Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

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 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.
5 The template can be used to test different price and quality criteria weighting scenarios to assist in these decisions.
6 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.
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
Procurementfor Small and Medium-sized
Portfolio Enterprises
Specialists (PPS) (SMEs),
will provide Supported
an APUC SupplierBusinesses and
Enablement so on must with
Co-ordinator be proportionate
the answers submitted by all tenderers to
9 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.
10 It is important to ensure that Schedule 7 questions are copied directly into the evaluation criteria on the template.
11 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.
12 The template assumes three tenders have been returned. More can be added by copying and pasting the relevant cells.
13 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.
14 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
15 It may be that a form for each UIG member is used and all information therein be transferred to a master.
16 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.
17 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.
18 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 Scorecheck
1 grade = [insert]
If not, the supplier should be eliminated from the tender process. PASS/FAIL:
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
2 Is the annual contract value greater than 25% of the main supplier turnover? PASS/FAIL &
If No, this equates to a PASS. If Yes, the supplier should be considered a high risk. Refer to APUC’s Finance Manager for JUSTIFICATIO
justification and a decision N: [insert]

Does the supplier have sufficient cash to meet its immediate working capital needs? Calculate using the Current Ratio (current Current Ratio
3 assets divided by current liabilities) from the audited accounts 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 PASS/FAIL:
Opinion to the Auditor’s Report to the Accounts if applicable – the Audit opinion must be unqualified to score a PASS. If it is Audit
qualified, the supplier should be categorised as a FAIL Opinion=unquali
4 fied/qualified
PASS/FAIL:
OVERALL RESULT: PASS/FAIL:
PHIẾU ĐÁNH GIÁ CHẤT LƯỢNG CUNG CẤP HÀNG HOÁ/ DỊCH VỤ
Tên nhà thầu/ Nhà cung cấp :
Nguyen Khanh:
Địa chỉ : Cho trọng số cho các
tiêu chí đánh giá với
Số Hợp đồng/ Ngày ký : điều kiện tổng trọng số
Loại hình dịch vụ/ hàng hoá cung cấp : là 100
- Trọng số cho mục 4
Thời gian bắt đầu và kết thúc hợp đồng : không thấp hơn 20, mục
6 không thấp hơn 30,
mục 7 không thấp hơn
20
Áp dung/ Hướng dẫn đánh giá Trọng số
STT Tiêu chí đánh giá không áp dụng Xếp loại Điểm Remark
(A/ NA) Tốt Khá Trung Bình Kém
100
(3 điểm) (2 điểm) (1 điểm) (0 điểm)

1 Khả năng tài chính để thực hiện hợp đồng A Rất tốt Đảm bảo Tạm chấp nhận Không đảm bảo 5 tốt 15

2 Nguồn nhân lực thực hiện hợp đồng A 10 10


Nguyen Khanh:
Hoàn toàn không đáp chọn các tiêu chí (tốt/
2.1 Số lượng A Vượt yêu cầu Đáp ứng yêu cầu Chưa đáp ứng yêu cầu 5 kém 0 khá/ trung bình/ kém) từ
ứng yêu cầu
drop-list
Cao và có chuyên môn Chất lượng chưa đáp
2.2 Chất lượng A Có thể chấp nhận được Chất lượng kém 5 khá 10
sâu ứng yêu cầu

3 Việc quản lý sub-contractor/ sub vendor NA 0 0

chậm một phần do lỗi Chậm hoàn toàn do lỗi


4 Tiến độ thực hiện cung cấp hàng hoá/ dịch vụ A Sớm hơn yêu cầu Đúng tiến độ 20 tốt 60 Trễ 5 ngày
của BSR của NCC

5 Hồ sơ tài liệu chứng chỉ kỹ thuật A 15 25

chậm hơn tiến độ yêu Rất chậm so với tiến độ


5.1 Tiến độ nộp tài liệu kỹ thuật A Sớm hơn yêu cầu đúng tiến độ yêu cầu 5 khá 10
cầu yêu cầu
Hoàn toàn không đáp
5.2 Chất lượng tài liệu kỹ thuật A Vượt yêu cầu Đáp ứng yêu cầu Chưa đáp ứng yêu cầu 5 kém 0
ứng yêu cầu
Hoàn toàn không đáp
5.3 Hồ sơ hoàn công A Vượt yêu cầu Đáp ứng yêu cầu Chưa đáp ứng yêu cầu 5 tốt 15
ứng yêu cầu

6 Chất lượng hàng hoá/ dịch vụ A 30 90


Có, ảnh hưởng đến Ảnh hưởng đến chất
Có nhưng không ảnh
Các điểm không tuân thủ yêu cầu kỹ thuật trong chất lượng hàng hoá/ lượng hàng hoá/ dịch
6.1 A Không hưởng đến chất lượng 20 tốt 60
HĐ dịch vụ nhưng chấp vụ, không chấp nhận
hàng hoá/ dịch vụ
nhận được được
Có OS&D nhưng không
Có OS&D nhưng khắc Có OS&D và khắc phục
6.2 OS & D của hàng hoá sau khi giao A Không có OS&D khắc phục được và phải 10 tốt 30
phục kịp thời lâu
thay thế hàng

7 Thái độ hợp tác trong việc thực hiện HĐ A 20 60

Trả lời nhanh và rõ các yêu cầu kỹ thuật &


7.1 thương mại, cung cấp thông tin, tài liệu qua A Nhanh Kịp thời Chậm Rất chậm 5 tốt 15
email, thư từ
Hợp tác nhưng lợi dụng Không hợp tác, không
Hợp tác tốt với mức chi Hợp tác tốt với mức chi phí
Thái độ hợp tác của nhà cung cấp khi có thay để chào phí phát sinh chấp nhận bất kỳ thay
7.2 A phí và thời gian phát và thời gian phát sinh chấp 5 tốt 15
đổi từ phí người mua cao và thời gian phát đổi nào sau khi ký hợp
sinh hợp lý nhận được
sinh không hợp lý đồng
Tính kịp thời trong khắc phục sự cố trong bảo Hoàn toàn không đáp
7.3 A Vượt yêu cầu Đáp ứng yêu cầu Chưa đáp ứng yêu cầu 10 tốt 30
hành ứng yêu cầu

Kiến nghị khả năng tiếp


Nhận xét khác (nếu có): tục hợp tác trong tương Tốt: Ưu tiên sử dụng Nhà cung cấp này cho các đơn hàng tiếp theo
lai

Điểm trung bình 87% Khá: NCC đủ điều kiện cung cấp hàng hoá/ dịch vụ cho BSR

Xếp loại tốt Trung bình: Giảm mức độ ưu tiên, không ký HĐ trong 6 tháng tiếp theo

Kém: Loại khỏi danh sách Nhà cung cấp hàng hoá/ dịch vụ cho BSR
Cán bộ theo dõi Hợp đồng Đơn vị đặt hàng Trưởng đơn vị mua hàng
APUC LTD - Tender Evaluation Template Please note you should only type in cells highlighted in yellow. Type shown in italics is for illustation
Use template to also record bid evaluation, clarification, & PTN results 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 (%): 60


Project price weighting (%): 40 Overall Quality Threshold (optional): 60
QUALITY SCORES Tenderer 1 Tenderer 2 Tenderer 3
Individual Criteria
Quality Quality
Quality Weight Quality Threshold Weighted Weighted Weighted
Example Technical & Quality Criteria Score (out of 5) Threshold Score (out of 5) Threshold Score (out of 5)
Threshold (must total reached? Score Score Score
reached? reached?
(optional) 100)
Functionality 0 30 Yes 4.8 28.8 Yes 3.0 18.0 Yes 3.2 19.2
Methodology 0 30 Yes 3.7 22.2 Yes 3.3 19.8 Yes 4.5 27.0
Future Developments 0 20 Yes 3.0 12.0 Yes 4.0 16.0 Yes 3.0 12.0
Training 0 5 Yes 4.0 4.0 Yes 3.6 3.6 Yes 4.0 4.0
After sales assistance and support 0 5 Yes 4.0 4.0 Yes 4.0 4.0 Yes 4.0 4.0
Security 1 5 Yes 3.4 3.4 Yes 3.6 3.6 Yes 3.4 3.4
Ease of use & aesthetic characteristics 3 5 Yes 4.6 4.6 Yes 4.4 4.4 Yes 4.6 4.6
Quality Totals (MUST EQUAL 100) 100 79.0 69.4 74.2
Is overall quality threshold reached? Yes Yes Yes

PRICE SCORES
Tender price (whole life costs) Tenderer 1 price = £430,000.00 Tenderer 2 price = £370,000.00 Tenderer 3 price = £480,000.00
Price 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 SCORES
Project 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 59.5


Order of tenders (ranking) 1 2 3
Comments

Signed by members of the Tender Board _________________________________________________________________________ Date____________________________________


(for file copy ) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
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 No answer/Poor answer that does not
% Weighting meet minimum requirements Adequate/Acceptable 2-3
30 0-1 2-3

Barely adequate reporting capabilities


that just meet minimum requirements 2;
No answer/non-relevant response 0; Acceptable reporting capabilities that fully
Reporting capabilities poor, does not meet but do not exceed minimum
80% meet minimum requirements 1 requirement 3;

Barely adequate levels of categorisation


that just meet minimum requirements 2;
No answer/non relevant response 0; Acceptable response detailing how the
Less than minimum expected system fully meets minimum
10% categorisation 1 categorisation requirements 3
10%
30
70%
20%
10%
20
50%
50%
5
60%
20%
20%
5
100%
5
40%
40%
20%
5
60%
40%
ationale Tenderer 1

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


4-5 4.8

Good reporting capabilities that demonstrably


go beyond the minimum requirements 4;
Exceptional reporting capabilities that
demonstrably far exceed the minimum
requirements 5 5 4

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 4 0.4
4 0.4
3.7
4 2.8
3 0.6
3 0.3
3.0
3 1.5
3 1.5
4.0
4 2.4
3 0.6
5 1
4.0
4 4
3.4
3 1.2
4 1.6
3 0.6
4.6
5 3
4 1.6
Tenderer 2
Justification for
scoring and
additional
comments Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score
3.0

3 2.4

3 0.3
3 0.3
3.3
4 2.8
2 0.4
1 0.1
4.0
5 2.5
3 1.5
3.6
3 1.8
5 1
4 0.8
4.0
4 4
3.6
4 1.6
4 1.6
2 0.4
4.4
4 2.4
5 2
Tenderer 3

Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score


3.2

3 2.4

4 0.4
4 0.4
4.5
5 3.5
3 0.6
4 0.4
3.0
3 1.5
3 1.5
4.0
4 2.4
3 0.6
5 1
4.0
4 4
3.4
3 1.2
4 1.6
3 0.6
4.6
5 3
4 1.6
TECHNICAL
AND
QUALITY
8.1 CRITERIA
8.1.1 FUNCTIONALITY
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
8.1.1.1 Reports 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.
Overall
Actual
Percenta percenta Actual
Technical & Score ge Score Percentag ge score Score
Quality Criteria Company Compan e Score for each Company
overall Section Percentage A For y A For Company question A For
Percentage Score Input Input A of tender Input

65.00%
40.00%

2 5.00% 12.50% 0.000%


Overall Overall
Percenta percenta Actual
Percenta percenta
ge Score ge score Score ge Score Percentag ge score
Compan for each Company Compan e Score for each
y A For Percentage Score question A For y A For Company question
Input Company A of tender Input Input 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 £120,000
Bid B £124,000
Bid C £142,000

The cost score for each bid is:

Bid A = 100 x 120/120 = 100


Bid B = 100 x 120/124 = 96.8
Bid C = 100 x 120/142 = 84.5
to a score out of 100.
Evaluation - Criterion Matrix

Company A Company B Company C Company D


Price Price Score Price Score Price Score Price
Score £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

Mean Price - Bid Price


Formula for Price Score Score = ( Mean Price x100 )+50
Mean Price £172,226.00
Based on Daily Costs
Company D
Score
80.716
32.2864