Service provider selection Consultancy services

Worked example:
Tender Evaluation Plan
Project name: Ettamalonga Health Services
New Mental Health Facility
RFT/Contract number 0601462
Description of services: Architect & Suconsultant Services
Background
!his !en"er Evaluation #lan $!E#% is &or the evaluation o& ten"ers &or Architect &
Suconsultant Services &or the "esign an" "ocumentation o& the Ettamalonga Health Services
' New Mental Health Facility to close on (th August 2006 in the Health Services ten"er o)
at *uo+
!he &ollowing consultants have agree" to sumit a ten"er,
Al-ha & Associates
.eta Services #/0
*elta an" #artners
1mega 2onsultants
!he estimate" &ee is 31(04000+
The TEP
!he !E# com-lies with the NS5 6overnment Procurement System for Construction an" the
!en"er *ocument+
Neither the !E# nor any o& its contents will e ma"e 7nown to ten"erers+
Tender evaluation objectives
!he ten"er evaluation team $the !eam% will,
use its -ro&essional s7ills an" e)-erience to i"enti&y the -re&erre" ten"erer &or
Ettamalonga Health Services8
evaluate ten"ers in accor"ance with this !E#8 an"
-ro"uce an evaluation re-ort4 an" recommen"ation &or a--roval to awar" o& a contract4
an"/or to -ass over any or all ten"ers+
The two envelope system
!he two envelo-e system a--lies+
!he !eam will com-lete evaluation o& Envelo-e 1 $non9-rice% contents e&ore receiving
Envelo-e 2 $-rice%+
Evaluation criteria
!he weighting ratio &or -rice,non9-rice is 60,40+
!he -rice criteria are,
the ten"ere" &ee4
rates &or variations+
October 2009 NSW Government Page 1
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Worked example: Tender Evaluation Plan
!he non9-rice criteria an" their relative weightings are,
:n"erstan"ing o& the engagement 10
#ersonnel ;
<ecent e)-erience in similar engagements ;
Metho" statement 1;
Metho"ology &or managing suconsultants ;
!otal non9-rice weighting 40
Evaluating tenders
5here the !E# "oes not -rovi"e &or a -articular eventuality4 the NS5 6overnment Tendering
Guidelines Section 4 9 Tender Evaluation, an" #rocurement #ractice 6ui"e Tendering
process for consultancy services engagements Section ; 9 Tender evaluation will e &ollowe"
as re=uire".
Passing over a tender
>& a ten"er "oes not com-ly with re=uirements o& the !en"er *ocument,
the ten"erer may e a--roache" to ma7e goo" the non9com-liance4 su?ect to
-rinci-les o& -roity an" &airness to other ten"erers4 or
it may e -asse" over+
<easons &or -assing over will e "ocumente" an" inclu"e" in the ten"er
recommen"ation+
Scoring o& a ten"er that is to e -asse" over will e com-lete"4 i& -racticale4 &or
inclusion in the scoring calculations+
Withdrawn tender
>& a ten"er is with"rawn ut it is -racticale to continue scoring an" assessment to
inclu"e it in the scoring calculations4 then this will e "one+
Contact with tenderers and referees
2lari&ication o& any in&ormation -rovi"e" in a ten"er may e sought y the !eam to
assist in the evaluation -rocess+ 2ontact with ten"erers will e through the 2ontact
#erson+
!he !eam may a--roach re&erees+
A--roaches an" res-onses will e recor"e"+
Scoring non-price criteria
!eam memers will score each ten"er &or each criterion4 ase" on the stan"ar"s set
out in this !E#+ !he !eam will reach consensus on scores+
Each non9-rice criterion will e score" out o& 100 using the &ollowing scaling,
100 Meets all re=uirements o& an i"eal ten"er+
@0 Meets most re=uirements o& i"eal ten"er+
(0 Meets many o& the re=uirements o& i"eal ten"er+
A0 Meets a numer o& the re=uirements o& i"eal ten"er+
60 Meets the minimum re=uirements ut only ?ust satis&actory &or this criterion+
B 60 Fails to meet the minimum re=uirements+ May -ass over this ten"er+
A "etaile" "escri-tion o& how the scaling will e a--lie" to each criterion is -rovi"e"
in "etail in the a--en"i) C6ui"e to scoring non9-rice criteriaD+
Scores will e recor"e" using the attache" &orm CNon9-rice criteria scoresD+
5eighte" scores will e calculate" y multi-lying the score &or each criterion y its
weighting+ !he weighte" scores will e totalle" &or each ten"er+ !he totals will e
October 2009 NSW Government Page 2
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Worked example: Tender Evaluation Plan
normalise" so that the normalise" highest total e=uals the weighting $40% &or the non9
-rice criteria+
!he scoring -roce"ure is illustrate" in the &ollowing e)am-le,
Tender 1 Tender 2 Tender 3
2riterion 14 weight
20
Score @0 @0 (0
5eighte" score 1( 1( 16
2riterion 24 weight
10
Score A0 A0 (0
5eighte" score A A (
2riterion E4 weight
10
Score @0 A0 60
5eighte" score @ A 6
!otal weighte" score $ma)imum 40% E4 E2 E0
Normalise" total non9-rice score
E4 x
$40/E4%
E2 x
$40/E4%
E0 x
$40/E4%
40 EA+6 E;+E
!he scores calculations s-rea"sheet -rovi"es &or these calculations+
Schedule of Prices
A s-rea"sheet ase" on the Sche"ule o& #rices ten"er sche"ule will e use" to
com-are the ten"ere" amounts against the estimates an" to chec7 totals+
Rates for variations
A s-rea"sheet ase" on the Hourly <ates &or Fariations ten"er sche"ule will e use"
to com-are the ten"ere" rate &or each item against the estimates an" "o sensitivity
analyses+
Scoring price
5here a ten"erer has a"vise" that it wishes to enter into a Foluntary Agreement &or
withhol"ing #ay as Gou 6o ta)ation4 a 10H loa"ing will e a--lie" to the ten"ere"
Fee+
>& a ten"erer has not shown on the !en"er Sche"ule, Sche"ule o& >n&ormation on
Iuality Management System that it has a =uality management system certi&ie" as
con&orming to AS/NJS >S1 @001,20004 a 10H -re&erence will e a--lie" to the
ten"ere" &ees o& those ten"erers who are so certi&ie"+
>& a ten"er contains =uali&ications an" "e-artures4 their value will e assesse" an"
a--lie" to the ten"ere" &ee+ !his assesse" &ee is the amount u-on which any loa"ing
or -re&erence will e a--lie" to result in a &ee calculate" &or ten"er evaluation+
!he &ee &or ten"er evaluation will e normalise" an" weighte" &or com-arison as
&ollows,
October 2009 NSW Government Page 3
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Worked example: Tender Evaluation Plan
where,
#
c
K &ee calculate" &or ten"er evaluation $allowing &or any
=uali&ications an" "e-artures4 -re&erence an"
loa"ing%
#
av
K average o& all &ees $as aove%
#
s
K -rice score K 200 ' $ ) %
#
n
K normalise" -rice score K
)
#
w
K weighte" -rice score K #
n
)
!he lowest &ee achieves the ma)imum score4 which is e=ual to the weighting &or -rice
criteria $60%+
!he scores calculations s-rea"sheet -rovi"es &or these calculations+
5here the assesse" &ee &or the -re&erre" ten"erer is more than 10H higher or lower
than the estimate" &ee4 the estimate will e reviewe"+
Total score
!he normalise" non9-rice score an" weighte" -rice score &or each ten"er will e
a""e" to give a total score out o& 100 an" i"enti&y the highest scoring ten"er+
Close or equal highest scoring tenders
Any ten"ers that have a total score within &our -oints $10H o& the non9-rice
weighting% o& the highest scoring ten"er will e consi"ere" as re-resenting Ce=ualD
est value &or money+
5here two or more ten"ers are consi"ere" to re-resent Ce=ualD est value &or money4
the Ce=ualD ten"er with the lowest &ee &or ten"er evaluation will e recommen"e"+
Approval to award
!he *irector Su--lier Systems4 *e-artment o& Finance an" Services has the authority
to -ass over ten"ers an" a--rove or not a--rove awar" o& a contract+
Supporting documents
!he &ollowing "ocuments to e use" in the evaluation o& ten"ers are -art o& this !E#,
2o"e o& 2on"uct &or a !en"er #rocess
S-rea"sheet &or Sche"ule o& #rices4 an" S-rea"sheet &or Hourly <ates &or
Fariations
A--en"i), 6ui"e to scoring non9-rice criteria
Non9-rice criteria scores
Scores calculations s-rea"sheet
Concurrence with TEP
!he !eam concurs with the !E# an" agrees to sign the 2o"e o& 2on"uct &or a !en"er #rocess,
Name Position Signature
Mr Lohn Foller Health Services Area *irector
*r Meith *y7e
Manager4 Ettamalonga Health Services
Ms .on Alus7a 2ontact -erson4 #rovi"ent #ro?ect Managers
Mr 6rant .e"&or"
Manager 2ontracts4 *e-artment o& 6oo"li&e
October 2009 NSW Government Page 4
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Worked example: Tender Evaluation Plan
Code o Conduct or a Tender Process
>nclu"e co-ies o& the Code of Conduct for a Tender Process signe" y the !en"er Evaluation
!eam, !he 2o"e is availale on the #rocure#oint wesite+
October 2009 NSW Government Page 5
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Tender Evaluation Plan - worked example
!preadsheet or !chedule o Prices
Estimated
"lpha #
"ssociates Beta !ervices $elta "nd Partners
%mega
Consultants
&ole "mount '() "mount '() "mount '() "mount '() "mount '()
Master planning 20000
c!ematic "esign #$000
Design "evelopment $0000
Documentation %$000
Construction support &0000
Provisional sum 20000
T'T() &*0000 0 0 0 0
October 2009 NSW Government Page 6
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Tender Evaluation Plan - worked example
!preadsheet or hourly rates or variations
Estimated "lpha # "ssociates Beta !ervices $elta and Partners %mega consultants
&ole &ate '() *r "m+nt '() ,ame &ate '() "m+nt '() ,ame &ate '() "m+nt '() ,ame &ate '() "m+nt '() ,ame &ate '() "m+nt '()
Principal &*0 &0 &*00
C!ief "esigner &#0 20 2+00
(rc!itectural "raftsman ,0 ,0 %-00
.uantit/ surve/or &00 $ $00
ecurit/ subconsultant &$0 $ ,$0
T'T() &0$$0
October 2009 NSW Government Page 7
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Tender Evaluation Plan - worked example
"ppendix: -uide to scoring non.price criteria
Non-price
criteria
Meets all
requirements of an
ideal tender
Meets most
requirements of an
ideal tender
Meets man
requirements of an
ideal tender
Meets a num!er of
requirements of an
ideal tender
Meets minimum
requirements !ut is
onl "ust
satisfactor for t#is
criterion
$ails to meet t#e
minimum
requirements. Ma
pass over t#is
tender.
Score ranges 100 90 80 70 60 <60
%nderstanding of t#e engagement
&dentification of 'e
issues
Shows a goo"
un"erstan"ing o& all the
7ey issues $consultation
with community grou-s4
nee" &or novel "esign4
nee" to len" with
e)isting &acilities4
6overnment regulations8
an" car -ar7ing nee"s%+
Has a""resse" all o& the
7ey issues+
Has a""resse" &our o& the
7ey issues+
Has a""resse" three o&
the 7ey issues+
Has a""resse" three o&
the 7ey issues ut not
very well+
Fails to a""ress more than
hal& o& the 7ey issues+
Management of 'e
issues
Has "emonstrate" how all
7ey issues will e
manage"+
Has "emonstrate" how
the 7ey issues will e
manage" with goo"
e)-lanation+
Has "emonstrate" how
the 7ey issues will e
manage" with limite"
e)-lanation+
Shows an un"erstan"ing
o& how 7ey issues will e
manage"+
Shows a limite"
un"erstan"ing o& how 7ey
issues will e manage"+
Shows no un"erstan"ing
o& how 7ey issues will e
manage"+
Personnel
E(perience and
qualifications of 'e
personnel to
perform services
0ists all -ersonnel in all
&ive re=uire" "isci-lines
with "emonstrate"
e)-erience+
0ists -ersonnel in &our
re=uire" "isci-lines with
"emonstrate" e)-erience+
0ists -ersonnel in &our
re=uire" "isci-lines4 with
limite" "emonstrate"
e)-erience+
0ists -ersonnel in three
re=uire" "isci-lines with
"emonstrate" e)-erience+
0ists -ersonnel in three
re=uire" "isci-lines4 with
limite" "emonstrate"
e)-erience+
Fails to list at least three
o& the -ersonnel in
re=uire" "isci-lines+
)ivision of
responsi!ilit and
aut#orit of t#e 'e
personnel
Has &ully "emonstrate" in
"etail that all 7ey
-ersonnel will have
suitale res-onsiilities
an" authorities+
Has "emonstrate" that the
liste" 7ey -ersonnel will
have suitale
res-onsiilities an"
authorities+
Has "emonstrate" only
su&&iciently that the liste"
7ey -ersonnel will have
suitale res-onsiilities
an" authorities+
*oes not very well
"emonstrate that liste"
7ey -ersonnel will have
suitale res-onsiilities
an" authorities+
6ives an in"ication that
7ey -ersonnel will have
suitale res-onsiilities
an" authorities+
Has no i"ea aout
"ivision o& res-onsiility
an" authority o& the 7ey
-ersonnel+
October 2009 NSW Government Page 8
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Tender Evaluation Plan - worked example
E(perience
*ecent e(perience
in similar
engagements
Fery goo" recor" o& more
than three recent
engagements over the last
three years &or similar
services+
6oo" recor" o& more than
three recent engagements
over the last three years
&or similar services+
6oo" recor" o& recent
engagements with two to
three over the last three
years &or similar services+
Su&&icient recor" o& recent
engagements with two to
three the over the last
three years &or similar
services+
6oo" recor" o& one
engagement over last the
three years &or similar
services+
No engagement over the
last three years &or similar
services+
Met#od statement
Programming and
resources for t#e
services
Has su--lie" a
com-rehensive -rogram
&or com-letion within the
re=uire" time showing all
activities with suitale
-ersons allocate"+
Has su--lie" a goo"
-rogram &or com-letion
within the re=uire" time
showing all activities with
suitale -ersons allocate"+
Has su--lie" a -rogram
&or com-letion within the
re=uire" time showing
most activities with
suitale -ersons allocate"+
Has su--lie" a -rogram
&or com-letion within the
re=uire" time showing
many activities with
suitale -ersons allocate"+
Has su--lie" a asic
-rogram &or com-letion
within the re=uire" time
showing some activities
with suitale -ersons
allocate"+
Faile" to inclu"e a
suitale -rogram &or
com-letion within the
re=uire" time showing
activities with suitale
-ersons allocate"+
Means to ac#ieve
sustaina!le
development
o!"ectives
*emonstrates a very goo"
un"erstan"ing o&
sustainale "evelo-ment
o?ectives with goo"
e)am-les o& recent
a--lication+
Shows a goo"
un"erstan"ing o&
sustainale "evelo-ment
o?ectives with goo"
e)am-les o& recent
a--lication+
Shows some
un"erstan"ing o&
sustainale "evelo-ment
o?ectives with some
e)am-les o& recent
a--lication+
Shows some
un"erstan"ing o&
sustainale "evelo-ment
o?ectives with limite"
e)am-les o& recent
a--lication+
Shows su&&icient
un"erstan"ing o&
sustainale "evelo-ment
o?ectives to "emonstrate
an aility to a--ly the
-rinci-les+
Fails to show an
un"erstan"ing o&
sustainale "evelo-ment
o?ectives+
)emonstrated
a!ilit to researc#
and incorporate
innovative solutions
Suitaly "emonstrates
with many e)am-les how
it un"erta7es research to
result in innovative
solutions+
Suitaly "emonstrates
with goo" e)am-les how
it un"erta7es research to
result in innovative
solutions+
Shows su&&icient
un"erstan"ing o&
-rinci-les o& research
with goo" e)am-les o&
innovative solutions+
Shows su&&icient
un"erstan"ing o&
-rinci-les o& research
with some e)am-les o&
innovative solutions+
Shows su&&icient
un"erstan"ing o&
-rinci-les o& research an"
at least one innovative
solution "evelo-e"+
Fails to "emonstrate an
un"erstan"ing o&
-rinci-les o& research an"/
or no innovative solutions
"evelo-e"+
+no,ledge of and
e(perience ,it# t#e
standards and
guidelines referred
to under Item 20
(Cl.1)
Fully "emonstrates a
7nowle"ge o& the
stan"ar"s an" gui"elines
with e)am-les o& how
these have een a--lie"
in recent engagements+
*emonstrates a soun"
7nowle"ge o& the
stan"ar"s an" gui"elines
with some e)am-les o&
how these have een
a--lie" in recent
engagements+
*emonstrates goo"
7nowle"ge o& the
stan"ar"s an" gui"elines
an" how these have een
a--lie" in recent
engagements+
*emonstrates reasonale
7nowle"ge o& most o& the
stan"ar"s an" gui"elines
an" how these have een
a--lie" in recent
engagements+
*emonstrates su&&icient
7nowle"ge o& most o& the
stan"ar"s an" gui"elines
an" how these have een
a--lie" in engagements+
*oes not "emonstrate
su&&icient 7nowle"ge o&
most o& the stan"ar"s an"
gui"elines an" or how
these have een a--lie" in
engagements+
Procedures for
inspection of ,or'
in progress for
compliance ,it#
design intent and
qualit
*emonstrates very well
with -rogram an"
e)-lanations how an"
when wor7 will e
ins-ecte" against "esign
intent an" =uality+
*emonstrates with
-rogram an" e)-lanations
how an" when wor7 will
e ins-ecte" against
"esign intent an" =uality+
*emonstrates a soun"
a--roach to how an"
when wor7 will e
ins-ecte" against "esign
intent an" =uality+
*emonstrates a
reasonale a--roach to
how an" when wor7 will
e ins-ecte" against
"esign intent an" =uality+
*emonstrates an
un"erstan"ing o& how an"
when wor7 will e
ins-ecte" against "esign
intent an" =uality+
*oes not a"e=uately show
how an" when wor7 will
e ins-ecte" against
"esign intent an" =uality+
October 2009 NSW Government Page 9
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Tender Evaluation Plan - worked example
T#e -.)) sstem
to !e used.
Fully "emonstrates
-ro-ose" a--lication o&
the s-eci&ie" system with
many e)am-les o& use+
*emonstrates -ro-ose"
a--lication with a system
which is com-atile with
that s-eci&ie"4 with many
e)am-les o& use+
*emonstrates -ro-ose"
a--lication with the
s-eci&ie" system4 ut with
limite" e)am-les o& use+
*emonstrates -ro-ose"
a--lication with a system
which is com-atile with
that s-eci&ie"4 ut with
limite" e)am-les o& use+
Has a system which is
com-atile with that
s-eci&ie"4 ut "oes not
-rovi"e e)am-les o& use+
No "emonstrate" aility
to use any 2A** system+
Management met#odolog
Met#odolog for
managing
su!consultants
5ell "ocumente" an"
e)-laine" with
"emonstrate" success
managing suconsultants
on recent engagements+
6oo" "ocumentation an"
e)-lanation with
"emonstrate" success
managing suconsultants
on -ast engagements+
0imite" "ocumentation
an" e)-lanation ut
"emonstrate" success
managing suconsultants
on -ast engagements+
6oo" "ocumentation an"
e)-lanation with limite"
"emonstration o& success
managing suconsultants
on -ast engagements+
Su&&icient "ocumentation
an" e)-lanation with
some "emonstrate"
success managing
suconsultants on -ast
engagements+
0imite" "ocumentation
an" e)-lanation4 an" or
no "emonstrate" success
managing suconsultants
on -ast engagements+
October 2009 NSW Government Page 10
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Tender Evaluation Plan - worked example
,on.price criteria scores
Tenderer/
"ssessment criteria and elements !core
0out of &001
Comment
%nderstanding of t#e engagement
>"enti&ication o& 7ey issues
Management o& 7ey issues
Personnel
E)-erience an" =uali&ications
o& 7ey -ersonnel to -er&orm
services
*ivision o& res-onsiility an"
authority o& the 7ey -ersonnel
*ecent e(perience in similar
engagements
Met#od statement
#rogramming an" resources
&or the services
Means to achieve sustainale
"evelo-ment o?ectives
*emonstrate" aility to
research an" incor-orate
innovative solutions
Mnowle"ge o& an" e)-erience
with the stan"ar"s an"
gui"elines re&erre" to un"er
tem !0 "Cl#1$
#roce"ures &or ins-ection o&
wor7 in -rogress &or
com-liance with "esign intent
an" =uality
!he 2A** system to e use"+
Met#odolog for managing
su!consultants
!eam signatures,
*ate,
October 2009 NSW Government Page 11
Service provider selection Consultancy services
Tender Evaluation Plan - worked example
!cores calculations spreadsheet
,on.price scoring
!core
Weighted
score !core
Weighted
score !core
Weighted
score !core
Weighted
score
2n"erstan"ing t!e engagement &00 &0 3 3 3 3
Personnel &00 $ 3 3 3 3
Recent experience &00 $ 3 3 3 3
Met!o" statement &00 &$ 3 3 3 3
Management of subconsultants &00 $ 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
Total non-price weighting %0
Weighted total non-price score 3 3 3 3
Normalised total non-price score
Tendered fee
Assessed fee (allowing for qualifications and departures if applicable) 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5
10% preference for qualit management 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6
10% loading on !oluntar Agreement for withholding "A#$ ta%ation 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6
"c & 'ee for tender e(aluation onl
"a( & A(erage of fees for tender e(aluation
"s& "rice score
"n & Normalised price score
"rice weighting +0
"w & Weighted price score
/0// /0// /0// /0//
Tenderers+ ,ames
(lp!a 7 (ssociates 8eta ervices
Total of normalised total non-price score and weighted price score
Criterion 1aximum
score
Weighting
Delta an" Partners 'mega Consultants
Price scoring
,on.price and price total
October 2009 NSW Government Page 12