tender evaluation strategy - whatdotheyknow.com

Project Board

Project Board 13 March 2012

Tender Evaluation Strategy

Interim & Final Tenders

Compliance (P/F)

Completeness (P/F)

Tender Evaluation - Process Overview

Bidders who provisionally pass

compliance

Price 60%

Deliverability & Non Price

40%

Required Information provided

Ranking of bidders

No variation to CRs

Technical

Clarification Process

Financial

Legal

No qualifications to CRs

Meets affordability criteria and no qualifications to CRs

No qualifications or unapproved changes to the DBFM Contract

Most Economically Advantageous Tender

Lowest Tender = 100

Step 2 - Risk Adjustment

Price Evaluation Criteria

Convert to score – out of

100

Other Tenders = 100 – A

A = % NPV is greater than lowest NPV

Calculate NPV of Unitary

Charges

Step 1 - Equalisation

Estimated value of additional risks retained by the College

(if required)

Resource – PWC &GTQS Adjustments to provide an

equal basis for comparing bids e.g. energy costs, insurance

Non-Price Evaluation: Deliverability

Construction & Delivery

Design & Technical

Facilities Management

Legal Deliverability

Technical

Legal/ Contractual

Will the design achieve planning consent without major changes? What is the likelihood of the proposal achieving BREEAM excellent?

Can Project Co’s maintenance regime accommodate the Core Times of usage stipulated by the College? Is there sufficient resource to deliver a quality FM service?

Is there sufficient evidence that the programme timescales can be achieved? Is the supply chain in place and does this reflect the needs and scale of the project?

Funding Deliverability

Financial/Comm Structure

Financial/ Commercial

Are all costs associated with the Services included and are the assumptions robust, e.g. in relation to capital allowances?

Are the funding proposals robust by reference to : • financing plan with details of

how the project and ongoing capital and working capital requirement will be funded

• support letters from funders / junior debt providers.

Does the subcontract Heads of Terms and ancillary documentation provide a structure capable of delivering the project?

Payment Mechanism

Is the pay-mech ‘bankable’?

Illustrative examples

Interim & Final Tenders

Compliance (P/F)

Completeness (P/F)

Tender Evaluation – Key Features

Bidders who pass

Deliverability 25%

• Equalised • Risk = Adjusted NPV

Ranking of bidders

Price

Non Price

Added Value 70%

Legal 5%

• Lowest bid= 100 • Others = 100 – A A = % NPV is greater than lowest NPV

=

=

Total Unweighted

Non Price Score

Total Unweighted Price Score

Final Non Price Score

Final Price Score

x 40%

x 60%

Added Value Technical Added Value

70

The extent to which proposals provide a high quality, attractive and inspiring environment for learning and teaching and positively enhances the College's profile and reputation

20

The extent to which proposals facilitate new and changing methods of learning and teaching and provide environments which as far as possible replicate or simulate industry standards

20

The extent to which the design provides flexibility and is easy to adapt to meet changing future educational and business needs at minimum cost and bureaucracy

15

The extent to which design and delivery proposals deliver an 'Intelligent Building' and provide the College with protection against ICT obsolescence risks

10

The extent to which the design and delivery strategies exceed the College's technical requirements and make a positive contribution toward the College's Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability Objectives

10

The extent to which proposals will seamlessly integrate with College services, ensure transparent performance evaluation and provide additional benefits

10

The extent to which proposals effectively integrate the new campus within its external and urban contexts, exploits opportunities to create high quality public spaces and provides an environment that is accessible to all

7.5

The extent to which decant and migration proposals minimise disruption, provide high quality temporary accommodation and align moves with the College's preferred move periods

7.5

Archive

Context - IPD Structure

Volume 1 Instructions to Tenderers

Volume 2 Project Agreement (DBFM Contract)

Volume 3 Information – Warranted/

Unwarranted

IPD Structure – Volume 1

Volume 1 Instructions

Scene Setting

Project Scale & Scope

Requirements & Measurement

Section 3 - Technical

Overview Section 4 – Commercial

Overview

Section 1 – Background/ Overview

Section 2 – Conditions of Participation

Section 6 – Submission Requirements

Section 7 - Evaluation

Process & Timescales

Section 5 Dialogue/

Tender Process


Volume 2 Project Agreement (DBFM Contract)

TECHNICAL (Accommodation, Hard FM

& LC services requirements)

FINANCIAL & COMMERCIAL

Terms

LEGAL

KEY ELEMENTS: Schedule 14 Payment

Mechanism Schedule 15 Insurance

KEY ELEMENTS: Schedule 6

College Requirements & NPD Co Proposals

Schedule 7 Programme Schedule 12 FM

KEY ELEMENTS: DBFM Contract

Schedules (Balance of)


Volume 3 Information

Warranted

Unwarranted

‘Data room’ Information e.g. Exemplar Stage C+ Design

TBC

IPD Structure - Interrelationship

Volume 1 Submission Requirements

Evaluation Guidance

Volume 2 College Requirements (CRs)

Volume 2 NPD Co Proposals


The Evaluation Process has been designed to:

• Select an affordable and deliverable tender which fully satisfies:

Technical requirements

Operational (FM and Lifecycle)

Commercial/legal requirements (risk allocation, payment etc)

• Balance Price and Non Price (Quality) factors to allow the selection of something other than the lowest costs proposal where it represents genuine added value

• Minimise exposure to risks, including affordability, legal challenge and bidder fall out

• Address the risk of a having to accept a low cost/low quality tender


The key features of the proposed strategy are:

• Guidance on affordability and added value is provided to bidders

• Bidders confirm compliance with all requirements (CD process used to tease out any issues)

• Price (NPV):Quality (Non Price) Ratio 60:40

• Prices is equalised and risk adjusted, converted to a score through a formula that addresses the Project Board’s concern regarding low cost/low quality tenders

• Robustness or Deliverability of tenders is evaluated as part of Quality (Non Price) evaluation

• Added Value criteria link to the project objectives and provide clear guidance to bidders on features that we are prepared to pay more for


The Project Board is asked to:

• Approve the key features of the proposed strategy

• Approve Price and Non Price (main criteria) weightings

• Delegate authority to the Project Sponsor to finalise Non Price (sub criteria weightings

• Note that the strategy will be shared with the SFT and this may lead to changes

• Note that the Strategy, in full and final form, will be reported to the Project Board before the IPD is issued

Interim Assessment of

Bidder 1 Submission

Assessment timescales


Bidder 2 Submission


Bidder 3 Submission

Assessment

of Final Tender Bidder 1

Assessment

of Final Tender Bidder 2

FINANCIAL CLOSE

TIMELINE

15 Weeks 6 Weeks 14 weeks 6 Weeks 15 Weeks 56 WEEK PROGRAMME

STA

RT

Firs

t R

ou

nd

of

Dia

logu

e

Seco

nd

Ro

un

d o

f D

ialo

gue

N

PD

co’s

Pre

par

e F

inal

Te

nd

ers

Pre

ferr

ed

Bid

de

r an

no

un

ced

FC

act

ivit

y /

Pla

nn

ing

Ap

plic

atio

n

Tender evaluation Process

Tender evaluation process

Tender Evaluation - Timeline

Approval Requested

The Project Board is asked to: 1. Approve the proposed tender evaluation strategy, the key aspects of which are:

Bidders are required to provide a statement of compliance and positively confirming ‘no qualifications’

Price: Quality Ratio = 60:40 Bid Net Present Values (NPVs) are adjusted for ‘bid equalisation’ and ‘risk profile’ Bid NPVs are converted to a score using the formula 100 – (a x b) where a = %

NPV is greater than lowest NPV, and b = 0.5 CGC Professional team assess and mark the deliverability of submissions, with

minimum score threshold and total points available (25% of non price) CGC Professional team and College representatives assess added value by

reference to the topics described in the Project Board paper. (70% of non price) CGC legal advisor assess bidders acceptance of risk and NPD contract terms (5%

of non price)

2. Approve the added value criteria and main category weightings and devolve authority to the Project Sponsor to finalise the sub-weightings

3. Note that the current intention is that Interim tender submissions do not include detailed funding proposals and a final decision on this will be made in conjunction with the SFT and reported to the Project Board before the IPD is issued

Sensitivity Analysis Quality / Price Sensitivity Analysis - Annex A

NPV Quality Calibration P Q Rank P Q Rank P Q Rank P Q Rank P Q Rank

1 200 90 1 80% 20% 3 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 1

NPV & Quality 195 85 1 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

Scores Close 190 80 1 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 3

1a 200 90 0.5 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 1

195 85 0.5 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

190 80 0.5 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 3

2 200 90 1.0 80% 20% 3 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 3

NPV Far Apart 180 85 1.0 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

Quality Close 160 80 1.0 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 1

2a 200 90 0.5 80% 20% 3 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 1

180 85 0.5 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

160 80 0.5 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 3

3 200 90 1.0 80% 20% 3 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 1

NPVs Close 195 80 1.0 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

Quality Far Apart 190 70 1.0 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 3

3a 200 90 0.5 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 1

195 80 0.5 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

190 70 0.5 80% 20% 3 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 3

4 200 90 1.0 80% 20% 3 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 1

NPV & Quality 180 80 1.0 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

Scores Far Apart 160 70 1.0 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 3

4a 200 90 0.5 80% 20% 3 70% 30% 3 60% 40% 1 50% 50% 1 40% 60% 1

180 80 0.5 80% 20% 2 70% 30% 2 60% 40% 2 50% 50% 2 40% 60% 2

160 70 0.5 80% 20% 1 70% 30% 1 60% 40% 3 50% 50% 3 40% 60% 3

Price:Non Price Ratios 80:20 and 70:30 Lowest cost succeeds except where NPVs are close and quality far apart or @ 70:30 where both scores are close and 0.5 calibration applied

Price:Quality Ratio 60:40 Lowest price succeeds except a) where quality scores close or quality far apart (in which cases highest quality wins) and b) where there is a low price and no calibration

EVALUATION TOPIC

Curriculum

Delivery &

industry

environments

Value for

money Accessible

Pedagogical

Approaches Flexible

Healthy and

Attractive Sustainable

Culture and

Brand

Design Quality

1 Overall concept

2 Facilitate new pedagogical approaches

3 External and Urban context

4 Attractive and Inspiring

5 Accessible

Sustainability and Flexibility

6 Flexible and adaptable

7 Environmental Sustainability

8 Total cost of ownership

ICT

9 Functionality, Integration and Interoperability

10Flexibility and approach to obsolescence risks and

reviewable design data

11Testing and handover processes and quality and length

of warranties provided

Decant, Migration and Delivery

12Decant Solution

13 Migration Solution

14Commissioning, Handover and Use of Added Value

Technology

FM, Lifecycle

15 FM Service Integration

X Approach to Lifecycle

Partnership and Stakeholders

16Supplementary Benefits to the College and Local

Communities

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVESNON PRICE TENDER EVALUATION

Non Price Weightings

Main Criteria Main criteria Weighting

FOR APPROVAL

Sub criteria Sub-criteria (as % of the relevant

main criteria)

DRAFT

DELIVERABILITY [25]

Technical 10

Design & Technical tbc

Construction & Delivery tbc

FM Requirements tbc

Financial 10

Funding tbc

Commercial Structure tbc

Payment Mechanism tbc

Legal 5

ADDED VALUE [70] 70

Design quality: Internal & external tbc

Sustainability and Flexibility tbc

ICT tbc

Decant, Migration and Delivery tbc

FM and Lifecycle tbc

Partnership & Stakeholders tbc

LEGAL [5] 5 Impact of Amendments

TOTAL NON PRICE 100

Proposed: Project Sponsor

has delegated authority to agree

sub weightings

Consortium

and its

supply chain

contracts

CGC – NPD Co

Contract (where

impact not reflected in

price risk adjustment)

tender evaluation strategy - whatdotheyknow.com

Documents