -
cal Proposal shall be 80% and the remaining 20% shall be the share of Financial Proposal.
(c) The Public Body shall then add the technical score to the Financial Proposal Price score to deter-
mine the aggregated (total) Bid Proposal score and final ranking of Proposals.
(d) The Public Body shall award the contract to the Proposal that has the highest point in the total sum
(e) Where two Consultants get equal merit points in the evaluation, preference shall be given to local
Consultants.
(f) The Public Body may require Consultants scoring equal merit points in the evaluation to submit
further Proposals on certain aspects of the Request of Proposals with a view to identifying the suc-
cessful Consultant.
(g) Where by reason of the Consultants scoring equal merit points not submitting final proposals they
cerned
(a) Responsive Financial Proposals shall be classified into the following groups:
(i) Group A: Financial Proposals submitted by local consultancy companies

meeting the criteria of ITC Sub-Clause 34.3; and
Page 12 of 23
(a) evaluate only lots or contracts that include at least the percentages of items per lot and quantity per
(b) take into account:
(i) The lowest-evaluated Proposal for each lot that meets the requirement of
evaluation criteria;
(ii) The price reduction per lot and the methodology for their application as of-
fered by the Consultant in its Financial Proposal; and
(iii) the contract-award sequence that provides the optimum economic combina-
tion, taking into account any limitations due to constraints in supply or exe-
cution capacity
C. Evaluation criteria for Site Work Design

(a)At least 7 staff currently work for the Consultant;
N Position Education Renewed professional Min years of experience Min No

o certificate. after graduation
1 Co-ordinator Architecture or urban Practicing professional 10 1

planning architect or planner
2 Architect planner Architecture or urban professional architect/planner 6 1

planning
3 Landscape Environmental professional landscape 4 1

architect planning and architect
landscape architect

Page 13 of 23
4 Electrical Electrical engineer Professional electrical 4 1

engineer engineering
5 Sanitary eng. Sanitary/hydraulics Professional Sanitary eng 4 1
Engineer
6 Graduate Architect/Civil Graduate Architect/Civil 2 1

Architect/Civil engineering, engineer /surveyor
engineer Surveying
/surveyor
7 Cad expert Architecture or Associate Engineer Aid 1,2) 4 1
Drafting
(a) The Consultant must provide at least Three Certificates of satisfactory execution of contracts provided
by contracting parties to the contracts successfully completed in the course of the past six years with a
budget of 1,000,000.00 ETB;
(a) The average annual calculated as total certified payments received for contracts in
progress or completed within the last five years must exceed 5,000,000.00 ETB
provided;
Proposals;
2.3 The Public Body will then analyse the Technical Proposals' conformity in relation to the

Page 14 of 23
specified below:
(a) The technical evaluation criteria and their weighting points that indicate their level of importance
are determined, as follows: The following qualification criteria will be applied to Bidders:
Proportio Documentation
Priority Name of criteria nal points Required
in %
Consultants must demonstrate that it will have the personnel
for the key positions that meet the following requirements;
Renewed employment agreement must be attached for 2011
E.C from labor and social affairs bureau if not, all value for
individual personnel will not be considered.
(a)Coordinator Technical
 CV (3% points) Renewed professional License Proposal Form
8
(2.5% points) Renewed Employment agreement with attachments,
(2.5% points) All attachments
(b) Professional Architect /Planner should be get
 CV (3% points) Renewed professional License 8 Authorized
(2.5% points) Renewed Employment agreement bodies
(2.5% points) certification and
(c)Professional landscape Architect /Planner 8 copy of original
 CV (3% points) Renewed professional License
2 (2.5% points) Renewed Employment agreement
(2.5% points)
(d) Professional electrical engineer 8
(2.5% points) Renewed Employment agreement
(2.5% points)
(e) Professional sanitary/hydraulic engineer. 5
(1.5% points)
(f) Graduate architect, civil engineer and surveyor 8
(2.5% points)
(g) Cad expert 5
Adequacy of the proposed methodology and
work plan
3 (a)Technical approach and methodology 5
(b)Work plan 10
(c)Organization and staffing 5
4. The consultant has successfully participated as prime Consultants’

Page 15 of 23
Specif consultant, in contract within the last six years, three Certification of
ic projects with a value of at least 1,000,000.00 (one million) Compliance with
each and above , that have been successfully and attachments; The
experi substantially completed and that are similar to the proposed document
ence Works (in site work and land scape design). (agreements,
of the  3 design works 20 supplementary
Consu  2 design works 14
agreements, final
ltants payments, good will
 1 design works performance letters,
releva etc. ) to be attached
nt to for this criterion
the 7 should also be
assign certified by the
ment appropriate Employer
also should disclose
Total points for criterion (3): the date, year within
which the work is
done, & the total
20% project cost, copies of
payment certificates
need to be explicitly
attached.
Suitability of the transfer of knowledge
(training) program:
(a)Relevance of training program 1
5
(b)Training approach and methodology 3
(c)Qualifications of experts and trainers 1
Participation by Ethiopians among proposed
6 5%
key staff
Σ Total Points for the Five Criteria (2+3+4+5+6) 100
(b) The Public Body will evaluate any technical evaluation criterion using the follow-
ing scoring scale:
SCORING DESCRIPTION
Exceeds the requirements of the criteria significantly and in

10 Excellent
beneficial ways/very desirable

9 Very Good
Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criteria. May

5-6 Average
be lacking in some areas that are not critical.
Addresses all of the requirements of the criterion to the

3-4 Poor
minimum acceptable level.

Page 16 of 23
SCORING DESCRIPTION
Minimally addresses some, but not all, of the requirements of

1-2 Very Poor
the criteria or lacking in critical areas.
Does not satisfy the requirements of the criteria in any

0 Unsatisfactory
manner.
criterion.
(a) In the financial evaluation, the highest point shall be given to the lowest priced Financial Proposal,
and conversely, the lowest point shall be given to the highest priced Financial Proposal; among
technically qualified Proposals. The points given to other Consultants shall be determined depend-
ing on their price offers.
(b) From the total merit points to be given for proposals submitted by Consultants the share of Techni -
cal Proposal shall be 80% and the remaining 20% shall be the share of Financial Proposal.
(c) The Public Body shall then add the technical score to the Financial Proposal Price score to deter-
mine the aggregated (total) Bid Proposal score and final ranking of Proposals.
(d) The Public Body shall award the contract to the Proposal that has the highest point in the total sum
(e) Where two Consultants get equal merit points in the evaluation, preference shall be given to local
Consultants.
(f) The Public Body may require Consultants scoring equal merit points in the evaluation to submit
further Proposals on certain aspects of the Request of Proposals with a view to identifying the suc-
cessful Consultant.

Page 17 of 23
(g) Where by reason of the Consultants scoring equal merit points not submitting final proposals they
cerned.
(a) Responsive Financial Proposals shall be classified into the following groups:
(i) Group A: Financial Proposals submitted by local consultancy companies

meeting the criteria of ITC Sub-Clause 34.3; and
(a) evaluate only lots or contracts that include at least the percentages of items per lot and quantity per
(b) take into account:
(i) the lowest-evaluated Proposal for each lot that meets the requirement of
evaluation criteria;
(ii) the price reduction per lot and the methodology for their application as of-
fered by the Consultant in its Financial Proposal; and
(iii) the contract-award sequence that provides the optimum economic combina-
tion, taking into account any limitations due to constraints in supply or exe-
cution capacity.

Page 18 of 23
(i)
A. Evaluation criteria for Supervision and Contract Administration

(a). At least 23 staff currently work for the Consultant;
Require
No Experience in Similar Works
Position d
. (MSC/BSC)
Number
1 Coordinator 1 10/12 years
2 Resident Engineer 3 8/6 years
Intermittent Structural 1 8/6 years
3 Engineer
4 Intermittent Geotechnical 1 8/6 years
Engineer
5 Intermittent Electrical 1 8/6 years
Engineer
6 Intermittent Mechanical 1 8/6 years
Engineer
7 Intermittent Sanitary 1 8/6 years
Engineer
8 Intermittent Architect 1 8/6 years
9 Office Engineer 1 4/6 years
10 Site inspector 35 4 years and above BSC/6 years
and above with diploma
11 Secretary 1 2 years BSC/4 years with
diploma
(a). The Consultant has successfully completed at least three contracts with a budget of at least that of this
contract in the past six years;
(b).
(a). The average annual calculated as total certified payments received for contracts in progress or com-
pleted within the last five years must exceed 5,000,000.00 ETB

Page 19 of 23

provided;
Proposals;
specified below:
(a). The technical evaluation criteria and their weighting points that indicate their level of importance are
determined, as follows:
Pro
port
iona
Priority Name of criteria l
poin
ts in
%
Consultants must demonstrate that it will have the personnel
for the key positions that meet the following requirements;
Renewed employment agreement must be attached for 2011
E.C from labor and social affairs bureau if not, all value for
individual personnel will not be considered.
Coordinator Technical Proposal Form
7 with attachments, all
 CV (3% points) Renewed professional License (2%
attachments should be get
points) Renewed Employment agreement (2% points) Authorized bodies
Resident Engineer certification and copy of
 CV (2% points) Renewed professional License (1.5% 5
original
1 points) Renewed Employment agreement (1.5%
points)
Intermittent Structural Engineer
 CV (2% points) Renewed professional License (1.5% 5
points) Renewed Employment agreement (1.5%
points)
Intermittent Geotechnical Engineer 5
 CV (2% points) Renewed professional License (1.5%
points)

Page 20 of 23
Intermittent Electrical Engineer 5

points)
Intermittent Mechanical Engineer 5
points)
Intermittent Sanitary Engineer 5
points)
Intermittent Architect 5
points)
Office Engineer
 CV (1.5% points) Renewed professional License (1% 3.5
points) Renewed Employment agreement (1% points)
Site inspector
 CV (1.5% points) Renewed professional License (1% 3.5
points) Renewed Employment agreement (1% points)
Secretary 1
Adequacy of the proposed methodology and
work plan
2 (d) Technical approach and methodology 5
(e) Work plan 10
(f) Organization and staffing 5
The consultant has successfully participated as prime Consultants’ Certification
consultant, in contract within the last six years, three projects of Compliance with
with a value of at least 4,000,000.00 (Four million) each and attachments; The
above , that have been successfully and substantially completed document (agreements,
and that are similar to the proposed Works (in building supplementary
3. construction). This Specific Experience should be in agreements, final
payments, good will
Specific G+10 and above buildings, neighborhood and mass performance letters, etc.)
experien housing projects of site work designs, to be attached for this
ce of the Construction Supervision and Contract criterion should also be
Consulta Administration certified by the
nts 3 designs, Construction Supervision and appropriate Employer also
20 should disclose the date,
relevant Contract Administration
year within which the
to the work is done, & the total
assignme 2 designs, Construction Supervision and project cost, copies of
nt Contract Administration 14 payment certificates need
to be explicitly attached.
1 designs, Construction Supervision and
7
Contract Administration

Page 21 of 23
Suitability of the transfer of knowledge (training)

program:
a) Relevance of training program 2
4
b) Training approach and methodology 2
c) Qualifications of experts and trainers 1
The Consultant must demonstrate access to, or availability of, Bidder Certification of
financial resources such as liquid assets, unencumbered real Compliance with
assets, lines of credit, and other financial means, other than any attachments
contractual advance payments to meet the following cash-flow Current Bank
5 requirement (2,000,000.00) shall be submitted from 5% statement, facilitated
Banks. accesses to credit
original letter from
Bank
Σ Total Points for the Five Criteria (1+2+3+4+5) 100
(b). The Public Body will evaluate any technical evaluation criterion using the following scoring scale:
SCORING DESCRIPTION
Exceeds the requirements of the criteria significantly and in beneficial ways/very
10 Excellent
desirable
9 Very Good Exceeds the requirements of the criteria in ways which are beneficial to our needs
Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criteria. May be lacking in

5-6 Average
some areas that are not critical.
Addresses all of the requirements of the criterion to the minimum acceptable
3-4 Poor
level.
Minimally addresses some, but not all, of the requirements of the criteria or
1-2 Very Poor
lacking in critical areas.
0 Unsatisfactory Does not satisfy the requirements of the criteria in any manner.
criterion.
(a). 3.1 Quality and Cost Based Selection
(b). In the financial evaluation, the highest point shall be given to the lowest priced Financial Proposal,
and conversely, the lowest point shall be given to the highest priced Financial Proposal; among tech-
nically qualified Proposals. The points given to other Consultants shall be determined depending on
their price offers.
(c). From the total merit points to be given for proposals submitted by Consultants the share of Technical
Proposal shall be 80% and the remaining 20% shall be the share of Financial Proposal.
(d). The Public Body shall then add the technical score to the Financial Proposal Price score to determine
the aggregated (total) Bid Proposal score and final ranking of Proposals.
Page 22 of 23
(e). The Public Body shall award the contract to the Proposal that has the highest point in the total sum
(f). Where two Consultants get equal merit points in the evaluation, preference shall be given to local
Consultants.
(g). The Public Body may require Consultants scoring equal merit points in the evaluation to submit fur -
ther Proposals on certain aspects of the Request of Proposals with a view to identifying the successful
Consultant.
(h). Where by reason of the Consultants scoring equal merit points not submitting final proposals they
cerned
3.2 Domestic Preference
(a). Responsive Financial Proposals shall be classified into the following groups:
(i) Group A: Financial Proposals submitted by local consultancy companies meet-
ing the criteria of ITC Sub-Clause 34.3; and
(a). evaluate only lots or contracts that include at least the percentages of items per lot and quantity per
(b). take into account:
(i) The lowest-evaluated Proposal for each lot that meets the requirement of evalu-
ation criteria;
(ii) The price reduction per lot and the methodology for their application as offered
by the Consultant in its Financial Proposal; and
(iii) the contract-award sequence that provides the optimum economic combination,
taking into account any limitations due to constraints in supply or execution ca-
pacity.

Page 23 of 23

Section 3 Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 3 Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 3: Evaluation and Qualification Criteria

Section 3. Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

(a). At least 14 staff currently work for the Consultant;

1 Head (Coordinator) of 1 Min.BSc Degree in Geology/ 10 years CV to be

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

1.3 Financial Standing of the Consultant (ITC Clause 15)

2. Evaluation of the Technical Proposal

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

Propo Documentation Required

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

each and above , that have been successfully and document(agreements,

Exceeds the requirements of the criteria significantly and

Exceeds the requirements of the criteria in ways which are

7-8 Good Fully meets the requirement of the criteria

Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criteria.

Addresses all of the requirements of the criterion to the

Minimally addresses some, but not all, of the requirements

Does not satisfy the requirements of the criteria in any

3. Evaluation and Comparison of Financial Proposals

3.1 Quality and Cost Based Selection

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

(i) Group A: Financial Proposals submitted by local consultancy companies meet-

(ii) Group B: all other Financial Proposals.

5. Evaluation of Multiple Contracts

To determine the lowest-evaluated lot combinations, the Public Body shall:

(b). take into account:

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

B. Evaluation Criteria for Design Revision and Adaptation

1. Professional, Technical, and Financial Qualification Criteria

(a) At least 8 staff currently work for the Consultant;

No Position Education Renewed Professional Min. years of Min.

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

8 Cad expert Architecture or Associate Engineer Aid 1,2) 2/4 1

1.3 Financial Standing of the Consultant (ITC Clause 15)

2. Evaluation of the Technical Proposal

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

Priority Name of criteria Proportional points in %

Qualifications and competence of the key professional staff engaged

1 design works & modification 7

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

Exceeds the requirements of the criteria significantly and in

Exceeds the requirements of the criteria in ways which are

7-8 Good Fully meets the requirement of the criteria

Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criteria. May be

Addresses all of the requirements of the criterion to the minimum

Minimally addresses some, but not all, of the requirements of the

3. Evaluation and Comparison of Financial Proposals

3.1 Quality and Cost Based Selection

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

(i) Group A: Financial Proposals submitted by local consultancy companies

(ii) Group B: all other Financial Proposals.

5. Evaluation of Multiple Contracts

To determine the lowest-evaluated lot combinations, the Public Body shall:

(b) take into account:

C. Evaluation criteria for Site Work Design

1. Professional, Technical, and Financial Qualification Criteria

(a)At least 7 staff currently work for the Consultant;

N Position Education Renewed professional Min years of experience Min No

1 Co-ordinator Architecture or urban Practicing professional 10 1

2 Architect planner Architecture or urban professional architect/planner 6 1

3 Landscape Environmental professional landscape 4 1

RFP-Consultancy Service (NCB) - Prepared by the FPPA (Version 1, July 2011)

4 Electrical Electrical engineer Professional electrical 4 1