Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan

Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan

Version 4.2(September 2017)

Tender No. [Insert Tender No.]

[Insert Tender Title]

[Insert Tender Description]

In order to complete this document you will need to insert information relevant to the purchase as indicated by the shaded text boxes.To do this, click on a shaded text box and begin typing.Further guidelines for drafting this document and links to supporting information are provided as hidden text.

Please be aware that this template is not to be regarded as a static document.Each plan will need to be customised as the length and details will vary according to the complexity of the purchase.

Department of [Insert Department Name]
[Insert Date]

[Insert Tender Title]

Table of Contents

Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan

1Aim......

2Description of Requirement......

2.1Desired Outcomes

2.2Background

2.3Cost Estimates Retain, replace or insert sentences as required.

2.4Purpose of RFT

3Probity and Accountability......

3.1Probity

3.2Probity and Confidentiality Agreement and Conflict of Interest Declaration

3.3Security and Confidentiality

3.4Authorised Contact Officer

3.5Advertising the RFT

3.6Receipt of Tenders

3.7Late Tenders

3.8Requests for Clarification

3.9Critical Issues or Risks

4Evaluation Committee......

5Evaluation Schedule......

6Tender Evaluation......

6.1Evaluation Methodology

6.1.1Mandatory Criteria

6.1.2Qualitative Evaluation Criteria

6.1.3Value for Money

6.2Shortlisting / Setting Aside Tenders:

6.3Alternative Tenders

6.4Tenderer Presentations

6.5Evaluation Report

7Contract Negotiations......

8Critical Dates Retain, replace or insert other information as required......

9Debriefing of Unsuccessful Tenderers......

10Contract Management......

[Insert Tender Title]

Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan

1Aim

A Request For Tender (RFT) has been developed that seeks to Insert description of service/product for a Insert number of months/years contract period.This Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan (TEPP) is the planning and control document in conducting the evaluation of tenders received in response to the RFT.

The TEPP sets out:

• the processes and principles to be followed when evaluating tenders;
• individual’s responsibilities;
• the evaluation schedule; and
• reporting requirements.

2Description of Requirement

The aforementioned RFT seeks a Insert service provider/company able to provide Insert description of service/product required.

2.1Desired Outcomes

The following outcomes have been identified for this engagement:This section should outline what you wish to achieve from the procurement.Outcomes may have been identified in strategic planning processes and/or may include desired client, output or business targets.Retain, replace or insert other options as required from the following list.

• best value for money;
• fixed contract period;
• acceptable quality of xxx; and

2.2Background

Insert information on how the project originated and any other detail of significance to the purchase.Information may include details of current arrangements or reasons for purchase.

2.3Cost EstimatesRetain, replace or insert sentences as required.

The Insert service/product currently being provided by Insert current service provider/company costs in the vicinity of $ per annum.The estimated cost of the new Insert service/product is approximately $ per annum.

2.4Purpose of RFT

The purpose of this RFT process is to identify providers (one or more) who can provide the required Insert service/product to achieve the desired outcomes.

3Probity and Accountability

3.1Probity

Promoting probity is an integral element of this tendering and contracting process and is the responsibility of all staff members associated with the RFT.The broad objectives of the probity process are to:

• ensure conformity to processes that are designed to achieve best value for money;
• improve accountability;
• encourage commercial competition on the basis that all tenders will be assessed against the same criteria;
• preserve public and tenderer confidence in government processes; and
• improve defensibility of decisions to potential administrative and legal challenge.

These objectives are underpinned by five essential principles as follows:

• open competitive process,
• transparency of process,
• identification and resolution of conflicts of interest,
• accountability, and
• monitoring and evaluating performance.

The Evaluation Committee will consider these principles throughout all stages of the procurement and contracting process in order to achieve best value for money.

For more information relating to Probity see the guidelines.

3.2Probity and Confidentiality Agreement and Conflict of Interest Declaration

Members of the Evaluation Committee, advisors and other staff directly involved in the tender and evaluation processes must sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Declaration prior to the commencement of their first meeting.Members need to declare any relationships or connections they currently have, or previously had, to tenderers or their employees.Throughout the RFT process members of the Evaluation Committee or advisors to the Committee cannot accept offers of gifts, meals etc from any interested party and/or prospective tenderer.Furthermore, members of the Evaluation Committee and advisors will be expected to declare the existence of any real or perceived conflict of interest as soon as they become aware of it.

In the case where a nominee to, or a Member of the Evaluation Committee has declared a conflict of interest with a prospective tenderer and due to the nature of the conflict, either the nominee/member or the Evaluation Committee feel that the person could not continue their involvement without potentially compromising the process, that person should be replaced on the Evaluation Committee.

Follow the link to access theConfidentiality Agreement and Conflict of Interest Declarations

3.3Security and Confidentiality

It is essential for the integrity of the tender evaluation process that security and confidentiality are maintained.Tenderers have a right to expect that commercial information will be treated in confidence.Lapses in security on the part of any Evaluation Committee member may seriously jeopardise the evaluation process.Similarly, the Committee must maintain the confidentiality and physical security of evaluation reports and other information generated during the evaluation.Reference can be made to your department’s specific processes.

While it is understood that requests under ‘Right to Information’ legislation could ultimately lead to the disclosure of ‘confidential’ information, this does not diminish the need for the evaluation process to be conducted in a secure manner.

3.4Authorised Contact Officer

As stated in the tender documentation, the only departmental officer who is authorised to deal with enquiries is Insert Name on (03)Insert contact number.Should any other officer receive an enquiry, which relates to the tendering process, that officer must decline to respond and refer the enquiry immediately to the Authorised Contact Officer.

All contact with prospective tenderers is to be documented, transparent and unbiased.The Authorised Contact Officer is to use good judgment in responding to questions and is not to disclose any matter that would prejudice the RFT objectives or any matter, which is confidential or commercial-in-confidence to another party.

Consistent information is to be provided and supplied uniformly to all prospective tenderers.The Authorised Contact Officer should limit information provided to clarification of procedural issues or documentation, and ensure that any additional information provided to one prospective tenderer is provided to all.Under no circumstances is information to be provided which gives, or has the potential to give, an unfair advantage to the enquirer.Any questions or requests of this nature are to be put in writing and submitted to the Authorised Contact Officer.

The membership of the Evaluation Committee will not be disclosed to tenderers under any circumstances.This will minimise the likelihood of tenderers contacting Committee members in an attempt to solicit information and/or influence the evaluation process.

In any situation where an Evaluation Committee member is concerned he or she may have been compromised, or that such a perception may exist, they should document details promptly and raise the matter with the Evaluation Committee.Advice on how best to address the matter will be sought from the Insert Department's Purchasing Unit (or equivalent) if required.

Reference may be made to your department’s specific processes in handling phone or written enquiries or enquiries from the media.

3.5Advertising the RFT

The RFT will be advertised in the ‘Tenders Section’ of the Purchasing website on Insert day/month/year and in the Insert name of newspaper(s) newspaper(s) on Insert day/month/year.The cost of the latter will be charged against the following Cost Code:

Insert Branch/Unit000000-0000-000-0000

3.6Receipt of Tenders

Tenders will be lodged by tenderers ensuring that the Department has received a Insert applicable options for submission copy before the closing date and time stated in the RFT document.The tenders will be opened in the presence of three Departmental representatives in accordance with Treasurer’s Instruction 1107– Goods and Services procurementvalued at $250000 and over (excluding GST) and where applicable the Tasmanian Government Tenders Online Agency User Manual.Once options for submission have been identified, reference may be made to the specific processes for receipt.For more information see Receiving Tenders and Treasurer’s Instructions 1107 – Goods and Services valued at $250 000 and over (excluding GST)

3.7Late Tenders

Late tenders will be treated in accordance with the ‘Late Tenders’ guidance provided in the RFT.

A tender not received as specified before the closing time will not be admitted for consideration unless there is evidence satisfactory to the Evaluation Committee that such tender:

• was delivered to the specified location before the specified closing time; or
• was dispatched to the specified location in sufficient time before the specified closing time for tenders, to reach that place under normal circumstances, but was still in the course of delivery at the specified closing time.

The Evaluation Committee in its discretion may reject a tender delivered after the closing time regardless of the reason for late delivery.

3.8Requests for Clarification

To enable the Evaluation Committee to thoroughly evaluate tenders it may be necessary for the Committee to request clarification of information provided in a tender.To the extent practicable, clarification will be sought and recorded in writing.In the event that a tenderer has been invited to an interview or to make a presentation (see section 6.4 – Tenderer Presentations), matters of clarification will also be documented.In each case, the Authorised Contact Officer will coordinate the clarification process.Clarification does not mean that tenderers can revise their original offer and therefore no new or additional information will be requested or permitted at this point.

Should Evaluation Committee members be asked a specific question during an interview or presentation, they must provide a factual answer, never a personal opinion.

Further guidance will be sought from the Insert Department's Purchasing Unit (or equivalent) in the event that it is unclear whether additional information submitted by a tenderer is truly a clarification of tendered information, or whether it effectively amounts to the submission of late material that seeks to vary the existing tender.

3.9Critical Issues or Risks

Risk management is the process of identifying risks, analysing their consequences and devising appropriate responses.An assessment of risk should be undertaken to provide greater certainty that this tendering and contracting process will produce a successful outcome.Dependant on the nature, cost and complexity of the procurement, the Evaluation Committee may need to develop a risk management plan.

Issue/Risk / Consequences / Action
Insert known issue/risk / Insert consequences / Insert appropriate action to minimise risk
Insert known issue/risk / Insert consequences / Insert appropriate action to minimise risk
Insert known issue/risk / Insert consequences / Insert appropriate action to minimise risk

For more information on conducting risk analysis see risk management

4Evaluation Committee

The Evaluation Committee will consist of a minimum of three representatives:

Table should outline the roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the tender and evaluation processes.i.e. Project Manager, provide technical knowledge, etc.Retain or delete rows as necessary.

Name / Title / Branch/Department / Committee Role
Insert Name / Insert Title / Insert Branch/Dept / Insert Committee Role
Insert Name / Insert Title / Insert Branch/Dept / Insert Committee Role
Insert Name / Insert Title / Insert Branch/Dept / Insert Committee Role
Insert Name / Insert Title / Insert Branch/Dept / Insert Committee Role

5Evaluation Schedule

The following table outlines the key activities and tasks underpinning this evaluation process, together with the individual and/or agency responsible for the activity/task:Retain, replace or insert other tasks as required from the following table.
Key:
Purchasing Unit (or equivalent) / (PU)
Procurement Review Committee (or equivalent) / (PRC)
Evaluation Committee / (EC)
Project Manager (Name) / (PM)
TASK / BY WHOM / BY WHEN
Finalisation of the:

• PRCapplication to release RFT (if applicable);

• TEPP; and
• RFT document.

/ PM
PM
PM / Day/Month/Year
Day/Month/Year
Day/Month/Year
Approval to release RFT (if applicable) / PRC / Day/Month/Year
RFT advertised / PM/PU / Day/Month/Year
RFT closing date / PU/PM / Day/Month/Year
Evaluation of tenders / EC / Day/Month/Year
Evaluation report complete / EC / Day/Month/Year
PRC Approval / PRC / Day/Month/Year
Notification of successful and unsuccessful tenderers / PM / Day/Month/Year
Finalise contract / PM / Day/Month/Year
Contract start / PM / Day/Month/Year
Debriefing of unsuccessful tenderers / EC / Day/Month/Year

6Tender Evaluation

6.1Evaluation Methodology

The Evaluation Committee in accordance with the evaluation methodology specified in the RFT and reproduced in this document will evaluate all tenders.This methodology involves a threestage process:

For additional information seeevaluating tender submissions.

6.1.1Mandatory Criteria

Tenders will initially be assessed for compliance with the requirements set out in the RFT document and for compliance with and acceptance of the Conditions of Contract.Compliance with the RFT document is taken to mean:

• Submission of the tender by the closing date and in accordance with all other lodgement instructions,
• Provision of all of the information requested in the RFT, and
• Demonstrated ability to meet all mandatory conditions of tender and specifications.

The following table details the mandatory criteria.Insert appropriate criteria below.Retain, delete or insert rows as required.

Mandatory Criteria / Yes/No

These criteria will not be point scored.Each tender will be assessed on a Yes/No basis as to whether the criterion is satisfactorily met.An assessment of ‘No’ against any criterion may eliminate the tenderer from further consideration.

6.1.2Qualitative Evaluation Criteria

Compliant tenders will then be evaluated against a set of weighted qualitative (ie, nonprice) evaluation criteria.

The following table details the evaluation criteria and the weightings for the second stage of the evaluation process.Insert appropriate criteria below.Retain, delete or insert rows as required.

Qualitative Evaluation Criteria / Weight
%
%
%
%
TOTAL / 100%

Note: The 100% weighting applies only to the nonprice selection criteria.

The tenderer’s ability to satisfy the qualitative criteria will be assessed on the basis of scores allocated by the Evaluation Committee by consensus in response to questions relating to each criterion and then weighted as detailed above.

The scoring of tenders will be based on the degree of achievement by the tenderer of the requirements set out in the RFT.A maximum score for each criterion will be given if the achievement of the criterion is fully compliant, with no risks and weaknesses.The score will be reduced proportionate to the extent of nonconformities, discrepancies, errors, omissions, and risks for the Government.

Scoring will be based on the following allocation:

Score / Description / Full Description
10 / Exceptional / Full achievement of the requirements specified in the RFT for that criterion. Demonstrated strengths, no errors, weaknesses or omissions.
8 to <10 / Superior / Sound achievement of the requirements specified in the RFT for that criterion. Some minor errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which may be acceptable as offered.
6 to <8 / Good / Reasonable achievement of the requirements specified in the RFT for that criterion.Some errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which can be corrected/overcome with minimum effort.
4 to <6 / Adequate / Satisfactory achievement of the requirements specified in the RFT for that criterion. Some errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which are possible to correct/overcome and make acceptable.
2 to <4 / Inadequate / Minimal achievement of the requirements specified in the RFT for that criterion. Several errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which are possible, but difficult to correct/overcome and make acceptable.
>0 to <2 / Poor to deficient / No achievement of the requirements specified in the RFT for that criterion. Existence of numerous errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which are very difficult to correct/overcome and make acceptable.
0 / Unacceptable / Totally deficient and non-compliant for that criterion.

The score that each tenderer receives will provide a numeric basis for comparison of the tenders.The recommendation on the preferred tender will be based on scoring comparisons.

Follow links to access the evaluation matrix or weighted evaluation matrix

6.1.3Value for Money

‘Value for money’ will be assessed based on the combined outcomes of the assessments of the qualitative criteria and price.In assessing ‘value for money’ major factors to be considered include:

• The quality of the proposed Insert good/service, ie how well it meets the specified requirements; vs
• Whole of life costs; vs
• Risk, ie the capacity of the tenderer to deliver the Insert good/service, as specified, on-time and on-budget.

Consideration will also be given to any benefits in buying locally.

For more information seeTreasurer’s Instruction 1101 – Procurement Principles and the purchasing principles

6.2Shortlisting / Setting Aside Tenders:

In the event that a significant number of tenders are received (ie, more than five), tenders, which are clearly noncompetitive and have no reasonable prospect of exhibiting the best value for money compared to other tenders, will be excluded from detailed evaluation.The reasons for exclusion must be defensible in the context of requirements and clearly identified.

6.3Alternative Tenders

The Evaluation Committee will evaluate alternative tenders in accordance with the evaluation methodology specified in the RFT and reproduced in this document.

6.4Tenderer Presentations

As stated in the RFT, tenderers may be requested to make a formal presentation to the Evaluation Committee to clarify their tender and provide the opportunity for the Evaluation Committee to ask questions.No new or additional information will be requested or permitted at this point (see section 3.8 – Requests for Clarification).