Report Release Sheet

Report Release Sheet


tender evaluation model for the procurement of WASTe collection,recycling and street cleansing services
Prepared for Wirral Borough council by gordon mackie associates ltd


Produced for:

Environment and Street Scene

Wirral Borough Council

Produced by:

Gordon Mackie Associates Ltd


Woodend Lane



SK14 1DT

Main Contributors:

Gordon Mackie and Sinéad Tunney

Issued by:
Gordon Mackie / Reviewed by:
Duncan Lummis
Page 1
Wirral Borough Council
Tender Evaluation Model / February 2006


1.Executive Summary



1.2.1Initial Appraisal

1.2.2Financial Evaluation

1.2.3Quality Evaluation to Perform Issues with Council Policies and Strategies Issues Delivery Solution and Environmental Competence


2.Tender Evaluation Model


2.1.1Evaluating Tenders

2.1.2Technical References

2.2Establishing Tender Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

2.3Tender Evaluation Procedure (Financial)

2.4Tender Evaluation Procedure (Quality)

2.5Evaluation of Method Statements

2.5.1References and Site Visits


2.5.3Disadvantages of Presentations

2.5.4Demonstrations and Evaluations

2.6Tender Evaluation Model

2.7Notification of Awards


3.basic criteria

3.1Evaluation Criteria

3.2Evaluation Team

3.3Evaluation Methodology

4.1st Stage - Compliance Evaluation

5.Method Statement Evaluation

5.1Scoring of Evaluation Criteria

5.2Evaluation Criteria: Ability (5.81%)

5.2.1Method Statement 1

5.2.2Method Statement 2

5.2.3Method Statement 4

5.2.4Method Statement 5

5.2.5Method Statement 6

5.3Evaluation Criteria: Environmental (2.58%)

5.3.1Method Statement 18

5.3.2Method Statement 26

5.4Evaluation Criteria: Policy (6.45%)

5.4.1Method Statement 10

5.4.2Method Statement 12

5.4.3Method Statement 13

5.4.4Method Statement 15

5.4.5Method Statement 16

5.5Evaluation Criteria: Quality (5.48%)

5.5.1Method Statement 3

5.5.2Method Statement 7

5.5.3Method Statement 11

5.5.4Method Statement 17

5.5.5Method Statement 19

5.6Evaluation Criteria: Service (25.16%)

5.6.1Method Statement 8

5.6.2Method Statement 9

5.6.3Method Statement 20

5.6.4Method Statement 21

5.6.5Method Statement 23

5.6.6Method Statement 25

5.6.7Method Statement 28

5.6.8Method Statement 29

5.6.9Method Statement 30

5.6.10Method Statement 31

5.6.11Method Statement 32

5.6.12Method Statement 33

5.6.13Method Statement 34

5.6.14Method Statement 35

5.6.15Method Statement 36

5.6.16Method Statement 37

5.6.17Method Statement 38

5.6.18Method Statement 39

5.6.19Method Statement 40

5.6.20Method Statement 41

5.6.21Method Statement 42

5.6.22Method Statement 43

5.6.23Method Statement 44

5.6.24Method Statement 45

5.6.25Method Statement 46

5.7Evaluation Criteria: Technical (2.58%)

5.7.1Method Statement 14

5.7.2Method Statement 22

5.8Evaluation Criteria: Technical/Environmental (1.94%)

5.8.1Method Statement 24

5.8.2Method Statement 27

6.Final Scores

Executive Summary


The tender documents issued to tenderers in December 2005 outlined the tender evaluation process that will be utilised in evaluating the submitted tenders. This document describes in more detail the process that will be followed.


The evaluation process will consist of a number of elements and steps:

  • Stage I – Initial:
  • Initial appraisal following the opening.
  • Stage II – Evaluation Model:
  • Cost evaluation;
  • Ability to perform;
  • Environmental issues;
  • Compliance with Council policies and strategies;
  • Quality issues;
  • Service delivery;
  • Technical solution;
  • Technical and environmental competence.

1.2.1Initial Appraisal

This will consist of:

  • Ensuring all documentation which is to be submitted has been submitted;
  • There are no errors or discrepancies that would affect the tender figure.

If there are omissions from the submitted tenders, each will be appraised separately of its importance and the potential impact.

The evaluation process based upon the evaluation model will be followed using a weighted model. Outline questions to inform the quality evaluation, sub-headings, weightings, etc. are described later.

1.2.2Financial Evaluation

This comprises 50% of the overall weighting as described within Section 2.3 and 2.4. The tendered price included within the model will be based on rates submitted by the Contractor. Different options, dependent upon the level of service required will also dictate the tendered price.

Sensitivity analysis will be carried out on the submitted rates to take into account:

  • Marginal variations;
  • Day works.

There may be other issues that need to be taken into account in financial evaluation. At the moment these are unquantifiable.

1.2.3Quality Evaluation

This comprises 50% of the overall weighting and comprises an evaluation of the method statements submitted by each tenderer. The method statements, in line with the criteria listed within the OJEU advert as detailed below, are to be scored in line with the guidelines detailed in Section 1.3.

  • Ability to perform;
  • Environmental issues;
  • Compliance with Council policies and strategies;
  • Quality issues;
  • Service delivery;
  • Technical and environmental competence;
  • Technical solution. to Perform

This is weighted at 5.81% and covers the following sub-headings:

  • Key risks associated with the Contract;
  • Alternative proposals for working methods or the incorporation of technological innovation;
  • Experience and track record;
  • National and local level management structure;
  • Partnering proposals. Issues

This is weighted at 2.58% and covers the following sub-headings:

  • Encouraging participation in recycling and developing waste minimisation and education initiatives;
  • Environmental policy. with Council Policies and Strategies

This is weighted at 6.45% and covers the following sub-headings:

  • Arrangements for transferring staff;
  • Complaints procedure, CRM and customer care;
  • Health and safety issues;
  • Implementation of policy and strategy;
  • Personnel matters. Issues

This is weighted at 5.48% and covers the following sub-headings:

  • Performance management system;
  • Joined up working;
  • Consultation framework;
  • Benchmarking and Best Value;
  • Quality assurance. Delivery

This is a significant part of the evaluation process carrying 25.16% of the weighted model, and will consist of sub-headings:

  • Rapid response team;
  • Cleansing service operations;
  • Cleansing services;
  • Shopping areas;
  • Cleansing of Entries;
  • Car parks;
  • Leaves;
  • Depot facilities;
  • Service mobilisation;
  • Waste and recycling operations;
  • Waste and recycling resources;
  • Waste disposal facilities;
  • Hazardous wastes;
  • Litter bins;
  • Fly tipping and dead animals;
  • Graffiti and fly posting;
  • Traffic Islands;
  • Special events;
  • Promenade cleansing;
  • Sand and tidal debris;
  • Gritting zone 1;
  • Street washing;
  • Vehicles, equipment and resources;
  • Shopping trolleys;
  • Drug related waste and hazardous waste. Solution

This is weighted at 2.58% and covers the following sub-headings:

  • Increasing recycling performance;
  • Information technology facilities and communications. and Environmental Competence

This is weighted at 1.94% and covers the following sub-headings:

  • Maximising resale value of recovered materials;
  • Working methods resulting from legislative changes.


Each member of the tender evaluation team will be given a copy of the evaluation sheets together with the tender submissions. Each member should award a score of 0 to 5, in accordance with the scoring criteria detailed below, for each of the main and sub-headings on the evaluation sheet for each method statement for each tenderer.

0 / - / No method statement provided or the response is not relevant to the method statement requested, does not address criterion at all.
1 / - / The response is substantially deficient, not meeting the required contract standards in a number of key areas or to a high degree.
2 / - / The response is deficient, not meeting all the Council’s requirements in key areas.
3 / - / The response is acceptable, meeting the Council’s requirements in all key areas.
4 / - / The response is good, meeting the Council’s requirements in all material respects.
5 / - / The response is excellent, meeting the Council’s requirements in all material respects and also providing additional benefits to the Council.

Each method statement for each tenderer should also be awarded an overall score of 0 to 5. The evaluation calculation will comprise a series of Excel spreadsheets to include the weighting factors and the means of calculating the weighted scores for each member of the tender evaluation team.

2.Tender Evaluation Model


Within this section factors have been identified which can be used in the evaluation of tenders on a like-for-like basis. A tender evaluation model has been developed which enables tenders to be assessed on price and quality as identified in the evaluation criteria stated within the OJEU advert. The model will enable the quality of tenders to be assessed against variations in factors that are within the tenderer’s control.

If some form of joint venture is proposed, development of the financial component of tender evaluation model will be considerably more complex, since it must consider possible financial benefits to the Council.

2.1.1Evaluating Tenders

The tender evaluation team should undertake the tender evaluation. This will consist of Officers nominated by the Chief Executive who will call on additional specialist input from the Council’s Director of Finance and others, in addition to any other specialist consultants as required.

The Council may use any evaluation criteria they choose, provided that:

  • They are relevant;
  • No reference is made to non-commercial matters;
  • There is no discrimination on grounds of nationality;
  • The Council is not acting anti-competitively.

Consequently, there are few limitations on the quality criteria that may be established for the assessment of the tenderer’s method statements.

The OJEU advert listed examples of the criteria that has been set, without any obligation to use these. Others may be substituted or added although this must be strictly relevant to the contract being awarded. The criteria which are the most relevant for the contracts being awarded, and which are included within the ITT, are listed below:

  • Cost Evaluation (tendered price, sensitivity to cost increases etc.);
  • Ability to Perform;
  • Environmental issues;
  • Compliance with Council policies and strategies;
  • Quality issues;
  • Service delivery;
  • Technical solution;
  • Technical and environmental competence.

/ Gordon Mackie Associates Ltd
Page 1
Wirral Borough Council
Tender Evaluation Model / February 2006

2.1.2Technical References

The tender evaluation team should assess the tender references. Technical references are important to review the tenderers experience and track record. Table 2.1 below details the tenderers technical references.

Table 2.1
Tenderers Technical References
Tenderer / Satisfactory Reference 1 / Satisfactory Reference 2 / Satisfactory Reference 3 / Satisfactory Reference 4 / Satisfactory Reference 5

The evaluator should grade the reference as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

Table 2.1 provides details of the satisfaction of the references supplied by the tenderer.

The Council should consider a more thorough investigation into the weaker references through site visits and demonstrations.

/ Gordon Mackie Associates Ltd
Page 1
Wirral Borough Council
Tender Evaluation Model / February 2006

2.2Establishing Tender Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

Each of the price and quality elements listed below, in addition to the quality weightings specify the level of importance placed upon the performance of the contract by the Council and will be used in determining the bid that is “most economically advantageous”.

Tenderers have been advised that the weighting system to be applied to the tender is as follows:

  • Price50%
  • Quality50%

The score for “quality” will be determined by assigning the following weightings to the criteria shown below.

Table 1
(For Illustrative Purposes Only)
Category / Method Statement / (%)
Price / Financial Analysis
(Separate Evaluation) / N/A / 50.0%
Quality / Ability, ie, previous performance of the tenderer including the adoption of key performance indicators and the means by which the contract will be managed at a local level / 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 / 5.81%
Environmental, including consultation and communication with local communities and the monitoring and development of services / 18, 26 / 2.58%
Policy, including potential alternative and innovative ways in which the service can be delivered plus integration with other services and attention to the Clean Neighbourhoods Act / 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 / 6.45%
Quality, including an assessment of the perceived quality service to be provided by the tenderer. / 3, 7, 11, 17, 19 / 5.48%
Service, including an assessment of the way in which the tenderer is intending to provide the service / 8, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 / 25.16%
Technical, including proposals for partnering with the Council and other key partners involved in service delivery / 14, 22 / 2.58%
Technical/Environmental, including an assessment of the following:
  • Increase in recycling performance
  • The means by which participation within recycling schemes can be encouraged
  • How the service could be adapted to conform with potential legislative changes
/ 24, 27 / 1.94%
Total / 100.00

Quality requirements will be assessed by evaluation of the method statements contained within the tenderer’s submission. The Council reserve the right to seek written responses where clarification of specific issues is required.

/ Gordon Mackie Associates Ltd
Page 1
Wirral Borough Council
Tender Evaluation Model / February 2006

2.3Tender Evaluation Procedure (Financial)

The tender prices submitted will be converted to points using the procedure outlined below. The prices submitted will be scored and weighted by the evaluation team. There will be 500 points available in the price evaluation.

There are detailed rules concerning the evaluation of the financial aspects of tenders, which is continuously updated to keep pace with changes in the law and developing best practice. The Council’s Director of Finance should be aware of these procedures and will be able to advise the Council accordingly.

Generally, tenders which are deemed too low to be deemed credible and those too high to be affordable to the Councils’ budgets may be discarded. The formula for calculating the number of points is as follows:

Points = / Half available points + / (mean price – tendered price)
(mean price/half available points)

For example:

Tenderer / A / B / C / D / Mean
Price / £1.00 / £2.00 / £3.00 / £4.00 / £2.50
Points / 400 / 300 / 200 / 100 / 250

Within the price evaluation, due account should be taken of the following key issues:

  • The tonnage of material that each Council expects to have to dispose of at landfill. This will depend on recycling proposals and enhancements by tenderers;
  • Landfill tax and its anticipated increases over the period of the contract;
  • Additional works and change to the service over the life of the contract;
  • The tonnage of material recovered for recycling and the possibility that this will be eligible for recycling credits initially, although this revenue stream is likely to be reviewed within the life of the contract.

2.4Tender Evaluation Procedure (Quality)

The purpose of the tender evaluation exercise is to identify the tender that offers best value for money to the Council. Value for money is a function of quality and price and the assessment of quality is the main subject of this section.

Not all tenderers will necessarily have met the minimum selection criteria. Those that have will be required to demonstrate that they are the best company for the job. However, it should be borne in mind that there are circumstances in which even the general fitness of a tenderer may need to be reconsidered at the tender evaluation stage. This may involve for example, new information that has come to light since the selection took place (e.g. more recent accounts have been filed, or quality assurance has been developed or accredited).

Quality will be assessed primarily on the basis of the proposals made by tenderers concerning their approach to carrying out the work, i.e. the method statements.

Weightings of criteria and the overall weighting between quality and price should be disclosed to tenderers. This provides a clear indication of the importance that is placed on quality in evaluating tenders, which might undermine the attention to attract high quality bids.

After the selection of tenderers and contract award decisions, unsuccessful contractors have the right to ask for information on the outcome of the tender evaluation procedure and reasons for the decision. It is prudent, therefore to keep methodical and accurate records.

2.5Evaluation of Method Statements

It should always be stated within the ITT that the Council may revisit any of the key issues raised as part of the process in selecting tenderers, and that this information could be form part of the tender evaluation process.

There are a number of ways in which the information derived from method statements can be clarified and tested, including:

  • References;
  • Site visits;
  • Presentations;
  • Interviews;
  • Demonstrations or evaluation.

2.5.1References and Site Visits

It is more conventional to use these techniques at the tenderer selection stage. However, as stated above, there may be circumstances where information obtained in this way must be used within the tender evaluation process. Late references or substantial recent reports of particularly poor performance are examples.


Interviews should always be considered. There is often no substitute for a face-to-face meeting. Within the procurement process it is particularly important to interview:

  • The key personnel who will be assigned to the contract;
  • Appropriate senior managers of the company.

Interviews can be useful to test:

  • That the tenderer has understood the requirements of the tender;
  • That the Council has understood what the tenderer is proposing.

An assessment panel should carry out the interview. Interviews should be properly structured and systematic, not free form. The panel members should agree questions in advance. In so far as is practicable, the same questions should be put to each tenderer (follow-up questions should however be permitted, in line with best practice in recruitment and selection procedure). Inevitably certain questions will be specific to a particular tender (i.e. where the tenderer’s intention has not been stated clearly). The Council are free to require answers to questions based on any research they have carried out and do not need to inform tenderers about the content of questions in advance of the interview.

The interview is not a forum for post-tender negotiation (except on rare occasions when a decision to this effect has explicitly been taken) and this must be made clear at the outset to all tenderers and to all members of the assessment panel.

Tenderers should not be invited to alter their prices or proposals in their method statements in any way, or indeed to supplement them except to the extent that this is judged by the assessment panel to be strictly necessary in order to clarify the original intention. It is advisable to make provision for method statements to be amended by agreement prior to the commencement of the contract and during the performance of the contract.

The interview should be minuted (or otherwise recorded) and the record retained and made available on request.

2.5.3Disadvantages of Presentations

Tenderers often volunteer to make presentations, which should be distinguished from the formal interview, described above. Presentations may be of some limited value in bringing out issues that the Council have not considered, but more often than not are little more than marketing exercises.

For this reason, the Council could arrange for a brief presentation by the tenderer (perhaps no more than fifteen minutes) followed immediately by a structured interview. A record should be made of presentations. All tenderers should be given the opportunity to make presentations if they are judged to be part of the tender evaluation process. However, if presentations are not required as a matter of course, it should be made clear to tenderers that to offer them will not gain an automatic advantage. It should also be made clear that no changes to the basis of the bid offered in supporting documents (financial, work methods, etc.,) can be made during a presentation.