Tender Evaluation Template Form

Published on December 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 50 | Comments: 0 | Views: 300
of 16
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

APUC LTD - Tender Evaluation Template
Use template to also record bid evaluation, clarification, & PTN results

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 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, Board member 2, 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 22.2 12.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.6 79.0 Yes £430,000.00 49.2 Quality Threshold reached? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Score (out of 5) 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.4 Weighted Score 18.0 19.8 16.0 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.4 69.4 Yes £370,000.00 63.3 41.6 25.3 Quality Threshold reached? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tenderer 3 Score (out of 5) 3.2 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.6 Weighted Score 19.2 27.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.6 74.2 Yes £480,000.00 37.5 44.5 15.0

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) 4.8 3.7 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.6

£426,666.67 = 50 points

Tenderer 1 price = Tenderer 1 price score = 60% x 79.0 = 40% x 49.2 =

Tenderer 2 price = Tenderer 2 price score = 60% x 69.4 = 40% x 63.3 =

Tenderer 3 price = Tenderer 3 price score = 60% x 74.2 = 40% x 37.5 =

Project quality weighting x quality score Project price weighting x price score

47.4 19.7

Overall score
Order of tenders (ranking) Comments

67.1 1

67.0 2

59.5 3

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

_________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

Date____________________________________

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 % 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; Acceptable reporting capabilities that fully meet but do not exceed minimum requirement 3;

No answer/non-relevant response 0; Reporting capabilities poor, does not 80% meet minimum requirements 1

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; Acceptable response detailing how the system fully meets minimum categorisation requirements 3

coring Rationale

Tenderer 1

Tendere

Better than average/Exceptional 4-5 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

Score (out of 5)

Weighted Score

Section Score 4.8

5

4

4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4

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

Tenderer 2

Tenderer 3

Score (out of 5)

Weighted Score

Section Score 3.0

Score (out of 5)

Weighted Score

3

2.4

3

2.4

3 3 4 2 1 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 2 4 5

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

4 4 5 3 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4

0.4 0.4 3.5 0.6 0.4 1.5 1.5 2.4 0.6 1 4 1.2 1.6 0.6 3 1.6

Tenderer 3

Section Score 3.2

4.5

3.0

4.0

4.0 3.4

4.6

The Quality Criteria Scores worksheet is only used to evaluate tenderers technical and quality award critiera, not price. The scores will be automatically updated in the Price and Quality Combined worksheet. This template can be used to evaluate any type of tender for supplies, works or 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 have been issued. This information must be included within the EU advert 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 into the template the must represent a "like for like" comparison between bidders. In the example shown Tenderer 1 is scores highest overall when the price and quality scores are combined, ven though it is not the lowest priced bid. Cells shaded in yellow are to be used to enter data. Some other cells are locked to ensure that they cannot be overtyped , as they contain formulae that work out the scores and ranking for each tender. The template assumes that three tenders have been returned, but more can be added by simply copying and pasting the relevant cells. The individual quality threshold for award criteria are entirely optional, as is the use of an overall quality threshold The only formulae that may need to be amended if more tenders are to be evaluated are contained in cells D27 (which works out the average tendered price), and in the cells that work out the relative ranking of the tenders (cells J33, N33 and R33 in the template). These cells have not been locked. The evaluation panel should keep a complete record of the decision making process as this will enable the team to provide better debriefing to unsucessful 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

ers technical and quality

are locked to ensure that

8.1 8.1.1

TECHNICAL AND QUALITY CRITERIA
FUNCTIONALITY

8.1.1.1

Reports

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.

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

5.00%

12.50%

0.000%

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

0.00%

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 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 96.8 84.5 £120,000 £124,000 £142,000

verted to a score out of 100.

Evaluation - Criterion Matrix

Price Score

Company A Company B Company C Company D Price Score Price Score Price Score Price £187,500.00 41.131 £214,379.00 25.525 £167,700.00 52.628 £119,325.00

Weighted score (40 %)

16.453

10.21
Mean Price - Bid Price Mean Price

21.051

Formula for Price Score

Score =

(

x100

)+50

Mean Price £172,226.00 Based on Daily Costs

Company D Score

80.716 32.286

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close