Tender Opening Process

It is normal practice that tender responses be received or collected by a person other than a member of the evaluation team. Generally a tender opening panel will open the tenders with at least one member of the evaluation team present in an observation capacity only.

Upon opening the tenders the contents are checked and each member of the opening panel will initial each page of the tender to prevent page substitution. At this stage any omissions of requested information will be formally recorded.

Basic Compliance Testing

Before a tender response is given consideration, it may need to pass a basic compliance test. The test normally takes the form of a quick check to ensure that there are no showstoppers in the proposal, which disqualify it from consideration. In some cases where there are showstoppers the proposal will still be fully evaluated but will not be awarded.

The assumptions that a showstopper can be out weighed by a value add component is incorrect, as a properly administered tender process will not score items outside of the agreed specifications.

Mandatory & Desirable Elements of the Evaluation Process

The key mandatory components of the evaluation process are:

• The evaluation or probity manager must take possession of and secure all original copies of the tender submissions.

• Evaluation team members are restricted to working with official submission documentation only.

• No copies of the original tender submissions are permitted to leave the tender evaluation room.

• Team members are prohibited from discussing the tender submission with anyone outside of the evaluation team.

• All compliant submissions must be scored.

The key desirable elements are:

• The evaluation team should work in a secure location away from their normal office location.

• The core evaluation team should work away from specialist sub-teams to ensure they are across all aspects of the submission and not unduly distracted.

Typical Milestones

The following provides a high level summary of the key milestones in the evaluation process. It normally takes around two days to read and score a single major submission.

Under pressure teams maybe called upon to evaluate one submission day, however this is normally reserved for experienced teams only.

Milestone 1

The process starts with a kick off meeting chaired by the evaluation team leader. After receiving directions the team breaks up into individual or small work units and will ordinarily quickly skim through all submissions.

At the end of the prescribed reading period a status meeting will be held to canvass first impressions and observations. At this stage a submission can be set aside if a team member discovers a non-compliance factor, which may have been previously overlooked.

Normally it the conclusion of the first team meeting the first round of questions will be sent to the bidders. Thereafter questions will be sent daily.

Milestone 2

When prescribed reading is concluded the team moves on to scoring the submissions. At the end of each day the individual or team scores are entered into a database for analysis. It is normal practice for a short debriefing to be held at the conclusion of each day.

Milestone 3

At a previously agreed point where sufficient scores have been lodged and analysed an invitation may be extended to bidders to attend a face-to-face Q&A session with the evaluation team. It is important to note that such meetings cannot accept or seek new information as doing so alters the submission and as such violates probity guidelines. Team members may review prior scores at this time.

Milestone 4

After 1 to 2 face-to-face meetings with short listed or viable bidders an invitation will normally be extended to make bid presentation. The questions asked by the evaluation team at the presentation are normally prescribed in order to avoid inequities and the presentation Q&A drifting off-topic.

Experienced bidders will typically make short sharp presentations using the opportunities to reinforce how their proposal meets the client’s business needs. Presentations are normally recorded but not scored. A debriefing session is normally held for evaluation team members after the presentation. Team members may review prior scores at this time.

Milestone 5

When all scores have been submitted and all notes collected a full team meeting will be held in order to reach a consensus. Upon reaching a consensus the evaluation team leader is then responsible for preparing a written report for the projects stakeholders and sponsor. The evaluation team will not be released to normal duties until the sponsor accepts the recommendations of the team.

If the entire team cannot reach a consensus, then the core evaluation team may be called upon to break the deadlock. The core evaluation team will normally stay on until the supply contract is signed.

Early Closure

At agreed point where there are sufficient scores lodged with the evaluation team leader, the team can collectively decide to close the tender process early if:

1. None of the bids appear viable

2. The normal clarification process is unable to fill gaps in the any bid submission.

It is important to note that the team cannot seek new information for bidders as this violates probity guidelines by altering one or more bids.

If a tender is closed early, it is still possible for a select bidder or group of bidders to be invited to re-tender based on an amended tender specification.

Access to Expertise

It can be reasonably assumed that the tender evaluation team will draw upon experts in whatever fields they deem necessary to appropriately assess submissions. It is for this reason that equal attention should be given to all aspects of the submission.

Disqualification during the Evaluation Period

During the evaluation period the team can disqualify a compliant bidder if there is s significant change in the respondents circumstances or a conflict of interest is discovered. An example maybe a bidder running into financial difficulties.

A compliant bid may also be disqualified if in the opinion of the core evaluation team it has been evident that the bidder is unable to perform the work and/or deliver product.

The Lowest Priced Compliant Bid

Bid evaluation teams are rarely required to accept the lowest priced bid, however they do have a duty of care to ensure they adequately explain why a higher bid was successful.

Probity

All aspects of the public tendering process are open to auditing and therefore the evaluation team is expected to adhere to probity guidelines as set down by their governing body.

Questions

Most tender managers now require the all questions be asked and answered via email.

Evaluation Weighting

At the same time the evaluation criteria are determined an appropriate scoring systems is also agreed to. The scoring system will normally recognise that some elements of the tender submission more important and thus should be weighted accordingly. Whilst any form of rating system maybe used a numeric system is normally chosen, as is it easier to tabulate than an alpha rating system.

A rating system with a wide numeric range (0 to 100) will normally be used where individual tender elements are expected to vary significantly. Conversely a small range (0 to 5 or 0 to 10) is normally adopted when all elements are roughly of equal value.

As a general rule the scoring range (x to y) will match the weighting range. The weighted score is normally calculated by multiplying the score by the weight factor. For example a score of 3 multiplied by weight factor of 5 will give you a weighted score of 15.

Standard Government Numeric Scoring System

The tables below describe the meanings associated with the three most commonly used numeric scoring systems.

Government Scoring System - Option One

Government Scoring System - Option Two

Government Scoring System - Option Three

Overall Rating

An overall rating of a submission is not always determined by tabulating scores. Sometimes a separate score is given for the overall quality and presentation of a proposal.

Vendor Positioning Summary

The evaluation team leader will normally be called upon to include in his or her report a high level summary of each respondent’s position relative to the other in the context of the expected competitive response window.

The intersection points between the anticipated price range and qualitative assessment rating define the competitive response window This is sometimes referred to as the clients target sight.

In the example above the competitive response window only contains a single vendor “D”. Each of the remaining vendors has (in the opinion of the client) a problem with either price or qualitative score.