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 tender’s 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

5 The template can be used to test different price and quality criteria weighting scenarios to assist in these decisions.6

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

10 It is important to ensure that Schedule 7 questions are copied directly into the evaluation criteria on the template.11

12 The template assumes three tenders have been returned. More can be added by copying and pasting the relevant cells.13

14

15 It may be that a form for each UIG member is used and all information therein be transferred to a master.16

17

18

Example Scoring Rationale:0= no submission/submission not relevant1= submission partially relevant but poor2= submission partially relevant and acceptable3= submission completely relevant and acceptable4= submission completely relevant and good5= 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

*items 2-3 if item 4 is not applicable

1If not, the supplier should be eliminated from the tender process.

2 Is the annual contract value greater than 25% of the main supplier turnover?

3If the score is less than 1, the supplier should be categorised as a FAIL

4

OVERALL RESULT:

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

·         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

Equifax Scorecheck mark must be Grade D or above which should be categorised as a PASS Scorecheck grade = [insert]PASS/FAIL: [insert]

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 Analysis of Accounts procedure

PASS/FAIL & JUSTIFICATION: [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

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 audited accounts

Current Ratio result = [insert]

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/qualifiedPASS/FAIL: [insert] PASS/FAIL: [insert]

APUC LTD - Tender Evaluation Template Please note you should only type in cells highlighted in yellow. Type shown in italics is for illustation

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

QUALITY SCORES Tenderer 1 Tenderer 2 Tenderer 3

Example Technical & Quality Criteria Score (out of 5) Score (out of 5) Score (out of 5)

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

PRICE SCORESTender price (whole life costs) Tenderer 1 price = £430,000.00 Tenderer 2 price = £370,000.00 Tenderer 3 price = £480,000.00Price 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 SCORESProject 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 59.5Order of tenders (ranking) 1 2 3

Comments

Signed by members of the Tender Board _________________________________________________________________________ Date____________________________________(for file copy ) _________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Use template to also record bid evaluation, clarification, & PTN results

Individual Quality

Threshold (optional)

Criteria Weight

(must total 100)

Quality Threshold reached?

Weighted Score

Quality Threshold reached?

Weighted Score

Quality Threshold reached?

Weighted Score

Q1

Q2Q3

Q4Q5Q6

Q7Q8

Q9Q10Q11

Q12

Q13Q14Q15

Q16Q17

Example Technical & Quality Criteria Functionality

Tenderers must descibe what reports are available…

What categories of data can be appended…What functionality…MethodologyDescribe how the system…What processes…

Future Developments

Training

After sales assistance and support

Security

Ease of use & aesthetic characteristics

Example Scoring Rationale

Adequate/Acceptable 2-330 0-1 2-3

80%

10%10%

3070%20%10%

2050%50%

560%20%20%

5100%

540%40%20%

560%40%

Section Weighting %

Question Weighting

No answer/Poor answer that does not meet minimum requirements

No answer/non-relevant response 0; Reporting capabilities poor, does not meet minimum requirements 1

Barely adequate reporting capabilities that just meet minimum requirements 2; Acceptable reporting capabilities that fully meet but do not exceed minimum requirement 3;

No answer/non relevant response 0; Less than minimum expected categorisation 1

Barely adequate levels of categorisation that just meet minimum requirements 2; Acceptable response detailing how the system fully meets minimum categorisation requirements 3

Example Scoring Rationale Tenderer 1

Better than average/Exceptional Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score4-5 4.8

5 4

4 0.44 0.4

3.74 2.83 0.63 0.3

3.03 1.53 1.5

4.04 2.43 0.65 1

4.04 4

3.43 1.24 1.63 0.6

4.65 34 1.6

Good reporting capabilities that demonstrably go beyond the minimum requirements 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; Excellent response which demonstrates the tools ability to deliver useful categorisation far in excess of minimum requirements 5

Tenderer 1 Tenderer 2

Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score3.0

3 2.4

3 0.33 0.3

3.34 2.82 0.41 0.1

4.05 2.53 1.5

3.63 1.85 14 0.8

4.04 4

3.64 1.64 1.62 0.4

4.44 2.45 2

Justification for scoring and additional comments

Tenderer 3

Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score3.2

3 2.4

4 0.44 0.4

4.55 3.53 0.64 0.4

3.03 1.53 1.5

4.04 2.43 0.65 1

4.04 4

3.43 1.24 1.63 0.6

4.65 34 1.6

8.1

8.1.1 FUNCTIONALITY

8.1.1.1 Reports

TECHNICAL AND QUALITY CRITERIA

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 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.

65.00%

40.00%

2 5.00% 12.50% 0.000%

Technical & Quality Criteria overall Percentage

Section Percentage Score

Actual Score Company A For Input

Percentage Score Company A For Input

Percentage Score Company A

Overall percentage score for each question of tender

Actual Score Company A For Input

0.00% 12.50% 0.000% 0.00% 12.50% 0.000%

Percentage Score Company A For Input

Percentage Score Company A

Overall percentage score for each question of tender

Actual Score Company A For Input

Percentage Score Company A For Input

Percentage Score Company A

Overall percentage score for each question of tender

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 £120,000Bid B £124,000Bid C £142,000

The cost score for each bid is:

Bid A = 100 x 120/120 = 100Bid B = 100 x 120/124 = 96.8Bid C = 100 x 120/142 = 84.5

When the total cost of each bid has been established, these costs should be converted to a score out of 100.

Evaluation - Criterion Matrix

Company A Company B Company C Company DPrice Price Score Price Score Price Score PriceScore £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

Formula for Price ScoreMean Price - Bid Price x100 )+50Mean Price

Mean Price £172,226.00Based on Daily Costs

Score = (

Company D Score

80.71632.2864