CONSULTING SERVICES PROCUREMENT AND SELECTION AUGUST 2013 PRESENTATION
98
CONSULTING SERVICES AN OVERVIEW & EVALUATION PROCUREMENT & SELECTION
-
Upload
chester-ryan-bourne-msc-mba-pmp -
Category
Documents
-
view
336 -
download
0
Transcript of CONSULTING SERVICES PROCUREMENT AND SELECTION AUGUST 2013 PRESENTATION
CONSULTING SERVICES AN OVERVIEW & EVALUATION
PROCUREMENT & SELECTION
What is & Why Procurement ?
“The Science/Art of acquiring works, goods and
services in an efficient and effective manner, at the
best possible cost, in the right quantity and quality,
at the right time, in the right place and for the
benefit or use of a government, entity,
corporation or individual via a contract”
CONSULTING SERVICES OBJECTIVE
To Obtain a High-Quality Consulting Services. Allow
for that most effective, efficient & economic use of
resources.
OVERVIEW
Consultancy Services usually means services of a professional nature provided by consultants.
A consultant uses their professional skills and experience to do, designs, provide technical advice, undertake studies, manage projects, etc.
Consulting services may encompass a wide rage of disciplines and usually a combination of disciplines and skills are required to deliver a service
OVERVIEW- TYPES OF SERVICES
PROJECT SERVICES
Preparation Implementation Advisory
Sector Studies Tender Documents Capacity Building
Master Plans Procurement Services Information Technology
Feasibility Studies Construction Supervision Change Management
Design Studies Project Management
Specialist Studies training
OVERVIEW- Service Requirements
High Standard and Quality
Impartial, independent from any affiliation
that could lead to a conflict of interest
Be proposed, awarded, administered, &
executed to the highest ethical standards
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Category #1: Conflicting Activities
Downstream procurement of Goods, Works & Services (not including Services related to professional Assignment).
For example a consultant specifying equipment or designing works in such a way to create a competitive advantage to them or affiliates.
Category #2: Conflicting Assignments
Conflicting assignments by nature, in which the consultant could bias their advice to be consistent to the findings of another assignment. For example a consultant carry our an environmental audit of a project they designed.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Category #3: Conflicting Relationships
Consultants (including their personnel and sub-consultants) who have a business or family relationship with a member of the Procuring Entity’s staff who are directly or indirectly involved in any part of: (i) the preparation of the TOR for the contract, (ii) the selection process for such a contract, or (iii) supervision of such a contract, may not be awarded a contract, unless the conflict stemming from this relationship has been resolved in the appropriate manner.
Category #4: Conflicting Clients
Consultants working simultaneously for two or more clients whose interest are in conflict. For example a Consultant working as the Quantity Surveyor for the Client and a Contractor.
SELECTION PROCESS: OVERVIEW
I. Consultants are selected based on a competitive process
II. Selection is subject to an evaluation & comparison of technical and financial proposals or in some cases only a technical proposals and qualification information
METHOD OF SELECTION
Quality & Cost Based Selection (QCBS)*
Least Cost Selection (LCS)*
Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications (CQS)
Quality Based Selection (QBS)
Selection under a Fixed Budget (FBS)
Single Source Selection (SSS)
MAIN FEATURES OF QCBS
Both quality & cost aspects taken into account
Allows to determine the right weight to be given to quality vs. cost:
T - 80%
F - 20%
N = T x N(tech) + F x N(fin)
Rejection of technical proposal if N(tech) < min. technical score required
QCBS suitable for:
◦ the type of service required is common and not too complex;
◦ the scope of work can be precisely defined & TOR clear & well
specified;
◦ Staff time & other inputs can be estimated with reasonable precision;
◦ the risk of undesired downstream impacts is quantifiable and
manageable;
◦ capacity-building program easy to estimate in duration and staff time
OTHER METHODS OF SELECTION
Least Cost Selection (LCS)
Standard / routine assignment
Well-established practices / standards
Rejection of technical proposals scored < min. technical score required
Award to the firm with the least cost & a technical score > min. technical score required
OTHER METHODS OF SELECTION
Quality Based Selection (QBS)
complex
High downstream impact
Assignments can be carried out in multiple ways (non comparable)
Award to the firm with the highest technical score
Cost is not a factor of selection
Negotiations of technical & financial proposals
OTHER METHODS OF SELECTION
Selection based on Consultant’s Qualification (CQS)
Small assignment or emergency situations declared by the Borrower and recognized by the Bank
Need for issuing a RFP and competitive proposals not justified
Request Expression of interest on relevant experience & competence
Select the most qualified firm for the assignment
Cost is not a factor of selection
Firm will prepare & submit technical & financial proposals
Evaluate technical & financial proposals
Negotiate the contract & award
OTHER METHODS OF SELECTION
Single Source Selection (SSS)
Natural continuation of previous work
Emergency
Very small assignment
only one firm has experience of exceptional worth
Make sure SSS is well justified & proven
Make sure price is reasonable
Make sure contract is well balanced
OTHER METHODS OF SELECTION
QBS QCBS CQS SFB LCS
Quality
Cost COST
QUALITY
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
[SHORT LISTING]
All Interested
Bidders Invited
All Interested
Bidders Invited
Few Proposals from
Shortlist
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
[SHORT LISTING] Why Shortlist Consultants ?
Time Consuming &
Expensive to evaluate all
proposals from all
consultants
Proposals Intellectual in
Nature
Minimum of # of
proposals from qualified
consultants to the RFP
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
[SHORT LISTING] Advertisement/Vendor Data Base
Concise
Request only the necessary information
Brief description of TOR
Receipt EOI
Review
Firm Capability
General Qualifications
Specific Experience
Potential COI
Shortlist
Issue RFP
Prepared by Procurement
Officer
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP] Section 1: Letter of Invitation
Section 3: Technical Proposal
Standard Forms
Section 2: Instructions to
Consultants (ITC) & Bid Data
Sheet
Section 6: Standard Form of
Contract & Special
Conditions of Contract
Section 5: Terms of Reference
Section 4: Financial Proposal
Standard Forms
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Letter of Invitation (LOI)
States the Intention of the Employer to
enter into a contract for a given
assignment.
Invites the shortlisted consultants that to
submit a proposal for the assignment
State method of selection
List short listed firms
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Instruction to Consultants (ITC)
The ITC contains all information and
instructions that it required to prepare a
responsive proposal
Type of technical proposal to be submitted
Evaluation process
Evaluation criteria/sub-criteria
ITC should not be modified
ITC conditions modified through the Data
Sheet
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Bid Data Sheet
The Bid Data Sheet forms part of the ITC
Contains specific information relating to
the assignment
Relates to specific clauses in the ITC
Validity Period [60-90] days
Format of the Technical Proposal (STP or FTP)
Proposal Submission Date, Time and Place
Evaluation Criteria, Sub-Criteria and Points
STANDARD FORMS
Technical Proposal
1. Form Tech1: Technical proposal submission form
2. Form Tech 2 (FTP) : Consultant’s organization and experience
3. Form Tech 3 (FTP) : Comments and suggestions on TOR
4. Form Tech 4 : Description of approach, methodology, and work-plan
5. Form Tech 5 : Work schedule and planning for deliverables
6. Form Tech 6: Team Composition, assignment, and Key Experts Time inputs; and C.V Forms
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Form Tech1: Technical proposal submission
form
Formal declaration must be signed by
authorized signatory
Statements in proposal are true
Proposal shall remain valid and binding
No conflict of interest
Meet eligibility requirements abide by fraud and
corruption policies
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Form Tech 4 : Description of approach,
methodology, and work-plan
Detailed of approach, methodology, and
work-plan for the assignment in responding
to the TOR
Technical Approach and Methodology
Work Plan
Organization and Staffing
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP] Technical Approach, Methodology & Team Composition
Explain understanding of the assignment as outlined in the TOR
Describe the technical approach to respond to TOR
Layout the Methodology to compliment the approach
Detail the Outputs
Describe the team structure
Do Not Cut & Paste or repeat the TOR
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Work Plan & Staffing
Outline plan for implementation of tasks and activities.
Detail content and duration of respective tasks and assignments
Must be consistent with proposed approach and methodology
Show assigned tasks of key experts
Address TOR requirements
Must be feasible
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Form Tech 5: Work Schedule and Planning
for Deliverables
Bar Chart duration of main activity
(Deliverable)
List deliverables and breakdown activities
Must be consistent with Financial Proposal
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Form Tech 6: Team Composition,
assignment, and Key Experts Time inputs; and
C.V Forms
Show Key and Non-Key experts
Position, Service to be provided
Show deliverable
Total Time Input (Hours)
Will be used to support Financial
Evaluation
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP] Form Tech 6: C.V Forms
Important will be used to evaluate Key Personnel
Must Indicate position and title
State Education/Training
Details of relevant employment and experience
Professional membership
Contact Information
Certified and Signed by expert and authorized consultant
STANDARD FORMS
Financial Proposal
1. FIN-1: Financial Proposal Submission Form
2. FIN-2: Summary of Costs
3. FIN-3: Breakdown of Remuneration, including Appendix A “Financial Negotiations - Breakdown of Remuneration Rates” in the case of QBS method
4. FIN-4: Reimbursable expenses
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
FIN-1:Financial Proposal Submission
Form
Formal Financial Proposal must be signed
by authorized signatory
State Total Price and currency
Proposal shall remain valid and binding
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
FIN-2:Summary of Costs
Cost for Proposal
Re-numeration for Service
Reimbursable Expenses
Total Must Equal Fin-Form 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
FIN-3:Breakdown of Remuneration
Show detailed breakdown of re-numeration.
Key and non key experts re-numeration rate
and time input
Total cost for each key and non-key experts
Must be consistent with Tech-Form 6
Used only for demonstration purposes for
Lump Sum Contracts
Should not form the basis for payment in
Lump Sum Contracts
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
FIN-4: Reimbursable expenses
Show detailed breakdown of reimbursable
expenses
Used only for demonstration purposes for
Lump Sum Contracts
Basis for tax calculation [if needed]
Should not form the basis for payment in
Lump Sum Contracts
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
OVERVIEW IN PREPARING
PROPOSALS
1. Two to Four weeks for submission
I. Depends on nature/complexity
II. FTP or STP
2. Seek Clarification in writing
3. Carefully follow ITC/Data Sheet
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
OVERVIEW: IN PREPARING
PROPOSALS
4. Prepare proposal using the Standard
forms provided
Allow all required information to be provided
Clear, Concise
Readily comparable manner
Easy to understand
Easy to evaluate proposals in accordance with
established criteria
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Terms of Reference
Key Document in the RFP
Explains Objective of the :
Assignment
Scope of Work
Activities
Task to be performed
Roles and Responsibilities
Expected Results and Deliverables
Comprehensive, Clear and Understandable
DEVELOPING TERMS OF
REFERENCE Characteristics
Ws rule:
Why?
What?
Who?
Where?
When?
Compatible with available budget!
Not to be too detailed & inflexible so that consultant may propose their own methodology & staff!
Clearly define client / consultants responsibilities
Outline
Project Background
Objectives of Assignment
Scope of Work
Deliverables; Reports
Period of Performance
Data/Information available
Other available resources of Client
Institutional & Organization arrangements
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP]
Conditions of Contract
Rules of Engagement
General Conditions of Contract
Cannot be modified
Special Conditions of the Contract
May be modified before issuing the RFP
Types of Contract depends on assignment
Lump Sum Contract
Time Based Contract
MAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTS Assignment
Simple
Scope Clear and Well Defined
Accurate staff Inputs & Estimates
Method of Selection
QCBS
LCS
FBS/CQS
Which Type of
Contract ?
Assignment
Scope Clear and Well Defined
Accurate staff Inputs & Estimates
Method of Selection
QCBS
QBS
MAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTS
Scope of Work Selection
Method
Type of Contract
Master Plans QBS Time Based
Studies or Designs of Complex
Projects QBS Time Based
Pre-Feasibility Studies QBS Time Based
Simple planning Studies QCBS Lump Sum
Environmental Studies QCBS Lump Sum
Formulation of infrastructure
Projects QCBS/LC Lump Sum
Construction Supervision QCBS/LC Time Based
Standard Routine Assignments LC Lump Sum
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS EVALUATION
EVALUATION EC is appointed before
submission of
proposals
EC meets to agree on rating
system to be used. Confirms
all members fully understand
the evaluation process and
methods.
Technical & Financial
Proposals are received
Technical Proposals are
opened and Financials put in
safe keeping
Each member of the EC
individually evaluates the
Technical proposals
EC meets to discuss &
consolidates the evaluation
Technical Report is prepared
for review and approval
Qualified consultants are
invited to the Financial
opening [notified in writing]
EC completes evaluation of
the Financial Proposals.
Determine highest combined
score and recommend the
award of a contract
Approval for
the award of
Contract
Approval for
the award of
Contract
Negotiation,
Preparation
of Contract
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Types of Technical Proposals Full Technical [FTP]
Most Detailed
No limit to length of
Technical Proposal
Description of Consultants
Organization
Comments on TOR
Technical Approach &
Methodology
Professional staff & C.Vs
Staff inputs
Knowledge transfer
component
Simplified Technical [STP]
Less detailed
Technical proposal limit to 10
pages
Comments on TOR [optional]
Technical Approach &
Methodology
Professional staff & C.Vs
Staff inputs
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
FTP
Specific experience of the
consultant relevant to the
assignment
Adequacy of the proposed
methodology, work-plan in
responding to the TOR Technical approach & methodology
Work-plan
Organization & Staffing
Key professional staff
qualifications & competence General Qualifications
Adequacy for the assignment
Experience in region & language*
Transfer of knowledge & capacity
building programme
Participation of national
consultants
STP
Adequacy of the proposed
methodology, work-plan in
responding to the TOR Technical approach &
methodology [optional]
Work-plan [optional]
Key professional staff
qualifications & competence General Qualifications
Adequacy for the assignment
Experience in region & language*
SETTING EVALUATION
CRITERIA Points Distribution [FTP]
Evaluation Criteria Points
Specific Experience of the consultants 0-10
Adequacy of the proposed methodology, work-plan
in responding to the TOR
20-50
Key professional staff qualifications & competence 30-60
Transfer of knowledge & capacity building
programme
0-10*
Participation of national consultants 0-10
Total 100
SETTING EVALUATION
CRITERIA Points Distribution [STP]
Evaluation Criteria Points
Adequacy of the proposed methodology, work-plan
in responding to the TOR
20-40
Key professional staff qualifications & competence 60-80
Total 100
No Sub-criteria for Adequacy of the proposed methodology, work-plan in
responding to the TOR required. Evaluated as a whole
SETTING EVALUATION
CRITERIA Points Distribution
Points allocated to criteria & adopted sub-criteria must be shown in ITC (Bid Data Sheet) in the RFP
Sub-criteria & their weighting often determine the outcome of the evaluation
Sub-criteria must be derived from aspects that are critical for the success of the assignment
Accurate the numerical points allocated to the criteria & sub-criteria;
Reliable evaluation & best selection
Points allocated to each sub-criteria should vary according to it relative importance (not less than 3 points/sub-criteria)
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Methodology & Work-plan
Key Staff
Early Stages (Design & Feasibility Studies)
Points Distribution
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Key Staff
Methodology & Work-plan
Final Stages (Construction Supervision)
Points Distribution
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Cost is a Factor $
Technical Proposal
Relative Weighting Technical &
Financial Proposals
Financial Proposal
80 %
10 % 90 %
20 %
50 % 50 %
Normal
High Technical
Procurement & Inspection Agents
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Maximum of 10 points because shortlisting was
carried done bases on capabilities
Little difference between shortlisted consultants
Needed when very specific aspect of qualification
is needed
Points are allocated depended on how important
is the specific aspect of qualification
No fewer than 5 points to be allocated
Specific Experience [FTP only]
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Technical Approach & Methodology
Approach: “An approach is the overall style or idea/strategy that
one adopts to overcome a problem.”
Methodology: “Methodology refers to procedures that have been
tested time and again and proven to help overcome problems.”
Highlight understanding of the objectives of the assignment
Highlight understanding of the issues & their importance
Clearly state the approach to address them
Clearly outline the methodologies proposed and show
compatibility with the approach
Methodology & Work Plan
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Work-Plan
Outline the main activities of the assignment their
content and duration, milestones and phasing.
Show deliverables and most important outputs.
Must be highly consistent with technical approach &
methodology.
Effectively translating understanding of TOR into a
work-plan.
Methodology & Work Plan
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Organization & Staffing
Outline proposed structure & composition of the
team
List the main activities involved and the key
experts responsible.
List the proposed technical & support staff
Approach / Methodology & Work Plan
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Approach / Methodology & Work Plan
Approach & Methodology
Work-Plan
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Key Professional Staff
Management responsibilities
Key Qualifications & Experience
Points are allocated in order of importance to
accomplish the task
Should only include key personnel
Team Leader is key to success of assignment
Team Leader must be allocated the most
points.
In small teams the team leader be allocated up
to 50 % of the points allocated
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Key Professionals Points
Project Manager 25
Civil/Structural Engineer 15
Architect 10
Quantity Surveyor 10
Total 60
Point Allocation to
Key Professional Staff
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Point Allocation to
Key Professional Staff
Points allocated based on information on C.V
Three sub-criteria General Qualifications/Experience
Adequacy for the assignment
Experience in language & region *
General Qualifications/Experience General experience and years in professional work
Level of education, positions held etc.
Adequacy for the assignment Education, training & experience in specific field,
subject or sector directly relevant to the
assignment. This is most critical factor and should
be given the most weight.
Experience in Language & Region May not be applicable
Knowledge of local conditions, culture,
systems, government organizations etc
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Point Allocation to
Key Professional Staff
Sub-Criteria Range of
%age
General Qualifications 20-30
Adequacy for the assignment 50-60
Experience in language & region 10-20
Total 100
SETTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Sub-criteria
Position Points General
Qualifications
(30%)
Adequacy for the
assignment
(60%)
Experience in
language & region
(10%)
Project Manager 25 30% of 25 = 7.5 60% of 25 = 15 10% of 25 = 2.5
Civil/Structural Engineer 15 30% of 15 = 4.5 60% of 15 = 9 10% of 15 = 1.5
Architect 10 30% of 10 = 3.0 60% of 10 = 6 10% of 10 = 1
Quantity Surveyor 10 30% 0f 10 =3.0 60% of 10 = 6 10% of 10 = 1
Total 60 18 36 6
Distribution of Points between Team Leader and other Key
professionals
EVALUATION
“Consultant’s” technical proposals are intellectual
products; their evaluation must be based on the
professional judgment of competent and impartial
evaluators.
The judgment must be technically sound and objective,
strictly complying with the evaluation criteria. “
EVALUATION
Evaluation Committee [EC]
1. EC is a committee of experts
Appointed to evaluate the Technical & Financial proposals
Minimum of Three (3) evaluators
2. EC uses the established evaluation criteria from the RFP
3. EC cannot modify the evaluation criteria
4. EC cannot modify or amend TOR
5. Must asses proposal based on TOR
EVALUATION
Have no Conflict of Interest
Understand the rating & scoring system
Have been provided with evaluation
worksheets
Agree on how to evaluate the proposals
Qualified
Full understanding of TOR
Have same understanding of TOR
Have same understanding of scoring system
Characteristics
EVALUATION
Technical Proposals for
consulting services are
intellectual products.
Evaluation must be based
on the individual
professional judgment of
competent evaluators.
Professional judgment
must be complimented by;
Transparency
Fairness
Consistency
Evaluation should not be
reduced to a purely
arithmetic exercise.
Judgment should not be
exercised in an unreasonable
or arbitrary manner
Evaluators must not
manipulate the awarding of
points.
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH Step 1
Determine the level of responsiveness for each criteria & sub-criteria.
Level of responsiveness is estimated on a predefined percentage scale
Poor
Satisfactory
Good
Very Good
Step 2
Each percentage rating is multiplied by the maximum number of points for each criteria & sub-criteria
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH Characteristics of the Rating Scale
1. Divided into discrete grades
Poor
Satisfactory
Good
Very Good
2. EC must establish what constitutes the
definition of each grade
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH Advantage of Rating Scale Method
Provides EC with shared definition of grade,
making evaluation easier and comparable
Reduces the risk of scoring inconsistency &
discretion
Binds EC members to justify his/her evaluation
based on a common definition of the grades
Discourages intentional biases
Adds transparency & fairness to the process
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH IMPORTANT POINTS !
Defining Grades is critical to success
Requires knowledge of the;
TOR, main technical issues, & qualification of key
staff
More thought which leads to better
evaluation
No agreed pre-defined grades may lead to
more subjective scoring
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH Recommended Grades & Percentages
Grade (Level of Responsiveness ) Percentage Rating
Poor 40
Satisfactory 70
Good 90
Very Good 100
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH Recommended Grades & Percentages
Lowest Grade is 40% because; Zero rating is not realistic (it would imply that the
consultant has not responded at all to the TOR)
A zero rating in say poor methodology cannot be compensated by high scores in all the other criteria (this would lead to an otherwise attractive proposal)
If a proposal appears to be unacceptable it does not deserve to be rated even as “poor”, it may be considered as non-responsive!
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH
Evaluation Criteria Points
Adequacy of proposed methodology & work-plan 30
Key professional staff qualification and competence 70
Total 100
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH: Methodology & Work-
Plan
Factors to Consider
Understanding of the objective*:
Extent to which the Technical Approach &
Work address objectives of the TOR
Completeness & Responsiveness*:
Responds completely to the requirements of
the TOR
Clarity of the proposal *: Clear,
Coherent, logical and well defined
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH: Methodology & Work-
Plan
Factors to Consider
Timeliness of Outputs*: Is the proposed
schedule logical, realistic, conform to the
requirements of the TOR
Creativity & Innovation*: Suggestion of
new approaches to solve problems
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH: Key Professional staff
qualification & competence
Factors to Consider
Sub-Criteria:
General Qualification: 30%
Adequacy for the assignment: 60%
Experience in language and region: 10%
Total: 100%
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH: Key Professional staff
qualification & competence
General Qualification [30%]
Good[90%]: Proposed expert has more than
15 years overall experience in field. Substantial
experience in consulting on similar assignments,
recognized for achievements in field.
Very Good [100%]: Proposed expert has
more than 20 years of specialized experience in
the field. Recognized by pairs as a top expert in
the field. Leader, on “cutting edge” in field.
PRACTICAL TWO STEP
APPROACH: Key Professional staff
qualification & competence
General Qualification [30%]
Poor [40%]: Proposed expert has never or
occasionally worked in a similar position
required for the assignment. Expert is at a
relatively junior level.
Satisfactory [70%]: The experience of
the proposed expert fits the assigned
position. Expert has held at least one (1)
similar positions over the past 10 years
OPENING OF THE FINANCIAL
PROPOSALS [QCBS, LCS]
Technical Report is prepared
for review and approval
Qualified consultants are
invited to the Financial
opening [notified in writing]
EC completes evaluation of
the Financial Proposals.
Determine highest combined
score and recommend the
award of a contract
Approval for
the award of
Contract
Approval for
the award of
Contract
Negotiation,
Preparation
of Contract
We are here
FINACIAL EVALUATION
FINACIAL FORMS
FIN-1: Financial proposal submission form
Formal proposal signed by authorized personnel indicating
total cost of Service. Indicate name, address etc. of firm
FIN-2: Summary of Costs Form showing total remuneration for professional fees and
reimbursable. Total cost of the financial proposal should match FIN-1.
Tax expenses
Respective currencies if applicable
FINACIAL EVALUATION
FINACIAL FORMS
FIN-3: Breakdown of remuneration
Detail key experts & non-key experts showing; experts, position, person-rate of remuneration, time input & total remuneration [rate X time]
FIN-4: Breakdown of Reimbursable expenses
“Note: The Financial proposal shall be prepared using the Standard Forms [FIN1-FIN 4] provided.”
FINACIAL EVALUATION
1. Review the financials proposals to check
for arithmetic errors.
Do arithmetic check of sum of Remuneration &
Reimbursable .
2. Review financial proposal for
inconsistencies between the Financial
Proposal & Technical Proposal
Ensure substantial correlation between Technical
& Financial Proposal
FINACIAL EVALUATION
2. Review financial proposal for inconsistencies between the Financial Proposal & Technical Proposal
Significant discrepancies could lead to non-responsiveness for Lump Sum Contracts & major arithmetic corrections for time based contracts.
For example the Technical proposal indicates the presence of a clerk of works on site for 100 hours, but the Financial proposal indicates and prices for 25 hours!!
FINACIAL EVALUATION
2. Review Financial proposal for
inconsistencies between the Financial
Proposal & Technical Proposal
Activities & items described in the Technical
Proposal but not priced in the Financial Proposal,
shall be assumed to be included in the prices of
other activities.
FINACIAL EVALUATION
Time Based Form of Contracts
a. Correct any computational or arithmetic errors
b. Adjust the prices if they fail to reflect all inputs
included for the respective items or activities in
the Technical Proposal
c. In the case of discrepancies between the
Technical & Financial proposals in indicating
quantities, the Technical Proposal prevail and the
EC shall correct the quantification in the
Financial Proposal & apply relevant unit price
FINACIAL EVALUATION
Lump Sum Form of Contracts
a. Lump Sum Contracts are deemed to have
included all prices in the Financial Proposal, no
neither arithmetic corrections nor price
adjustments shall be made.
Taxes
a. Taxes should not be considered in the
evaluation
SELECTION FOR AWARD
Least Cost Method
a. The Consultant who attains the minimum required Technical Score [70-75 points]
b. Lowest Price
Quality Cost Based Selection
a. The Consultant attains the minimum required Technical Score [70-75 points]
b. Consultant attaining highest weighted combines score [Technical + Financial]
SELECTION FOR AWARD
Quality Cost Based Selection
Formula for Combined Final Score [Fs]
Fs = 100 x Lowest Price [Fm]/Price of Proposal [F]
Technical Score = Ts
Weights given to Technical [T%] & Financial [P%]
T = 80%, P = 20%
Final Score [S.f] = (Ts x T%) + (Fs x P%)
NEGOTIATONS & AWARD
Objective of Negotiations
Arrive at a mutually satisfactory contract
between Client & Selected Consultant
Parties will discuss the technical proposal
as submitted, agree on the details of the
scope of work, all arrangements, financial
terms, finalize contract conditions
NEGOTIATONS & AWARD
Notification to consultants ranked highest in evaluation
Appointment of Negotiation Team [EC should take part]
Technical matters
Technical approach
Methodology
Work-Plan
Organization & Staffing
Financial matters
Staff Rates [QBS, SSS, CQS]
Reimbursable expenses
Currency
Payment conditions
Negotiations of conditions of Contract
NEGOTIATONS & AWARD Limits of Negotiations
Commence by considering comments & suggestion
from EC
Review/reconcile technical aspects [approach,
methodology, work-plan, staffing] with clients
circumstances/expectations
Technical negotiations may affect quality of services
and impact the technical score
Financial proposal may be negotiated [when price
was not a factor of selection]
NEGOTIATONS & AWARD Limits of Negotiations
Since quality was the main factor in ranking of consultants, care should be taken to not reduce the scope or downgrade staff input to cut price hence reducing the overall quality of the proposals and deliverables. Doing this may affect the ranking of the consultants.
Look out for “High Balling” strategy. Consultant deliberately propose methodology & key staff well above the requirements in order to secure a high score. Consultant attempts to trim scope or quality if price exceeds the budget: Not Allowed
NEGOTIATONS & AWARD Limits of Negotiations
Financial negotiations is not allowed when price is a
factor in the selection, such as QCBS and LCS .
When QCBS or LCS is employed the negotiation
shall only focus on the technical aspects.
A price increase related to technical improvement
may be negotiated on condition that the proposal
remains the least costly in the case of LCS.
NEGOTIATONS & AWARD Negotiating Contract Conditions
Prior to discussing financial
proposal discuss the clauses in the
draft contract
Review the General & Specific
Clauses to ensure parties
understand contract terms and
conditions to be agreed
General Conditions Cannot be
modified/changed
Special Conditions may be subject
to negotiations
THE END QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS
