Procurement Policy Office

(Established under section 4 of the Public Procurement Act 2006)

Ref: SC/EG37/07-12

Evaluation Guide (Consultancy Services)

Procurement Policy Office Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Port Louis 27 July 2012

Foreword
This Guide has been prepared pursuant to section 7(b) of the Public Procurement Act 2006. It is meant to assist in the evaluation of proposals for consultancy services for public procurement. Those wishing to submit comments or suggestions on the Guide or to obtain additional information on procurement in Mauritius are encouraged to contact:

The Director Procurement Policy Office Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Level 8, Emmanuel Anquetil Building, Port Louis, Mauritius Tel: No. (230)201-3760 & Fax: No. (230)201-3758 Email: [email protected]

First published by the PPO 2012 This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1997, no part may be reproduced without prior written permission from the Procurement Policy Office (PPO) of Mauritius. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Director of the PPO, level 8, Emmanuel Anquetil Building, Port Louis, Mauritius. A digital version of this document is available at PPOs web site: http://ppo.gov.mu.

How to use this Guide

1. The evaluation guide provides step-by-step procedures for the evaluation of proposals from consultancy firms or individual consultants following a shortlisting through nationally or internationally advertised Expression of Interest or from a data base of the procuring entity. This Guide refers to selection of consultants. In all instances, the preparation of proposals and evaluation procedures described in the Instructions to Consultants (ITC) and other sections of the Request for Proposals (RFP) documents should be followed. In case of ambiguities or discrepancies between this Guide and the RFP document, the provisions contained in the latter will prevail. 2. Request for Proposals are made using the Standard Request for Proposals (SRFPs) issued by the Procurement Policy Office (PPO). The SRFPs currently available are: a) b) c) d) e) Selection of Consultants (recommended for small assignment Time based contract) Selection of Consultants (recommended for small assignment Lump sum contract); Selection of Consultants (recommended for complex assignment Time based contract); Selection of Consultants (recommended for complex assignment Lump sum contract); Selection of Consultants (small assignment individual consultants).

New SRFPs are issued when needed subject to an initial trial period. 3. The SRFPs documents listed in para 2 (a) to 2 (d) above are very much similar except for the General Conditions of Contracts which are different and of concise version for small assignments. The standard forms and the guidance described in this document are based on ITCs, as well as on the Data Sheets, that also provide contract specific information. 4. For the purpose of this Guide, Procuring Entity or Client refers to Public body as defined in the Public Procurement Act. 5. Readers should note that evaluation and the resulting report need not necessarily be lengthy. Evaluation of Proposals for small assignments may be in a simpler format. The forms should invariably accompany the evaluation report, but they may be adapted to suit specific requirements of the Request for Proposals documents. The report should include a number of attachments to explain details of the evaluation of proposals or to show specific controversial wording or numbers in a proposal. Cross-referencing should be used extensively, as well as references to pertinent clauses in the Request for Proposals documents. 6. The Evaluation Reports contained in the annexes are samples for consultancy services that may be adapted to suit specific procurement. Readers will appreciate that they are structured in such a manner so as not to miss any step of the evaluation process as defined in the Guide and to provide all relevant information that are essential for decision making in the award of contract.

Contents
Section 1. Evaluation Principles .............................................................................................5 Section 2. Establishment and Organization of Evaluation Committee .............................11 Section 3. Evaluation Process................................................................................................13 Section 4. Evaluation of Financial Proposal ........................................................................26 Section 5. Negotiation ............................................................................................................31 Annex I ....................................................................................................................................33 Annex II ..................................................................................................................................48

Section 1. Evaluation Principles

1.1 Purpose of Evaluation While the specific rules and procedures to be followed for employing consultants depend on the circumstances of the particular case, five main considerations shall be given on the selection process: (a) the need for high-quality services, (b) the need for economy and efficiency, (c) the need to give all eligible consultants an opportunity to compete in providing the services, (d) the need to encourage the development and use of local resources, and (e) the need for transparency in the selection process. 1.2 Overview of Shortlisting and Selection methods 1.2.1 Shortlisting of Consultants To request proposals from potential consulting firms the Procuring Entity shall draw up a shortlist of consultants, to ensure effective competition, from among those who have the capacity to perform the required services: Where the estimated value of the procurement exceeds the prescribed threshold (Rs 10Million), the Procuring Entity shall, in order to draw up the shortlist, seek expressions of interest through an international advertisement process by publishing notices in a national newspaper of wide circulation, public procurement portal, embassies having office in Mauritius, and Mauritian embassies through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration and International Trade. The Procuring entity shall include in the list those who have expressed interest in the procurement. Where the estimated value of the contract does not exceed the prescribed threshold (Rs 10Million), the shortlist may be drawn up on the basis of the Procuring Entity's own knowledge and information. Consultants that that have been determined to be ineligible by the PPO or who appear in the debarred or cross-debarment lists issued by African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank Group and the World Bank Group shall be ineligible for shortlisting. 1.2.2 Selection Methods The selection of Consultants shall be conducted by anyone of the following: Quality Cost based selection (QCBS) a method that takes into account the quality of the proposal and the cost of the services, is the commonly recommended method for the selection of consultants.

6 Since under QCBS the cost of the proposed services is a factor of selection, this method is appropriate when (a) the scope of work of the assignment can be precisely defined and the TOR are well specified and clear, and (b) the Procuring Entity and consultants can estimate with reasonable precision the staff time as well as the other inputs and costs required of the consultants. Quality alone based selection (QBS) Quality-Based Selection (QBS) is a method based on evaluating only the quality of the technical proposals and the subsequent negotiation of the financial terms and the contract with the highest ranked consultant. QBS should be applied only for the following types of assignments: (a) Complex or highly specialized assignments for which it is difficult to define precise Terms of Reference (hereinafter refer to as TOR) and the required input from the consultants; (b) Assignments where the downstream impact is so large that the quality of the service is of overriding importance for the outcome of the project (for example, engineering design of major infrastructure); (c) Assignments that can be carried out in substantially different ways such that financial proposals may be difficult to compare; and (d) Assignments including supervision of large and complex construction works for which it is particularly important to take safety measures. Quality and fixed budget based selection (FBS) This method is appropriate only when the assignment is simple and can be precisely defined and when the budget is fixed. Least cost and acceptable quality (LCS) This method is generally appropriate for selecting consultants for assignments of a standard or routine nature (audits, engineering design of non-complex works, and so forth) where well-established practices and standards exist. Direct Procurement (also referred to Single Source selection) It may be appropriate only if it presents a clear advantage over competition: (a) for tasks where continuity with the firm that carried out the previous work is essential to meet the objectives of the assignment; (b) for assignments not exceeding the prescribed threshold; or (c) when only one firm is qualified or has experience of exceptional worth for the assignment. 1.2.3 Selection of Individual Consultants (i) Individual consultants are employed on assignments for which: (a) a team of experts is not required, (b) no additional outside (home/office) professional support is required, and

7 (c) the experience and qualifications of the individual are the paramount requirement. When coordination, administration, or collective responsibility may become difficult because of the number of individuals, it would be advisable to employ a firm. When qualified individual consultants are unavailable or cannot sign a contract directly with a the Procuring Entity due to a prior agreement with a firm, the Procuring Entity may invite firms to provide qualified individual consultants for the assignment. (ii) Advertisement for seeking expressions of interest (EOI) is encouraged, particularly when the Procuring Entity does not have knowledge of experienced and qualified individuals or of their availability, or the services are complex, or there is potential benefits from wider advertising. It may not, however, be required in all cases and should not take place for small value contracts. All invitations for EOIs should specify selection criteria that are solely based on experience and qualifications. When firms are invited to propose individual consultants, EOIs shall clarify that only the experience and qualifications of individuals shall be used in the selection process, and that their corporate experience shall not be taken into account, and specify whether the contract would be signed with the firm or the proposed individuals. (iii) Individual consultants are selected on the basis of their relevant experience, qualifications, capability to carry out the assignment and cost. They need not submit proposals and shall be considered if they meet minimum relevant requirements which shall be determined by the Procuring Entity on the basis of the nature and complexity of the assignment, and assessed on the basis of academic background and relevant specific experience, and, as appropriate, knowledge of local conditions such as national language, culture, administrative systems, and government organization. The selection shall be carried out through the comparison of the relevant overall capacity of at least three qualified candidates among those who have, directly or through a firm, expressed interest in the assignment or have been approached directly by the Procuring Entity. Individuals selected to be employed by the Procuring Entity shall be the most experienced and best qualified, and shall be fully capable of carrying out the assignment. The Procuring Entity shall negotiate a contract with the selected individual consultant, or the firm as the case may be, after reaching agreement on satisfactory terms and conditions of the contract. (iv) When a contract is signed with a consulting firm to provide individual consultants, either its permanent staff or associates or other experts it may recruit, the conflict of interest provisions described in these Guidelines shall apply to the parent firm. No substitution of any individual who was initially proposed and evaluated shall be permitted, and in such a case, the contract will be signed with the next ranked consultant. (v) Individual consultants may be selected on a single-source (Direct Procurement) basis with due justification instead of competitive selection process in exceptional cases such as:

8 (a) tasks that are a continuation of previous work to meet the objective of the assignment; (b) when the individual is the only consultant qualified for the assignment or (c) when the value of the contract does not exceed the prescribed threshold. 1.3 Opening of Technical Proposals The technical proposals shall be opened immediately after the deadline for their submission. Any proposal received by the Procuring Entity after the deadline for submission shall be returned unopened. (refer to RFP ITC 4.5). 1.4 Clarification or Alteration of Proposals Except during negotiations and for extension of validity, at request, as provided in the RFP, consultants shall neither be requested nor permitted to alter their proposals in any way after the deadline for the submission of proposals. While evaluating proposals, the Procuring Entity shall conduct the evaluation solely on the basis of the submitted technical and financial proposals., and shall not ask consultants for clarifications. 1.5 Conflict of Interests and Eligibility In the first stage of the evaluation the Procuring Entity shall ascertain completeness of proposals and establish as to whether the Consulting firms satisfy the conditions of Conflict of Interest and Eligibility as specified in the RFP. (ITC 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11). 1.6 Evaluation Criteria of Technical Proposals The criteria for the evaluation of technical proposals shall normally include the following items: (a) Experience of the consultants Consultant's general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR; (b) Adequacy of methodology and work plan Adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan; (c) Qualifications and competence of staff Experience and records of the staff members to be assigned to the work The criterion (c) shall be further divided into the following sub-criteria: (c)-(i) General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of position held, length of service with the firm, etc.); (c)-(ii) Suitability for the project (experience of performing the duties which will be assigned to them in the project); (c)-(iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country Familiarity with the language and the conditions of Mauritius and its dependencies where the work is to be performed or experience in similar environments. (refer to RFP ITC 5.2, Data Sheet 5.2) The technical evaluation report shall normally give detailed information on the following items, supplementing the summary evaluation sheet: Evaluation criteria and relative weight distribution, with reasons for adopting each criterion and the basis for deciding the weight distribution; Rating: reason for arriving at the rating given for each item for each firm.

9 A proposal shall be rejected at the stage of evaluation of the technical proposals, if the technical proposal fails to achieve the minimum technical score or is considered non-responsive to the invitation requirements. 1.7 Public Opening of Financial Proposals The consultants that have secured the minimum qualifying technical score will be advised of the location, date, and time for opening of the financial proposals. The financial proposals shall be opened publicly in the presence of the consultants representatives who choose to attend. The name of the consultants, the technical quality scores, and the proposed prices shall be announced and recorded. (refer to RFP ITC 5.4, 5.5). 1.8 Evaluation of Financial Proposals and determination of Financial score In determining the financial score, the Procuring Entity shall review the congruency of the technical and financial proposals, make adjustments as appropriate, and correct arithmetical or computational errors. The lowest evaluated financial proposal will receive the maximum score of 100 points. The score for each other financial proposal is inversely proportional to its evaluated total price. (refer to RFP ITC 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, data sheet ITC 5.7 ). 1.9 Determination of Total Score and Ranking of Proposals In the case of QCBS the total score shall be obtained by weighting and adding the technical and financial scores; this will determine the overall ranking of the consultants proposals. The weight for the cost shall be chosen, taking into account the complexity of the assignm ent and the relative importance of quality. It shall normally be 20%. The weight for quality and cost, and the methodology to calculate the total score shall be expressed in the RFP. (refer to RFP ITC 5.7, Data Sheet 5.7) 1.10 Negotiations The Procuring Entity shall invite the highest-ranked consultant to enter into negotiations on the conditions of a contract between them in the case of QCSB, QBS and FBS. In the case of the LCS, the least cost and acceptable quality shall be called for negotiation. 1.11 Rejection of all Proposals, and Re-invitation (a) The Procuring Entity will be justified in rejecting all proposals only if: all proposals are nonresponsive because they fail to respond to important aspects of the TOR or present major deficiencies in complying with the RFP; or (ii) all proposals fail to achieve the minimum technical score specified in the RFP; or (iii) if the offered price of the successful proposal is substantially higher than the available budget or a recently updated cost estimate. In the latter case, as an alternative to re-invitation, the feasibility of increasing the budget should be investigated. If cost is a factor in the evaluation for a time-based contract, the number of person-months proposed by the consultant may be negotiated, provided that it does not compromise quality or adversely affect the assignment. Even in such cases, the experts rates shall not normally be negotiated. (b) Before re-inviting proposals the new process may include revising the RFP, including the TOR, the shortlist, and the budget. (i)

10 1.12 Confidentiality Information relating to evaluation of proposals and recommendations concerning awards shall not be disclosed to the consultants who submitted the proposals or to other persons not officially concerned with the process, until the publication of the award of contract, except as provided for in the opening of financial proposals and negotiations. 1.13 Types of Contracts 1.13.1 Lump Sum Contract This type of contract is used mainly for assignments in which the scope and the duration of the services and the required output of the consultants are clearly defined. It is widely used for simple planning and feasibility studies, environmental studies, detailed design of standard or common structures, preparation of data processing systems, and so forth. Payments are linked to outputs (deliverables) such as reports, drawings, bills of quantities, bidding documents, and software programs. The contract shall include a fixed price for the activities to be carried out by the consultant and shall not be subject to any price adjustment, except as provided hereunder. Lump-sum contracts are easy to administer because they operate on the principle of fixed price for a fixed scope, and payments are due on clearly specified outputs and milestones. 1.13.2 Time-Based Contract This type of contract is appropriate when it is difficult to define or fix the scope and the duration of the services, either because they are related to activities carried out by others for which the completion period may vary, or because the input of the consultants required for attaining the objectives of the assignment is difficult to assess. It is widely used for complex studies, supervision of construction, advisory services, and most training assignments. Payments are based on agreed hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly rates for experts (who are normally named in the contract) and on reimbursable items using actual expenses and/or agreed unit prices. The rates for experts include remuneration, social costs, overhead, profit, and, where appropriate, special allowances. The contract shall include a ceiling amount of total payments to be made to the consultants. This ceiling amount should include a contingency allowance for unforeseen services and duration, and a provision for price adjustment for inflation as provided hereunder. Time-based contracts need to be closely monitored and administered by the client to ensure that the assignment is progressing satisfactorily and that payments claimed by the consultants are appropriate. 1.13.3 Price adjustments To adjust the remuneration rates in a time-based contract for foreign and/or local inflation, a price adjustment provision shall be included in the contract if its duration is expected to exceed 18 (eighteen) months. Time-based contracts of a shorter duration may include a provision for price adjustment when local or foreign inflation is expected to be high and unpredictable. Lumpsum contracts shall not generally be subject to automatic price adjustment when their duration is expected to be less than 18 (eighteen) months, except for small-value multi-year contracts (for example, with auditors). The price of a lump-sum contract may be exceptionally amended when the scope of the services is extended beyond what was contemplated in the original TOR and contract.

11

Section 2. Establishment and Organization of Evaluation Committee

The establishment of an Evaluation Committee is crucial in ensuring a fair and objective evaluation of the technical and financial proposals from consultants. As each member of the Evaluation Committee is required to be familiar with the TOR and the evaluation criteria, it is recommended that the Evaluation Committee is established before the preparation of the TOR. The evaluation of proposals must be based on the professional judgment of competent and impartial evaluators. Although all the members of the Evaluation Committee need not be experts in specific fields covered by the project, individuals who do not have any knowledge of the areas related to the project should not be appointed. It is preferable that the members of the Evaluation Committee should have experience in the evaluation of proposals. Members of the Evaluation Committee are required to maintain the highest standards of integrity when carrying out the evaluation and should not have any communication with shortlisted consultants from the date of their appointment to the date on which the contract is awarded, except in cases of official clarification related to the proposal. 2.1 Involvement of Independent Consultant If the Procuring Entity lacks the expertise to carry out the evaluation, it can hire an independent consultant to assist the Evaluation Committee. 2.2 Outline of Evaluation Procedures Performed by Evaluation Committee 2.2.1 Setting Criteria of Technical Proposals After the Evaluation Committee has been appointed, its members should establish the evaluation criteria and sub-criteria for the technical proposals. The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria shall be specified in the Instructions to Consultants (ITC) of the Request for Proposals (RFP). The Evaluation Committee should meet before the deadline for submission of proposals to confirm that there is a common understanding of the evaluation process and method for the technical proposals, including evaluation criteria, sub-criteria, and definition of the rating system and the grade by establishing what will be considered 'Poor', 'Below Average', 'Average', 'Good' and 'Excellent' (refer to section 3.2.1). It is important for the meeting to be held prior to the deadline for submission of proposals for ensuring that the rating system is not biased which can be a danger once the members of the Evaluation Committee have read the contents of the technical proposals. 2.2.2 Opening of Technical Proposals The Evaluation Committee shall first review each proposal to confirm whether required documents have been provided and whether each proposal is prepared in accordance with the instructions of the RFP.

12 2.2.3 Evaluation of Technical Proposals After the opening of the technical proposals, the evaluation should be carried out independently by each member of the Evaluation Committee in accordance with the criteria specified in the RFP (refer to section 3), and then the Evaluation Committee should meet to review all the evaluation results. In case the scores given by each member for each proposal are different, the Evaluation Committee should examine the differences and some members may revise their scores, if necessary. The Evaluation Committee should then calculate the average of the scores allocated by all members under each of the criteria and establish the ranking of the technical proposals. The above process should be meticulously recorded. 2.2.4 Evaluation Report of Technical Proposals The Evaluation Committee prepares the evaluation report of technical proposals. The Report of the technical proposal shall be submitted to the authority designated to give an approval to the evaluation results. The latter may ask the Evaluation Committee to give the details or supplemental explanation, but should not ask for any change in the evaluation results made in accordance with the evaluation criteria stipulated in the RFP. 2.2.5 Public Opening of Financial Proposals The financial proposals shall be opened publicly (refer to section 3.1). The Opening Committee verifies that the financial proposals have remained sealed until they are opened publicly. The name of the consultants, the technical quality scores, and the proposed prices shall be announced, and recorded when the financial proposals are opened. 2.2.6 Evaluation of Financial Proposals and Ranking of Proposals (QCBS) The Evaluation Committee should review the detailed content of each financial proposal, and the scores of the evaluated prices should be calculated (refer to section 3.2). The Evaluation Committee should weight and combine the scores of the technical and financial proposals to obtain a final ranking of the proposals. 2.2.7 Final Evaluation Report The Evaluation Committee prepares the final evaluation report and determines the recommendation for award.

13

Section 3. Evaluation Process

3.1 3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting for Technical Proposals Evaluation Criteria for Technical Proposals

As mentioned in the RFP following criteria are generally used in the evaluation of proposals: (a) Experience of the consultants Consultant's general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR; (b) Adequacy of methodology and work plan Adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan; (c) Qualifications and competence of staff Experience and records of the staff members to be assigned to the work. The criterion (c) shall be further divided into the following sub-criteria: (c)-(i) General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of position held, length of service with the firm, etc.); (c)-(ii) Suitability for the project (experiences of performing the duties which will be assigned to them in the project); (c)-(iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country in which the work is to be performed or experience in similar environments. The relative importance of the three criteria (a) (b) and (c) will vary with the type of consulting services to be performed, but in the overall rating of the proposals most weight should normally be given either to (c) qualifications and competence of staff, or (b) adequacy of methodology and work plan, rather than to the fame or reputation of the consultant. Among the criteria (a), (b) and (c), less weight is given to (a) experience of the consultants, since the consultants on the shortlist have been selected by the Procuring Entity based on their experience and qualification. Additional criteria may be applied depending on the nature of the assignment. In such case, additional criteria may include, but not limited to, the following: (a) Suitability of transfer of knowledge Suitability of the transfer of knowledge (training) programs, (b) Support facilities and organization Support facilities and organization of the consultants including support resources at Clients premises,

14 (c) Proposal presentation Overall quality of the presentation of the proposal. (d) Participation of Mauritian nationals in performing the assignments in case of international bidding The weight distribution of additional criteria should be determined by taking into account their relative importance to the criteria (a), (b) and (c), and each additional criterion should normally not exceed 10 points out of 100 points.

Table 3.1 below shows the general examples for the range of points allocated to the criteria on a scale of 1 to 100. The actual weight may be adjusted to the characteristics of the specific project. The points allocated to each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion should be specified in the RFP.

Table 3.1 Point Distribution of Evaluation Criteria for Technical Proposals (a) Experience of the consultants (b) Adequacy of methodology and work plan (c) Qualifications and competence of staff (d) Suitability of the transfer optional (e) Support facilities and organization - optional (f) Proposal presentation - optional Total 10 to 20 20 to 50 30 to 60 Normally not exceed 10 Normally not exceed 10 Normally not exceed 10 100

The evaluation criteria other than (c), i.e., (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) may also be divided into subcriteria, but. such division should be limited only to the essential factors. The use of excessively detailed lists of sub-criteria may render the evaluation a mechanical exercise more than a professional assessment of the proposals. It is recommended that the number of sub-criteria be kept to a minimum (typically no more than three for each criterion) and that no fewer than three points be allocated to each sub-criterion.

Table 3.2 below summarizes evaluation criteria and sample sub-criteria.

15

Table 3.2 Evaluation Criteria and Sample Sub-criteria for Technical Proposals (a) Experience of the consultants (i) Experience of international projects of comparable size, complexity and technical expertise (ii) Experience in developing countries under comparable conditions (b) Adequacy of methodology and (i) Technical Approach and work plan methodology (ii) Work plan (iii) Organization and staffing (c) Qualifications and competence of (i) General qualifications staff (ii) Suitability for the project (iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country (d) Suitability of the transfer optional (i) Relevance of program (ii) Training approach and methodology (iii) Qualifications of experts and trainers (e) Support facilities and organization (i) Relevance of support facilities and optional organization (ii) Support approach and methodology (iii) Qualifications of support specialists (f) Proposal presentation optional (i) Intellectual and technical soundness (ii) Organization and completeness The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria should be defined in the RFP and cannot be changed thereafter. 3.1.2 Experience of the Consultants The relative importance of the criterion on consultants general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR will vary according to the type of consulting services to be performed. In general, points allocated to the criterion should be 20 points at a maximum. (refer to RFP ITC 5.2, Data Sheet 5.2) 3.1.3 Adequacy of Methodology and Work Plan The criterion on adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan should be evaluated carefully as it is the key factors for evaluating the proposals. (refer to RFP ITC 5.2, Data Sheet 5.2) Sub-criteria for evaluating this component of the proposal should include the following: (i) Technical approach and methodology (ii) Work plan (iii) Organization and staffing

16

3.1.4 Qualifications and Competence of Staff The Procuring Entity should evaluate the experience and record of the staff members proposed to the assignment based on the qualifications and experience stated in their curriculum vitae (CV). When evaluating staff members, only those conducting essential part of the assignment are recommended to be evaluated. Evaluating staff members with relatively low importance is not recommended, because the relative importance of the essential members will decrease. As mentioned in section 3.1.1 the qualifications and competence of staff shall be evaluated using the following three sub-criteria to be set up according to the required qualifications and tasks for each position: (i) General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of position held, length of service with the consultant, etc.); (ii) Suitability for the project (experiences of performing the duties which will be assigned to them in the project); (iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country in which the work is to be performed or experience in similar environments. A sample range of percentage for the above sub-criteria is shown in Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3 Sample Range of Percentage in Point Distribution of Staff Qualification and Competence Sub-criteria

Sub-criteria General qualifications Suitability for the project Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country Total

Range of percentage 20 30 50 60 10 20 100

The weight or percentage of the points allocated to each member of staff should be determined by examining its expertise and/or role in the assignment. In general, the Team Leader should be given more weight than any other experts. (refer to RFP ITC 5.2, Data Sheet 5.2) 3.2 Scoring System and Minimum Technical Score 3.2.1 Scoring System The detailed scoring method is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below, by giving a sample evaluation for Adequacy of Methodology and Work Plan.

17

Figure 3.1 Scoring System Evaluation Criteria Sub-criteria Grade % Rating Score of Adequacy of methodology And work plan

Poor Experience of consultant 18 points Below Average

Technical Technical Approach & & Approach Methodology Methodology 16 points

0 40

Average

70 90 100 0 40

16 points

16 x 70 %

11.2

Good Excellent Poor Below Average Work Plan 8 points

Adequacy of methodology & work plan 32 points

Average

70 90 100 8 x 90 % 7.2

Good Excellent

Qualifications & competence of staff 50 points

Poor

0 40 70 8 x 40 % 3.2

Below Average

Organization & Staffing 8 points

Average

Good
Excellent

90
100

21.6 points out of 32

18 As mentioned in section 3.1.1, each criterion has been allocated the points in the range of 1 to 100. Each percentage rating is multiplied by the points assigned to the relevant criterion or subcriterion to obtain the final score. An example is shown below: Points of experience of the consultants: Grade (% rating) of Consultant As proposal: Score of Consultant A's experience of the consultants: 10 points out of 100 points Good level (90% 10 points 90% 9 points

It is recommended that the rating scale of the level of responsiveness be divided into a number of discrete grades. While scoring, it is a good practice to estimate the responsiveness on a percentage scale based on the following grades:

Grade (level of responsiveness) Poor Below Average Average Good Excellent

Sample definitions of each grade for each evaluation criteria or sub-criteria are given in section 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. 3.2.2 Minimum Technical Score It is important that a minimum technical score shall be clearly stipulated in the RFP. It is normally recommended that a minimum technical score be determined in the range of 70 to 80 points out of 100 points for each case depending on the nature of the assignment. Any change of the minimum technical score during the evaluation process shall not be allowed. When QCBS is applied, moreover, it is important to secure that financial proposals must be compared only among the proposals achieving the minimum qualifying technical score in order to maintain the acceptable level of quality. (refer to RFP ITC 5.2, Data Sheet 5.2) 3.3 Experience of the Consultants 3.3.1 Setting the Grades Since all consultants are on the Short List based on their experience, they are not normally rated at less than "Average", that is not less than 70%. The recommended grades and percentage rating for the consultants general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR are shown in Table 5.4 below.

19 Table 3.4 Recommended Grades and Percentage of Rating for the Experience of the Consultants Grade Average Good Excellent Percentage rating 70% 90% 100%

3.3.2 Defining the Grades Sample definitions of each grade are given below. Sample definitions are examples and introduced for reference purpose only. Excellent: The consultant has outstanding experience in respect of: (i) projects of a similar nature with the complexity and technical specialty of the assignment, (ii) projects of a comparable size (e.g. volume of man-months, volume of contract amount, etc.), and (iii) projects in a region or a country with physical and institutional conditions similar to those of the project location. Good: The consultant has experience in respect to all three aspects mentioned above but experience in one aspect could be considered insufficient.

Average: The consultant has experience in respect to all three aspects mentioned above but experience in two or more aspects could be considered insufficient. 3.4 Adequacy of Methodology and Work Plan 3.4.1 Setting the Grades The recommended grades and percentage rating for the adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan are shown in Table 3.5 below. Table 3.5 Recommended Grades and Percentage Rating for the Adequacy of Methodology and Work Plan

Grade Poor Below Average Average Good Excellent

Percentage rating 0% 40% 70% 90 % 100 %

3.4.2 Defining the Grades As mentioned in section 3.1.3 sub-criteria for evaluating this component of the proposal should usually include the following:

20 (i) Technical Approach and methodology, (ii) Work plan, (iii) Organization and staffing. Sample definitions of each grade are introduced below: Sample definitions are examples and introduced for reference purpose only. (i) Technical approach and methodology Excellent: The consultant properly understands the current situation, draws attention to all main issues related to the assignment and raises other important issues that have not been considered in the TOR. The proposal details ways to solve all issues by using advanced and innovative approach and methodology. The consultant properly understands the current situation and the main issues related to the assignment. The approach and methodology to solve the issues are discussed in detail. The consultant understands the requirement indicated in the TOR. The approach and methodology to solve the issues are consistent. However, the approach and methodology are standard and not discussed in detail or not specifically tailored to the assignment.

Good:

Average:

Below Average: The consultant does not have a proper understanding of the TOR and the issues are not appropriately discussed. The approach and methodology do not have consistency and are inappropriately presented. Poor: The consultant misunderstands the requirement indicated in the TOR and important aspects of the scope of consulting services. Approach and methodology do not comply with the requirement in the TOR. In addition to the requirements stated below under Good, the proposal includes an impressive presentation of the work plan for efficient execution of the assignment. The proposed work plan is consistent with the approach and methodology. The work plan responds well to the TOR. The timing and duration of all activities are appropriate and consistent with the assignment output, and the interrelation between various activities is realistic and consistent with the proposed approach and methodology. The work plan responds to the TOR and all required activities are indicated in the activity schedule, but they are not detailed.

(ii) Work plan Excellent:

Good:

Average:

21 Below Average: Some activities required in the TOR are omitted in the work plan or the timing and duration of activities are not appropriate. There are minor inconsistencies between timing, assignment output, and proposed approach and methodology. Poor: There are major inconsistencies between the requirements in the TOR and the proposed work plan.

(iii) Organization and staffing Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under Good, the proposal includes an impressive presentation of a well thought out organization and staffing plan. The proposed team is well integrated and has good support organization. The organization chart and staffing schedule is complete and detailed, and the technical level and composition of the staffing arrangements are very well balanced. The definition of duties and responsibilities are very clear. The staffing schedule is consistent with the work plan and the timing and duration of each staffs assignment are adequate. The proposed organization and staffing arrangement is complete and detailed enough to meet all the requirements of the TOR. The proposed organization and staffing arrangement is not detailed and the assignment schedule of each staff is not adequate. For instance, there are inconsistencies between the staffing schedule and the required output. The organization and staffing arrangement is not tailored to the proposed approach, methodology and work plan. The organization and staffing arrangement is not responsive to the requirement of the TOR at all. It is assumed that the required output cannot be appropriately prepared within the period of the assignment.

Good:

Average: Below Average:

Poor:

3.5 Qualifications and Competence of Staff 3.5.1 Setting the Grades The recommended grades and percentage rating for the experience and records of the staff members to be assigned to the work are shown in Table 3.6 below. Table 3.6 Recommended Grades and Percentage Rating for the Qualifications and Competence of Staff Grade Poor Below Average Average Good Excellent Percentage rating 0% 40% 70% 90 % 100 %

22 3.5.2 Defining the Grades As mentioned in section 3.1.4, sub-criteria for evaluating this component of the proposal shall include the following: (i) General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of position held, length of service with the firm, etc.); (ii) Suitability for the project (experiences of performing the duties which will be assigned to them in the project); (iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country. Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country in which the work is to be performed or experience in similar environments. Sample definitions of each grade are enumerated below: Sample definitions are examples and introduced for reference purpose only. (i) General qualifications The proposed expert has 20 years or more of professional experience and an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. Good: The proposed expert has 15 years or more of professional experience and an educational background or professional qualification in the field of assignment. Average: The proposed expert has 10 years or more of professional experience and educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. Below Average: The proposed expert has less than 10 years of professional experience but has an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. Poor: The proposed expert has less than 3 years of professional experience and does not have an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. Required years of professional experience will be determined for each case depending on the nature of the assignment. (ii) Suitability for the project Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under Good, the majority of the proposed expert's experience on previous assignments in the past 10 years has been in positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment. Excellent:

23 Good: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in more than 3 projects of a similar nature in the past 10 years.

The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in 2 projects of a similar nature in the past 10 years. Below Average: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in at least 1 project of a similar nature in the past 10 years. Poor: The proposed expert does not have any experience in holding positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in the past 10 years. (iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country The proposed expert has experience working in the country of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of the country of the assignment for more than 3 years in total. Good: The proposed expert has experience working in the country of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of the country of the assignment for 2 years or more but less than 3 years in total. Average: The proposed expert has experience working in the country of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of the country of the assignment for 1 year or more but less than 2 years in total. Below Average: The proposed expert has experience working in the country of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of the country of the assignment for less than 1 year in total. Poor: The proposed expert does not have any experience working in the country for the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of the country of the assignment. 3.6 Completion of Evaluation of Technical Proposals The evaluation results of technical proposals are detailed in an evaluation report including a summary technical evaluation sheet and evaluation sheets for staff members of each consultant. After the technical quality is evaluated, consultants whose technical proposals did not meet the minimum qualifying score, or were considered non-responsive to the invitation requirements, will be advised and their financial proposals will be returned unopened. Excellent:

Average:

24 An example of a completed summary technical evaluation sheet is shown in Table 3.7 below. Table 3.7 Summary Technical Evaluation Sheet CONSULTANTS Evaluation Criteria I
Consultant's general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR (i) Experience of international projects of comparable size, complexity and technical specialty (ii) Experience in developing countries under comparable conditions Adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan (i) Technical Approach and methodology (ii) Work plan (iii) Organization and staffing Experience and records of the staff members to be assigned to the work International (i) Team leader (ii) Road engineer (iii) Transport economist (iv) Environment specialist Local (i) Road engineer (ii) Transport economist (iii) Environment specialist (iv) Social specialist

XXX
Points (P) 20 Rating (R)% Score (P x R) 14.80

YYY
Rating (R)% Score (P x R) 19.80

ZZZ
Rating (R)% Score (P x R) 19.20

12

70

8.4

90

10.8

100

12.0

80

6.4

100

9.0

90

7.2

II

30

19.20

25.80

23.40

12 12

70 70

8.4 8.4

90 90

10.8 10.8

70 90

8.4 10.8

6
50

40

2.4
35.30

70

4.2
43.48

70

4.2
39.52

III

15 7 5 5 6 4 4 4 100

11.10 6.02 3.20 3.50 4.44 2.96 2.24 1.84 69.30

13.80 7.00 4.10 4.10 5.52 2.96 2.96 3.04 89.08

12.90 6.30 3.50 3.70 4.80 3.12 2.96 2.24 82.10

Total The rating and score of each member of staff based on the three sub-criteria are shown in the technical evaluation sheet for staff members, and the relevant scores are transferred to the summary technical evaluation sheet. The minimum technical score is 70 point, in this example. Consultant XXX, which fails to achieve the minimum technical score, is rejected at the stage of evaluation of the technical proposals.

25 Evaluation sheets for staff members are prepared for each consultant to show the evaluation results based on the three sub-criteria on qualifications and competence of staff. The score of each expert in the evaluation sheet for staff members of each consultant is transferred to the summary technical evaluation sheet. An example of a completed evaluation sheet for staff members of Consultant YYY is shown in Table 3.8 below. Table 3.8 Evaluation Sheet for Staff Members
Subcriteria General qualifications (20%) Suitability for the project (60%) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country (20%)
Points (P) Rating (R)% Score (P x R)

SubTotal

Position

Total Points

Points (P)

Rating (R)%

Score (P x R)

Points (P)

Rating (R)%

Score (P x R)

International (i) Team leader (ii) Road Engineer (iii) Transport economist (iv) Environment specialist Local (i) Road engineer (ii) Transport economist (iii) Environment specialist (iv) Social specialist Sub-Total

15 7 5 5

3.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

100 100 70 70

3 1.4 0.7 0.7

9.0 4.2 3.0 3.0

90 100 90 90

8.10 4.20 2.70 2.70

3.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

90 100 70 70

2.70 1.40 0.70 0.70

13.80 7.0 4.10 4,10

6 4 4 4 50

1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8

90 70 70 70

1.08 0.56 0.56 0.56 8.56

3.6 2.4 2.4 2.4

90 70 70 70

3.24 1.68 1.68 1.68 25.98

1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8

100 90 90 100

1.20 0.72 0.72 0.80 8.94

5.52 2.96 2.96 3.04 43.48

26

Section 4. Evaluation of Financial Proposal

4.1 Public Opening of Financial Proposals

Consultants who have secured the minimum qualifying technical score will be advised of the location, date, and time for opening of financial proposals except in the case of QCS the financial proposal for the highest-ranked shall be opened. Financial proposals shall be opened publicly in the presence of the Consultants representatives who choose to attend. The name of the consultants, the technical quality scores, and the proposed prices shall be announced and recorded. (refer to RFP ITC 5.4, 5.5, Data Sheet 5.4) 4.2 Evaluation of Financial Proposals and Ranking of Proposals (applicable only to QCBS)

4.2.1 Evaluation of Financial Proposals With regard to the issues of local taxes, for the purpose of evaluation, cost shall refund identifiable indirect taxes on the contract and income tax payable to the Republic of Mauritius on the remuneration of services rendered in the Republic of Mauritius by non-resident staff of the consultant, as indicated in the Guidelines. The evaluation procedures of financial proposals are shown in Figure 4.1 below:

27 Figure 4.1 Consultant

GFP (gross financial proposal) * remuneration reimbursable expenses provisional sums contingencies

price adjustment to be consistent with the technical proposal price adjustment for correction of computational error

GEFP (gross evaluated financial proposal) remuneration (after adjustment, if any) reimbursable expenses (after adjustment, if any) provisional sums contingencies

exclusion of provisional sums exclusion of contingencies conversion to a single currency

NEFP (net evaluated financial proposal)

remuneration (after adjustment, if any)

reimbursable expenses (after adjustment, if any)

(*) Any local taxes shall be excluded in the financial proposal as they (*) Any local taxes shall be excluded in the financial proposal as they will not be evaluated, but they will be discussed at contract negotiations, and applicable amounts will be included in the contract. [refer to RFP ITC 3.7, Data Sheet 3.7]

28 The financial proposal submitted by the consultant is referred to as the gross financial proposal (GFP). During the verification process, GFPs are first checked for compliance with the Data Sheet included in the ITC. Each GFP must include provisional sums and contingencies in the amounts specified on the Data Sheet and must be exclusive of local taxes, and the validity period of the proposals must accord with the validity period set down in the Data Sheet. A review is then made to ensure that the figures provided in each GFP are consistent with the details of the corresponding technical proposal (e.g., personnel schedule inputs, number and duration of field trips, applicable per diems, etc.). The following are taken into account to ensure a fair competition among price proposals: If the inputs shown in the GFP for any expert do not match those shown on the personnel schedule in the technical proposal, the personnel schedule inputs shall prevail and adjustments will be made to the financial proposal accordingly. If an expert included in the technical proposal is omitted from the GFP, then the cost of that expert is included in the consultants financial proposal at the highest rate for that position among all the financial proposals. When QCBS is applied, a minimum of man-months required for international consultants and local consultants is included in the Data Sheet. If the total international and/or local inputs shown on the personnel schedule are below those indicated in the Data Sheet, an adjustment will be made for the missing man-months using the highest remuneration rate per month. If the number of international trips and per diems calculated from the personnel schedule does not match the quantities for these items shown in the GFP, adjustments will be made to the GFP inputs in accordance with the personnel schedule. Finally, a review is made for computational errors, and the final amount is considered as the gross evaluated financial proposal (GEFP). GEFPs will be converted into net evaluated financial proposals (NEFPs). NEFPs include only variable cost items such as remuneration and reimbursable expenses. Fixed cost items such as provisional sums and contingencies are not included. NEFPs are calculated by subtracting the provisional sums and contingencies (noncompetitive components) shown in the Data Sheet from the GEFPs, and by converting to a single currency using the selling rates of exchange, source and date indicated in the Data Sheet. 4.2.2 Determining Financial Score The lowest NEFP is then given a maximum score of 100 points. This is then used as a basis to calculate the score of the other financial proposals. The financial score for each proposal is inversely proportional to its NEFP, that is, the higher the NEFP, the lower the financial score. (refer to RFP ITC 5.7)

29 The financial score is computed as follows: NEFP of the lowest priced proposal = 100 points Each other NEFP =100 points x NEFP of the lowest priced proposal NEFP of the proposal under considerations

An example is shown below: NEFP of lowest priced proposal = MUR 80 million NEFP of second lowest priced proposal = MUR 85 million Financial score of the lowest priced NEFP = 100 points Financial score of = 100 points x MUR 80 million = 94.118 points the second lowest priced NEFP MUR 85 million

Using this methodology, all proposals are given a financial score. 4.2.3 Ranking of Proposals The total score shall be obtained by weighting and adding the technical and financial scores; this will determine the overall ranking of the consultants proposals. The weight for the cost shall be chosen, taking into account the complexity of the assignment and the relative importance of quality. It shall normally be 20%. (refer to RFP ITC 5.7, Data Sheet 5.7). If financial proposals contain unreasonably low price, the Procuring Entity should ask the consultant concerned for clarification of such an offer and should receive answers from the consultant to ensure appropriate execution during the contract stage, before concluding the evaluation. The total score is computed as follows: Total Score Technical score x Weight + Financial score x Weight An example is shown below: Weight for quality: 80%, Weight for cost: 20% Minimum qualifying technical score: 70 points Technical Score Consultant XXX: [Technical score] 69.300 points ===> disqualified Consultant YYY: [Technical score] 89.080 points, [NEFP] MUR 85 million Consultant ZZZ: [Technical score] 82.100 points, [NEFP] MUR 80 million (refer to Table 3.7)

30 In this case, the total score of Consultant No. 2 and Consultant No. 3 are computed as follows: Financial Score Consultant YYY: 94.118 points Consultant ZZZ: 100.000 points Total Score Consultant YYY: 89.080 points x 80% + 94.118 points x 20% = 90.0856 points Consultant ZZZ: 82.100 points x 80% + 100.000 points x 20% = 85.6800 points Once the final scores for each proposal have been calculated, they can be ranked from highest to lowest. In the event two or more proposals have the same scores in the final ranking of proposals, the proposal with the highest technical score will be ranked higher and the next highest technical score will be ranked lower. After the final ranking, the highest-ranked consultant will be invited for contract negotiations. The final evaluation results are summarized in an evaluation sheet. An example of a completed summary evaluation sheet is shown in Table 4.1 below. Table 4.1 Summary Evaluation Sheet Consultant XXX YYY ZZZ Technical Score (T) 69.300 89.080 82.100 Weight (W) 0.8 0.8 0.8 TxW Price Financial Weight Score (F) (W) 94.118 100 0.2 0.2 FxW 18.822 20.000 Total Score 90.086 85.680 Rank 1 2

71.264 65.680

85 M MUR 80 M MUR

Note: Consultant XXX which fails to achieve the minimum technical score is rejected at the stage of evaluation of the technical proposals.

31

Section 5. Negotiation
5.1 Outline of Negotiation Procedures The Procuring Entity shall invite the highest-ranked consultant to enter into negotiations on the conditions of a contract between them, in the case of QCBS, QBS, FBS or the one with the least cost in case of the least cost method of selection. (refer to RFP ITC 6.1, Data Sheet 6.1). When QBS is applied, discussions concerning costs and other financial matters shall be conducted only with a consultant who has been selected to be invited to enter into contract negotiations. When QCBS is applied, the Procuring Entity notifies in writing the consultant whose proposal has obtained the highest total score and invites the selected consultant for negotiations. The Procuring Entity indicates in the notification letter the date and time set for negotiations and any issues or comments on the consultants proposal to enable it to prepare a response and make any necessary arrangements. The Procuring Entity also informs consultants whose proposals were not chosen that negotiations will begin with the highest-ranked consultant. Negotiations may be carried out in phases, when decisions are needed from other authorities. The Procuring Entity should prepare minutes of the negotiations. If the Procuring Entity and the highest-ranked consultant are unable to reach agreement on a contract within a reasonable time, the Procuring Entity shall terminate the negotiations with the first consultant and invite the consultant who ranked second in the evaluation to enter into negotiations. This procedure shall be followed until the Procuring Entity reaches agreement with a consultant. 5.2 Items Subject to Negotiation

5.2.1 Technical Negotiation The technical negotiations will not substantially alter the Terms of Reference attached to the RFP and the technical proposals submitted by the consultant. (refer to RFP ITC 6.2) Negotiations will include clarifications of the following: Scope of work Technical approach and methodology Work plan and schedule Organization and personnel Deliverables Counterpart staff and facilities Contract special conditions While there should be some flexibility in work plans, staff assignment and major work inputs which have been previously agreed on as appropriate for the assignment, they shall not be materially modified to meet a budget. The Procuring Entity and the consultants will finalize the

32 Terms of Reference, personnel schedule, work schedule, logistics, and reporting. These documents will then be incorporated in the contract as Description of Services. Special attention will be paid to clearly defining the inputs and facilities required from the Procuring Entity to ensure satisfactory implementation of the assignment. Before contract negotiations, the consultant assures that the staff will be actually available. The Procuring Entity will not consider substitutions during contract negotiations unless both parties agree that undue delay in the selection process makes such substitution unavoidable or for reasons such as death or medical incapacity. Any proposed substitute shall have equivalent or better qualifications and experience than the original candidate. (refer to RFP ITC 6.4) 5.2.2 Financial Negotiation The financial negotiations shall be reasonable in order to keep consistency between the quality and the price of the services. The financial negotiations will include a clarification (if any) of the consultants tax liability in the Republic of Mauritius, and the manner in which it will be reflected in the contract; and will reflect the agreed technical modifications in the cost of the services. If applicable, the Procuring Entity will identify the local tax amount to be paid by the consultant under the contract. The RFP states whether the consultant is subject to payment of any local taxes. In such case, any such amounts of the local tax to be paid by the consultant shall be excluded in the financial proposal as they will not be evaluated, but they will be discussed at contract negotiations, and applicable amounts will be included in the Contract. (refer to RFP ITC 3.7, 6.3) When QCBS is applied, proposed unit rates for remuneration shall not be altered since they have been factors in the selection process. The financial negotiations will, as necessary, fine-tune duration of the experts inputs and quantities of items of reimbursable expenses that may be increased or decreased from the relevant amounts shown or agreed otherwise in the financial proposal but without significant alterations. When the QBS method is used, the financial negotiations will include a detailed review of all the consultants proposed costs including a review of all documentation provided by the consultant in support of proposed costs. In particular, the consultants shall provide full details of the remuneration of all nominated experts. However, unless there are exceptional reasons, the financial negotiations will not involve the remuneration rates for experts.

33

Annex I

(Name of Procuring Entity)

Evaluation Report (Sample)

Name of Project: Contract Name: Identification Number: Date of Submission:

34

Contents
Section I. Technical Evaluation Report Text Form IA. Evaluation Summary Form IB. Individual Evaluations Comparison Section II. Financial Evaluation Report Award Recommendation - Text Form II A. Adjustments Currency Award Recommendation Text Form II B. QCBS Combined Technical/Financial Evaluation Form II C. Fixed Budget and Least-Cost Selection Award Recommendation Annex II (i). Individual Evaluations Annex II (ii). Individual Evaluation Key Personnel

35

Sample Evaluation Report for Selection of Consultants

Section I. Technical Evaluation ReportText1
1. Background Include a brief description, context, scope, and objectives of the services. Use about a quarter of a page. 2. The Selection Process (Prior to Technical Evaluation)

(a) Describe briefly the selection process, beginning with the advertising (if required), the establishment of the shortlist, expressions of interest, withdrawals of firms before proposal submissions; (b) Describe major events that may have affected the timing (delays, complaints from consultants, Request for Proposals (RFP), extension of proposal submission date and so on); Use about one page. 3. Technical Evaluation (a) Describe briefly the meetings and actions taken by the evaluation committee: formation of a technical evaluation team, outside assistance, evaluation guidelines, justification of sub-criteria and associated weightings as indicated in the Standard Request for Proposals; and compliance of evaluation with RFP. (b) Present results of the technical evaluation: scores and the award recommendation. (c) Highlight strengths and weaknesses of each proposal (most important part of the report). (i) Strengths: Experience in very similar projects in the country; quality of the methodology, proving a clear understanding of the scope of the assignment; strengths of the local partner; and experience of proposed staff in similar assignments. (ii) Weaknesses: Of a particular component of the proposal; of a lack of experience in the country; of a low level of participation by the local partner; of a lack of practical experience (experience in studies rather than in implementation); of staff experience compared to the firms experience; of a key staffer (e.g., the team leader); of a lack of responsiveness; and of disqualifications (conflict of interest).

(d) Comment on individual evaluators scores (discrepancies).

1

Section I applies to Quality- and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS), Quality-Based Selection (Quality-Based), Fixed-Budget Selection (Fixed-Budget), and Least-Cost Selection (Least-Cost). Provide appropriate information in the case of Single-Source Selection (SS).

36

(e) Items requiring further negotiations. Use about two pages. 4. 4.1 Technical Evaluation Basic Data Name of Project

4.2

Type of assignment (preinvestment, preparation, or implementation),

4.3 4.4

Method of selection2:

QCBS ___ Fixed-Budget ___

Quality-Based ___ Least-Cost ___

Request for Expression of interest3 (i) Publication in United Nations Development Business Yes (UNDB) Yes (ii) Publication in national newspaper(s) (iii) Number of responses

No No

4.5

Shortlist: (i) names/nationality of firms/associations (mark domestic firms and firms that had expressed interest)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Date Date Date

4.6 Request for Proposals: (i) submission to CPB for approval, if applicable (ii) CPBs approval (iii)issuance to Consultants 4.7 Amendments and clarifications to the RFP (describe)

2 3

See Evaluation Guide. Indicate whether expressions of interest advertised in Web or hardcopy edition of UNDP.

37

4.8

Contract: (i) Standard Time-Based (ii) Standard Lump Sum

Yes ____ Price adjustment: Yes_____ No ______ Yes____ Price adjustment: Yes_____ No ______

(iii) other (describe)

4.9 Pre-proposal conference: (i) minutes issued 4.10 Proposal submission: (i) two envelopes (technical and financial proposals) (ii) one envelope (technical) (iii) original submission (iv) extensions(s) 4.11 Opening of Technical Proposals 4.12 Number of proposals received 4.13 Evaluation committee4: Members names and titles (normally three to five)

Yes Yes

No No

P Yes Yes Date Date Date

Time Time Time

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Date Date Time Time

4.14 Proposal validity period (days): (i) original expiration date (ii) extension(s), if any

It is important that evaluators be qualified.

38 4.15 Evaluation Criteria/sub-criteria5: (a) Consultants experience (i) (ii)

Weight Weight

(b) (i) (ii)

methodology Weight Weight

(c) key staff (i) individual(s) (A) _____________ (B) _____________ (C) _____________ (ii) group(s) (A) _____________ (B) _____________ (C) _____________ (d) (i) (ii) training (optional)

Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight

Weight Weight local input (optional) Weight Weight

(e) (i) (ii)

Maximum of three sub-criteria per criterion.

39 4.16 Technical scores by Consultant Consultants names Technical scores 1. 2. 3. 4. Minimum qualifying score

4.17 Evaluation notice: (a) issued to the Consultants: 5 Technical Score

Date

Provide tables of Technical Score and Ranking as well as individual markings, date of notification of technical score to participants and attach Table 1and 2 as given below:

40

Form I A. Evaluation Summary

Technical Scores/Ranking
Consultants names Criteria Experience [Insert name of Consultant 1] Scores [Insert name of Consultant 2] Scores [Insert name of Consultant 3] Scores [Insert name of Consultant 4] Scores

Methodology

Proposed staff

Training

Local input

Total scorea Rank

a. Proposals scoring below the minimum qualifying score of [number] points have been rejected.

41

Form IB. Individual EvaluationsComparison

Consultants Names Criteria Experience [Insert name of Consultant 1] A B AVa C D [Insert name of Consultant 2] [Insert name of Consultant 3]

[I C

Methodology

Key staff

Training

Local input

Total

a. A, B, C, and D = scores given by evaluators; AV = average score, see Annex II (i).

42

Section II. Financial Evaluation ReportAward RecommendationText6

6 General Information

[The text will indicate: (a) any issues faced during the evaluation, such as difficulty in obtaining the exchange rates to convert the prices into the common currency used for evaluation purposes; adjustments made to the prices of the proposal(s) (mainly to ensure consistency with the technical proposal) and determination of the evaluated price (does not apply to Quality-Based (Quality-Based) and Single-Source Selection (SingleSource)); tax-related problems; award recommendation; and any other important information.

(b)

(c) (d) (e)

Taxes are not taken into account in the financial evaluation whereas reimbursables are.] 6.1 Basic Data (a) Public Opening of financial Proposals Date Names and proposal prices (mark 1. Consultants that attended public 2. opening) 3. 4. (b) Evaluation Committee: Members names and titles (if not the same as in the technical evaluation - Quality-Based, SingleSource) (c) Methodology (formula): for evaluation of cost (QCBS only; cross as appropriate) Weight inversely proportional to cost Other Time

Applies to QCBS, Fixed-Budget, and Least-Cost. provide relevant information as indicated.

For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source

43

(d)

Consultant Technical QCBS (i) Technical, financial and final Name scores scores (Quality-Based: technical scores only

Financial scores

Final scores

(ii)Award recommendation (e) Fixed Budget and Least-Cost (i) Technical scores, proposal and evaluated prices Consultant Technical Name scores Proposal prices Evaluated prices

(ii)Award Recommendation (iii) Fixed-Budget: best technical proposal within the budget (evaluated price) (iv) Least-Cost: lowest evaluated price proposal above minimum qualifying score Name:

Name:

1. Conclusion: The Evaluation Committee will conclude after preparing an Executive Summary Report and giving its appreciation as to the extent the proposals received have met the requirements as specified in the RFP. The Evaluation Committee may highlight on weaknesses in the RFP and the reasons for disparities between the procurement estimates and the financial proposals received, whether applicable.

44

Form II A. AdjustmentsCurrency ConversionEvaluated Prices7

Evaluated price(s) (3) = (1) + (2) Conversion to currency of evaluationc Exchange Proposals rate(s)e prices (4) (5) = (3)(4) Financial scoresd (6)

Consultants Names

Proposals pricesa Amounts Currency (1)

Adjustmentsb (2)

a. b. c. d. e.

Comments, if any (e.g., exchange rates); three foreign currencies maximum, plus local currency. Arithmetical errors and omissions of items included in the technical proposals. Adjustments may be positive or negative. As per RFP. 100 points to the lowest evaluated proposal; other scores to be determined in accordance with provisions of RFP. Value of one currency unit in the common currency used for evaluation purposes, normally the local currency (e.g., US$1 = 30 rupees). Indicate source as per RFP.

For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source, fill out only up to column 3.

45

Form II B. QCBSCombined Technical/Financial EvaluationAward Recommendation

Technical Evaluation Weighted scores S(t) Tb Financial Evaluation Financial Weighted c scores scores S(f) S(f) Fd Combined Evaluation Scores S(t) T + S(f) F

Consultants names

Technical scoresa S(t)

Technical rank

Rank

Award recommendation
a. b. c. d. See Form IB. T = As per RFP. See Form IIA. F = as per RFP.

To highest combined technical/financial score. Consultants name: _____________________________________

46

Form II C. Fixed-Budget and Least-Cost SelectionAward Recommendation8

Consultants names

Fixed-Budget Selection Technical scoresa Evaluated pricesb

Least-Cost Selection Technical scores Evaluated prices

Award recommendation

To best technical score with evaluated price within budget. Consultants name:

To lowest evaluated price above minimum qualifying score. Consultants name:

a. b.

See Form IB. See Form IIA.

Fill in appropriate part of form.

47

Declarations of the Bid Evaluation Committee

1. Declaration of Bid Evaluation Committee at the start of evaluation
The Chairperson, members and secretary of the Evaluation Committee hereby declare individually that we have no parental relation with any of the bidders or key personnel mentioned by the bidders, no financial interest in the companies and that we are not in a position of conflict of interest to participate in the evaluation of these bids. We undertake not to disclose any information related to the content, examination, clarification, evaluation, and comparison of bids and recommendations for the award of contract to Bidders or any other third party.

Chairperson :

___________________ name

__________________ _____________ signature date __________________ ________________ signature date __________________ ________________ signature date __________________ ________________ signature date

Member : ___________________ name Member : ___________________ name Secretary : ___________________ name

2. Declaration of the Bid Evaluation Committee after the evaluation process.

We further declare that this evaluation has been carried out in all fairness to the bidders and the Procuring Entity (mention the Procuring Entity) and that we have acted without fear, favour and undue influence from any party.

Chairperson :

___________________ name ___________________ name ___________________ name

__________________ _____________ signature date __________________ ________________ signature date __________________ ____________ signature date

Member :

Member :

48

Annex II

Annex II (i). Individual Evaluations

Consultants name: _________________________
Evaluators 3

Criteria/Sub-Criteria Experience Methodology Key Staff Transfer of Knowledge (Traininga) Participation by Nationalsa Total a. If specified in the RFP

Maximum Scores

Average Scores

100

1. Evaluators Name: _____________________

Signature: __________________ Date: __

2. Evaluators Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: ___ 3. Evaluators Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date:___ 4. Evaluators Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: ___ 5. Evaluators Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: ___

49

Annex II (ii) Individual EvaluationsKey Personnel

Consultants Name: ____________________________

Key Staff Namesa

Maximu m Scores

General Qualificati ons ( )

b

Adequacy for the Assignmen t ( )b

Experience in Region ( )b

Total Marks (100)

Scores

Total

a. Sometimes evaluations are made by groups instead of individuals. Each group (e.g. financial group) has a weight. The group score is obtained by the weighted scores of the members of the group. For example, the score of a group of three individuals scoring a, b, and c would be ax + by + cz with x, y, and z representing the respective weights of the members (x + y + z = 1) in this group. b. Maximum marks as per RFP

Name of Evaluator: ______________ Signature: _______________ Date: __________

50

Sources: World Bank Standard Request for Proposals World Bank Manual for Consultancy Services Guideline: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank BorrowersWorld Bank (May 2004, revised October 2006) Consulting Services Operations Manual ADB (2008) Guideline on The Use of Consultants ADB (April 2006, revised February 2007) Handbook for Users of Consulting Services ADB (1993) Guideline for Employment of Consultants under Japanese ODA Loans- JICA (March 2009) Handbook for Procurement under Japanese ODA Loans JICA (March 2009) Sample Request for Proposals: Selection of Consultants JICA (September 2009) FIDIC Guideline for the Selection of Consultants FIDIC (2003) Client-Consultant Agreement (White Book) FIDIC (1998)