ITT_Tender_Evaluation_Strategy

Invitation To Tender: Tender Evaluation Strategy Version 0.1 Table of Contents 31. Purpose 32. Executive Summary 33. Business Aims 44. Critical Success Factors 55. Evaluation Criteria 76. Evaluation Process 77. Evaluation Methodology 78. Communication 89. Approval Process 1. Purpose 1.1. The purpose of the Evaluation Strategy is to: · Record the overall approach to the appraisal of Tenders · Ensure consistency with the EU Regulations · Provide a baseline against which all other evaluation documentation (Evaluation Process, Evaluation Methodology, Guidance for Evaluators and Evaluation Report) can be measured · Provide assurance to the [Senior Responsible Officer, Project Board, Contracting Authority, CPD Director] that the proposed process is fair, reasonable and able to deliver the objectives of the Project · Seek formal approval of the proposed strategy from the [Senior Responsible Officer, Project Board, Contracting Authority, CPD Director] 2. Executive Summary 2.1. This section is designed to summarise the purpose of the Evaluation Strategy. Be clear and concise, keeping wording to a minimum. It is recommended that content is limited to: · A statement regarding the specific collaborative procurement · A statement highlighting the purpose of the Evaluation Strategy document e.g. to obtain approval of the proposed strategy, including person(s) or Board from whom approval is sought and the date approval required. · A statement verifying that the Evaluation Strategy will be fully compliant with the EU Regulations and will support the delivery of the business aims and critical success factors identified in the Source Plan. · Identification of key dependencies e.g. impact on drafting other procurement / project documentation, timescales etc. 3. Business Aims 3.1. All organisations have aims and objectives they must achieve. Business aims generally demonstrate the long term intentions of the organisation and can include but are not resticted to: · Commercial aims – which impact on the commercial efficiency of the organisation · Social aims – which are for the good of society e.g. social and environmental change · Service aims – which focus on increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the service provision 3.2. The business aims for a collaborative procurement project are likely to be linked to wider government policy and / or strategy e.g. Transforming Government Procurement; Government’s Sustainable Procurement Action Plan. These drivers should have already been identified within the Feasibility Study and / or Source Plan documents. 3.3. The Evaluation Strategy document should therefore set the procurement within a wider business context by including high-level detail to identify: · What business aims the project will meet (refer to 4.2) · How the aims will be met · When the aims will be met · Who is responsible for ensuring the aims are met 4. Critical Success Factors 4.1. Critical Success Factor (CSF) is a business term for an outcome which is necessary for an organisation or project to achieve its mission or business aims. 4.2. In a collaborative procurement the Critical Success Factors are likely to have been agreed at the Source Plan stage and will be the means by which the procurement will be judged successful or otherwise. 4.3. In this section of the document identify project specific Critical Success Factors and how they will be quantified or measured. Examples of CSF may include but are not restricted to: · The solution must meet or exceed [business aims, government policy, technical requirements etc] · Potential Providers must demonstrate the capacity and flexibility to meet the changing business needs · The solution must attract an increase in uptake of Public Sector Organisations accessing a collaborative deal · The cost of the solution must be within budget · The solution must deliver significant savings for the Master Category · Potential Providers must meet all commercial and / or legal requirements · Potential Providers must successfully deliver against the defined service targets 5. Evaluation Criteria 5.1. Under EU Regulations Potential Providers must be notified of the award criteria either within the OJEU Contract Notice or in the Invitation to Tender. 5.2. Subject to regulation 18(27) and to paragraphs (6) and (9) of the Public Contracts Regulations (2006), a Contracting Authority shall award a public contract on the basis of the offer which either – · Is the most economically advantageous from the point of view of the Contracting Authority or · Offers the lowest price When awarding a Framework Agreement on the basis of the most economically advantageous offer, the Contracting Authority shall use criteria linked to the subject matter of the contract to determine which offer is the most economically advantageous, including quality, price, technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, environmental characteristics, running costs, cost effectiveness, after sales service, technical assistance, delivery date and delivery period and period of completion. By assigning criteria to the qualitative (e.g. technical, delivery, quality) and commercial (e.g. price, cost, risk, legal) elements of the requirement you are communicating to Tenderers the basis on which their entire Tender Response will be evaluated. 5.3. The proposed evaluation criteria (likely to have been identified at the Data gathering and Strategic Analysis stages through activities including Supplier Research, Supply Market Research or Request for Information) should be included in this section of the Strategy document. It is anticipated that a lower level of criteria will emanate from high-level criteria, providing increasing levels of granularity against which to assess Tender Responses. For example the After Sales Service criteria for a Car Hire contract may require the development of low-level criteria to cover the various elements of the service desk requirement e.g. order, breakdown assistance, reporting of accidents or damage to the hire vehicle, end of hire etc. Details of the lower level criteria will be included within the Evaluation Methodology document. 5.4. Indicate which approach the Contracting Authority proposes to adopt in terms of weighting the evaluation criteria. Regulation 30: Criteria for the award of a public contract, identifies 3 potential strategies for weighting award criteria. 30(3) “Where a contracting authority intends to award a public contract on the basis of the offer which is most economically advantageous it shall state the weighting which it gives to each of the criteria chosen in the contract notice or in the contract documents…” 30(4) “When stating the weightings referred to in paragraph (3), a contracting authority may give the weightings a range and specify a minimum and maximum weighting where it considers it appropriate in view of the subject matter of the contract.” 30(5) “Where, in the opinion of the contracting authority, it is not possible to provide weightings for the criteria referred to in paragraph (3) on objective grounds, the contracting authority shall indicate the criteria in descending order of importance in the contract notice or contract documents…” Further details will be included within the Evaluation Methodology document. 5.5. It is imperative that criteria is not developed in isolation but in conjunction with the business / project aims, critical success factors, specification, Evaluation Process, Evaluation Methodology etc. It is therefore important to know how you propose to evaluate Tender Responses before the criteria are agreed. For example, · Will the evaluation be paper-based or undertaken via an electronic application e.g. AWARD? · Will Tenderers be required to provide mandatory information as part of their Tender Response and will failure to provide this information result in exclusion from progressing further in the Evaluation Process? · Will Tenderers failing to meet the mandatory response requirements within their Tender Response be automatically excluded from progressing further in the Evaluation Process? · Will the initial qualitative evaluation be undertaken independently? · Will individual scores be moderated? · Will qualitative evaluation be undertaken without sight (blind) of price / cost? · Will an eAuction (price only, weighted price or MEAT points) be utilised at the end of the qualitative evaluation? · High-level consideration of the above points (plus any others) should be included within the Evaluation Strategy document. 6. Evaluation Process 6.1. This section of the Evaluation Strategy document should refer to the Evaluation Process. To avoid duplication with corresponding documents, content should be limited to describing the purpose of the Evaluation Process and reference to the Evaluation Process document e.g. The Tender Evaluation Process covers a number of discrete stages i.e. Tender opening, clarification, award recommendations etc. Although the collaborating organisations will be familiar with the process, for the purpose of consensus, transparency and audit, it is advisable to formally agree and record the procedures that will be undertaken. A comprehensive description of the proposed process is contained within the Evaluation Process document, available on request from [insert name / title]. 7. Evaluation Methodology 7.1. This section of the Evaluation Strategy document should refer to the Evaluation Methodology. To avoid duplication with corresponding documents, content should be limited to describing the purpose of the Evaluation Methodology and reference to the Evaluation Methodology document e.g. The Evaluation Methodology describes how Tender Responses will be evaluated including application (electronic or paper-based) criteria weighting, scoring matrices, pass / fail thresholds, e-Auction etc. A comprehensive description of the proposed methodology is contained within the Evaluation Methodology document. Guidance for Evaluators will be produced in order to assist the Evaluation Team in their assessment and scoring of Tender Responses. This guidance will be divided into 2 discrete documents providing separate instructions for evaluators responsible for assessing the qualitative and commercial responses. Guidance note: There may be instances where you wish to evaluate price / cost in isolation to the other elements of the commercial response. In this instance a third evaluation document may be required. A copy of the Evaluation Methodology and Guidance for Evaluators documents, are available on request from [insert name / title]. 8. Communication 8.1. In this section of the document refer to the importance of communicating the Evaluation Strategy. To avoid duplication with corresponding documents, content should be limited to describing the purpose of the communication and reference to the Communication Plan document e.g. To ensure the ongoing participation of the collaborating organisations, projects of this nature require an enhanced approach to communications. For details of how, when and by whom the Evaluation Strategy and supporting documentation will be communicated to [insert Stakeholders (internal & external), Project Team, Project Board, Senior Responsible Officer, CPD Director, Lead, Category Manager etc.] refer to the Communication Plan document, available on request from [insert name / title]. 9. Approval Process 9.1. Approval of the Evaluation Strategy must be been obtained from either the [Senior Responsible Officer, Project Board, Contracting Authority, CPD Director etc] 9.2. A copy of the collaborative procurement Approval Record is available via the VPMO. 9.3. You may wish to include in this section of the document: · Person(s) or Board from whom approval is sought · Date approval required · A sign-off template for signatures http://www.ogc.gov.uk/supplier_selection_and_award_invitation_to_tender_itt.asp PAGE 8