Medal Research and Assessment Services€¦ · Web viewWeightings may or may not be detailed in the request documents. Providing weightings in the request documentation should be

EVALUATION PLAN

for

[…INSERT PROCUREMENT NAME AND NUMBER…]

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

Note to drafters: The EP must be completed and approved before the opening of tenders following the tender closing time, if not before.

Objective Document ID xxVersion xxStatus xxDate xxProduced By xxProduced For xx

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 31.1 AIM........................................................................................................................................ 31.2 TIMELINES.............................................................................................................................. 3

EVALUATION TEAM (ET)................................................................................................................... 31.3 THE EVALUATION TEAM (ET)...................................................................................................31.4 ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES - EVALUATION TEAM (ET)............................................................31.5 ADVISORS TO THE ET.............................................................................................................4

GUIDING PRINCIPLES....................................................................................................................... 41.6 PROBITY, ETHICS AND FAIR DEALING......................................................................................4

COMMUNICATION WITH TENDERERS.............................................................................................41.7 POINT OF CONTACT................................................................................................................51.8 COMMUNICATIONS.................................................................................................................. 5

EVALUATION OVERVIEW................................................................................................................. 51.9 REGISTRATION OF TENDERS...................................................................................................51.10 LATE TENDERS...................................................................................................................... 61.11 UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF FORM..........................................................................................61.12 SHORTLISTING........................................................................................................................ 6

TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................61.13 STAGE 1 – INITIAL SCREENING BASED ON THE COMPLIANCE CRITERIA........................................81.14 STAGE 2 - A DETAILED EVALUATION AGAINST THE EVALUATION CRITERIA....................................81.15 STAGE 3 - AN ASSESSMENT OF VALUE FOR MONEY AND FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS...............10

EVALUATION REPORT.................................................................................................................... 101.16 EVALUATION REPORT ..........................................................................................................10

Debriefing of Tenderers..................................................................................................................... 11

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aim

1.1.1 The aim of this Evaluation Plan (EP) is to provide guidance, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Framework, Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM) and the Conditions of Tender, for the evaluation of tender responses to […INSERT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT…].

1.1.2 This EP provides a framework for:

a. the identification of the preferred Tenderer based on a systematised, defensible assessment of each Tenderer's response against the evaluation criteria at paragraph […INSERT PARAGRAPH…] of this EP;

b. how the principles of best ‘value for money’ and the other procurement requirements as defined in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and related web-based guidance issued by Department of Finance will be applied through the evaluation criteria and process; and

c. an evaluation process that meets the requirements of Defence’s legal and probity requirements and guidelines.

1.2 Timelines

1.2.1 The estimated dates for the procurement process are outlined in the table below.

Note to drafters: Delete or add milestones as required.

Milestone Estimated date

Release to Market [Insert date]

Closing Time [Insert time and date]

Approval of Tender Evaluation Report [Insert date]

Negotiation Completed [Insert date]

Contract Execution [Insert date]

Debriefing of unsuccessful Tenderers [Insert date]

EVALUATION TEAM

1.3 The Evaluation Team (ET)

1.3.1 The Evaluation Team is shown in the table below:

Members Position

Chairperson

Member

MemberFinancial evaluation

1.4 Role and responsibilities - Evaluation Team (ET)

1.4.1 The Evaluation Team (ET) is responsible for the evaluation process from receipt of Tender responses, through to detailed and comparative evaluation, to presentation of a final Evaluation Report (ER).

1.4.2 The members of the Evaluation Team (ET) are required to read and be familiar with the request documentation and the Evaluation Plan (EP) prior to commencement of the evaluation as all tenders will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria and methodology contained in the request documentation and the EP.

1.4.3 The ET Chairperson will be responsible for:

a. chairing, or allocating a chair for, all meetings of the ET during the evaluation process;

b. ensuring the evaluation process complies with the request documentation and EP;

c. preparing the ER.

1.4.4 Members of the ET will be responsible for:

a. evaluating all Tenders in accordance with the EP;

b. assisting the ET Chairperson with the compilation of reports, including the ER as required.

1.5 Advisors to the ET

1.5.1 The Chairperson of the ET may seek advice from specialist advisors from within Defence, other Commonwealth agencies and externally, if required, to supplement the resources of the ET.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1.6 Probity, Ethics and Fair Dealing

1.6.1 Establishing a climate of ethics and fair dealing from the commencement of the tender evaluation process is essential. This will be achieved by ensuring that:

a. the evaluation is conducted strictly in accordance with the published Conditions of Tender, this EP and the evaluation criteria;

b. a clear, appropriate documented audit trail of the process conducted and the basis for the recommendations in the ER is established and maintained; and

c. the ET maintains its independence and objectivity be ensuring there is no public perception of conflict of interest or bias.

1.6.2 All tenders, assessments, evaluations and the ER are to be treated as Commercial-In-Confidence, in accordance with the procedures in the Defence Security Manual.

1.6.3 The probity register at Attachment […INSERT REFERENCE AS APPLICABLE…] will be used to record all probity issues and risks.

1.7 Authority and Precedence

1.7.1 The evaluation criteria identified in this EP is identical to the evaluation criteria contained in Request for Tender (RFT) […INSERT RFT REFERENCE…] and is to be used as the principle reference for the evaluation.

1.7.2 In the event that an inconsistency between the RFT and the EP is found, the RFT takes precedence. Accordingly, the evaluation criteria advertised in the RFT must be used to evaluate tenders and must be related to tender response requirements.

1.7.3 The EP takes precedence over any working instructions developed within the ET. Members of the ET must read the EP prior to commencement of the evaluation.

1.7.4 The evaluation criteria advised to industry in the RFT must not be altered during the evaluation process without a formal request documentation amendment process. If there is a need to amend the EP, approval is to be obtained from the FINMAN 2 Schedule 1 delegate.

COMMUNICATION WITH TENDERERS

1.8 Point of Contact

Note to drafters: The single point of contact nominated for the evaluation period is usually the ET Chairperson. Another member of the ET may be nominated for administrative purposes however approval for all communications with Tenderers will remain the responsibility of the ET Chairperson.

1.8.1 The point of contact for all matters relating to this project is:

[…INSERT CONTACT OFFICER’S DETAILS…]

1.8.2 The ET Chairperson will be responsible for authorising all communications with Tenderers.

1.8.3 The communications register at Attachment […INSERT REFERENCE AS APPLICABLE…] will be used to retain a record of communications (including complaints, requests for information, extension to the tender open period, etc).

1.9 Communications

1.9.1 If important information or data provided in a Tender response cannot be evaluated because it is unclear, it lacks evidence or if contradictory or potentially contradictory statements are found, a Clarifying Question may be submitted to the Tenderer in writing. Clarifying Questions will not be used to enable revision of the Tenderer’s submission. Responses to Clarifying Questions that change, or are interpreted as changing, the original tender response will be disallowed.

1.9.2 At any time during the evaluation, the ET may conduct activities, including but not limited to, meetings, interviews, presentations, site visits and referee checks. The purpose of these questions and activities is to address issues for clarification and/or confirm tenderers’ responses. Comprehensive records of these questions and activities are to be kept by the ET.

1.9.3 Subsequent to any questions and activities undertaken, further discussions within the ET may take place to achieve broad consensus and finalise the evaluation.

EVALUATION OVERVIEW

1.10 Registration of Tenders

1.10.1 […DELETE THIS PARA 1.10.1 AS APPLICABLE…] All tenders will be lodged using AusTender’s Level 3 electronic distribution functionality which allows suppliers to submit tender responses to a secure tenderbox via the AusTender website.

1.10.2 A representative of Defence will register the receipt of all tenders. Tenders shall not be opened before the designated Tender Closing Time stipulated in the Request for Tender documentation.

1.11 Late Tenders

1.11.1 Tenders lodged after the Tender Closing Time specified in the RFT will be deemed to be “Late Tenders”.

1.11.2 Late Tenders must be treated in accordance with the ‘Late Submission’ guidelines found at paragraphs 10.24-10.27 of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.

1.12 Unintentional errors of form

1.12.1 If the ET considers that there are unintentional errors of form in a tender, the ET may ask the Tenderer to correct or clarify the error. However, no material alteration or addition to that tender may be permitted.

1.12.2 Any decision to issue requests for correction or clarification of errors of form should be made at the discretion of the Chairperson and ensure the probity of the process is maintained.

1.13 Shortlisting

1.13.1 Defence may create a shortlist of Tenderers at any time during the evaluation process. Sufficient justification for this must be recorded in the Shortlisting report at Attachment […INSERT REFERENCE AS APPLICABLE…] to seek FINMAN 2 Schedule 1 delegate approval of the shortlisted tenderers.

TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

1.14 […INSERT EVALUATION CRITERIA AS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST DOCUMENTATION…]Note to drafters: It is essential that in the event of any changes to the original evaluation criteria, they are advised to industry via AusTender before the commencement of the evaluation process. Evaluation criteria should be measurable, clear and transparent. Typical criteria include:

Compliance criteria - this typically includes both mandatory criteria which must be met for tenderers to progress to the next stage of evaluation and conformance type criteria such as did the tenderer include all responses requirements and in the correct format. Mandatory criteria include all conditions for participation, minimum content and format requirements and any requirements described as essential. Conformance criteria are generally not mandatory but may impact the ability of a tenderer be competitive if they are not substantially met.

Technical criteria – The evaluation criteria developed to assess the tenderer’s ability to meet the Defence’s requirements as described in the request documentation. These criteria are generally scored using a rating scale and a weighting applied based on their relative importance.

Financial criteria – The evaluation criteria developed to assess the tenderer’s pricing proposal.

Commercial criteria – Are there any areas on non-compliance with the draft contract? Is the insurance coverage adequate? Is the financial viability/capacity of the supplier adequate? Assessment of these criteria is typically based on the assessed risk to the Commonwealth of any areas on non-compliance.

Two evaluation methodologies are proposed. One of the two should be selected. The two methods are:

Comparative assessment – Comparative assessment involves ranking tenders in their relative order of merit against the requirements of the request documentation and evaluating each criterion and the risks associated with each criterion, to arrive at a recommendation of the overall merit of the tender against all requirements. The rating system to be used should be defined in the EP.

Weighted assessment - Weightings should be allocated to each criterion reflecting their relative importance to the total requirements. The weightings must be established in the Evaluation Plan. Any suggestion to make each criterion and sub criterion equal in value should be made with caution

as it can skew the results and produce an unsatisfactory result, which does not reflect value for money. Weightings may or may not be detailed in the request documents. Providing weightings in the request documentation should be considered to provide the potential tenderers with a view of the relative importance of each criterion. In order to avoid skewing the focus of potential tenderers too much the weightings advised to tenderers should be at the higher levels only. The weightings allocated across all evaluation criteria should total 100. Note: Weightings cannot be changed after evaluation commences.Consistent scoring across tenders is promoted through the use of a standard rating scale where each criterion is rated. A standard numeric scale or word description is recommended, based on how well the offer satisfies the criterion. Should price be weighted? – The whole of life cost of the procurement may be assigned a weighting or be unweighted. The evaluation methodology below is for procurement without a weighted price criterion. Where price is not weighted the Evaluation Team is required to make a judgement of the relative value for money offered by each tenderer having consideration of their technical score, compliance, risks and price to determine which offers the Commonwealth the best value for money. Having a weighted price removes some of the judgement required and may be perceived as being a more objective way to rank tenderers, however caution should be exercised particularly to the size of the weighting applied especially if the price of the good or service is difficult to predict. If weighting is applied to following formula should be used to apply the weighting and be incorporated in to the evaluation methodology with consideration for any scenarios, sensitivity modelling or normalisation of pricing that may be required.

Calculating weighted scores for technical criteria and price.

The weighted score for technical criteria is calculated by applying the following formula: Agreed score x weighted % x (100/highest number on the rating scale)E.g. For an agreed score of 8 on a 0-10 rating scale the weighted score (WS) = 8 x 20% x (100/10) = 16

The weighted score for price is calculated by applying the following formula:

Whole of life cost score = weighting% x Lowest Tender Price Each Tenderer’s Price

E.g. Tenderer A’s price is $100Tenderer B’s price is $90 (and is the lowest price)Price is weighted 20%

Tenderer A’s score = 20 x 90/100 = 18%Tenderer B’s price = 20 x 90/90 = 20%

The total weighted score is the sum of all weighted scores.

The following table illustrates how weightings can be allocated to the scored evaluation criteria, beginning with the major criteria and splitting the weighting into sub-criteria:

Major criteria Sub-criteriaCriterion A – 40% Sub-criterion A1 – 20%

Sub-criterion A2 – 10%Sub-criterion A3 – 10%

1.14.1 The evaluation will consist of three stages:

a. Stage 1 - an initial screening based on the compliance criteria;

b. Stage 2 - a detailed evaluation against the evaluation criteria;

c. Stage 3 - an assessment of value for money and final ranking.

1.15 Stage 1 – initial screening based on the compliance criteria

1.15.1 Responses will be assessed against the compliance criteria detailed below:

Evaluation Criteria - Compliance criteria

Minimum content and format requirements RFT Reference

Scoring

[Insert criteria] [Insert reference]

[Pass/Fail]


[Pass/Fail]

Conditions of Participation


[Pass/Fail]


[Pass/Fail]

Essential Requirements


[Pass/Fail]

1.15.2 Responses that do not satisfy any mandatory criteria will not be considered for detailed evaluation and will be set aside.

1.16 Stage 2 - a detailed evaluation against the evaluation criteria

1.16.1 Detailed assessment against the evaluation criteria will be conducted.

1.16.2 The ET will assess and score the responses in terms of:

a. the merit of the response and its conformity (including completeness) with the requirements stated in the request documentation;

b. the degree with which the respondent’s assertions and claims are demonstrated or supported, and the merit of any supporting information provided; and

c. the degree of any risk assessed by the ET as attaching to the response.

1.16.3 The financial evaluation will be conducted, to achieve a common whole of life price basis for comparison.

1.16.4 The assessment will be undertaken against the following criteria […USE FOR COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:

Evaluation criteria Number Evaluation Criteria RFT Reference

1.16.5 The rating scale that will be used is […USE FOR COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:

exceeds: the tendered solution exceeds the requirement specified in the request documentation in a manner which offers significant additional benefits to Defence;

compliant: the tendered solution meets the requirement specified in the request documentation or, where it exceeds the requirement, there is no significant additional benefits to Defence; and

deficient: the tendered solution does not meet the requirement specified in the request documentation.

1.16.6 Deficiencies may be further classified as […USE FOR COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:

critical: a deficiency that cannot be readily remedied and which is of such significance that it may seriously prevent the principal project objectives from being achieved or does not comply with Defence Policy;

significant: a deficiency that has the potential to prevent an element of the principal project objectives from being achieved; and

minor: a deficiency that has no substantial implications for the project objectives and, subject to discussion with the tenderer, may be acceptable without remedial action.

1.16.7 The assessment will be undertaken against the following criteria […USE FOR WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:

Evaluation criteria Number Evaluation Criteria RFT

ReferenceWeighted scoring

1.16.8 The rating scale that will be used is […USE FOR WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:

Score Definition

10 Exceptional Meets and exceeded requirements in all areas. Completely convincing and credible. Response demonstrates superior capability, capacity and experience relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Comprehensively documented with all claims fully substantiated. Low or no risk.

9 Outstanding Requirements are exceeded in most key areas & addressed to a very high standard in all others. Response demonstrates outstanding capability, capacity and experience relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Most claims are fully substantiated with others very well substantiated. Low risk.

8 Very Good Requirements met to a very high standard in all areas. All claims are well substantiated. Response demonstrates very good capability, capacity and experience relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Low risk.

7 Good Specification requirements met to a high standard in all areas. Claims are well substantiated in key areas. Response demonstrates good capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Low to medium risk.

6 Fair Requirements are addressed well in all areas. Claims are well substantiated in most areas. Credible strategies that fully address all minimum requirements and exceed requirements in some areas. Response demonstrates fair capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Some minor shortcomings. Most key risks are covered well. Medium risk.

5 AcceptableRequirements addressed to a consistent acceptable standard with no major shortcomings. Response demonstrates acceptable capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. All claims are adequately substantiated. Some gaps identified. Medium risk.

4 Marginal Requirements not fully met. Response demonstrates marginal capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Some claims unsubstantiated; others only adequate. Some proposals unworkable. Medium to high risk.

3 PoorRequirements poorly addressed in some areas or not at all. Claims largely unsubstantiated. Response demonstrates poor capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. A number of proposals unworkable. High risk.

2 Very PoorRequirements inadequately dealt with in most or all areas. Claims almost totally unsubstantiated. A number of proposals unworkable with a high probability of failure. Response demonstrates very poor capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. High to extreme risk.

1 UnacceptableRequirements not met. Claims unsubstantiated and unworkable. Response does not demonstrate capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Extreme risk.

0 Non-CompliantNon-compliance either stated or demonstrated by the Respondent or there is insufficient information to assess compliance, Respondent was not evaluated as it did not provide minimum level of requested information and/or contravened nominated restrictions.

1.17 Stage 3 - an assessment of value for money and final ranking of Tenders

1.17.1 The ET will conduct the value for money deliberations under the direction of the ET Chairperson. The ET will determine overall best value for money from the evaluation of Tenders against the evaluation criteria including any identified risks.

1.17.2 The ET will rank tenders to account for the assessment against all evaluation criteria thus achieving a final value for money ranking. The result will be a recommendation of a preferred Tenderer, and, if possible, a second-preferred Tenderer based on best value for money.

EVALUATION REPORT

1.18 Evaluation Report (ER)

1.18.1 An ER will be prepared to document the process and outcomes of the evaluation.

1.18.2 The Approval Authority for this evaluation process is the […INSERT DELEGATE…].

1.18.3 A Simple ER template is at Attachment A.

Note to drafters: To maintain fairness in a procurement process, the separation of duties is important. Officials involved in evaluation should not be those who are approving the spending of relevant money.

DEBRIEFING OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL TENDERERS

1.18.4 Following the rejection of a submission or the award of a contract, officials must promptly inform affected tenderers of the decision. Debriefings must be made available, on request, to unsuccessful tenderers outlying the reasons the submission was unsuccessful. Debriefings must also be made available, on request, to the successful supplier(s).

1.18.5 The assessments against the evaluation criteria will be used as the basis for debriefing the Tenderers.

Attachment A

Procurement Evaluation Report: Simple Procurement

Request Documentation Identifier: [Insert procurement name and number]

Description of goods or services: [Insert brief description of the requirement per SOW included in AC565 or Request for Quote and Tasking Statement (RFQTS) if procured from a panel]

Tender or Quotation Closing Time & Date: [Insert closing time and date specified in the request documents]

SON ID: [Insert if applicable]

Late Tenders: [Include details of any late tenders not admitted to the evaluation or include a statement that no late tenders were received]

Tender or Quotation Validity period requested [Insert]

Evaluation Team (ET):Name: Position: Subject Matter Evaluated:

[e.g. technical assessment/financial assessment]

Probity, ethics and fair dealing

All ET members were made aware of their obligations in regards to probity, ethics and fair dealing including conflicts of interest, confidentiality and security. All ET members signed a conflict of interest declaration prior to commencing the evaluation.

Evaluation

Detailed evaluation (Comparative)

Note to drafters: The evaluation criteria fields are examples only.

EVALUATION CRITERIA Type [Company 1] [Company 2] [Company 3] [Company 4]1 [E.G. MINIMUM CONTENT AND

FORMAT AND CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION. EVERY REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE LISTED]

[Compliance –Mandatory]

[e.g. This tender was set aside and not evaluated further on the basis that they did not meet the mandatory

[e.g. All requirements met]


Attachment A – Evaluation Report template

requirement xxx].2

[E.G. COMPLIANCE WITH TENDER REQUIREMENTS AND DRAFT CONTRACT]

[Commercial] [e.g. Fully compliant]

[e.g. Three non-compliance issues were documented. These are x, y and z. All have been assessed as low risk and are acceptable to Defence.]

3

[E.G. CAPACITY TO PROVIDE GOODS/SERVICES] [Technical]

[This has been evaluated as a compliant response. The tenderer has demonstrated adequate experience in delivering similar goods/services.]

[The response has been evaluated as deficient because it does not meet the following requirements: x,y,z.X and y are minor deficiencies.Z is a critical deficiency because it does not comply with Defence Policy xx.]

4 [E.G. CAPACITY TO MEET DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS] [Technical]

5

[E.G. RISK ASSOCIATED WITH OFFER] [Risk assessment]

[An assessment of risks should be undertaken and may be included against each criteria or documented separately]

6

[E.G. PRICE OFFERED] [Financial]

[Insert details of the pricing assessment including assessed whole of life cost, relevant assumptions and basis for price variation over the term of the contract]


Detailed evaluation (Weighted)

Note to drafters: The evaluation criteria fields are examples only. All evaluation criteria must align with criteria stated in the request documentation (e.g. AC565 or RFQTS).

Compliance and commercial evaluation

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Weighting Type [Company 1] [Company 2] [Company 3] [Company 4]

1[E.G. MINIMUM CONTENT AND FORMAT AND CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION]

Not weighted [Compliance –Mandatory]

[e.g. This tender was set aside and not evaluated further on the basis that they did not meet the mandatory requirement xxx].



2 [E.G. COMPLIANCE WITH TENDER REQUIREMENTS AND DRAFT CONTRACT INCLUDING ANY APPLICABLE PROCUREMENT CONNECTED POLICIES]

Not weighted

[Commercial] [e.g. Fully compliant]

[e.g. Three non-compliance issues were documented. These are x, y and z. All have been assessed as low risk and are acceptable to Defence.]

3 INSURANCE Not weighted [Commercial]

4 WARRANTY DETAILS

Not weighted [Commercial]

Technical evaluation


EVALUATION CRITERIA Weighting [Company 1] WS [Company 2] WS [Company 3] WS [Company 4] WS

3 [EXPERIENCE & PERFORMANCE HISTORY PROVIDING SIMILAR GOODS/ SERVICES]

[20%]

[Include details of the weighted score and justification for the score.]

4 [ABILITY TO MEET THE SOW REQUIREMENTS TO ACHIEVE FITNESS FOR PURPOSE]

[40%]

5 [CAPACITY TO MEET DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS]

[20%]

TOTAL TECHNICAL SCORE [80%]

Financial evaluation 7

[PRICE OFFERED] [20%]

[Insert details of the pricing assessment including assessed whole of life cost, relevant assumptions, basis for price variation over the term of the contract and the weighted score, if applicable]

Risk assessment


[Document assessed risks for each tender here or in the tables above.]

Clarification and communication

[Document any clarification or due diligence enquires undertaken as part of the evaluation.]

Value for money ranking (Comparative)

EVALUATION ELEMENT [Company 1] [Company 2] [Company 3] [Company 4]

COMPLIANCECOMMERCIALTECHNICALRISK ASSESSMENT FINANCIALVFM RANKING

[…Further rationale justifying the ranking should be included as required…]

Value for money ranking (Weighted)

EVALUATION ELEMENT [Company 1] [Company 2] [Company 3] [Company 4]

COMPLIANCECOMMERCIAL

RISK ASSESSMENT

TECHNICAL [60%] [64%]

FINANCIAL [20%] [18%]


TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE [80%] [82%]

VFM RANKING [2] [1]

[…Further rationale justifying the ranking should be included as required…]

Summary and Recommendation:On the basis of the ET’s evaluation, […INSERT TENDERERS REFERENCE…] represents best value for money and meets the requirements for the provision of the goods/services to Defence.

The ET recommends that Defence:

Notify […INSERT TENDERERS REFERENCE…] that they have been selected as the preferred tenderer

[…INSERT ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS; THIS MAY INCLUDE ANY NEGOTIATION ISSUES IDENTIFIED…]

Attachments (as applicable)

Note to Drafters: Additional supporting evidence may be provided in the form of Attachments to support the procurement decision made.

Approvals


The ET requests […INSERT FINMAN 2 Schedule 1 delegate…] endorse this recommendation by signing below.

Evaluation Team Chair Evaluation Team member Evaluation Team member

……………………………. …………………………….. ……………………………….

[INSERT Names, Position and PMKey’s No.] [INSERT Names, Position and PMKey’s No.] [INSERT Names, Position and PMKey’s No.]

………………………….[INSERT date]



FINMAN 2 SCHEDULE 1 Delegate

PRINTED NAME POSITION PMKeys No. SIGNATURE DATE

Documents

Medal Research and Assessment Services€¦ · Web viewWeightings may or may not be detailed in the request documents. Providing weightings in the request documentation should be