draft standard proposal evaluation report for...

of 32

DOC 21

DRAFT STANDARD PROPOSAL EVALUATION REPORT

FOR

SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY (PPRA)

OCTOBER 2018

of 32

PREFACE 1. This Standard Tender Evaluation Report document has been prepared by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) for use by Procuring Entities (PEs) for evaluation of proposals for procurement of Consulting Services, including under international competition as defined in the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (2015). The procedures and practices presented in this document reflect the requirements in the Standard Request for Proposals (Selection of Consultants). This document will also be used appropriately for Procurement of Management Services. This document sets out the format of an evaluation report to facilitate the evaluation of consultants’ proposals and the subsequent review of the reports by auditors and/or procurement compliance monitoring reviewers. The evaluation must be in accordance with the criteria spelt out in the Request for Proposals and must be carried out by qualified evaluators. 2. The Document will be used by Procuring Entities on a mandatory basis. Lack of its use could be basis for challenging decision on contract award, for determining a Procuring Entity non-compliant, or prompting investigations for possible fraud or corruption. 3. The Document comprises of the parts indicated on the Table of Contents. Before using this document, the User is advised to or should be familiar with the Standard Request for Proposals, the Act and its Regulations and any manuals prepared and issued by PPRA to guide public officials in the conduct of the public procurement process. 4. The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority welcomes any comments from the Users of this Document which will assist in revising (if need be) and improving its structure and contents. Director General Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) P.O. Box 30007 - 00200 Nairobi, Kenya.

of 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE PROPOSAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES PROPOSAL OPENING CHECKLIST PROPOSAL EVALUATION SUMMARY CHECKLIST COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS (if any) COVER PAGE ABBREVIATIONS TABLE 1. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL OPENING SHEETS TABLE 2. SIGNATURES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PROPOSAL OPENING TEAM TABLE 3. MEMBERS OF PROPOSAL OPENING COMMITTEE TABLE 4. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION TABLE 5. EVALUATION SCORING GUIDELINES (SUB-CRITERION). TABLE 6. SPECIFIC EVALUATION SCORING FOR EACH KEY EXPERT TABLE 7. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION ALL SCORES

(CONSOLIDATION WITHOUT MODERATION) TABLE 8. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION ALL SCORES

(CONSOLIDATION AND MODERATED FINAL SCORES) TABLE 9. FIRMS THAT PASSED THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FINANCIAL EVALUATION REPORT TABLE 10. OPENED FINANCIAL PROPOSALS TABLE 11. NOTES ON MODIFICATIONS (if any). TABLE 12. FINANCIAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SHEETS FOR EACH FIRM TABLE 13. COMBINED TECHNICAL/FINANCIAL EVALUATION AND RANKING FOLLOW-UP STEPS COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS (if any) TABLE 14. PROPOSED CONTRACT AWARD TABLE 15. SIGNATURES OF TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS

of 32

PROPOSAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES 1. Identification, Proposal Process, and Proposal Submission The Tables provide for the filing of basic information on the selection process. This information is necessary to monitor compliance with the RFP Document. 2. Proposal Opening 2.1.1 Proposal opening procedures are described in the ITC. To assist in carrying out the opening and preparing of the record, a checklist is provided below. The checklist should preferably be filled out for each proposal during the actual reading out at the meeting. The reading should be from the original version of each proposal, and the actual amounts and other key details read out should be recoded. If proposals are expressed in a single currency, other currency needs expressed as a percentage should be recorded. It may also be desirable to read out exchange rates used in a proposal. 2.2.2 Any envelopes containing substitutions, modifications, or withdrawals must be subject to the same level of scrutiny, including the reading out of critical details, such as price changes. Failure to read out such information and include it in the written record may result in denial of its inclusion in proposal evaluation. If a proposal has been withdrawn by electronic means, it should be read out and should not be returned to the firm until the authenticity of the withdrawal notice has been confirmed. 2.2.3 As stated in the ITCs, no proposals should be rejected at the proposal opening except those received after the deadline for receipt of proposals. Such proposals shall be returned unopened to the Firm. A summary of the read-out prices should be provided in the appropriate Table. 3. Principles of Evaluation 3.1 After the public opening of proposals, information relating to the examination, clarification, and evaluation of proposals shall not be disclosed to firms or other persons not officially concerned with this process until the successful firm is notified of the award of contract. The Procuring Entity should employ an evaluation committee, consisting of a minimum of five qualified members who should work in a secure office where all proposal documents can be kept. There may be a considerable advantage if the same members participated in the preparation of the RFP documents are Members of the Committee. 3.2 On occasion, the Procuring Entity may request clarifications of firms concerning ambiguities or inconsistencies in the proposal. As required in the ITCs, such requests shall be in writing, and no change in the price or scope of the originally offered goods, works, or services shall be sought or accepted, except for the correction of arithmetic error. The responses from firms shall also be in writing. No circumstances shall justify meetings or conversations between the Procuring Entity (or its consultants) and firms during the proposal evaluation process. 3.3 Firms frequently attempt to contact the Procuring Entity during proposal evaluation, directly or indirectly, to query progress of evaluation, to offer unsolicited clarifications, or to provide criticisms of their competition. Receipt of such information should be acknowledged

of 32

as to receipt only. Procuring Entities must evaluate proposals on the basis of the information provided in the respective proposal documents only. However, additional information provided may be useful in improving the accuracy, speed, or fairness of the evaluation. In any case, no changes in the proposal price or substance are allowed. 4. Preliminary Examination of Proposals The evaluation process should begin immediately after proposal opening. The purpose of preliminary examination is to identify and reject proposals that are incomplete, invalid, or substantially nonresponsive to the RFP documents. This Standard Tender Evaluation Report provides clear guidelines on how to deal with review of these requirements. Tenders that do not pass the Preliminary Examination will be considered irresponsive and will not be considered further. 5. Financial Evaluation of Proposals Only those proposals surviving Technical Proposal examination need to be examined in this phase.

(a) Corrections for Errors The methodology for correction of computational errors is described in the ITC.

The read-out financial proposal prices and their corrections should be noted. The corrections are considered binding to the Firm. Unusual or large corrections that could affect the comparative ranking of financial proposals should be explained in footnotes.

(b) Corrections for Provisional Sums Financial Proposals may contain provisional sums, etc. set by the Procuring Entity.

As these sums are the same for all proposals, they should be subtracted from the read-out prices to allow for a proper comparison of proposals in subsequent steps.

(c) Modifications and Discounts In accordance with the ITC, Firms are allowed to submit, prior to financial proposal

opening, modifications to their original proposal. The impact of modifications should be fully reflected in the examination and evaluation of the financial proposals. These modifications may include either increases or discounts to the financial proposal amounts that reflect last-minute business decisions. Accordingly, the original financial proposal prices should be modified at this point in the evaluation. Discounts offered in accordance with the ITC that are conditional on the simultaneous award of a contract shall not be incorporated until the completion of all other evaluation steps. The effect of unconditional discounts (or alternatively, increases) should be shown. Any discount expressed in percent must be applied to the appropriate base specified in the proposal (i.e., check to see if it applies to any provisional sums).

(d) Evaluation Currency

of 32

The financial proposals as corrected for computational errors and as adjusted for discounts should be converted to a common evaluation currency, as described in the ITC. The exchange rates to be used in the calculations are to be listed in the appropriate Table.

(e) Additions Omissions to the financial proposal should be compensated for by adding the

estimated costs for remedying the deficiency. Where items missing in some proposals are present in others, an average of quoted prices could be used to compare competitors’ proposals. Alternatively, external sources, such as published price lists, schedules, etc., may be appropriate. The cost determined should be expressed in the evaluation currency and shown in the appropriate Table.

(f) Adjustments The ITC specifies which, if any, performance or service factors will be considered

in the financial proposal evaluation. The methodology used in evaluation of these factors should be precisely described in the financial proposal evaluation report and should be fully consistent with the ITC provisions. Bonuses or additional credits that reduce the evaluated proposal price will not be given in the financial proposal evaluation for features that exceed the requirements stated in the proposal documents, unless specifically provided for in the ITC. The value of adjustments will be expressed in terms of cost, for all consultant contracts, and should be shown in the appropriate Table, and expressed in the evaluation currency.

(g) Priced Deviations Proposals with minor deviations may be considered substantially responsive if their

further consideration assigns a monetary cost or penalty to the financial proposal for the purpose of financial proposal comparison:

(i) Requests for deviations that are expressed by the firm in vague terms, such

as “we would like an increase in the amount of mobilization advance” or “we wish to discuss changes in the completion schedule” should ordinarily be ignored in proposal evaluation. However, a categorical statement by the firm taking exception to a requirement in the firm documents should be treated as a deviation.

(ii) If a firm requires a faster payment stream than specified in the RFP

documents, the penalty is based on the prospective benefit to the firm. This situation assumes use of a discounted cash flow using the prevailing commercial interest rates for the currencies of the proposal, unless the ITC foresees the eventuality and specifies a rate.

(iii) If a proposal provides for a delivery or completion that is beyond the date

specified in the RFP documents but that is nonetheless technically acceptable to the Procuring Entity, the time advantage given should be assessed a penalty specified in the ITC or, if one is not provided, based on the rate of liquidated damages specified in the RFP documents.

of 32

(iv) If the ITC allows for submission of an alternative payment schedule, the

Procuring Entity, shall cost the alternative payment schedule to see its financial effect over the required payment schedule. Calculations for the evaluation of alternatives should be provided in an attachment to the report.

The deviations should be priced in the evaluation currency in and shown in the

appropriate Table and column. 6. Notes on Technical Evaluation Report 6.1 Background Include a brief description, context, scope, and objectives of the services. 6..2 The Selection Process (Prior to Technical Evaluation) Provide information a brief description of the selection process, beginning with the establishment of the shortlist, the advertising for Expression of Interest (if required), and any withdrawals of firms before proposal submissions. Describe major events that may have affected the timing (delays, complaints from consultants, key correspondence with the Procuring Entity, Request for Proposals (RFP), extension of proposal submission date, and so on). 6.3 Technical Evaluation Describe briefly formation of a Proposal Evaluation Committee, the meetings and actions taken by the Proposal Evaluation Committee, outside assistance, evaluation guidelines, justification of sub criteria and associated weightings as indicated in the Standard Request for Proposals, relevant correspondence with the Procuring Entity, and compliance of evaluation with RFP. Present results of the technical evaluation, scores and the award recommendation. Highlight strengths and weaknesses of each proposal (most important part of the report).

(a) 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 national partners or experts (if any); and experience of proposed staff in similar assignments.

(b) Weaknesses: Of a particular component of the proposal; of a lack of experience in the

country; of a low level of participation by the national partner; of a lack of practical experience (experience in studies rather than in implementation); of staff experience compared to the firm’s experience; of a key staffer (e.g., the team leader); of a lack of responsiveness; and of disqualifications (conflict of interest).

7. Determination of Award (a) In the comparison of financial proposals, the corrected and discounted financial proposal

prices, together with adjustments for omissions, deviations, and specified evaluation factors, have been noted in appropriate Tables. The firm with the lowest evaluated price at this stage, shall be invited for negotiations if the contract is not subject to Least cost or fixed budget selection method, otherwise the selection process shall proceed if by QCBS.

of 32

(b) The amount of the proposed award shall be the financial proposal price as submitted by

the winning firm and adjusted as described in the ITC only for unconditional discounts (including cross-discounts). Adjustments to the final price and scope of the contract to correct for acceptable omissions and quantity variations in the financial proposal may be negotiated with the selected firm. In any case the proposed award is required before such negotiations may be entered into.

(c) If only none of the proposals are found to be responsive, or proposals are unreasonably

high in price compared with earlier estimates, or none of the firms are qualified, the Procuring Entity may consider rejection of all proposals and restart the whole procurement process on basis of revised RFP documents (evaluation criteria, TOR and conditions of contract).

(d) The Evaluation Report shall be submitted to the Accounting Officer for approval of the

proposed contract award and signature. (e) The Procuring Entity shall publish the contract award as required by the Act, specifying

the name, address and nationality of the proposal awarded the contract, and the contract price. Any further information on the proposals or on their evaluation, including the proposal evaluation report, is held in confidence by the Procuring Entity. Unsuccessful firms are allowed to seek a debriefing with the Procuring Entity. In anticipation of this and/or any post reviews by any authorized entities (like PPRA or Auditor General or other Integrity Agencies conducting investigations relating to this contract), the Procuring Entity, should ensure that proposal documents and evaluations are securely stored.

of 32

PROPOSAL OPENING CHECKLIST Technical Proposal Opening Date: Time: Name of Firm: (a) Are the envelopes of the proposals sealed? (b) Is proposal form completed and signed? (c) Is the expiration date of Proposal in accordance with the RFP? (d) Is documentary authority for signing enclosed? (e) Describe any “Substitution,” “Withdrawal,” or “Modification” submitted if any. (f) Describe any alternative proposal made. (g) Describe any discounts or modifications offered. (h) Additional comments. (i) Name of firm or representative present. (j) Total financial price, in case of financial proposals (list currencies and amounts or percentages).

of 32

PROPOSAL EVALUATION SUMMARY CHECKLIST 1. Attach proposal opening record, if not previously submitted. 2. Explain any inconsistencies between prices and modifications to prices read out at financial proposal opening (and written into the record). 3. Provide details on eliminating any proposal during preliminary examination. Copy select pages from firms, as desirable, to show examples of objectionable features. 4. If provisional sums vary among tenderers, explain. Explain any substantial corrections for computational errors that may affect the ranking of the firms. 5. Provide a copy of the exchange rates requested. 6. The additions, adjustments, and priced deviations require detailed explanations where they may affect the ranking of firms. 7. Explain any discount not read out and recorded at financial proposal opening. 8. Provide detailed reasons for refusing to award a contract to a party other than the highest ranked fir or firm with the lowest evaluated price. 9. Attach copies of any correspondence from firms that raise objections to the selection and evaluation process, together with detailed responses. 10. Attach copies of any letters to firms requesting clarifications. Provide copies of responses. 11. Submit evaluation with separate evaluation report from consultant, if one was commissioned. 12. Ensure that the evaluation report is double-checked, paginated, and complete.

of 32

COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS (if any) The Evaluation Committee shall insert include here any relevant narratives on the Report. For guidance, the narratives may include any issues regarding tender response, deviations waved, negotiations, strengths and weaknesses of each firm, etc. (a) After the Evaluation Committee has determined the highest ranked firm and has recommended the same for contract award, the Secretary to the Committee shall prepare a transmittal letter to the Accounting Officer requesting for his/her approval to negotiate with the firm with highest score. If the Accounting Officer has any objection to the proposed award, he/she shall indicate so and direct the Committee what should be done, provided such a direction is not intended to influence the Committee’s decision to award the contract to a preferred firm, which in any case may provoke an investigation on possible corruption. (b) If the Accounting Officer agrees with the Committee’s proposed contract award, the Secretary to the Committee shall prepare a letter of “Notification of Intention to award a Contract” and follow the steps in the respective RFP regarding Notification of Award of contract, Standstill Period, Negotiations, including availability of Key Experts, technical negotiations, financial negotiations, conditions of contract (as appropriate) and conclusion of negotiations. (c) After the conclusion of negotiations, the Secretary to the Committee shall prepare a transmittal letter to the Accounting Officer requesting for his/her approval of the proposed negotiated contract. If the Accounting Officer has any objection to the proposed award, he/she shall indicate so and direct the Committee what should be done, provided such a direction is not intended to influence the Committee’s decision to award the contract to a preferred firm, which in any case may provoke an investigation on possible corruption. (d) The Contract shall be signed prior to the expiration of the Proposal Validity Period and promptly after successful conclusion of negotiations. (e) Within the period specified in the Data Sheet of the RFP, the Procuring Entity shall publish the Contract Award Notice which shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (a) name and address of the Client; (b) name and reference number of the contract being awarded, (c) the selection method used; (d) names of the consultants that submitted proposals, and their proposal prices as read out at financial proposal opening, and as evaluated; (e) names of all Consultants whose Proposals were rejected or were not evaluated, with the reasons therefor; (f) the name of the successful consultant, the final total contract price, the contract duration and a summary of its scope. The Contract Award Notice shall be published on the Procurement Entity’s website with free access, if available, and in the official procurement portal. (f) If the Committee recommends cancellation of the selection process, it should make recommendations on how a reselection would be done, indicating clearly how the new RFP documents and process should be improved to avoid another cancellation. It should also advise the User Department accordingly.

of 32

COVER PAGE Name of Procuring Entity TENDER EVALUATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR (name and reference number of the Contract) ________________________________________________________________ Contract Name: Identification/Reference Number: Date of Tender Report Submission:

of 32

ABBREVIATIONS AO Accounting Officer FY Fiscal year ICT Information, Communications Technology ITC Instructions to Consultants JV Joint Venture PE Procuring Entity PPADA Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 PPRA Public Procurement Regulatory Authority R Responsive NR Not-Responsive QCBS Quality and Cost-Based Selection RFP Request for Proposals STD Standard Tender Documents TEC Tender Evaluation Committee TOR Terms of reference

of 32

1. The Report will start by completing Table 1 which indicates the firms that were invited to submitted proposals and those that submitted proposals. TABLE 1. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL OPENING SHEETS Date of Opening __________________________, Time _________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Name of Shortlisted firm Address Tech

Proposal submitted (Y/N)

Any modifications to the Proposal submitted (Y/N) (See notes on modifications below)

Presence or absence of a duly sealed envelope with the Financial Proposal (Y/N)

Signature of a Representative of the Shortlisted firm if present

1 2 3 4 5 6

Notes om Modifications made: 1 2 3 4 5 6

of 32

TABLE 2. SIGNATURES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PROPOSAL OPENING TEAM Name Insitution Designation Signature

1

2

3 4 5

TABLE 3. MEMBERS OF PROPOSAL OPENING COMMITTEE Ref No Name of Member Organization Designation Tel No Signature 1 2 3 4 5 5 6

Evaluation shall start with preliminary examination to ensure only those firms that pass preliminary examination proceed for further evaluation.

of 32

TABLE 4. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION S/N Mandatory Eligibility

criteria THE SHORTLISTED FIRM 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Firm has submitted the required number of copies of the Technical Proposals.

2 Firm has submitted a sealed financial proposal.

3 The Proposal is valid for the required number of days.

4 The Technical Proposal is signed by the person with power of attorney, without material deviation, reservation, or omission.

5 The Technical Proposal is complete with all the forms and required documentary evidence submitted.

6 Tax Compliance Certificate for Kenyan firms.

7 Key Experts are from eligible countries.

8 Key Experts do not appear in more than one proposal, if so required.

9 A shortlisted firm has not participated in more than one proposal, if so required.

10 The Consultant is not insolvent, in receivership, bankrupt or in the process of being wound up.

11 The Consultant, its subconsultants and experts have not engaged in or been convicted of corrupt or fraudulent practices.

12 The Consultant is neither precluded from entering into a Contract nor debarred by PPRA

13 The firm has not proposed employing public officials, civil servants and mployees of public institutions.

of 32

S/N Mandatory Eligibility criteria

THE SHORTLISTED FIRM 1 2 3 4 5 6

14 The Consultant, its subconsultants and experts have no conflicts of interest.

FINAL DETERMINATION (R/NR)

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

of 32

Before beginning the evaluation exercise, the Evaluation Committee shall meet and agree on the sub-criteria (Table 4) the as per provisions in the Request for Proposals, including scores for each Key Expert using the Table 5 below. TABLE 5. EVALUATION SCORING GUIDELINES (SUB-CRITERION). Evaluation Sub-Criterion Max

Points Sub criteria for scoring Score

1 Specific experience of the Consultant (as a firm) relevant to the Assignment.

X 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) etc. Subtotal Same as X 1

2. Adequacy and quality of the proposed methodology, and work plan in responding to the Terms of Reference (TORs (maximum Score X …….)

(i) Technical approach and methodology

X 2 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) etc. Subtotal Same as X 2

(ii) Work plan X 3 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) etc. Subtotal Same as X 3

(iii) Organization and staffing

X 4 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

of 32

Evaluation Sub-Criterion Max Points

Sub criteria for scoring Score

(v) etc. Subtotal Same as X 4

3. Key Experts’ qualifications and competence for the Assignment: Maximum score X 5 1. Team Leader (TL) REF Table 4 12

2 REF Table 4 3 REF Table 4 4 REF Table 4 5 REF Table 4 6 REF Table 4 7 REF Table 4 8 REF Table 4 9 REF Table 4 10 REF Table 4 Subtotal Same as X 5

4. Participation by nationals among proposed Key Experts [Nationals of Kenya).

Each National score ……points (score to the nearest one decimal point or whole number).

5. Transfer of knowledge and training program TOTAL SCORES

of 32

TABLE 6. SPECIFIC EVALUATION SCORING FOR EACH KEY EXPERT Before beginning the evaluation exercise, the Evaluation Committee shall meet and agree on the sub-criteria for each Key expert using the Table 4 below. Position and Name of Key Expert ______________________________________________ SUB CRITERIA Maxi Score Score 1. General qualifications (general education, training, and

experience relevant to the assignment). Score Diploma First Degree xxx Master’s Degree xxx PHD xxx

2. Adequacy for the Assignment (relevant education, training, experience in the sector/similar assignments). Relevant Education as in Item 1 above xxx Special training in xxx Participation in ……………similar assignments xxx Participation in more than ………………. similar assignments xxx

3. Relevant experience in the region (working level fluency in local language(s)/knowledge of local culture or administrative system, government organization, etc.).

TOTAL SCORE 100 1. Formula for Actual Score = Total score/100 X Allocated points in Table 2 Item 3. For example: if the Team leader was allocated 12 marks in Table 2, and he/she gets a total score of 80 points out of 100, his/her actual score to be transferred to Table 4 would be 80/100 X 12= 9.6 points. 2. If the process was QCBS, check the combined formula in the RFP. The lowest evaluated Financial Proposal (Fm) is given the maximum financial score (Sf) of 100. The formula for determining the financial scores (Sf) of all other Proposals is calculated as following: Sf = 100 x Fm/ F, in which “Sf” is the financial score, “Fm” is the lowest price, and “F” the price of the proposal under consideration. The weights given to the Technical (T) and Financial (P) Proposals are: T = [Insert weight between 0.70 and 0.85], and P = _______ [Insert weight between 0.15 and 0.30] Proposals are ranked according to their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf) scores using the weights (T = the weight given to the Technical Proposal; P = the weight given to the Financial Proposal; T + P = 1) as following: S = St x T% + Sf x P%.

of 32

TABLE 7. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION ALL SCORES (CONSOLIDATION WITHOUT MODERATION) Firm Ref No.

CRITERION Max Score

EVAL1 No 1

EVAL. No 2

EVAL. No 3

EVAL. No 4

EVAL. No 5

EVAL. No. 6

Total Average Score

FIRM No 1

Experience Methodology, work plan & staff Organization

Key Experts Participation by nationals Transfer of knowledge and training program

FIRM No 2



FIRM No 3



FIRM No 4


Key Experts Participation by nationals

1 EVAL means Evaluator.

of 32

Firm Ref No.

CRITERION Max Score

EVAL1 No 1

EVAL. No 2

EVAL. No 3

EVAL. No 4

EVAL. No 5

EVAL. No. 6

Total Average Score

Transfer of knowledge and training program

FIRM No 5



FIRM No 6



of 32

TABLE 8. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION ALL SCORES (CONSOLIDATED AND MODERATED2 FINAL SCORES) Firm Ref No.

CRITERION Max Score

EVAL3 No 1

EVAL. No 2

EVAL. No 3

EVAL. No 4

EVAL. No 5

EVAL. No. 6

Total Average Score

Original scores 10 8 7 7 4 9 8 43 7.16 FIRM No 1

E.g. Experience (moderated)

10 8 7 7 7 9 8 46 7.67

Methodology, work plan & staff Organization

Key Experts Participation by nationals Training Proposal

TOTAL SCORE FOR THE FIRM (summation of average scores) xxxx Technical score4 xxxx FIRM No 2



TOTAL SCORE FOR THE FIRM (summation of average scores) xxxx Technical score xxxx FIRM No 3


Key Experts Participation by nationals

2 Moderated means that if there were very large variations in individual scores, the varying scores are brought to norm by either asking the evaluator to repeat scoring or by taking the nearest next score. See the example. 3 EVAL means Evaluator. 4 Check from Table what T is to calculate the Score.

of 32

Firm Ref No.

CRITERION Max Score

EVAL3 No 1

EVAL. No 2

EVAL. No 3

EVAL. No 4

EVAL. No 5

EVAL. No. 6

Total Average Score

Training Proposal TOTAL SCORE FOR THE FIRM (summation of average scores) xxxx Technical score xxxx FIRM No 4









TOTAL SCORE FOR THE FIRM (summation of average scores) xxxx Technical score xxxx

of 32

NOTE: In the case of QBS method, no further evaluation is required, the firm with the highest technical scores will be invited to submit a financial proposal and to negotiate a contract. TABLE 9. FIRMS THAT PASSED THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REF No of Firm

Name 5 of firms that submitted a financial Proposal

Address of the firm Overall Technical score of the firm

1 2 3 4 5 6

Firms that Pass the Technical Evaluation will have their financial proposals opened and evaluated accordingly.

FINANCIAL EVALUATION REPORT The Evaluation Committee will prepare notes on Financial Evaluation and text of the notes will indicate:

(a) any issues faced during the evaluation, such as difficulty in obtaining the exchange rates to convert the prices into a common currency used for evaluation purposes;

(b) adjustments made to the prices of the proposal(s) mainly to ensure consistency with

the technical proposal and determination of the evaluated price, as appropriate. (c) tax-related problems; (d) award recommendation; and (e) any other important information.

5 List only the firms that qualified in Technical Evaluation.

of 32

After completing technical evaluation as per Tables 1-8, the Committee will proceed with financial and combined evaluations using following Tables. TABLE 10. OPENED FINANCIAL PROPOSALS Date of Opening __________________________, Time _________________ Information to firms: The single currency for the conversion of all prices expressed in various currencies into a single one is the ……. The official source of the selling (exchange) rate is: -------------------------------and the date of the exchange rate is ____________________ (specify date of submission of Proposals). Ref No of the firm

Name of qualified6 firm that submitted a financial Proposal

Address of the firm Overall Technical score of the firm

Confirmation that the Proposal is sealed and unopened (Y/N).

Total Price and currency(ies) of the Financial proposal

Any modifications to the Financial Proposal submitted (Y/N) (Add notes on modifications below)

Signature of a Representative of the firm, if any, (Y/N)

1 2 3 4 5 6

6 List only the firms that qualified in Technical Evaluation.

of 32

TABLE 11. NOTES ON MODIFICATIONS (if any). Ref No of the firm

Name of Firm MODIFICATION COMMENTS

1 2 3 4 5 6

of 32

TABLE 12. FINANCIAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SHEETS FOR EACH FIRM NAME OF FIRM

Currency No Type of Currency

Amount of Currency (including any modifications)

Adjustments7

Evaluated price(s)

Exchange rates

Conversion to KES

1 Currency No 1 Currency No 2 Currency No 3 Total of all currencies in KES transferred to TABLE 12 (Total Evaluated price) xxxx






7 Arithmetical errors and omissions of items included in the technical proposals. Adjustments may be positive or negative.

of 32

NOTE: In the case of Least Cost Selection and Fixed Budget methods, the firm with the lowest evaluated price (as per Table 11) will be invited to submit a financial proposal and to negotiate a contract, subject to the following: After the completion of Table 11, and establishing the Lowest Evaluated Price in comparable currency, the Evaluation Committee shall perform the following scrutiny on the firms with Lowest Evaluated Price:

(i) If the Lowest Evaluated Price of the firm is determined an “An Abnormally Low Price” following the procedure in the ITC, the firm shall be rejected and the next ranked firm will be considered.

(ii) If Lowest Evaluated Price of the firm is determined an “An abnormally High Price”

following the procedure in ITC the selection process shall be terminated, and follow the process described in the ITC.

Otherwise for QCBS, the evaluation will continue as elaborated below.

of 32

TABLE 13. COMBINED TECHNICAL/FINANCIAL EVALUATION AND RANKING Date of Opening __________________________, Time _________________ Information to firms: The single currency for the conversion of all prices expressed in various currencies into a single currency is the _________________ (specify currency). The official source of the selling (exchange) rate is: ___________________________and the date of the exchange rate is _____________. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No Name of qualified8

firm that submitted a financial Proposal

Overall Technical Marks of the firm

Total Evaluated Price in KES from Table 11

Technical score of the firm (see Table 5 for formula)

Financial Score of the firm (see Table 5 for formula)

Total score of the firm (Col 5 + Col 6)

Ranking

Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 List only the firms that qualified.

of 32

FOLLOW-UP STEPS After the completion of Table 12, and the picture is clear regarding the offered prices by each firm, in comparable currency, and combined evaluation, the Evaluation Committee shall perform the following scrutiny on the winning firms with highest scores.

(i) If the Evaluated Price of the firm with highest score is determined an “An Abnormally Low Price” following the procedure in the ITC, the firm shall be rejected and the next ranked firm will be considered.

(ii) If Evaluated Price of the firm with highest score is determined an “An abnormally

High Price” following the procedure in ITC, the firm shall be rejected and the next ranked firm will be considered.

(iii) If all prices are determined as “Abnormally Low Prices” and/or Abnormally

High Prices” the selection process shall be terminated, and follow the process described in the ITC.

NOTE: (i) Unlike in the case of goods and works, firms with very low or high evaluated prices

could still the front runners. (ii) Unlike contracts for Goods and services, Consulting Services are not subject to

Margin of Preference.

of 32

TABLE 14. PROPOSED CONTRACT AWARD S/N ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 Selected firm (a) name

(b) address 2 Estimated date (month, year) of contract

signing.

3 Estimated date of contract completion period/date.

4 Tender Price(s) as per Tender Prices read-out, including any offered discounts.

Currencies Amounts Or Percentage (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

TABLE 15. SIGNATURES OF TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS S/No Name of

Evaluation Committee Member

Designation Organization Position Signature

1 Chair

2 Secretary

3 Member

4 Member

5 Member

6 ETC.

Dated ______________________________