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 ) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
2/16
Q1
Q2Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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%
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
7/16
Section Score
3.2
4.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
4.6
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
9/16
ity
hat
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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.
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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%
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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%
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
14/16
f 100.
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
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
7/30/2019 Tender Evaluation Template Form
16/16
Score
80.716
32.286
y D
Top Related