Evaluation panel recommendation

Commercial in confidence

[Insert agency logo]

[Name of agency]

[Name of procurement project]

Document development control
Prepared by:
Position / title:
Business unit:	[Insert: business division or group]
Document version:	1.0
Date of last revision:
Status:	[Choose: draft / final for peer review / final for approvals / final as approved]

Commercial in confidence

Contents

Evaluation methodology 6

Evaluation method 6

Evaluation criteria and weightings 6

Innovation 7

Due diligence 7

Bids from suppliers 8

Bids received 8

Summary of evaluation 8

Summary of strengths and weaknesses 9

Due diligence 9

Summary of due diligence 9

Additional process 9

Panel recommendation 9

Recommended supplier 9

Recommended supplier’s contract price 9

Whole-of-life costs 10

Budget approval 11

Negotiation recommendations 11

Appendix 1: Specification of requirements 12

Appendix 2: Proposed contract terms and conditions 13

Acronyms

The following acronyms are used in this document.

Acronym	Term
[Insert: e.g. ROI	Registration of interest]
[Insert: e.g. RFP	Request for tender]

Approvals

Recommendation endorsement

The voting members of the evaluation panel
Approval that all bids were evaluated as planned. Endorse the panel recommendation/s.
Name:	Position / title:	Signature:	Date:

Approval of the evaluation panel recommendation

Chair of the evaluation team
Approval:	The evaluation of bids has been carried out as planned and the ranking of suppliers accurately reflects the panel’s conclusions.
Name:
Position/title:
Signature:		Date:

Acceptance of the recommendation and authority to negotiate

Project sponsor / business owner
Approval to:	Accept the panel recommendation/s and proceed to negotiate with the recommended supplier with a view to contract. OR Reject the panel’s recommendation/s.
Name:
Position/title:
Signature:		Date:

Summary

Background

This evaluation panel recommendation builds upon the business case [insert name] dated [insert date] with document reference [insert] and procurement plan dated [insert date] with document reference [insert].

What we are buying and why

This Recommendation relates to the purchase of [insert].

The key objective of the procurement is [insert].

The outcomes that the procurement aims to achieve are [insert].

Requirements

Our requirements

In summary we require to procure [insert].

A detailed statement of our requirements is contained in Appendix 1.

Contract dates

We require the contract to start by [insert start date].

The initial term will be [insert] years and the contract is due to expire on [insert date].

There is an option to extend the contract term by [choose: one / two / three] years. This may be subject to negotiation.

Evaluation panel

A cross-functional team of participants was involved in the evaluation of bids and recommending the supplier.

Non-voting members

Role	Name	Organisation
Chair of evaluation panel:
Official liaison officer:
Financial analyst:
Legal advisor:
Probity auditor:

Voting members

Representative/s	Name	Organisation
Business group/owner:
User group/beneficiary:
Subject matter expert:

Evaluation methodology

Evaluation method

The evaluation model that was used is [choose: lowest price conforming / simple score / weighted attribute (weighted score) / target price / Brook’s Law].

Price was a weighted criterion. OR

Price was not a weighted criterion. Instead price was taken into account in determining overall value for money over the whole-of-life of the contract. A two-envelope process was used and suppliers’ pricing was only opened once a criterion scoring was completed.

Evaluation criteria and weightings

Each supplier must meet the all of the following pre-conditions before its bid was considered for evaluation on its merits.

Preconditions

1.	E.g. Supplier must hold a current practicing certificate from the New Zealand Law Society.
2.	E.g. Supplier must hold current professional indemnity insurance valued at $5m.

Having met all of the preconditions, qualifying bids were evaluated on their merits using the following evaluation criteria and weightings.

Please note that this model includes price as a weighted criterion.

Evaluation criteria

Criterion	Weighting
Technical merit (fit for purpose)	40%
e.g. Degree to which good/services meet or exceed requirements
e.g. Quality of goods/services
e.g. Degree of innovation
e.g. Level of risk
Capability of the supplier to deliver	30%
e.g. Supplier’s size, structure and annual turnover
e.g. Track record in delivering similar goods/services
e.g. Understanding of the requirements
e.g. Operational and financial systems to manage delivery
Value for money (based on whole-of-life cost)	30%
e.g. Total costs over whole-of-life
e.g. Other benefits
Total weightings	100%

In evaluating suppliers’ bids against the criteria, the panel used the following rating scale.

Rating scale

Description	Definition	Rating
Excellent	Exceeds the requirement. Exceptional demonstration by the supplier of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the goods / services. Response identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with supporting evidence.	9-10
Good	Satisfies the requirement with minor additional benefits. Above average demonstration by the supplier of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the goods / services. Response identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with supporting evidence.	7-8
Acceptable	Satisfies the requirement. Demonstration by the supplier of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the goods / services, with supporting evidence.	5-6
Minor reservations	Satisfies the requirement with minor reservations. Some minor reservations of the supplier’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the goods / services, with little or no supporting evidence.	3-4
Serious reservations	Satisfies the requirement with major reservations. Considerable reservations of the supplier’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the goods / services, with little or no supporting evidence.	1-2
Unacceptable	Does not meet the requirement. Does not comply and/or insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the supplier has the ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the goods / services, with little or no supporting evidence.	0
Innovation

The agency did not accept alternative proposals. OR

The agency did accept alternative proposals. Alternative proposals were received from the following suppliers:

1)

2)

Due diligence

The following verification matrix was used as part of the evaluation and due diligence process. The table shows how elements of the criteria were verified by the panel.

Verification table

Evaluation & due diligence options	Criteria
Evaluation & due diligence options		Fit for purpose	Ability to deliver	Value for money
Written offer / tender documents			
Buyer clarifications of offer			
Reference checks			
Interview		
Presentation		
Site visit			
Product testing	
Audited accounts		
Credit check		
Companies office check		
Accepts proposed conditions of contact		
Police / security check		

Bids from suppliers

Bids received

Suppliers that have bid for this contract

Name of supplier	Met procedural requirements	Met mandatory conditions
	Yes / No	Yes / No
	Yes / No	Yes / No
	Yes / No	Yes / No
	Yes / No	Yes / No
	Yes / No	Yes / No

Suppliers not shortlisted

Name of supplier	Reason for not shortlisting





Summary of evaluation

Suppliers shortlisted for evaluation

Name of supplier	Overall score	Total price	Overall vfm ranking
		$[amount] GST excl
		$[amount] GST excl
		$[amount] GST excl
Summary of strengths and weaknesses

Summary of each short-listed supplier’s relative strengths and weaknesses

Name of supplier	Strengths	Weaknesses

Due diligence

Summary of due diligence

Due diligence for shortlisted suppliers

Name of supplier	Nature of due diligence and results



Additional process

Please explain what additional process was undertaken during the evaluation – if any. For example:

following the evaluation of merits each short listed supplier was invited to attend an interview with the panel

the panel also requested site visits to short listed suppliers’ premises.

Panel recommendation

Recommended supplier

The panel recommends [insert name of supplier] as representing the best value-for-money over the whole-of-life. The panel recommends that the agency enter into negotiations with the recommended supplier with a view to contract.

This recommendation is subject to [list any outstanding due diligence].

This decision is based on [summarise the reasons why the panel recommends this supplier. Include analysis of e.g. ability to meet the criteria, relative price, acceptance of conditions of contract and delivery time - where relevant.]

[Optional] In the event that the agency is unsuccessful in negotiating a contract with the recommended supplier the panel recommends [insert name of second ranked supplier] as the second ranked supplier.

Recommended supplier’s contract price

The recommended supplier has offered a contract price of $[insert] exclusive of GST.

Breakdown of proposed contract price

Acquisition	Year 1
Initial purchase price	$
Delivery	$
Installation	$
Training	$
Operating costs	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Consumables	$	$	$
Parts	$	$	$
Labour	$	$	$
Maintenance	$	$	$
	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Totals	$	$	$
Total price			$
Whole-of-life costs

In addition to the contract price further costs have been incurred pre-acquisition and will be incurred on disposal of the asset. These costs are factored into the calculation of the whole-of-life costs.

Whole-of-life calculation

Pre-acquisition	Pre-acquisition
Design & specification	$
Expert advice	$
Legal services	$
Disposal		Disposal
Decommissioning		$
Removal		$
Disposal costs		$
	Pre-acquisition	Disposal	Contract price	Total costs
Totals	$	$	$	$
Less residual value on disposal				$
Total costs over whole-of-life				$

Whole-of-life capital and operational costs

Financial year	Amount	Funding type
2014/15	$[amount] GST excl	opex / capex
2015/16	$[amount] GST excl	opex / capex
2016/17	$[amount] GST excl	opex / capex
Budget approval

Budget approval for the total costs over whole-of-life has been given by [insert name of officer holding delegated authority who has approved the budget] on [insert date]. This approval is up to a maximum spend of [$insert] over [insert number of years].

Negotiation recommendations

The panel recommended addressing various points in the negotiations. These recommendations will be included in the negotiation plan to be developed. The negotiation plan will also address measures required to transition from the current delivery of services to the new supplier.

Appendix 1: Specification of requirements

Appendix 2: Proposed contract terms and conditions