A Confirming Offer Is One That Meets All the Statutory and Mandatory Requirements of The

1. Definitions

A confirming offer is one that meets all the statutory and mandatory requirements of the invitation and specification.

An alternative offer is one that proposes a means of satisfying the requirement that differs in material respects from the specified services but one which complies with all statutory and minimum acceptable requirements of safety and engineering standards.

A non-conforming offer is one that does not meet any one of the statutory or specified mandatory conditions irrespective of whether or not all desirable requirements are met.

1. Roles & Responsibilities

Below are all roles that may be involved in an evaluation process – please note that not all are applicable in every procurement.

• Evaluation Panel Members
• Evaluation Panel Chair
• Procurement Officer
• Probity Advisor
• Secretariat Support

2.1Evaluation Panel Members

The Evaluation Panel members are responsible for:

• Ensuring that all evaluation material is held in a secure location at all times;
• Evaluating all offers in accordance with the Evaluation Plan;
• Thoroughly documenting the reasons for each rating in the Individual Evaluation Sheet (Attachment B), to indicate how the rating was determined;
• Maintaining the highest standards of probity and official conduct; and
• Assisting the Chair with the compilation of reports.

2.2Evaluation Panel Chair

The Chair of the Evaluation Panel is responsible for:

• Compliance/conformance checking and determining those offers (if any) that do not meet the mandatory requirements of the Conditions of Offer and any specifically required by the Invitation to Offer document (if any);
• Ensuring that all copies of offers released to Evaluation Panel members are registered, accounted for and controlled;
• Ensuring that all discussion of the offers, suppliers and the evaluation is carried out in a secure location;
• Chairing all meetings of the Evaluation Panel;
• Ensuring the evaluation process complies with this Evaluation Plan;
• Initiating all contact with offerors during the evaluation process (if required) through the Procurement Officer;
• Initiating all contact with the offerors referees (if required);
• Ensuring that the Evaluation Panel maintains the highest standards of probity and official conduct;
• Seeking expertise from other sources on matters relevant to evaluation deliberations (if required);
• Reviewing the Evaluation Reports generated by the Evaluation Panel;
• Preparing the Evaluation Panel’s report for certification by the Procurement Officer;
• Delivering feedback to unsuccessful offerors (letter or debriefing meetings) if requested; and
• Addressing any challenges to the evaluation process.

2.3Procurement Officer

The Procurement Officer is not a voting member of the Evaluation Panel and is responsible for advising and clarifying for the Evaluation Panel and its Chair:

• Interpretation of procurement policy and procedures;
• Practical methods of evaluation;
• All contact with offerors whilst the Invitation is in the marketplace and during the evaluation process (if required);
• Maintenance and completeness of documentation;
• Reviewing the evaluation documentation for consistency against the Evaluation Plan;
• Certifying in the Evaluation Report that the Invitation and evaluation processes conformed with UQ’s Policy and Procedures and the State Procurement Policy and Evaluation Plan; and
• Assisting the Chair in responding to any requests by unsuccessful offerors for feedback..

2.4Probity Advisor

Mr/Mrs/Ms XXX has been appointed as the Probity Auditor for this Invitation.

The Probity Advisor will present a probity briefing to the Evaluation Panel Members at the beginning of the Evaluation Process and will remain available for consultation during the course of the evaluation process. The Advisor is a non-voting member of the Evaluation Panel and is responsible for overseeing the Evaluation Process, ensuring the integrity of the activities undertaken as part of the evaluation process. A Probity Advisor may be asked to prepare a report confirming the details of the evaluation process.

2.5Secretariat Support

The Secretariat support will be performed independently of the Evaluation Panel. The Secretariat member present at the evaluation is not a voting member of the Evaluation Panel and will be solely responsible for recording decisions and summarising the conclusions made by the Evaluation Panel. However the same confidentiality requirements exist for the Secretariat member as the Evaluation Panel.

1. Evaluation Task Summary

When all of the offers have been opened, a register of offers received and late offers received will be created. The original of each offer will be retained on file by the Procurement Officer.

The Evaluation Panel will:

• Review, determine and document which offers (if any) do not meet mandatory requirements and should be excluded from further consideration;
• Individually conduct a detailed qualitative and comparative assessment of each offer, using the Evaluation Criteria, rating system and weightings detailed in this Evaluation Plan;
• Seek comments from supplier’s referees (if applicable);
• Moderate their scoring as necessary;
• Shortlist offerors in accordance with the Evaluation Plan (if applicable);
• Interview shortlisted offerors (if applicable);
• Consider and resolve any apparent consistencies or uncertainties that arise from a comparison between the technical performance and financial assessments (as necessary);
• Seek written clarification information from suppliers (if applicable);
• Moderate their scoring as necessary (if applicable);
• Confirm the final assessment;
• Prepare the Evaluation Report

The Procurement Officer will:

• Provide procurement advice;
• Consider the Evaluation Report and recommendations of the Evaluation Panel; and
• Refer any concerns back to the Evaluation Panel for review.

1. Evaluation of Offers

Offers will be assessed against the Evaluation Criteria identified in the Invitation to Offer and the Evaluation Plan. The chosen rating system shown in the Evaluation Plan will be applied to each Evaluation Criteria for each offer by each Evaluation Panel member. Ratings will be based on quantitative (where appropriate) and qualitative assessment of the solutions offered, with higher ratings indicating better performance. The reasons for each rating will be thoroughly documented in the Individual Evaluation Sheet, to indicate how the rating was determined.

When applicable, referees will be contacted by a member of the Evaluation Panel as determined by the Chair of the Panel. A standard set of questions will be used to determine each offerors past performance. Referee reports will be discussed by the Panel when they meet to moderate their ratings.

Upon completion of individual ratings for each Evaluation Criteria, except price, the Evaluation Panel will moderate their ratings and record their moderated ratings and collective comments using the Moderation Summary Sheet. Moderation will be a comparison of each Panel member’s ratings and discussion where necessary of each Evaluation Criteria to ensure there is similar understanding of offeror’s submissions and consistency across each Panel member’s ratings.

If the Evaluation Panel does not agree on a single rating, then the Panel member’s ratings will be averaged to determine the Panel’s rating for each Evaluation Criteria. The ratings for each offeror for each Evaluation Criteria will be compared to other relative offers to reduce the likelihood of any imbalance between ratings. A final rating (based on consensus) for each Evaluation Criteria shall be determined.

The ratings will then be multiplied by the weightings contained in the Evaluation Plan to give a weighted score for each Evaluation Criteria, except price. Ratings for price will be determined separately by the Chair of the Evaluation Panel using the method shown below. The scores of all Evaluation Criteria will then be totalled for each offeror to give a total score.

Final ratings, scores and comments for all Evaluation Criteria for all offerors will then be entered into the Evaluation Summary. Justifications for ratings awarded will be fully documented to assist the debriefing of unsuccessful offerors.

1. Evaluating Price

5.1Standardising

Tenderers will often provide their pricing and other financial information in different ways (e.g. one tenderer may quote on a firm price basis and another on a variable price basis).

It may be necessary to undertake adjustments so that prices can be compared on a common basis. This process is known as ‘normalising’. A simple example is as follows:

Standardising Tender B’s pricing here could entail:

• Inserting an estimate from the ABS of the relevant price index after Yr 2
• Using Discounted Cash Flow techniques to recognise the time value of money

5.2Whole-of-Life Costing

The Tender Evaluation Plan needs to detail how whole-of-life costing is to be evaluated, to ensure that the evaluation is both comprehensive and consistent. A simple example to illustrate the principle shows that only by considering whole-of-life costs can Tender B be seen to be substantially less expensive than Tender A*.

The whole-of-life cost of Tender A is $220 000 but Tender B is $205 000.

(*Note: for simplicity, this ignores the time value of money)

5.3Normalised Weighted Scoring

Scores for price are based on the following method: (Note that the lower the price, the higher the score.)

Normalised price score =

1. Administration of the Evaluation

6.1Audit Trail of Assessment and Decisions

To ensure a clear audit trail is maintained throughout the evaluation process, all conclusions and decisions, processes and deliverables leading thereto, will be recorded in the evaluation documentation. All judgements of compliance, effectiveness, financial and other matters will be supported by relevant documentary evidence/written comments for each offeror.

6.2Clarification by Offerors

Where clarification is required, all communication with offerors will be formally controlled and conducted through the Procurement Officer and will be authorised and coordinated by the Evaluation Panel Chair. Clarification of questions and their responses will be confirmed in writing by all parties and will be the sole means of formal communication between the Evaluation Panel and offerors. Clarification responses will not allow an offeror to modify their offer.

6.3Security Measures

Following closing of the Invitation to Offer the Procurement Officer will register and securely retain the original of all offers.

The security of the offer documents, once received by the Procurement Officer, are the responsibility of the Evaluation Panel Chair. All information and documentation will be treated as “Commercial-In-Confidence”. It is important to take care with these documents when transporting them electronically. Any information stored electronically should be protected in one way or another (passwords etc.). Transporting documents via USB can also pose risks, for example, misplacing the USB.

All members of the Evaluation Panel will sign and date the Evaluation Plan and their evaluation working papers.

6.4Unsuccessful Offerors

Unsuccessful offerors will be advised by the Procurement Officer.

Upon written request, and in consultation with the Evaluation Panel Chair the Procurement Officer will provide to unsuccessful offers any constructive evaluation comments prepared by the Evaluation Panel in their Evaluation.

Version Number: 1.0

Review Date: 13/04/2016