nigp pappa chapter pennsylvania public purchasing...

** FINAL ** NIGP PAPPA CHAPTER

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC PURCHASING ASSOCIATION

GENERAL MEETING – May 18, 2015 Members in Attendance: Price Morris, Lancaster City Housing Authority; Kelly Laubach, Berks County; Maureen McIlvaine, Maria Isabel Bianchi-Fiorito, Ed Kolb, Claudia Schloffel, Bucks County; Denise Serino, West Whiteland Twp.; John Griffies, Etta Smith Edwards, Diane Atkins, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; George Nader, Patrick Leavey, Lehigh County; Cydnee Baffa, Township Lower Merion; Sonia Lee, Frenshawne Johnson, Janice Manton, Tim Vinson, Lena Ghee, Trevor Day, Shawnee Boon, Sanchez Justice, Kevin Hanagan, Azahn Campfield, City of Philadelphia; Amy Shafer, Donna Zackeru, South Whitehall Township; Stephen Nasobko. Meeting Location: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), Philadelphia, PA Meeting Host: John Griffies, Contracts Manager, DVRPC Call Board Meeting to Order: President Price Morris called the meeting to order at 10:21 am. Approval of the Minutes The March 23, 2015 General Meeting minutes were reviewed and approved. Motion by Kelly Laubach, Second by Maureen McIlvaine. The motion passed by all members present. Treasurer’s Reports George Nader reviewed Treasurer’s reports from March and April, 2015. The motion to approve was introduced by Denise Serino and seconded by Patrick Leavey. The motion passed by all members present. Standing Committee Reports Awards/Scholarship Committee –Chair Kelly Laubach: No report. Financial Committee –Chair Maureen McIlvaine: Maureen handed out and explained the 2015 Working Budget & Expenses worksheet Legislative Committee – Chair Joe Coco: No Report Marketing Committee – Committee Chair Vacant: No report. Membership Committee – President Price Morris stated there are seventy-five PAPPA members to date. Operations Guide Committee –Chair Pete Navarro (absent): No report. Professional Development Committee – Chair Bob Dopira reported:

There were twelve attendees for the NIGP Contract Administration

Hal Good has been advertising NIGP courses using social media.

Developing and Managing Requests for Proposals in the Public Sector is scheduled for June 22, 2015 in Lehigh County.

Strategic Procurement Planning is scheduled for September 14, 2015 in Berks County and also Introduction to Public Procurement in Bucks County in late Fall.

Website Committee – Chair Patrick Leavey: Patrick shared the following updates:

Educational Points will be posted on the website from the General Meeting attendance.

Hal Good set up the PAPPA Twitter account and it is linked to the PAPPA website. Special Committee Reports Chapter Liaison – Maureen McIlvaine: Reported Area 2 updates:

Delaware (DPPA) held their first Reverse Trade Show event.

Maureen also stated that DPPA had speakers from NIGP and speakers from Maryland & Pennsylvania discussing their purchasing program from their state.

NIGP Liaison – George Nader: Reported that he attended the spring NIGP Board Meeting in Kansas City. The following was discussed:

Trends in Procurement

Preview to next year’s White Paper

Presentation Colonial Life & CAT Financial

Minority participation in contracting

Chapter Ambassador Program – once every other year the Chapters will be visited by the Chapter Ambassador.

NIGP Budget was approved with slight increases.

NIGP is reviewing accreditation programs for co-ops.

Old Business Reverse Trade Show – Denise Serino reported in Kim Roth’s absence that a few committee members visited Bear Creek to address concerns from previous events. Also, to date fourteen vendors and five agencies have registered for the RTS. Kim is seeking volunteers to help on the day of the event. Hal Good has been promoting the RTS via social media. New Business: Job Posting for Buyer, City of Allentown Workshop: Discussion on Global Best Practices Topic “The Evaluation Process” Vice President, Kelly Laubach and Sonia Lee, City of Philadelphia, shared their experiences in bid processes as well as engaged group participation. Many shared their practices and experience for professional & nonprofessional bids. Time 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM (1 Educational Hour) Lunch: 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

Speaker : The NIGP Business Council presents: “Everybody Wins: Crafting a Solicitation that Fosters Transparency, Best Value, and Collaborative Partnership” Panel included: PAPPA Immediate Past President, Patrick Leavey; Sonia Lee, City of Philadelphia; NIGP Business Council Reps – Greg Berry, Municibid & Rob Rhoads, Graybar. Time 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM (1 Educational Hour) Education Voucher – The winner of the education voucher drawing was Mya Toon, Lycoming County and Jennifer Rhoades, Berks County. Motion to Adjourn The General meeting was adjourned, motion by Steve Nasobko and seconded by George Nader at 2:25 PM. Next Meeting: July 20, 2015 Hosted by Kim Roth, Chair, 2015 Reverse Trade Show Bear Creek Mountain Resort & Conference Center, Macungie, Pa Respectfully submitted, Secretary Denise Serino

Est. 1984

www.pappainc.org

Chapter of NIGP: THE INSTITUTE for PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS: OFFICERS: President: Price M. Morris, CPPB Lancaster City Housing Authority (717) 283-0432 First Vice President: Harry M. Klinger County of Lancaster (717) 299-8259 Second Vice President: Kelly A. Laubach, CPPB County of Berks (610) 478-6168 x 6267 Treasurer: George M. Nader, Jr., CPPO County of Lehigh (610) 782-3030 Secretary: Denise Serino West Whiteland Township (610) 363-9525 x 2131 IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT: Patrick J. Leavey, CPPB County of Lehigh (610) 782-3030 PRESIDENT’S APPOINTEE: Maureen W. McIlvaine, CPPO,CPPB County of Bucks (215) 348-6374 2015 CHAPTER MEETINGS: January 26 Location: County of Berks, Reading, PA March 23 Location: Pennsylvania State Police, Hershey, PA May 18 Location: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA July 20 Location: Bear Creek Resort and Conference Center, Macungie, PA September 21 Location: County of Chester, West Chester, PA November 17 Location: County of Bucks Doylestown, PA

Call to Order

▪ Introduction of Guests & Announcements ▪ Minutes from March 23, 2015 General Meeting ▪ Minutes from March 16, 2015 Board Meeting Approved at Board Meeting Teleconference Call on April 20, 2015 ▪ Treasurer’s Report: March 2015 & April 2015 Standing Committee Reports Awards/Scholarship Committee: Chair Kelly Laubach Finance Committee: Chair Maureen McIlvaine Legislative Committee: Chair Joseph Coco Marketing Committee: Currently Vacant Membership Committee: Chair Hannah Seiple Operations Guide Committee: Chair Peter Navarro Professional Development Committee: Chair Robert Dopira Website Committee: Chair Patrick Leavey Special Committee Reports Chapter Relations Liaison: Maureen McIlvaine NIGP Area 2 Update: George Nader Old Business Review of upcoming 2015 Reverse Trade Show New Business Workshop: Discussion on Global Best Practices from the NIGP Principles And Practices Of Public Procurement. ▪ Topic: “The Evaluation Process” (see attached) Time: 11:00 am—12:00 pm [1 Educational Contact Hour] Lunch: 12:00 PM — 1:00 PM Speaker: The NIGP Business Council presents: “Everybody Wins: Crafting a Solicitation that Fosters Transpar-ency, Best Value, and Collaborative Partnership” Time: 1:00 PM —2:00 PM [1 Educational Contact Hour] Adjourn

Next Meeting: July 20, 2015

Hosted by Kim Roth, Chair, 2015 Reverse Trade Show Bear Creek Mountain Resort & Conference Ctr., Macungie, PA

MAY 18, 2015 10:00 AM—2:00 PM

DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA, PA

Public Procurement Practice

THE EVALUATION PROCESS

STANDARD

The receipt, opening, and evaluation of requested documentation frompotential suppliers must be carried out by a competent evaluation paneland in accordance with all applicable laws, as well as the principles ofimpartiality and transparency. Those involved in the process mustmaintain integrity and professionalism in all aspects of evaluation. Allsubmissions received must be kept secure during the evaluation process1.The confidentiality of the submitted documents must also bemaintained subject only to applicable freedom of information or publicrecords legislation.

Definition

Evaluation Process is the process by which a qualified panel or responsibleindividual receives, opens and evaluates the requested documentationfrom potential suppliers. The evaluation process is a complete review ofthe received proposals based on pre-defined evaluation criteria. Thecriteria should be comprehensive enough to determine the best valuesolution for the public body so that a recommendation for award can bemade. (See Practice: Developing Evaluation Criteria).

Element 1.1: The Evaluation Panel2The evaluation panel must be competent and able to identify the most appropriate outcome,by using the pre-determined evaluation criteria and make a recommendation for award to thecontracting authority.

Preparation and Planning – Advance planning is important for the timely and properconduct of the evaluation process. It is recommended that the evaluation panel hold apreparatory/ planning meeting before the requested documentation is received. All membersof the evaluation panel should understand:n The process to be followed including signature of a “no conflict of interest statement”,

where applicablen How criteria and scoring will be appliedn Legislative constraintsn Their responsibilities while serving on the paneln Timescales for the evaluation processn The agreement to an evaluation timetable including scheduling meetings of the panel.

Operation of the Panel – The way in which the members of the evaluation panel operate(e.g. whether or not they jointly or independently access the submitted documentation)depends on local law and practice. Regardless of the operation method that is chosen, panelmembers must serve only the public entity's interests to ensure the fairness of the evaluationprocess, and must never manipulate or unfairly influence other members of the panel.

The Evaluation Process



Impartiality and Non-Disclosure – All panel members should sign a declaration ofimpartiality and non-disclosure or similar kind of declaration before they start to evaluate thesubmitted documentation. By signing such a document each panel member:n Declares that he/she is not associated with any of the potential suppliers or their

proposed sub-contractors, etc.n Commits to not disclosing any information acquired during the evaluation process to

potential suppliers or to any other persons not officially involved in the evaluationprocess.

Element 1.2: Receipt/Opening and ComplianceDepending on the type of procurement, the evaluation process may involve several stages.The first stage usually includes the receipt, opening and compliance validation of thesubmitted documentation. Once this stage has been completed the evaluation panel willconduct the full evaluation in accordance with the established criteria. The completion ofthis stage will result in a recommendation for award by the evaluation panel to thecontracting authority.

Where an e-procurement system or portal is being used for the receipt of tenders, the securitybuilt into the system only allows for opening after the final tender receipt time/date isreached. The central procurement team will open the tenders and send them along with theevaluation score sheet electronically to the panel to enable evaluation to begin.

The following receipt and opening process details the traditional paper-based approach forreceipt and opening:

Receipt – Upon receiving the requested documentation, the contracting authority mustrecord the following information:n Declares that he/she is not associated with any of the potential suppliers or their

proposed sub-contractors, etc.n Commits to not disclosing any information acquired during the evaluation process to

potential suppliers or to any other persons not officially involved in the evaluationprocess.

In addition:n The requested documentation must remain unopened and secured in a safe location

until the established time for opening such information has been reached. n Before opening, information concerning the identity and number of submissions

received shall be made available only to government employees. Such disclosure shall beonly on a “need to know” basis.3

n Submissions received after the established deadline may be rejected and returnedunopened to the offeror/ proposer who submitted them and a record made of thisdecision. The offeror/ proposer is allowed to revoke their submission prior to theclosing date. Should this occur, the submitted documentation should be returnedunopened to the offeror/ proposer.

Opening – The opening of the submitted documentation may be public or non-public.4

n Public Opening – If a public opening method is chosen, the submitted documentsshould be opened publicly in the presence of authorized individuals at the time andplace indicated by the contracting authority.5

n Non-public Opening – If a non-public opening method is chosen, the submitteddocuments should be opened in the presence of the evaluation panel members only.T

he Evaluation Process

(Cont’d)



Compliance – Once the documentation has been opened it should be checked for compliancewith the requirements of the tender.

n Procedural Compliance Check – consists of evaluating the submitted documentation forcompliance with procedural requirements established by the contracting authority (e.g.submission of the correct number of copies, submission of requested documentation). Toavoid mistakes, a checklist of the procedural requirements should be used when evaluatingthe submitted documentation to ensure legal certainty and reduce the number of non-compliant submissions.

n Technical and Substantive Compliance Check – consists of evaluating the submitteddocumentation for compliance with the specifications and contract conditions and otherfundamental substantive requirements (e.g. insurance requirements).

Non- Compliance

n Fundamental Procedural Requirements – As a general rule, non-compliance with any ofthe fundamental procedural requirements, specifications, and other technical and substantiverequirements may result in the rejection of non-compliant submissions. The evaluationpanel should establish (prior to evaluation) which procedural requirements will be classifiedas substantive so that non-compliant submissions are easily identified. It is against theprinciple of impartiality to accept non-compliant submissions. Reasons for rejecting asubmission for non-compliance with specifications or other substantive requirements mustbe clearly explained, documented in the evaluation report and relayed without delay to theaffected offeror/ proposer. The decision to reject a bid may need to be ratified by a qualifiedlawyer.

n Non-Fundamental Requirements – Non-compliance with non-fundamental requirements(e.g. submission of a number of copies that is fewer than the required number of copies)should not constitute a reason for the rejection of the submitted documentation, but shouldlead to a request for clarification that will rectify the error or omission

n Requests for Clarification – can be used for clarification of non-fundamental andfundamental requirements, but it may not be used to bring fundamental requirements intocompliance. When a request for clarification is necessary it is important to remember:

• Requests for clarifications do not imply negotiations.• Any request for clarification and its corresponding response must be in writing and provided to all offerors/ proposers, if the clarification is applicable to all offerors/ proposers.

• The evaluation panel must agree on any request for clarification before it is sent.• Any agreed upon request for clarifications must be sent exclusively through the chairperson of the evaluation panel. Individual members of the evaluation panel are not allowed to contact the potential supplier/s directly in order to seek clarifications.

• The clarification correspondence exchanged must be summarized in detail in the evaluation report, with a clear indication of whether the answers received are satisfactory to the evaluation panel, and if not why not.

• In supporting the principles of transparency the exchanged correspondence must also be added to the evaluation report.

• Any unrequested information provided in the tender (solicitation) should not be considered by the evaluation panel.

Element 1.3: Evaluation6

The evaluation panel or responsible individual must make sure that the received documentationis complete and that it complies with all of the requirements set by the contracting authority.The evaluation panel should then apply the previously announced evaluation criteria to evaluatethe tenders (See Practice: Developing Award Criteria).


(Cont’d)



Choosing the Best Offeror/ Proposer

Following the compliance check, submitted documentation from offerors/ proposers shouldbe evaluated against the previously advertised evaluation criteria.

n Evaluating for lowest priceWhen evaluating for lowest price all offerors/ proposers must have met the proceduralrequirements and formalities, as well as the mandatory specifications and any othersubstantive requirements. Once this has been verified, the evaluation panel shouldexamine the submitted documentation to ensure:

• Prices include all of the price elements in accordance with the requirements set forth in the notification of contract or solicitation documents.

• Arithmetical errors are corrected and recorded.• Discounts are applied.• Prices that appear to be abnormally low are appropriately investigated.

n Evaluating based on pre-announced Award Criteria (See Practice: DevelopingEvaluation Criteria)When evaluating for criteria other than lowest price, all offerors/ proposers must havemet the procedural requirements and formalities, as well as the mandatory substantiverequirements. Once this has been verified, the evaluation panel should examine thesubmitted documentation according to the advertised specific criteria and their relativeweightings. If a more detailed evaluation methodology was disclosed in the notice forcontract or solicitation documents, then that methodology must be followed. Themembers of the evaluation panel must:

• Use a consistent approach when scoring against the pre-announced criteria.• Evaluate the documents on the pre-announced criteria and weightings, sub-criteria and weightings, and/or evaluation methodology.

• Ensure that all costs are included, where requested by the evaluation criteria.• Correct any arithmetical errors, unless they are substantive to the bid.• Apply any discounts.• Appropriately investigate any prices that seem abnormally low.• Record scores in grids/ matrices and for the purpose of transparency, attach the grids/ matrices to the evaluation report.

Element 1.4: Award

Meeting of the Evaluation PanelOnce all members of the evaluation panel have completed their independent review of thenon-financial criteria, the financial evaluation will usually be conducted by the wholeevaluation panel to establish the ranking of the offerors/ proposers and will make arecommendation for award. At this meeting the evaluation panel will:n Consider the scores and comments allocated by each member of the evaluation panel.n Request any clarifications from offerors/ proposers or solicit expert advice to recommend

how to resolve significant differences. The method chosen to resolve such differencesshould be agreed to in advance and in line with applicable policies and laws.

n Consider other issues (e.g. abnormally low prices, equally-ranked offerors/ proposers, etc.)n Make a recommendation for award.

Recommendation to Award and Evaluation ReportIn accordance with applicable laws, the evaluation panel:n Will issue the recommendation to award to the contracting authority. n Will include the recommendation to award within the evaluation report.


(Cont’d)

1 Adapted from OECD. (2011). Brief 9 public procurement: Tender evaluation and contract award. Retrieved from www.sigmaweb.org2 Adapted from OECD. (2011). Ibid.3 Adapted from FAR 14.401-a4 Public or non-public opening is subject to the requirements of the local law.5 The time, place, and authorized individuals should have been previously set by the contracting authority in the solicitation documents.

(See Practice: Developing Evaluation Criteria)6 Adapted from OECD. (2011). Op cit.7 The Public Contract Regulations 2005) (UK &EU) require public contracting authorities to apply a compulsory waiting period between their decision

to award a contract to which the Regulations apply and the date on which the contract is signed. This is commonly called the Standstill Period.8 A standstill period’s purpose and length is dependent upon applicable local law. 9 “Best value for money in the context of evaluation of offers, means that price alone is not always the only criterion factored into an evaluation method. Other

criteria such as quality, availability, time, compliance, cost for maintenance and support, life cycle cost, etc. are part of the equation to determine the best return on investment of the procurement of goods, services or works” (UN, 2006). UN. (2006). Procurement practitioner’s handbook. Retrieved from: www.unops.org

© 2012 CIPS and NIGP



The report should be prepared by the chairperson of the evaluation panel with support frompanel members. The evaluation report should include:n Names of the members of the paneln Description of the contract which is the subject of the evaluation processn Confirmation of the recommendation of the paneln Names of unsuccessful offerors/ proposersn Clear summary of the activities, analysis, and associated results that were carried out by the

evaluation panel during the evaluation processn Clear justification for the recommendation that is being maden Attachment of all documentation drawn up by the evaluation panel during the performance

of its tasks.

Award ApprovalDepending on applicable law, the contracting authority will make the final approval for awardingthe contract and:n Verify that the process of evaluation of submitted documentation was conducted properlyn Ensure that the recommendation of award is sound and correctn Make the final award decision.

Award NoticeOnce the award approval has been given, the contracting authority shall notify the successfulofferor/ proposer in writing that their submission has been accepted for contract award. All otherofferors/ proposers must also be notified of the final decision to award.

Mandatory StandstillFollowing written notice of award, a mandatory standstill period8 (3-15 calendar days dependingon applicable law and practice) must elapse between the award notification and the signing of thecontract. Once the standstill period has passed, the contracting authority may continue with theconclusion of the contract in accordance with the conditions that were set forth in the contractnotification/ solicitation documents.

Background

The evaluation process is a multi-step process that consists of the examinationand evaluation of the submitted documentation. Submitted documents areexamined for their responsiveness and compliance with requirements set forthby the contracting agency. Evaluation for responsiveness in addition to theevaluation criteria and method specified by the contracting agency will serve asthe basis for the subsequent selection of the offer that provides the best valuefor money for the organization.9


(Cont’d)


DEVELOPING EVALUATION CRITERIA

STANDARD

Before issuing the solicitation, procurement professionals and applicablestake-holders must establish the criteria by which the resulting bids orproposals will be evaluated. Once the appropriate procurement methodis selected, criteria should be established to evaluate bids or proposalsfor the most economically advantageous offer for the contractingauthority, or for the lowest price.1

Definition

Selection Criteria: Criteria that may be used to qualify a proposer/ offeror.The criteria should determine whether or not the proposer/ offeror isresponsible and has the capability/ capacity to meet the requirements ofthe solicitation and the subsequent contract. The proposer/ offeror mustpossess the full capability and capacity to perform in good faith. Thecriteria may include criterion to assess the proposer’s/ offeror’s financialcondition, ethics, quality of services/ goods supplied, capability offacilities/ equipment used to provide the good/ service, reliability,management, experience, and technical ability.

Award Criteria: The criteria identified at the award stage must relatedirectly to the goods, services or works to be provided. Award criteriashould evaluate the proposer’s/ offeror’s conformance to all material withrespect to the requirements, including all form and substance. Publicbodies can award contracts on the basis of the most economicallyadvantageous tender or the lowest price.

Element 1.1: Developing Evaluation CriteriaDevelopment of the evaluation criteria will vary depending on the type of procurementmethod that is being used, and may include the use of selection criteria, award criteria orboth.2 Generally, evaluation criteria may be established for either a single-step, or multi-stepprocurement method.

Develop

ing Evaluation

Criteria



Selection Criteria (Qualification Criteria)

When a multi-step procurement method is selected, bidders/ offerors may be “qualified”according to the selection criteria. The selection criteria may include questions to determinewhether or not the bidder/ offeror is responsible and has the capability and capacity to perform/deliver. The selection criteria may include evaluation for:

n Economic and financial standing (including bonding capacity and applicable insurances)n Technical and professional abilityn Criminal history/ background/ reference checks (e.g. ensuring that the bidder/ offeror has

not been convicted of bribery, corruption, collusion, fraud, etc.).n Quality of goods/ services providedn Reliability (e.g. will the offeror be reliable, ethical, and faithfully complete the terms of the

contract?)n Ethics (e.g. determined through reference checks, past performance evaluations, company

policy on ethics, etc.)n Management practices and ability to performn Experience

Note: Cost is not a consideration during this phase.

Award Criteria

Award criteria may be used alone in a single-step procurement, or following the qualificationphase (See: Selection Criteria), of a multi-step procurement, to determine which bidder/ offerorprovides the most economically advantageous offer, to further determine the bidder’s/ offeror’sability to perform/ deliver as it relates to the contract.

Where resulting bids or proposals will be evaluated for the most economically advantageous3 offer,award criteria must be linked to the subject matter of the contract and can include criteria for:

n Pricen Qualityn Technical merit4

n Aesthetic and functional characteristicsn Environmental characteristicsn Operational costsn Cost effectivenessn Service costsn Technical assistancen Delivery date and delivery periodn Period of completionn Social considerations5

n Sustainabilityn Innovation

Note: This is a non-exhaustive list based on the UK Procurement Regulations.6 Criteria may varybased on the requirements of each contract and/ or local regulations, and the needs of the end user.

Develop

ing Evaluation

Criteria

(Cont’d)



Element 1.2: Weighting CriteriaEach criterion should be weighted to reflect its relative importance to the contracting authority.The identification of criteria and weights must be carried out with care to ensure that thecontracting authority identifies the most advantageous proposal/ offer.7 To accomplish this task:

n Weightings may be assigned a range that specifies a minimum and maximum weighting. Theapplication of such weightings is up to the contracting authority and appropriate use may bedetermined based on the subject matter of the contract.8

n When a decision to split the weightings between price and quality is made, it is best to decideon an overall split between price and quality first, and then to allocate weighting to the qualitysub-criteria.

n When it is not possible to provide weights that are based on objective grounds, the criteriashould be listed in descending order of importance.

Element 1.3: Notification of CriteriaProper publication and notification of intended evaluation criteria, to potential proposers/offerors will help the proposers/ offerors to meet the needs of the contracting authority.Furthermore, proper publication and notification protect the authority from challenges on thegrounds that the criteria were chosen post notification to favor a particular proposer/ offeror.Evaluation criteria and their associated weightings must:

n Be agreed to before the solicitation process begins. n Be published in the notice for the contract, or within the solicitation documentation,

or both.9

n Not be changed once they have been advertised and notification has been sent to thebidders. If changes become necessary, all bidders must be notified of the changes.

Background

Establishing evaluation criteria is an important part of manyprocurement processes. When developed appropriately criteria shoulddetermine whether or not the potential proposer/ offeror is suitable,be directly related to the subject matter of the contract, and be clearenough to ensure that the potential proposer/ offeror has an accurateunderstanding of what is most important to the contracting authority.Criteria and their assigned weights will vary by the type of good orservice that is being procured. Extensive market and supplier research,along with a full understanding of the subject matter of the solicitation,will aid in the selection of the most appropriate evaluation criteria forthe particular procurement.

Develop

ing Evaluation

Criteria

(Cont’d)

1 Note: For contracts subject to the European Procurement Directives, the rules regarding tender evaluation criteria are set forth in Regula-tion 30 of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/11/16102303/tendering-process#a4)

2 Criteria may also vary depending on the type of service or good being purchased, characteristics of the marketplace, and/ or depending onthe needs and preference of the user.

3 Value for Money is defined as the optimum combination of whole life costs and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the customer's re-quirements, and can be taken to be largely analogous with "most economically advantageous”. What constitutes the optimum combinationof whole life costs and quality will clearly differ from commodity to commodity and will depend on the outputs required from the procure-ment exercises concerned. (Ibid.)

4 Including any special certifications or licenses required, warranties offered, and response times/ staffing levels.5 Social considerations include positive action towards disabled persons, promotion of equality between men and women and promotion of

ethnic/racial diversity. They do not include “Buy Local” (Marineau, 2010). See also: European Commission (2010). Buying social. Retrievedfromhttp://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6457&langId=en

6 For a detailed list of UK Procurement Regulations see www.mytenders.com7 The criteria to determine the “most advantageous” offer will vary depending on the type of procurement that is being considered. For exam-

ple, in some procurements quality may be more important than price, therefore criteria should be weighted to reflect the relative impor-tance as it relates to the specific procurement.

8 Under EU Procurement Regulations, when awarding a contract on “most economically advantageous tender”, the criteria must be listed inthe original contract notice or in the invitation to tender and the criteria must be weighted either as an exact number (eg price: 25%) orwithin a meaningful range (eg price: 20%-30%) (Martineau, 2010).

9 Under EU Procurement Regulations all criteria (including any sub-criteria) and all weightings must be set out in the OJEU notice and/or thecontract documents. The circumstances in which changes can be made at a later date are very limited, and generally not possible (Mar-tineau, 2010).

nigp pappa chapter pennsylvania public purchasing...

Documents