Tender Evaluation Template Form

7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form

1/16

APUC LTD - Tender Evaluation TemplateUse template to also record bid evaluation, clarification, & PTN results

Procurement title: Project X Members of Tender Board: Board membe

Project technical & quality weighting (%): 60

Project price weighting (%): 40 Overall Quality Threshold (optional): 60

QUALITY SCORES Tenderer 1

Example Technical & Quality Criteria

Individual

Quality

Threshold

o tional

Criteria

Weight

(must total

100

Quality Threshold

reached?Score (out of 5)

Weighted

Score

Functionality 0 30 Yes 4.8 28.8

Methodology 0 30 Yes 3.7 22.2

Future Developments 0 20 Yes 3.0 12.0

Training 0 5 Yes 4.0 4.0After sales assistance and support 0 5 Yes 4.0 4.0

Security 1 5 Yes 3.4 3.4

Ease of use & aesthetic characteristics 3 5 Yes 4.6 4.6

Quality Totals (MUST EQUAL 100) 100 79.0

Is overall quality threshold reached? Yes

PRICE SCORES

Tender price (whole life costs) Tenderer 1 price = 430,000.00

Price score (mean price =) 426,666.67 = 50 points Tenderer 1 price score = 49.2

OVERALL SCORES

Project quality weighting x quality score 60% x 79.0 = 47.4Project price weighting x price score 40% x 49.2 = 19.7

Overall score 67.1

Order of tenders (ranking) 1Comments

Signed by members of the Tender Board _________________________________________________________________________

(for file copy ) _________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________


2/16

Q1

Q2Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Q13

Q14

Q15

Q16

Q17


3/16

Example Technical & Quality Criteria

Functionality

Tenderers must descibe what reports are available

What categories of data can be appendedWhat functionality

Methodology

Describe how the system

What processes

Future Developments

Training

After sales assistance and support

Security

Ease of use & aesthetic characteristics


4/16

Example Scoring Rationale

Section

Weighting

%

Question

Weighting

No answer/Poor answer that does not

meet minimum requirements Adequate/Acceptable 2-3

30 0-1 2-3

80%

No answer/non-relevant response 0;

Reporting capabilities poor, does not

meet minimum requirements 1

Barely adequate reporting capabilities

that just meet minimum requirements 2;

Acceptable reporting capabilities that fully

meet but do not exceed minimum

requirement 3;

10%

No answer/non relevant response 0;

Less than minimum expected

categorisation 1

Barely adequate levels of categorisation

that just meet minimum requirements 2;

Acceptable response detailing how the

system fully meets minimum

categorisation requirements 310%

30

70%

20%

10%

20

50%

50%

5

60%

20%

20%

5

100%

5

40%

40%

20%

5

60%

40%


5/16

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 0.44 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


6/16

Tenderer 2 Tenderer 3

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 0.43 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


7/16

Section Score

3.2

4.5

3.0

4.0

4.0

3.4

4.6


8/16

The Quality Criteria Scores worksheet is only used to evaluate tenderers technical and qual

award critiera, not price. The scores will be automatically updated in the Price and Quality

Combined worksheet.

This template can be used to evaluate any type of tender for supplies, works or services

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 have been issued. This information must be included within the EU advert

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 these decisions.

Tendered prices should reflect the whole life cost of the procurement where possible.

In all cases the prices entered into the template the must represent a "like for like"

comparison between bidders.

In the example shown Tenderer 1 is scores highest overall when the price and quality

scores are combined, ven though it is not the lowest priced bid.

Cells shaded in yellow are to be used to enter data. Some other cells are locked to ensure t

they cannot be overtyped , as they contain formulae that work out the scores and ranking

for each tender.

The template assumes that three tenders have been returned, but more can be added

by simply copying and pasting the relevant cells.

The individual quality threshold for award criteria are entirely optional, as is the use of

an overall quality threshold

The only formulae that may need to be amended if more tenders are to be evaluated

are contained in cells D27 (which works out the average tendered price), and in the cells

that work out the relative ranking of the tenders (cells J33, N33 and R33 in the template).

These cells have not been locked.

The evaluation panel should keep a complete record of the decision making process

as this will enable the team to provide better debriefing to unsucessful 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


9/16

ity

hat


10/16

8.1

TECHNICAL

AND

QUALITY

CRITERIA

8.1.1 FUNCTIONALITY

8.1.1.1 Reports

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

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.


11/16

Technical &

Quality Criteria

overall

Percentage

Section Percentage

Score

Actual

Score

Company

A For

Input

Percenta

ge Score

Company

A For

Input

Percentag

e Score

Company

A

vera

percenta

ge score

for each

question

of tender

Actual

Score

Company

A For

Input

65.00%

40.00%

2 5.00% 12.50% 0.000%


12/16

Percenta

ge Score

Company

A For

Input

Percentage Score

Company A

vera

percenta

ge score

for each

question

of tender

Actual

Score

Company

A For

Input

Percenta

ge Score

Company

A For

Input

Percentag

e Score

Company

A

vera

percenta

ge score

for each

question

of tender

0.00% 12.50% 0.000% 0.00% 12.50% 0.000%


13/16

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 o

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


14/16

f 100.


15/16

Evaluation - Criterion Matrix

Price Price Score Price Score Price Score Price

Score 187,500.00 41.131 214,379.00 25.525 167,700.00 52.628 119,325.00

ted score (40 %) 16.453 10.21 21.051

Mean Price 172,226.00

Based on Daily Costs

Company A Company B Company C Compa

)+50Mean PriceFormula for Price Score Score = (Mean Price - Bid Price x100


16/16

Score

80.716

32.286

y D

Documents

Tender Evaluation Template Form