Service Contract Award Committee Report
CONTRACT AWARD COMMITTEE REPORT
TITLE of CONTRACT : [...]
PUBLICATION REF.: [...]
1.
Contents:
Timetable
Observers
Evaluation
- Preparatory session
- Bid opening session
- Administrative compliance
- Technical compliance
- Financial evaluation
Conclusion
Signatures
Annexes:
Bid opening report and annex
Administrative compliance grid
Technical evaluation grids completed by the individual voting member
[Clarification correspondence with bidders, if any]
Timetable
DATE
TIME
VENUE
Preparatory
session
Deadline for the
submission of
bids
Bid opening
session
< Meeting 1 >
< Meeting 2 >
Etc.
2.
Observers
Name
Representing
1
Service Contract Award Committee Report
3.
Evaluation
Preparatory session
The Chairperson and the Contracting Officer/buyer informed the Contract Award Committee of the
scope of the proposed service contract, identified the organisations responsible for preparing the
bidding dossier, and summarised the essential features of the bidding procedure, including the
award procedure used and the evaluation grid published as part of the bidding dossier. [The
Contract will be awarded to the lowest priced bid while being administrative and technical compliant
with the published selection criteria]. OR [The Contract will be awarded to the bidder offering the
“best value” for money by weighting the technical quality against the price on a 60 (technical score) /
40 (financial score) basis.]
Bid opening session
The Bid opening report is attached to this report. The Contract Award Committee only considered
those bids, which were found to be suitable for further evaluation following the bid opening session.
Administrative compliance
The Contract Award Committee used the administrative compliance grid included in the bidding
dossier to assess the compliance of each of the bids with the administrative requirements of the
bidding dossier.
[If clarifications were requested for the submissions from any bidders:
With the agreement of the other Contract Award Committee voting members, the Chairperson, wrote
to the following bidders whose bid required clarification, offering them the possibility to respond by
<within a reasonable time limit fixed by the Contract Award Committee, with a minimum time of 24 h
and a maximum time of 48 h> (all correspondence is attached in the Annex indicated):
Bid
envelope
No
[Lot number]
Bidder’s name
Summary of exchange of
correspondence
]
2
Service Contract Award Committee Report
[The completed Administrative compliance grid is attached. On the basis of this, the Contract Award
Committee decided that the following bids were administratively non-compliant and should not be
considered further:
Bid envelope
No
[Lot number]
Bidder’s name
Reason
]
Or
[The completed Administrative compliance grid is attached. On the basis of this, the Contract Award
Committee decided that all bids were administratively compliant and should be considered further]
Technical compliance
[When lowest price award criteria]
Each voting member on the Contract Award Committee used the Technical evaluation grid included
in the bidding dossier to assess the compliance of each of the bids with the technical requirements of
the bidding dossier on a yes/no basis. The completed Technical evaluation grids are attached.
3
Service Contract Award Committee Report
[If clarifications were requested from any bidders:
With the agreement of the other Contract Award Committee voting members, the Chairperson wrote
to the following bidders whose bids required clarification, offering them the possibility to respond by
<within a reasonable time limit fixed by the contract award committee, with a minimum time of 24 h
and a maximum time of 48 h > (all correspondence is attached in the Annex indicated):
Bid
envelope
No
[Lot
Number]
Bidder’s name
Summary of exchange of
correspondence
[After discussing the individual conclusions of the voting members, the Contract award Committee
concluded that the following bids were technically non-compliant and should not be considered
further:
Bid
envelope
No
[Lot
Number]
Bidder’s name
Reason
]
Or
[After discussing the individual conclusions of the voting members, the Contract award Committee
concluded that all bids were technically compliant and should be considered further.]
[When “best value” for money award criteria]
Each voting member on the Contract Award Committee used the Technical evaluation grid included
in the bidding dossier to assess and award scores on each criterion according to his assessment.
Each voting member has been able to justify his/her assessment and scores during the deliberations
of the Contract award Committee. Only bidders obtaining an average technical score of at least 80
points qualify for the financial evaluation. The completed individual Technical evaluation grids are
attached.
4
Service Contract Award Committee Report
[If clarifications were requested from any bidders:
With the agreement of the other Contract Award Committee voting members, the Chairperson wrote
to the following bidders whose bids required clarification, offering them the possibility to respond by
<within a reasonable time limit fixed by the contract award committee, with a minimum time of 24 h
and a maximum time of 48 h > (all correspondence is attached in the Annex indicated):
Bid
envelope
No
[Lot Number]
Bidder’s
name
Summary of exchange of correspondence
[After discussing the individual conclusions of the voting members, the Contract award Committee
concluded that the following bids did not obtain an average technical score of 80 points and should
not be considered further:
Bid
envelope
No
Lot
Number
Bidder’s name
Average
Technical Score
Reason
]
Technical Bid Evaluation Summary: [Specimen, to be completed in accordance with number of bids
and actual scores supported by the individual technical evaluation grids, should be completed lot
by lot, if any]
Maximum
possible
score
Bidder 1
Bidder 2
Bidder 3
Voting
Member 1
100
55
88
84
Voting
Member 2
100
60
84
82
Voting
Member 3
100
59
82
90
Total
300
174
254
256
5
Service Contract Award Committee Report
Maximum
possible
score
Average
score
(mathematical
average)
Technical
score (actual
final average
score/highest
final average
score)*100
Bidder 1
Bidder 2
Bidder 3
174/3=58.00
254/3=84.67
256/3=85.33
ELIMINATED
*
84,67/85.33*100=
85,33/85,33*100=
99.22
100.00
* Only bidders with average technical scores of at least 80 points qualify for the financial evaluation.
Financial evaluation
The Contract Award Committee checked the technically compliant bids for arithmetic errors.
[If any arithmetic errors were found:
As stated in the instructions to bidders, arithmetic errors were corrected on the following basis:
 Where there was a discrepancy between amounts in figures and in words, the amount in words
prevailed
 Except for lump-sums , where there was a discrepancy between a unit price and the total amount
derived from the multiplication of the unit price and the quantity, the unit price as quoted
prevailed, except where the Contract award Committee agreed that there was an obvious error in
the unit price, in which case the total amount as quoted prevailed
 Where unconditional discounts applied to financial offers, the discount was applied to the
financial offer
The following arithmetic corrections were made:
Bid
envelope
No
Bidder’s name
and [Lot
Number]
Stated financial offer
(euro/
national currency)
Arithmetically corrected financial
offer
(euro/
national currency)
]
[When lowest price award criteria]
The arithmetically corrected financial offers were compared to identify the technically compliant bid
with the lowest price.
6
Service Contract Award Committee Report
The ranking of the bids which were not excluded during the evaluation was as follows, in order of the
arithmetically corrected financial offers:
[For each lot:]
Bid
envelope
No
Bidder’s name
Financial offer
[after arithmetical correction]
(euro/national currency)
Ranking
[When “best value” for money award criteria]
The arithmetically corrected financial offers of the bidders that qualified for the financial evaluation
were compared in order to define their respective financial score.
Financial Bid Evaluation Summary: [Specimen, to be completed in accordance with number of bids
qualifying for the financial evaluation and actual prices submitted by the bidders; and lot by lot, if
any]
Total Price
Bidder 1
Bidder 2
Bidder 3
Eliminated
following
technical
evaluation*
132,875 EUR
141,378 EUR
132,875/132,875*100=
132,875/141,378*100=
100.00
93.98
Financial
score (lowest
price/actual
price)*100
* Only bidders with average technical scores of at least 80 points qualified for the financial evaluation.
The Contract Committee defined the bidder offering the “best value” for money by weighting the
technical score against the financial score, respectively on a 60/40 basis.
Bid Evaluation Summary following the weighting:
Technical score x 0.6
Bidder 1
Bidder 2
Bidder 3
Eliminated following
the technical
Evaluation
99.22 x 0.6 = 59.53
100 x 0.6 = 60.00
7
Service Contract Award Committee Report
Bidder 1
Bidder 2
Bidder 3
Financial score x 0.4
100 x 0.4 = 40.00
93.98 x 0.4 = 37.59
Overall score
(technical score +
financial score)
59.53 + 40.00 =
99.53
60.00 + 37.59 =
97.59
Final ranking
1
2
4.
Conclusion
Consequently, the Contract Award Committee recommends awarding the Contract(s) [per Lot] as
follows:
Bid
envelope
No
5.
Bidder’s name
Financial offer
[after arithmetical
correction]
(euro/
national currency)
Discount
applicable
(euro/
national
currency)
Contract value
(euro/
national currency)
Signatures
Name
Signature
Chairperson
(Voting Member)
Contracting
Officer/Buyer
Voting Member
Voting Member
8