OFFICIAL
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The supply of furniture components and ancillary services
4455-2-Industrial Goods-SE-RFI
February 2015
1
OFFICIAL
1.
Introduction
1.1
This document sets out the methodology for evaluating the tenders submitted for the supply of
furniture components and ancillary services to the National Offender Management Service
(NOMS).
1.2
This evaluation methodology is designed to be viewed in conjunction with tender questions and
tender documents on the MoJ eSourcing Portal.
2.
Evaluation Objective
2.1
The contract will be awarded to the service provider submitting the Most Economically
Advantageous Tender (MEAT), considering both non-price criteria and price.
2.2
Non-price criteria will be weighted as 60% of the total score and price will be weighted as 40%.
3.
Non-price Criteria
3.1
The non-price criteria and the weighting for each criterion are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Competency Area
Specification – general requirements
17
Compliance to technical specification
22
Innovation
3
Logistics
7
Quality assurance
10
Supply chain
6
Environmental, sustainability and ethical trading
10
Mobilisation of contract
8
Contingency arrangements
5
Contract management
10
Monitoring
2
Total
3.2
Weighting
(%)
100
These criteria have been further divided into tender questions, attached at Annex A.
2
OFFICIAL
4.
Non-price Evaluation Process
4.1
Bidders’ responses will be evaluated by a panel comprised of representatives from the
Commercial and Contract Management (CCM) Directorate and ONE3ONE Solutions.
4.2
The evaluation panel will apply a six point scoring system to responses which reflects the extent
to which the Bidder’s response meets the Authority’s requirements. Grading shall be allocated
based on Table 2 set out below.
Table 2
eSourcing
Score
Assessment
Interpretation
100
Excellent
Exceeds the requirement. Excellent demonstration by the
Tenderer of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills,
resources and quality measures required. Evidence indentifies
factors that will offer significant added value.
90
Good
Satisfies the requirement and offers some additional benefits.
Above average demonstration by the Tenderer of the relevant
ability, understanding, experience, skills, resources and quality
measures required. Evidence indentifies factors that will offer
some added value.
80
Acceptable
Satisfies the requirement. Demonstration by the Tenderer of the
relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resources and
quality measures required.
70
Minor
Reservations
Satisfies the requirement, with some minor reservations. Some
minor reservations about the Tenderer’s relevant ability,
understanding, experience, skills, resources and quality
measures required.
60
Major
Reservations
Satisfies the requirement, with major reservations. Serious
concerns about the Tenderer’s relevant ability, understanding,
experience, skills, resources and quality measures required.
0
Unacceptable
Does not meet the requirement. Does not comply and/or
insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the
Tenderer has the relevant ability, understanding, experience,
skills, resources and quality measures required. Little or no
evidence to support the response.
4.3
The evaluation panel will convene to decide on a consensus score for each question in every
bid.
4.4
The Authority may contact Bidders to ask for clarification of their bids during the evaluation
period. Please provide a prompt response to any request for clarification.
3
OFFICIAL
4.5
Overall non-price scores for a tender will be calculated by multiplying the score for each scored
question by the question weighting within the questionnaire and then by the questionnaire
weighting.
4.6
Only those bids that achieve an overall non-price score of 70 or above will be deemed
compliant. Any bids scoring below 70 will be deemed non-compliant and their bid will not be
accepted.
5.
Price Evaluation
5.1
The lowest priced bid will be awarded a price score of 100. Other bids will then be awarded a
price score based on a comparison to the lowest priced bid:
(Lowest price / Price for bid being evaluated) x 100 = Price score for bid being evaluated
5.2
An example is shown below:
Bid A price
Bid B price
£1000
£1500
Score for Bid A = 100
Score for Bid B = (Bid A price / Bid B price) x 100
= (£1000 / £1500) x100
= 66.67
6.
Identifying the Winning Bidder
6.1
The quality score will be given a weighting of 60% and the price score will be given a weighting
of 40%. The bidder that is compliant and has the highest overall score will be awarded the
contract.
6.2
An example is shown below:
4
OFFICIAL
Weighted
Bid
Quality score
quality score
Price score
(60%)
Weighted price
score (40%)
Overall score
A
80
48
100
40
88
B
75
45
80
32
77
C
85
51
66.67
26.668
77.668
In the above example Bid A has the highest overall score, so would be awarded the contract.
Annex A – Tender questions
Tender questions
5