Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Tender Evaluation Template
The Quality Criteria Scores worksheet is used only to evaluate a tender’s technical and quality award
relate to price.
The scores will be automatically updated in the Price and Quality Combined Worksheet.
The template can be used to evaluate any type of tender including those for supplies, works and ser
Key decisions relating to the appropriate ratio between price and quality, the quality criteria to be use
weighting of those criteria, must be made before tenders are issued. This information must be includ
Union (EU) advertisement 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 th
Tendered prices should reflect the whole life cost of the procurement where possible. In all cases th
template must represent a ‘like for like’ comparison between bidders.
In the example Tenderer 1 scores highest overall when the price and quality scores are combined, a
lowest priced bid.
Procurement Officer should provide e-procurement provider with answers submitted by all tenderers
1 together with the Lead-In Period dates and the Commencement Date.
It is important to ensure that Schedule 7 questions are copied directly into the evaluation criteria on t
Cells shaded yellow should be used to enter data. Other cells are locked to ensure that they cannot
contain formulae that calculate the scores and perform the ranking for each tender.
The template assumes three tenders have been returned. More can be added by copying and pastin
The formulae that may need to be amended if more tenders are to be evaluated are contained in cel
average tendered price, and cells J33, N33 and R33 which calculate the relative rankings of the tend
been locked.
It is important to decide who will be evaluating the tenders. For example, will the Procurement Office
which questions will be evaluated by the User Group members etc
It may be that a form for each User Group member is used and all information therein be transferred
From the initial use of the evaluation template as a master, several sheets may be added to, for exam
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
all questions to represent best practice and mandatory for any questions where an ‘acceptable’ score
The evaluation panel should keep a complete record of the decision making process as this will enab
better debriefing to unsuccessful bidders and will assist in the event of any challenge to the award de
Institutions should follow their own guidelines for financial assessment of supplier. By way of e
guidelines are available in Tender Evaluation section of the Open Procedure guidance in the fol
http://www.apuc-scot.ac.uk/manualopen.htm
© APUC LIMITED 2009- See terms of permitted use on the Sector Procurement Manual’s Home page
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:
Example:
Three bids are received. The total cost for each is:
Bid A £120,000
Bid B £124,000
Bid C £142,000
Procurement title: Project X Members of Tender Board: Board member 1, Board member 2, Board member 3
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
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Example Technical & Quality Criteria
Functionality
Future Developments
Training
Security
Score (out of 5) Weighted Score Section Score Score (out of 5) Weighted Score
3.0
3 2.4 3 2.4
3 0.3 4 0.4
3 0.3 4 0.4
3.3
4 2.8 5 3.5
2 0.4 3 0.6
1 0.1 4 0.4
4.0
5 2.5 3 1.5
3 1.5 3 1.5
3.6
3 1.8 4 2.4
5 1 3 0.6
4 0.8 5 1
4.0
4 4 4 4
3.6
4 1.6 3 1.2
4 1.6 4 1.6
2 0.4 3 0.6
4.4
4 2.4 5 3
5 2 4 1.6
erer 3
Section Score
3.2
4.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
4.6
TECHNICAL
AND
QUALITY
8.1 CRITERIA
8.1.1 FUNCTIONALITY
65.00%
40.00%