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 tender’s 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 eProcurement 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
1

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

Scorecheck grade = [insert] PASS/FAIL: [insert]

If No, this equates to a PASS. If Yes, the supplier should be considered a high risk. Refer to APUC’s Finance Manager for justification and a decision

PASS/FAIL & JUSTIFICATION: [insert]

3 audited accounts

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 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 Auditor’s 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 Audit Opinion=unqualified /qualified PASS/FAIL: [insert]

4

OVERALL RESULT: PASS/FAIL: [insert]

5 15.0 3.2 12.2 Quality Threshold reached? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Score (out of 5) 3.6 4.8 22.4 4. clarification.0 3.4 = 40% x 63.00 37. & PTN results Please note you should only type in cells highlighted in yellow.0 4.0 4.2 = 40% x 37.0 4.0 3.000.0 Individual Quality Threshold (optional) 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Quality Threshold reached? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Score (out of 5) 4.4 Yes £370.2 27.0 3.6 4.APUC LTD .000.0 2 59.000.2 = Tenderer 2 price = Tenderer 2 price score = 60% x 69.00 49.7 3. Board member 2.4 4.0 12.4 4.67 = 50 points Tenderer 1 price = Tenderer 1 price score = 60% x 79.4 4.0 3. Type shown in italics is for illustation purposes only.7 Overall score Order of tenders (ranking) Comments 67.4 69.0 3.8 3.0 4.00 63.6 25.0 3.6 79.3 Quality Threshold reached? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tenderer 3 Score (out of 5) 3. Procurement title: Project technical & quality weighting (%): Project price weighting (%): QUALITY SCORES 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 =) OVERALL SCORES 60 40 Project X Members of Tender Board: Board member 1.0 3. Board member 3 Overall Quality Threshold (optional): Tenderer 1 Criteria Weight (must total 100) 30 30 20 5 5 5 5 100 60 Tenderer 2 Weighted Score 28.8 16.2 Yes £480.4 Weighted Score 18.6 4.0 4.0 Yes £430.0 4.0 4.6 74.6 Weighted Score 19.6 £426. weightings and data will vary from project to project.1 1 67.5 44.6 4.3 4.3 41.Tender Evaluation Template Use template to also record bid evaluation.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 = Project quality weighting x quality score Project price weighting x price score 47.5 3 Signed by members of the Tender Board (for file copy ) _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Date____________________________________ .4 19.2 4.3 = Tenderer 3 price = Tenderer 3 price score = 60% x 74.0 19. Actual criteria.0 = 40% x 49.666.

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 .

Acceptable response detailing how the system fully meets minimum categorisation requirements 3 . 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% Barely adequate levels of categorisation that just meet minimum requirements 2. Reporting capabilities poor. does not 80% meet minimum requirements 1 No answer/non relevant response 0. Acceptable reporting capabilities that fully meet but do not exceed minimum requirement 3.Example Scoring Rationale Section Weighting Question % Weighting 30 No answer/Poor answer that does not meet minimum requirements 0-1 Adequate/Acceptable 2-3 2-3 Barely adequate reporting capabilities that just meet minimum requirements 2.

6 3 1.4 3.4 0.3 3.2 1.6 0.7 2.6 4.0 1.6 0.8 0.0 4 3. Excellent response which demonstrates the tools ability to deliver useful categorisation far in excess of minimum requirements 5 Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score 4.6 .4 0.5 1.5 4.8 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 0.0 2.coring Rationale Tenderer 1 Better than average/Exceptional 4-5 Good reporting capabilities that demonstrably go beyond the minimum requirements 4.4 1.6 1 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.

0 3 2.6 0.3 3.1 4.0 2.8 4.nderer 1 Justification for scoring and additional comments Score (out of 5) Tenderer 2 Tendere Weighted Score Section Score 3.0 4 3.4 4.3 0.8 1 0.4 3 3 4 2 1 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 2 4 5 0.5 1.5 3.3 2.8 0.6 1.4 2.6 1.6 1.4 0.4 2 .

5 1.4 4.Tenderer 3 Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score 3.5 4.6 4.6 0.4 4 4 5 3 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 0.4 1.6 .4 0.5 0.4 0.6 3 1.5 3.2 3 2.4 3.0 4 3.2 1.0 1.6 1 4.0 2.6 0.

. Reports must be user-friendly.8. They also need to confirm if they can split into National. Sectoral and regional reports. getting back to raw data.1.1 8. predefined and requiring little or no configuration.1. They will score 3 marks for all of the above. Must also include abc analysis. The award of an extra point (5 marks) will be given to exceptional additional reports. including the provison of user defined reports.1.1 Reports Contractors to inform what reports they can provide from the master list. We will score 4 marks for the provision of extra reporting capabilities. Reports should be exportable to Excel and powerpoint.1 TECHNICAL AND QUALITY CRITERIA FUNCTIONALITY 8. They need to confirm that they can provide granular level of detail from their reports ie.

50% 0.Percenta Actual Technical & ge Score Score Quality Criteria Company Company overall Section Percentage A For A For Input Percentage Score Input Overall percenta Percentag ge score for each e Score Company question A of tender Actual Score Company A For Input 65.00% 40.00% 2 5.000% .00% 12.

Percenta ge Score Company A For Percentage Score Company A Input Overall percenta ge score for each question of tender Percenta Actual ge Score Score Company Company A For A For Input Input Overall percenta Percentag ge score for each e Score Company question A of tender 0.50% 0.000% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 12.000% .

8 84. these costs should be converted to a score out of 100.Example of a Bid Cost Evaluation When the total cost of each bid has been established.000 £124. 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 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. the lowest cost should be awarded a score of 100.000 .5 £120.000 £142. Since the lower the cost the better.

verted to a score out of 100. .

00 52.00 Based on Daily Costs .226.00 41.325.051 Formula for Price Score Score = ( x100 )+50 Mean Price £172.Criterion Matrix Price Score Company A Company B Company C Company D Price Score Price Score Price Score Price £187.453 10.21 Mean Price .628 £119.500.700.Bid Price Mean Price 21.525 £167.379.131 £214.Evaluation .00 Weighted score (40 %) 16.00 25.

Company D Score 80.716 32.286 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful