Bid Evaluation Process

Overview
&
World Bank
Bid Evaluation
 Evaluation Process
• The evaluation of PQQ’s and Tenders is a crucial stage in the
procurement process

• It is essential that those engaged in procuring goods, services or

works ensure that the evaluation of its tenders is in accordance with:

a) Applicable international and national

rules that regulate the procurement
process ie The Public Contracts
Regulations 2006
b) PPR-2008
 Evaluation Panel
• All members of the Evaluation Panel must adhere to the principles underlying probity
and act in a manner consistent with Public Procurement Policy, the
Principles of Public Life and the Code of Ethics.

• Size, make up and experience of the Panel must reflect the scale and
complexity of the activity to be evaluated, including the degree of specialist
input consistent with the nature of the procurement.

• Evaluation Panel must have a minimum of three members and at least one
member should be a Gov. Representative. The Panel must have a Chair
person.

• All Panel Members must sign a Conflict of Interest Declaration and panel
members who are not public servants may be required to enter into a
Confidentiality Agreement.

• A person with any external personal, professional or monetary interests in

the tenders they are being asked to evaluate cannot remain on the Panel.
 Principles of Public Life (1)
SELFLESSNESS
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should
not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their
family, or their friends.

INTEGRITY
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other
obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in
in the performance of their official duties.

OBJECTIVITY
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding
contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public
office should make choices on merit.

ACCOUNTABILITY
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public
and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
 Principles of Public Life (2)
OPENNESS
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their
decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly
demands.

HONESTY
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating
to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a
way that protects the public interest.

LEADERSHIP
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by
leadership and example.

These principles apply to all aspects of public life.

 Guiding Principles of Public Procurement Rule
(1)
ACCOUNTABILITY: effective mechanisms must be in place in order to enable
Departmental Accounting Officers and their equivalents in other public bodies to
discharge their personal responsibility on issues of procurement risk and expenditure.

COMPETITIVE SUPPLY: procurement should be carried out by competition unless there

are convincing reasons to the contrary.

CONSISTENCY: suppliers, should, all other things being equal, be able to expect the
same general procurement policy across the public sector.

EFFECTIVENESS: public bodies should meet the commercial, regulatory and socio-
economic goals of government in a balanced manner appropriate to the procurement
requirement.

EFFICIENCY: procurement processes should be carried out as cost effectively as

possible.

FAIR-DEALING: suppliers should be treated fairly and without unfair discrimination,

including protection of commercial confidentiality where required. Public bodies
should not impose unnecessary burdens or constraints on suppliers or potential
suppliers.
 Guiding Principles of PPR

INTEGRATION: in line with the statutory duties on equality of opportunity and sustainable
development and the Executive’s policy on joined –up government, procurement policy
should pay due regard to the Executive’s other economic, social and environmental
policies, rather than cut across them.

INTEGRITY: there should be no corruption or collusion with suppliers or others.

INFORMED DECISION-MAKING: public bodies need to base decisions on accurate

information and to monitor requirements to ensure that they are being met.

LEGALITY: public bodies must conform to European Community and other legal
requirements.

RESPONSIVENESS: public bodies should endeavour to meet the aspirations, expectations

and needs of the community served by the procurement.

TRANSPARENCY: public bodies should ensure that there is openness and clarity on
procurement policy and its delivery.
 Role of Chairperson
The role of the Chairperson is to:

• Ensure panel members are appointed who have the necessary knowledge,
skills, competency and availability to carry out the evaluation

• Ensure panel members have no conflict of interest at all stages of the

process and that the appropriate conflict of interest
declarations/confidentiality agreements are completed

• Ensure all evaluation documents, including all evaluation comments,

justifications, marks, and amendments are fully documented, signed off and
dated by both the panel members and the Chairperson

• Conduct a moderation exercise, if required

• Be available to support with debriefing of unsuccessful Applicants/tenderers

 Role of Panel Members
The role of a Panel Member is to:

• Evaluate, in an open, proportionate and transparent manner each submission for

evidence of how the submission meets the requirements of the selection/award
criteria and to score the submission in accordance with the details contained in the
PPR/Tender Documents

• Confirm that they have no conflict of interest at all stages of the process and that they
have completed the appropriate conflict of interest declaration/confidentiality
agreement

• Ensure that they sign off and date all evaluation documents, including all evaluation
comments, justifications, marks, and amendments

• Ensure due cognisance is taken of the professional procurement advice provided by

the CoPE

• Contribute to a moderation exercise, if required

• Be available to support with debriefing of unsuccessful Applicants/tenderers

 Recording of Evaluation Scores
- Panel members must record individual scores against relevant
criteria, with substantiating notes. These notes will provide an
audit trail and form the basis of any debrief.

- A separate set of scores may be taken where presentations form

part of the process. This score should be added to the score for
the written submission. Contracts must never be awarded solely
on the basis of presentations.

- The Chairperson conducts a moderation procedure, producing a

score sheet of agreed, average or accumulated scores, in
accordance with the procedure set out in the PPR/tender
documents. This is circulated to the panel for review. This will
assist with feedback to unsuccessful applicants/tenderers, and
identify any inconsistencies in marking or errors.
 Panel Meetings
- The panel may meet to discuss and agree the
outcomes of the initial marking process and finalise
recommendations. The Chairperson will prepare
a formal record of all discussions and decisions taken
at panel meetings.

- The Contracting Authority or Body will not reconsider

the judgement of the Evaluation Panel. The
sole ground on which an appeal may normally be
made is one of improper procedure. Only if
investigation reveals a manifest irregularity in the
process will the scores be examined.
 WORLD BANK

Evaluation Process
(Goods/Works)

12
 BID EVALUATION
• Objective
– Secure goods/services at most economical cost
– Price only one factor
• Other factors
– Commercial
• Time of delivery/completion
• Terms of payment
• Terms of guarantee

13
 BID EVALUATION

• Other factors (cont’d)

– Technical
• Technical merits
• Operating cost
• Maintenance cost
• Efficiency
• Resale value
• Criteria
– Shall be stated in bid documents
– Ideally all factors quantified in monetary terms
14
 BID EVALUATION

• Bid opening
• Examination
• Cost comparison
– Price
– Price and commercial
– Price, commercial and technical
• Lowest evaluated bid
• Post qualification
• Award recommendation
• Evaluation report
• No objection 15
 BID OPENING

• Public opening
– Rationale
• Minutes to be recorded
• Single stage - single envelope
– Bid form
– Technical data
– Bid price schedule
– Bid security
16
 PRELIMINARY

EXAMINATION
• Clarification
– Permissible and warranted
– Cannot change substance of bid or price
• Confidentiality
– Important
• Examination of bids
– Is bid complete? Signed?
– Is bid security attached?
– Major deviations from bid conditions
• Computational Errors
– Figures/Words
– Unit rate/Total
– Misplacement of decimal point 17
 PRELIMINARY

EXAMINATION
• Technical Assessment - substantial
responsiveness

• Detailed evaluation only for substantially

responsive bids

18
 DEVIATIONS

• Unacceptable
– Late bid
– Unsigned bid
– Inadequate bid security
– Different prequalified firms and bidders
– Different price conditions
– Unacceptable alternative, timing and phasing
– Unacceptable sub-contracting
– Qualification of arbitration rules
– Unacceptable applicable law
19
 DEVIATIONS

• For Consideration
– Different payment terms
– Alternative methods/bids
– Minor omissions
– Limitation of liabilities
– Liquidated damages

20
 POSTQUALIFICATION

• Only for selected bidder

• Criteria (goods)
– Capacity
– Technical capability
– Product reputation
– Financial resources
– Parts and service
– Past performance
21
 POSTQUALIFICATION

• Criteria (works)
– Past experience (size/complexity)
– Personnel resources
– Equipment resources
– Financial capacity
– Litigation/arbitration history
• If there was prequalification, confirm that
bidder’s status is substantially the same
as
at prequalification 22
BID EVALUATION REPORT

• Content
– Reason for rejecting each bid
• Received after bid opening
• Incomplete
• Non-Responsive
– Commercial responsiveness
• Delivery
• Completion date
• Payment terms
• Warranty
23
BID EVALUATION REPORT

– Qualifications/alternatives
• Errors (arithmetic)
– Currency conversion
• Include publication official exchange rates
– Technical comparison
• Each criteria listed and compared (attach table)
– Responsive bid comparison
• Selection of lowest evaluated bid
• Postqualification of selected firm
• Recommendation for contract award
24
 AWARD CONTRACT

• Selected bidder should not be required

– To reduce price
– To undertake work not specified in bidding
document, or
– To modify the bid

25