Before starting to evaluate submissions, it is important to review each and to clarify any information that is unclear or ambiguous. The process of evaluation depends on the award criteria used i.e. lowest price or the most advantageous tender.
Lowest price
Where the lowest price criterion is used, the submissions should be evaluated against the product specification and the award made to the one offering the lowest price. Where a lower bid is rejected, it will be necessary for you to be able to demonstrate how that bid failed against the objective technical criteria stated in the documentation.
Note: under lowest price, it is not possible to take other qualitative, environmental and social criteria into consideration. For this reason, it is strongly recommended that the lowest price criterion is not used. If the contract in question is over threshold, then it is not permissible to evaluate on lowest price alone.
Most advantageous tender (MAT)
Where the MAT criterion is used, it will be necessary to evaluate the bids in a methodical way that is (and is seen to be) fair and transparent. This has resulted in several mathematical-based systems that are used to allocate scores on how a submission meets each stated criteria.
The criteria are normally weighted i.e. they are ranked in order of importance
These scores are then added together to give a final score for the submission
The contract is then awarded to the submission with the highest score
The mathematics of doing this can be daunting to some people. A Whole Life Costing model which should be used in all major procurement exercise is designed to calculate the final scores of the price element for each submission as simply as possible.
In practice, the specification will contain a long list of criteria against which each submission will be assessed. In its simplest form:
Marks are allocated for each criterion
Then added together
A total score obtained
It is more likely that there will be a preference or weighting given to some of the criteria. For example, in a consultancy requirement it may be agreed that the quality criteria are more important than the actual price. So a quality biased weighting (60% quality, 40% price) might be adopted.
Evaluation of submissions - associated risks | ||
|---|---|---|
Issues | Risks | Solutions |
Submissions are not evaluated in the same way Lack of evidence of decision process Insufficient record of decisions | · Open to challenge that decision process was unfair · No record of decisions, should these be challenged at de-briefing or by a Freedom of Information question | · Use a standard approach and methodology such as Whole Life Costing or other appropriate scoring-based system · Document the decision process, evaluating the submissions against the published selection (at pre-qualification stage) and award criteria |
Clarifications change the nature of a bidder’s submission | · Open to challenge that the response to a clarification materially changes a bidder’s submission | · Where a clarification materially changes a bidder’s submission, the competition should be stopped and re-run or the bidder withdraws or is excluded from the competition |
Whole Life Costing model not used as part of evaluation process | · Important aspects that could differentiate bids may not be considered | · Consideration should be given to evaluating all 5 dimensions (financial, technical, quality, environmental and social) as these are all elements of a sustainable solution |
School / MAT members - the information on this page aligns with the following ISBL Professional Standards: 3.37, 3.38, 3.39, 3.40