TABLE OF CONTENTS - … · TABLE OF CONTENTS ... procedural matters, this step is essentially...

Public Procurement Directorate

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE of 59

TABLE OF CONTENTS Version: 1.1

1-01-2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD .................................... 2

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2

4.1.1 Structure of Chapter 4 ............................................................................... 2

4.1.2 Bodies responsible for the evaluation of tenders and the award of

the contract ............................................................................................... 3

4.2 OPENING OF TENDERS .................................................................................... 6

4.2.1 Opening procedure ................................................................................... 6

4.2.2 Entry of tender details in a special form .................................................... 8

4.2.3 Announcement of ranking order ................................................................ 8

4.3 EVALUATION OF TENDERS ............................................................................... 8

4.3.1 Purpose of the procedure for the evaluation of tenders ............................. 8

4.3.2 Basic evaluation principles ........................................................................ 9

4.3.3 Time-related commitments of the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders ............................................................................. 10

4.3.4 Evaluation procedure .............................................................................. 11

4.4 AWARD OF CONTRACT .................................................................................. 44

4.4.1 Approval of the Final Evaluation Report and Award of the Contract ........ 44

4.4.2 Cancellation of the tender procedure ...................................................... 45

4.5 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC OPERATORS ................................. 46

4.5.1 Initial notice to all interested parties ........................................................ 46

4.5.2 Notice to the Contractor .......................................................................... 47

4.5.3 Notice to unsuccessful tenderers ............................................................ 47

4.5.4 Handling of Hierarchical Recourses ........................................................ 48

4.6 CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT .......................................................................... 56



CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1

1-01-2008

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 Structure of Chapter 4

In the previous Chapter 3 of this Guide, instructions and guidelines on how to implement the

strategic choices regarding public procurement were given. More specifically, an analysis

was made of the actions that should be implemented during each of the five (5) stages

involved in preparing and launching a tender procedure, i.e.:

1. Definition of the contract scope

2. Preparation of the tender documents

3. Required advertising actions

4. Release of the tender documents

5. Provision of clarifications and additional information on the tender

documents

Chapter 4 contains guidelines and instructions concerning the implementation of the

announced tender procedure. In particular, an analysis is made of the actions to be carried

out during each stage of the procedure, starting with the opening of the tenders submitted by

interested economic operators, and concluding with the signature of the contract.

For each particular stage of the procedure leading to the award of a contract, best practices

are presented and guidelines, instructions and useful tools are provided, always within the

framework determined by the key arrangements and provisions of the laws and regulations

governing the award of public contracts, as applicable in the Republic of Cyprus.

The stages of the above procedure which make up this Chapter, are the following:

1. OPENING OF TENDERS: A detailed description of the procedure followed for the

opening of the tenders submitted by interested economic operators is given. In

this respect reference is made to the duties and responsibilities of the competent

officials and employees of the Contracting Authority before whom the tenders are

opened, as well as to the persons authorised in each case to attend this

procedure.

2. EVALUATION OF TENDERS: A description is given of the way in which the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions and of the procedure for

the evaluation of tenders, which includes the verification of the eligibility for

participation in the tender procedure, the verification of the fulfilment of the

qualitative selection criteria and the evaluation of the tenders on the basis of the




1-01-2008

award criteria contained in the tender documents, and is completed with the

preparation of the required Evaluation Report.

3. AWARD OF CONTRACT: A description is given of the most practicable

procedure deemed advisable for the Contracting Authority to adopt, in the

framework of the provisions of the applicable legislation, for awarding the contract

after the evaluation procedure has been completed and its results have been

approved. Specific reference is made in this stage to the cases where the

Contracting Authority is allowed to decide to suspend or cancel the announced

tender procedure.

4. PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC OPERATORS: A description is

given of the method used to provide information about the outcome of the tender

procedure to the economic operators that participated in it by submitting a tender.

Special reference is made in this stage to the manner in which recourses, if any,

filed against the tendering procedure are handled, in accordance with the

provisions of the Law.

5. CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT: A description is given of the procedure

according to which the economic operator whose tender has been selected by the

Contracting Authority as the most advantageous one is invited to sign the final

agreement with the Contracting Authority, which shall signal the conclusion of the

contract and the commencement of the implementation of its scope.

Figure 4-1: The five steps of the tendering procedure

In the case of contracts awarded using the restricted procedure, these five steps are

preceded by a step involving the prequalification of interested economic operators,

after the submission of their requests to participate in the tender procedure. In terms of

procedural matters, this step is essentially identical to the first phase of the tender evaluation

procedure under the open procedure, and is examined in the respective Section of the

present Chapter.

4.1.2 Bodies responsible for the evaluation of tenders and the award of

the contract

The tender procedure, from the opening of the tenders until signature of the final agreement

between the contractor and the Contracting Authority, is carried out by established bodies

within each Contracting Authority, which function either on a permanent basis or are

appointed on a on a case by case basis in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations

applicable to the Contracting Authority.

Prior to assuming their duties, the persons who compose the competent collective bodies are

obliged to sign a statement whereby they undertake towards the Contracting Authority to

perform their duties with conscientiousness and impartiality, without fear or favouritism, and

to observe strict confidentiality in performing their duties. Especially for government

OPENING OF

TENDERS

EVALUATION OF

TENDERS

AWARD OF

CONTRACT

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC OPERATORS

CONCLUSION OF

CONTRACT




1-01-2008

employees appointed as members of the aforementioned bodies, this statement is inserted

at the beginning of the minutes or the report, as the case may be, which they must prepare.

The members of the established bodies must not have any financial or other interest,

either direct or indirect, in connection with any tender procedure leading to the award

of a contract, or any special relation or up to fourth degree relationship by blood or affinity or

be in severe conflict with any person having an obvious financial or other interest in the said

procedure. Should any of the above prohibiting circumstances apply to any person appointed

as Chairman or a member of a competent collective body, such person is obliged to report

this fact and abstain from participating in the procedure. The Code of Ethics in Public

Procurement contains references to this obligation.

The established bodies, whose names may differ depending on the provisions of the

Regulation applicable to each Contracting Authority, shall be referred to hereinafter for

the purposes of this document as the “Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders”,

“Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders”, or “Competent Body for the Award of the

Contract”.

Establishment and functioning of the Competent Bodies

The Competent Bodies for the Opening of Tenders, the Evaluation of Tenders and the Award

of the Contract may be distinct from one another or may be the same, depending on the

provisions of the Regulation applicable to each specific Contracting Authority. In particular,

the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract may be either a collective body

established specifically to meet the needs of a Contracting Authority (e.g. Evaluation

Committee, Tender Board) or it could be the administrative Body of the Contracting Authority

itself (e.g. its Board of Directors). On the other hand, the Competent Bodies for the Opening

of Tenders and the Evaluation of Tenders are bodies established either to meet the needs of

all tender procedures conducted by a Contracting Authority or to meet the needs of a specific

tender procedure.

The decisions of the competent collective Bodies, unless otherwise provided for in the

Regulations, are taken by majority vote, while the Chairman’s vote is a prevailing one in

cases where the voting result is halved.

The members of the Competent Bodies for the Opening of Tenders, the Evaluation of

Tenders and the Award of the Contract are officials and/or employees of the Contracting

Authority. For Contracting Authorities belonging to the Central Government, the members of

the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may also be employees of a

Department/Service other than the Contracting Authority, on the understanding that this

arrangement takes place with the approval of the Head of the Department/Service from

which these employees come. In all cases, the members of the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders must possess the technical and/or professional training required by

the subject matter of the tender procedure . In the case of the Central Government, members

of the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract may also be employees of other

Contracting Authorities, as per the applicable Regulations.

Participation of a person in the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is

incompatible with the concurrent participation of that same person in another




1-01-2008

Competent Body that deals with the same tender procedure for which the Competent Body

for the Evaluation of Tenders has been established.

Every meeting of the competent collective Bodies is certified by relevant Minutes,

prepared and signed by the Chairman and the members. The Minutes list the

participants in the meeting and describe the procedures followed, the findings and

conclusions and the decisions reached, as the case may be. The decisions of the Competent

Bodies, especially those concerning exclusion of a candidate during the qualitative selection

procedure or rejection of a tender during the evaluation procedure, or the marking method in

the case of a contract for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous

tender, must be adequately documented, with a precise description of the reasons that

dictated these decisions. In the case of simple contracts, the Evaluation Report can also

serve as Minutes.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is the body with the most

important (in terms of essential contribution) but also the most difficult role in the

tendering and contract award procedure. In order to perform their duties correctly, the

members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must:

Examine carefully the tender documents.

Have (or acquire) excellent knowledge of the requirements of the Contracting Authority in

relation to the contract to be awarded.

Be cognizant of the restrictions and requirements of the relevant legislation.

Undertake significant study in order to fully understand the content of the tenders.

Be familiar with the market to which the specific contract relates.

Possess administrative skills, knowledge and –if possible– experience of public

procurement procedures.

Understand the objectives of the evaluation procedure and its role within the wider

framework of public procurement.

In the following Sections of this document (and especially in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4)

reference is made to actions under the responsibility of the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders or of the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract. It is obvious

that this is valid in cases where the applicable Regulations provide for the establishment of

two separate Bodies, i.e. one for the evaluation of tenders and one for the award of the

contract. Otherwise (i.e. where the functions of evaluation and award are carried out by the

same Body), the text of this document must be interpreted accordingly.

Assistance to the Competent Bodies

To address special issues that may come up during the tendering procedure, the Competent

Bodies may, provided that this is foreseen under the respective Regulations:

(a) Seek the assistance of ad hoc technical committees, established in accordance with

the provisions of the relevant Regulations and composed of at least three members,

for the study of evaluations, the conduct of special investigations and the

submission of reports on specialised technical matters.




1-01-2008

(b) Invite to their meetings experts or other specialists seeking advice or clarifications

on matters falling within the areas of their specialisation which are deemed

necessary for the correct decisions to be taken.

(c) Use the services of private consultants for the evaluation of tenders, in cases where

the Contracting Authority has signed a contract for the provision of consulting

services which include support to the Contracting Authority for the implementation of

the specific tender procedure.

Participation of a person in an ad hoc technical committee is incompatible with the

concurrent participation of that same person in the Competent Body for the Evaluation

of Tenders or for the Award of Contract that deals with the same tender procedure.

Observers

Subject to the provisions of the relevant regulations, the Attorney General, the Auditor

General and the Accountant General (the latter in his capacity as Head of the Competent

Authority on Public Procurement), or their representatives, are entitled to attend as

independent observers the meetings of the Competent Bodies, where they can express their

views and request to have them recorded in the Minutes of the meeting. In such cases, the

agenda of each meeting of the Competent Bodies should be notified to the observers at least

one day prior to that meeting.

4.2 OPENING OF TENDERS

4.2.1 Opening procedure

Opening of the tenders submitted by the economic operators participating in the tender

procedure, or sent and received, within the specified time limit, is carried out by the

Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders as soon as possible after the expiry of the

deadline for the submission of tenders and, where the tender documents contain a relevant

provision thereto, immediately after the expiry of the said deadline.

According to the provisions of the relevant Regulation the tenders are opened in the

presence of the persons authorised to attend this procedure.

According to the provisions of the relevant Regulations, upon opening the tenders a

copy of all tenders submitted is kept by the authorized competent body while the

remaining copies together with the original are handed over to the representative of the

Contracting Authority or of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders as the case

may be. Where according to the Tender Documents, tenders should be submitted in two

separate sub-envelops then during the procedure for the opening of tenders, the outer

envelope of each tender is opened and, the sub-envelope containing the supporting

documents for participation and the technical offer is also opened. The sub-envelope

containing the financial offer is kept by the Chairman of the Competent Body or by the Head

of the Contracting Authority, and is unsealed at a later time, provided that it has not been

rejected during the qualitative selection and technical evaluation stages. With regard to the




1-01-2008

tender procedures in which according to the tender documents a single envelope is foreseen,

the envelope unsealed is the envelope which also contains the financial offer.

The representatives of the economic operators who have submitted a tender are entitled to

attend the opening of the tenders, whenever this is provided for in the tender documents.

A prerequisite for the presence of representatives of the economic operators in the

procedure for the opening of tenders is the production, upon their arrival at the place

where the tender procedure is conducted, of a relevant authorisation by the tenderer or its

legal representative.

The presence of representatives of the tenderers during the opening of the tenders

lends status to the evaluation procedure, minimises the likelihood of suspicion or

mistrust among the parties and mitigates to a great extent the risk of recourses being filed or

of the tender procedure being contested until its completion. However, if the opening

procedure is attended by representatives of the tenderers, the persons authorised to open

the tenders should be prepared to act as catalysts to resolve problems, should any arise.

More specifically, the authorised persons must act in accordance with the guidelines

outlined in the Table below:

ACTIONS BY THE COMPETENT BODY FOR THE OPENING OF TENDERS

1 Briefing of attending representatives, before commencement of the opening procedure,

on the procedure to be followed during their presence in the room, as well as about the

exact point in time when they will be asked to leave the room.

2 Announcing to the attending representatives that no verbal interventions, references or

comments on the procedure are accepted.

3 Refraining from responding to all cases of verbal intervention or comment attempted by

any one of the representatives, taking nevertheless note of such intervention or comment

in order to examine the need to have them further investigated at the next stage of the

evaluation.

4 Encouraging the attending representatives to communicate in writing to the Contracting

Authority any significant, in their judgment, matters of which they have become aware by

attending the opening procedure.

The presence of representatives of various economic operators who are competitors in

a specific market may prove particularly useful in the evaluation procedure. For

example, the representatives may be aware from their participation in other similar tender

procedures conducted by other Contracting Authorities –possibly in other Member States of

the EU– of any breach or non-proper execution of a contract awarded to a particular

economic operator, to such extent that the performance guarantee of that operator has been

forfeited or that the operator has been declared in default by the Contracting Authority. In this

case, the written notification of the Contracting Authority in accordance with point (4) of the

above table, shall enable the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, once it has

verified the validity of the allegations, to reject the participation of the economic operator not

meeting a specific participation requirement, regardless of whether or not the problematic




1-01-2008

economic operator has submitted a solemn declaration stating that no such impediment

exists.

4.2.2 Entry of tender details in a special form

The authorised member of the Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders numbers the

tenders, initials them and enters their details in a special form, a template for which is

included in the Annex to this Chapter.

The form used to enter the number of each tender and the full name or company name of the

tenderer is signed by all members of the Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders and

possibly by the attending observers, if they so wish.

If the opening procedure is also attended by representatives of the economic operators, the

full name(s) of the attending representative(s) of each tenderer is (are) also entered in the

special form, and these persons are invited to sign next to their names in order to certify their

presence.

4.2.3 Announcement of ranking order

According to the provisions of the applicable Regulations, and subject to the verification of

the full compliance of the tenders with the terms and conditions of the tender documents,

which shall take place during the evaluation stage that follows the opening of tenders, the

Chairman of the Competent Body or the Head of the Contracting Authority, or a

representative of these persons, announces to the tenderers, wherever this is feasible and in

the manner that he deems most appropriate (e.g. notice board, facsimile, electronic mail

etc.), their ranking order according to the price offered in their tenders.

Provided that the tender documents contain a relevant provision, it is recommended

that the ranking order according to the price offered be announced only in cases of

ordinary contracts without special requirements or anticipated difficulties during the

evaluation procedure, for which the award criterion is exclusively the lowest price.

4.3 EVALUATION OF TENDERS

4.3.1 Purpose of the procedure for the evaluation of tenders

The purpose of the evaluation procedure is to select the best among the tenders submitted

prior to expiry of the submission deadline by tenderers who are eligible to participate in the

tender procedure and meet the participation requirements (qualitative selection criteria)

specified in the tender documents.

The term “best” tender, on the basis of which the contract shall be awarded to the

corresponding tenderer, means:

Either the tender with the lowest price, if the criterion for the award of the contract is that

of the lowest price, or




1-01-2008

The tender with the best value for money, if the criterion for the award of the contract is

the most economically advantageous tender.

In all cases, the best tender must be selected in strict adherence to the provisions of

the tender documents, as regards both the method used to verify the fulfilment of the

participation requirements and the method and procedure followed for assessing the value of

each offer in relation to its quality and price.

4.3.2 Basic evaluation principles

The evaluation procedure must be reasonable and systematic, must address all tender

aspects under evaluation, must be fair, precise and documented, must be conducted in

confidentiality, and must follow the basic principles of national and community law on public

procurement (freedom of movement of goods, freedom of establishment, freedom to provide

services, non-discrimination, equal treatment, mutual recognition, proportionality,

transparency).

The following paragraphs provide guidance on how to observe the basic evaluation

principles:

Equal treatment

During the evaluation procedure it is imperative to avoid any discrimination on the basis

of the nationality of the tenderers or of the country of origin of the goods –in the case of

supply contracts– or of any other criterion not explicitly stipulated in the tender

documents and not justified by objective reasons.

All tenders submitted within the specified time limit are evaluated in accordance with the

terms and provisions of the tender documents, while rejection of tenders is allowed only

in cases of tenders which demonstrably do not meet the requirements or the terms of

reference or the provisions of the tender documents in general.

Transparency

After the opening of the tenders, no tenderer is allowed to make any changes to its

tender. The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications, on

condition that such clarifications do not alter the substance of the contents of the tender.

During the evaluation procedure, detailed records must be kept of all actions of the

Competent Body, while all decisions taken by it must be sufficiently documented and

justified.

Mutual recognition

During the evaluation procedure, it is prohibited to exclude a tenderer from participation

or reject a tender because any technical specifications, titles, certificates or qualifications

contained in the tender are not identical to those required by the Contracting Authority, so

long as they are recognised as equivalent in other EU Member States.

Confidentiality

After the opening of the tenders, the following must not be leaked:




1-01-2008

Any item designated by the economic operators as confidential, such as

information concerning technical or trade or industrial secrets.

Any information in connection with issues related to the examination,

investigation, clarification, confirmation, evaluation or marking of the tenders.

4.3.3 Time-related commitments of the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders

Upon its establishment, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must

schedule its individual tasks, taking into account:

The estimated date for signature of the contract, as specified in the tender documents.

The period of validity of tenders, as specified in the tender documents.

The estimated time for approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation

Report and of the Final Evaluation Report by the Competent Body for the Award of the

Contract1.

The time that may be consumed in the procedure of hierarchical recourses, if any such

recourses are filed.

The provisions of the tender documents and of the applicable legislation regarding the

possibility of extending the period of validity of the tenders in certain extraordinary cases.

In accordance with the provisions of the regulations, the period of validity of tenders is

specified in the tender documents and in the case of ordinary contracts it should not

exceed six months, while for complex contracts it can be as long as twelve months. If the

period of validity of tenders specified in the tender documents is shorter than the periods

specified above, then it may be extended up to the aforementioned time limits described

above, as per the provisions of the Regulation applicable in each case.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, should promptly recommend to

the Contracting Authority to extend the period of validity of the tenders and that of the

deposited tender guarantees, should it suspect that for reasons which may be due either to

an inaccurate estimate of the period of validity of the tenders specified in the tender

documents or to an unexpectedly high turnout of candidates, or even to events beyond its

control which nevertheless affect its activities, the specified period of validity of tenders is

insufficient.

The task of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is by definition

demanding and time-consuming, especially so in cases of contracts which are

awarded using the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender and which

concern complex Projects with a complicated or extensive scope and with correspondingly

comprehensive technical specifications and requirements. For this reason, the members of

the Body must prepare themselves properly before the official commencement of their

1 Valid only where the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract is distinct from the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders. Similar remarks apply throughout the remainder of this text.




1-01-2008

activities, taking advantage of the time intervening between the establishment of the Body

and the official commencement of the evaluation work after the opening of tenders.

During this interval, the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders could

carry out the following indicative actions:

INDICATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COMPETENT BODY FOR THE

EVALUATION OF TENDERS

STEP ACTIONS OF THE COMPETENT BODY

1

First meeting of the Competent Body. Gathering of the necessary information and

data concerning the performance of their duties: tender documents, clarification

answers and supplementary documents, if any. Initial scheduling of the actions to

be carried out by the date set for expiry of the deadline for the submission of

tenders.

2

During the period leading to the deadline for the submission of tenders, the

members of the Competent Body should:

Study thoroughly the tender documents, placing special emphasis on the

requirements for the qualitative selection of tenderers, on the technical

specifications and terms of reference with which tenders must comply, and on

the specified/proposed evaluation procedure and the evaluation criteria to be

marked, in the case of contracts awarded using the criterion of the most

economically advantageous tender.

Seek clarifications, if these are considered necessary, from the authors of the

tender documents, to answer any type of question or doubt or deal with any

inability to understand the contents of the technical specifications and terms

of reference that form part of the tender documents.

Strive to fully understand the Contracting Authority’s objectives, priorities and

needs, as these are directly or indirectly expressed in the tender documents.

3 Second meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, during

which its members should confirm that a clear and shared understanding of the

requirements of the contract scope and of the evaluation procedure specified in

the tender documents has been established.

4.3.4 Evaluation procedure

In accordance with the provisions of the legislation on the award of public contracts, the

evaluation procedure comprises two key distinct stages:

The qualitative selection of the candidate economic operators, and

The evaluation of the tenders of the economic operators found to meet the

qualitative selection criteria, for the appointment of the contractor and the award of

the contract.




1-01-2008

The aim of the qualitative selection stage is to verify the existence of the characteristics and

capacities which the Contracting Authority deems necessary for economic operators to

possess in order to be eligible to participate in the tender procedure conducted, being thus

considered as potentially capable of performing the contract.

The stage of appointment of contractor, which follows the qualitative selection stage, is

directly linked to the technical and financial evaluation of the tenders of economic operators

who, during the previous stage, were considered as potentially capable of performing the

contract.

The stage of qualitative selection of candidate economic operators constitutes the

prequalification phase (in the case of contracts put out to tender using the restricted

procedure) or the first phase of the evaluation (in the case of contracts put out to tender

using the open procedure), with no differences as to its objectives and the method of its

implementation between the two cases. The only difference is the eventual limitation of the

number of candidate economic operators during the prequalification stage under the

restricted procedure, if a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents. This

particular case is dealt with below by means of a special reference.

To facilitate the work of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and ensure the

soundest allocation of its individual activities from the viewpoint of methodology, it is

advisable to break down the two above-mentioned evaluation stages into successive steps,

as follows:

Stage of qualitative selection of candidate economic operators:

Preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders.

Verification of formal requirements for participation.

Verification of the fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria.

Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the qualitative selection.

Ranking of participants, where a specific number of candidates to be invited to tender

is provided for (in the case of a restricted procedure).

Drawing up of part Α of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report,

concerning the qualitative selection.

Where the tender procedure is conducted in accordance with the restricted procedure, the

Qualitative Selection Report is a separate report and is submitted for approval to the

Competent Body for the Award of the Contract.

Stage of evaluation of tenders for the award of the contract:

General evaluation of the technical offers.

Presentation of tenders, if provided for in the tender documents.

Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the technical evaluation.

Marking of technical offers, when the contract award criterion is the most





1-01-2008

Drawing up of part Β of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report,

concerning the technical evaluation.

At this point, the approval of the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract

concerning the Qualitative Selection and of Technical Evaluation Report is obtained (if

two separate sub-envelopes are provided for).

General evaluation of financial offers.

Marking of financial offers.

Ranking of tenders.

Drawing up of the Final Evaluation Report.

In the following Sections of this Chapter, a detailed presentation is made of the tasks and

activities of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, as well as of the manner of

addressing any problems emerging during each of the successive stages of the evaluation

procedure.

Preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders

In this step, tenders are checked to establish whether or not they conform to the provisions of

the tender documents regarding:

Their packaging and proper labelling with the titles of the tender procedure.

The existence of separate sub-envelopes (one for the supporting documents and

technical offer, and one for the financial offer of each tenderer), if a relevant provision

has been made in the tender documents.

The existence of magnetic media (CD), if the tender documents provide for the

submission of tenders also in electronic form.

The existence of the required number of copies of each tender, as provided for in the

tender documents.

The signature of the tender by the appropriate person, as per the terms of the tender

procedure.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a

table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETENESS OF TENDERS

REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS

FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

TENDERER Α TENDERER Β TENDERER C TENDERER D

PACKAGING OF TENDER √ √ √ √

SEPARATE SUB-ENVELOPES √ √ √

LABELLING OF ENVELOPE / SUB-ENVELOPES

√ √

MAGNETIC MEDIA √




1-01-2008





1 ORIGINAL AND 2 COPIES

SIGNATURE OF THE TENDER

For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (√) in the

cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements of the tender documents

have been met.

If a tenderer fails to meet any one of the requirements in the above table, the corresponding

cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be

specifically mentioned and designated as substantial or minor. This designation should be

supported by adequate justification.

It is understood that in the case of minor deviations from the provisions of the tender

documents, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may at its discretion

consider the respective tenders to be admissible. Readers are reminded that minor

deviations are taken to mean deviations which do not affect the extent of the Project scope or

the quality of its execution, do not limit in any respect the rights of the Contracting Authority

or the obligations of the Contractor, and do not impair the principle of equal treatment of

Tenderers. In any case, however, the above discretion of the Competent Body must be

exercised equitably and in accordance with common sense. In the preliminary examination

stage, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders could for example consider a

grammatical error in the labelling of the envelope or sub-envelopes, or even the submission

of three copies of the tender even though the tender documents call for four copies, to be

minor deviations; it should however consider as inadmissible a tender which does not contain

the financial offer in a sealed sub-envelope, when this is clearly provided for in the tender

documents.

After completing the above table, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

proceeds to the next stage of the evaluation procedure, for the tenders for which the

preliminary examination procedure has been successful.

Verification of formal requirements for participation

During this step, the existence of information certifying the eligibility of the economic operator

to submit a tender, in accordance with the specific provisions of the tender documents

applicable in each case, is verified. In particular, and if the relevant provisions have been

made in the tender documents, the following are checked:

a. The tender guarantee, which, if issued by a bank, must be drawn up in strict

compliance with the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the Tender

Documents, must be issued for the amount specified in the tender documents and

must be valid for the period of time indicated in the tender documents.

b. The country of establishment of the tenderer.




1-01-2008

c. If the tenderer is a legal person:

The existence of proof of establishment of the legal person,

d. If the Tenderer is a Consortium:

The existence of a Cooperation Agreement, signed by all participants in the

consortium, stating:

The intention of each participant to participate in the consortium,

The participation rate of each member in the consortium,

The member to be the leader of the consortium, and

The person appointed as Representative of the consortium.

e. the existence of a Certificate establishing the tenderer’s enrolment on a professional

or trade register, or a declaration on oath regarding the pursuit of the profession, or a

certificate issued by a Competent Public Authority certifying the pursuit of the

profession or, in the case of aliens, the existence of a certificate from the competent

authority in their country of origin certifying their enrolment on the registers of the

relevant chamber or other equivalent organisations.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table

in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:

VERIFICATION OF FORMAL PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS



NATURAL PERSONS

LEGAL PERSONS CONSORTIA


PERSON Α PERSON Β

TENDER GUARANTEE

COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT

PROOF OF ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL PERSON

SIGNATURE AUTHORISATION

COOPERATION AGREEMENT

ENROLMENT ON A REGISTER


cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements of the tender documents

have been met.

If any one of the participation requirements in the table is not met, the corresponding cell

must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting or to the Qualitative Selection Report,

where the deviation should be specifically mentioned.




1-01-2008

The formal requirements for participation examined in this stage are very important and no

deviation from the provisions of the tender documents is allowed. Should such a

deviation exist, it must lead to the rejection of the tender (or to the exclusion of the economic

operator from participating in the tender submission stage, in the case of the restricted

procedure).

After completing the above table, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

proceeds to the next stage of the evaluation procedure, for the tenders for which the

verification of formal requirements for participation has been successful.

Verification of fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria

In this stage, the supporting documents for participation of candidate economic operators are

validated, and fulfilment of the participation requirements regarding the economic operators’

personal situation, economic and financial standing and technical and/or professional ability,

as specified in the tender documents, is verified.

More specifically:

a. To verify the personal situation of each tenderer, the following are checked:

The existence of a completed and duly signed Solemn Declaration certifying the

Tenderer's Personal Situation, in the format of the template contained in the

Appendix to the tender documents.

In the case of public service contracts or public works contracts, a relevant

certification confirming that the tenderer is aware of and fulfils the obligations

deriving from the provisions of the legislation on the protection of the employees and

on working conditions, as in force in the Republic of Cyprus, drawn up in the format

of the template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents.

If the tenderer is a consortium of persons or if the tenderer relies on the capacities of

third parties in accordance with the provisions of article 53(2) of Law 12(I)/2006 (or with the

corresponding provisions of article 55(4) of Law 11(Ι)/2006), the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders must verify the personal situation of each member of the consortium

or of each third party, respectively.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must confirm that the contents of the

submitted declarations and/or certifications comply fully with the relevant templates

contained in the tender documents.

Members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may from their

experience be aware of one or more reasons for exclusion, related to the personal

situation of a tenderer, despite the existence of a declaration or certification to the contrary.

In such a case, or in case the Contracting Authority is informed in writing by an economic

operator participating in the tender procedure of the participation of a competitor of that

operator, as described in Section 4.2.1 of this Chapter, the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to investigate the matter in more detail, in order to establish

the truth and decide accordingly. This investigation may for example be conducted by means

of written communication with another competent public authority of the Republic of Cyprus

or of another EU Member State, when there are suspicions that a candidate has been




1-01-2008

deprived of the right to participate in tender procedures due, for example, to failure to fulfil its

contractual obligations.



VERIFICATION OF PERSONAL SITUATION



TENDERER Α

TENDERER Β

TENDERER C

CONSORTIA

TENDERER D

PERSON Α PERSON Β

Existence of Solemn Declaration certifying the tenderer's personal situation

Declaration drawn up in accordance with the relevant template contained in the tender documents

Existence of certification regarding the protection of employees

Certification drawn up in accordance with the relevant template contained in the tender documents


cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been met.

If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met, the corresponding cell must

contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically

mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted items be deemed necessary, the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with

the provisions of the Law.

b. To verify the Economic and Financial standing of each tenderer, the following are

checked (if the relevant provisions have been made in the tender documents):

The existence of the Table documenting the tenderer’s economic and financial

standing, duly completed and in the format of the template contained in the Appendix

to the tender documents, from which it may be established that the criteria specified

in the tender documents have been met (e.g. that the average annual turnover for

the last three (3) financial years is higher than the threshold specified in the tender

documents).

The existence of copies or extracts of audited finacial statements for the last three (3)

financial years, if the tenderer is obligated to publish its audited financial statements

(where the publication of audited financial statements is required under the company

laws of the country in which the tenderer is established), which should confirm the

accuracy of the information provided in the Table documenting the tenderer’s

economic and financial standing.




1-01-2008

The existence of a statement confirming the tenderer's total annual turnover and,

where appropriate, the turnover in the area of activity that corresponds to the

contract scope, where the tenderer is not obliged to publish audited financial

statements, from which the accuracy of the data presented in the Table documenting

the tenderer’s economic and financial standing may be confirmed.

The existence of appropriate statements from banks or, where appropriate, of

evidence of professional risk indemnity insurance, should their submission be

provided for in the tender documents.

If the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, in accordance with the

provisions of article 53(2) of Law 12(Ι)/2006 (or with the corresponding provisions of

article 55(4) of Law 11(Ι)/2006), the availability of the necessary resources in such

third parties is also checked, while an additional check is made to confirm the

existence of declarations by these entities, whereby they guarantee to the

Contracting Authority that, should the tenderer be appointed contractor, they shall

place at its disposal the necessary resources as appropriate, or of any other

documentation to that effect as may be provided for in the tender documents.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, if a tenderer is unable, for well-founded reasons,

to produce the documentation required in the tender documents, then that tenderer

may submit any other document(s), which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

is obliged to examine as to their suitability. It is understood that in this case the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must also examine the validity of the reasons cited by the

tenderer as justification for not submitting the documentation required in the tender

documents. The Competent Body may request additional data or clarifications, should this be

deemed necessary.

If the tenderer is a consortium of persons, the thresholds specified in the tender

documents as criteria for verifying the tenderer’s economic and financial standing

should be satisfied by all members of the consortium, in accordance with the provisions of

tender documents. Similarly, if the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, the

thresholds should be satisfied by the tenderer as well as by such third parties, in accordance

with the provisions of the tender documents.



VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING



TENDERER Α

TENDERER Β

TENDERER C

CONSORTIA

TENDERER D

PERSON Α PERSON Β

Existence of duly completed Table documenting the tenderer’s economic and financial standing

Fulfilment of the requirement ......... (e.g. of minimum average turnover)




1-01-2008




TENDERER Α

TENDERER Β

TENDERER C

CONSORTIA

TENDERER D

PERSON Α PERSON Β

Existence of copies or extracts of financial statements

Correct transfer of financial statements data to the Table documenting the economic and financial standing

Existence of statement of total annual turnover

Consistency of the statement with the Table and the requirements of the tender documents

Existence of bank statements or of evidence of professional risk indemnity insurance


cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been met.

If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met, the corresponding cell must

contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically

mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted items be deemed necessary, the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with

the provisions of the Law.

The above table, which presents the overall picture of the results of the verification of

the economic and financial standing of tenderers, may be supported by individual

tables documenting the fulfilment of individual requirements. For example, regarding the

fulfilment of the requirement for a minimum average turnover, the following table could be

used:



CRITERION: Average turnover for the last three financial years

TENDERER Α TENDERER Β TENDERER C TENDERER D TENDERER E

Minimum: EUR .......

The threshold of the average turnover specified in the tender documents is entered in the

above table, together with the average turnovers of all tenderers.

c. To verify the Technical and/or Professional ability of each tenderer, a check is

conducted to confirm that the relevant criteria specified in the tender documents are

fulfilled. Depending on each particular case, these criteria may concern the following:




1-01-2008

Experience in the implementation of contracts similar to the contract being put out to

tender.

The number of personnel employed and the suitability of the key experts and other

members of the Project team, in the case of public service contracts and public work

contracts.

Requirements regarding the suitability of products, technical equipment, equipment

and means of study and research, organisation and staffing of technical bodies,

machinery, facilities and other infrastructures.

Compliance with quality assurance standards or environmental management

standards.

To verify the fulfilment of the specified criteria, the following are checked:

The existence of a statement (if provided for in the tender documents) containing

general information about the tenderer’s business structure, activity areas, services

provided, and facilities and equipment.

The existence of a list (if provided for in the tender documents) of the personnel of

the tenderer employed under a permanent employment relationship, in the format of

the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents, confirming

that the corresponding participation requirement as specified in the tender

documents has been met.

The existence of CVs (if required) of the key experts or other members of the

proposed Project team, in the format of the standardised templates contained in the

Appendix to the tender documents, confirming that the corresponding participation

requirements as specified in the tender documents (number of experts, minimum

qualifications of each expert) have been met.

The existence of a list of Projects (if provided for in the tender documents), in the

format of the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents,

the actual degree of relevance of the Projects in the list to the scope of the contract,

and the implementation of the minimum required number of contracts with a relevant

scope, as provided for in the tender documents.

The existence of data (if required) documenting the successful implementation of the

projects, as provided for in the tender documents.

The existence of a certification (if required) establishing the tenderer’s compliance

with a quality assurance standard based on the CYS EN ISO 9000 series of Cyprus

standards or other equivalent certification(s) issued by organisations having their

registered office in other Member States, or other evidence of equivalent quality

assurance measures, as provided for in the tender documents.

The existence of a certificate (if required) establishing that the tenderer complies with

specific standards concerning environmental management, or other equivalent

evidence of environmental management measures.

The availability of the necessary resources in the third parties (ιf the tenderer relies

on the capacities of such third parties) and the existence of declarations by the third




1-01-2008

parties, whereby they guarantee to the Contracting Authority that, should the

tenderer be appointed contractor, they shall place at its disposal the necessary

resources as appropriate, or any other documentation to that effect as may be

specified in the tender documents.

If the tenderer is a consortium of persons, the specific requirements of the tender

documents specified as criteria for verifying the tenderer’s technical or professional

ability must be met by all members of the consortium, in accordance with the provisions of

the tender documents. Similarly, if the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, the

requirements must be met cumulatively by the tenderer and by such third parties, in

accordance with the provisions of the tender documents.



VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITY



TENDERER Α

TENDERER Β

TENDERER C

CONSORTIA

TENDERER D

PERSON Α PERSON Β

Experience in the implementation of relevant contracts

List <number> of contracts

Documentation of successful implementation <number> of contracts

Minimum personnel employed <number>

Suitability of key experts of the Project Team, on the basis of their CVs (may be developed into detailed individual verifications for each key expert and for each individual qualification requested of such expert).

Suitability of products, technical equipment, equipment and means of study and research, organisation and staffing of technical bodies, machinery, facilities and other infrastructures (as applicable in each case).

Compliance with quality assurance standards

Compliance with environmental management standards

Statements by third parties


cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been fully met.




1-01-2008

If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met or it is partially met, the

corresponding cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the

deviation should be specifically mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted

informational documents be considered necessary, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with the provisions of the Law.

The above table, which presents the overall picture of the results of the verification of

the technical and professional ability of the tenderers, may be supported by specific

tables documenting the fulfilment of individual requirements. For example, regarding the

fulfilment of the requirement for a minimum number of contracts with a relevant scope, the

following Table could be completed:

VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITIES


CRITERION: Number of contracts with a relevant scope

TENDERER Α

Minimum number of contracts: ...........

Title of contract 1 Title of contract 2 Title of contract 3

Relevance of scope

Minimum budget of each contract: EUR ....

Budget of contract 1 Budget of contract 2 Budget of contract 3

Minimum participation rate in each contract: ..%

Participation rate in contract 1



Minimum completion rate of each contract: ..%

Completion rate of contract 1




TENDERER Β

Minimum number of contracts: ...........

Title of contract 1 Title of contract 2 Title of contract 3

Relevance of scope

Minimum budget of each contract: EUR ....

Budget of contract 1 Budget of contract 2 Budget of contract 3

Minimum participation rate in each contract: ..%




Minimum completion rate of each contract: ..%




The minimum requirements specified in the tender documents are entered in the first column

of the above table, while the respective performance of each tenderer is entered in each one

of the other columns. A tick (√) is entered in the cells of the “Relevance of scope” row to

indicate that the requirement has been met.

Clarifications for the purposes of the qualitative selection

If during the verification of the personal situation, economic and financial standing, and

technical and/or professional ability of the tenderers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation

of Tenders ascertains that additions or clarifications are required in connection with the




1-01-2008

supporting documents submitted together with the tenders, then it may request tenderers to

provide such clarifications.

The option to request clarifications must be strictly defined at the discretion of the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and must be governed by the principles of equal

treatment, transparency, non-discrimination, proportionality and mutual recognition. It is

obvious that, in line with these principles, the possibility to provide clarifications on, or make

additions to, supporting documents that refer to the same qualitative selection criterion and to

similar ambiguities or omissions, is not allowed to be granted selectively to specific

tenderers.

Supplementing submitted documents may under no circumstances be considered as a

clarification on, or addition to, such documents. Thus, it is not allowed to replace:

Supporting documents not submitted together with the tender.

Supporting documents and information not submitted in accordance with the

law.

The meaning of the term “not submitted in accordance with the law” includes e.g. certificates

with a date of issue other than the one specified in the tender documents.

In this respect, an addition to, or clarification on, submitted documents and certificates is

taken to mean the addition to a submitted document of any data which had been omitted by

mistake.

Moreover, the submission of missing supporting documents at a time after the submission of

the tender can not be considered as addition or clarification, as the latter refer exclusively to

supporting documents which have already been submitted. Thus, for example, the

submission –after the deadline for the submission of tenders– of documentation (certificates

or acceptance protocols) regarding the successful implementation of the projects listed in the

table of relevant projects for the purpose of documenting the experience of the tenderer, can

not possibly be considered as addition to, or clarification on, the supporting documents

submitted.

Ranking of participants on the basis of the qualitative selection

If, in the case of a restricted procedure, the tender documents provide for a limited number of

candidates who shall be invited to tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

is obliged, upon completion of the verification of fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria

as described in the previous Section, to proceed to the ranking of the candidates meeting the

qualitative selection criteria, by applying the relevant rules provided for in the tender

documents.

No ranking is required, even if provided for in the tender documents, in the event that the

number of candidate economic operators who submit a request to participate in the tender

procedure, or the number of those of them who fulfil the qualitative selection criteria, is lower

than or equal to the maximum number of candidates who will be invited to tender as provided

for in the tender documents.

The candidates meeting the qualitative selection criteria are ranked using one of the




1-01-2008

qualitative selection criteria or a combination of suitably weighted qualitative selection

criteria, in accordance with the method provided for in the tender documents.

The procedure to be followed by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

regarding the ranking of candidates is obvious, provided such action is specified in the tender

documents, and it is carried out as follows:

Either by using only one of the qualitative selection criteria, e.g. based on the

turnover or on the number of persons in the permanent employment of the tenderers

or on the number of successfully completed relevant contracts and, if the number of

relevant contracts is the same, on their budget,

Or by using more than one criteria but without the weighting procedure, e.g. based

on the number of successfully completed relevant contracts and, if the number of

relevant contracts is the same, on the number of persons in the permanent

employment of the tenderers.

Contrary to the above, if the tender documents provide for a procedure involving the

weighting of several criteria for the ranking of candidates, then the task of the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders becomes more complex.

To understand the optimal working method of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders as far as the procedure for the ranking of candidate economic operators is

concerned, a relevant application example is given below. This example follows the

corresponding example presented for the definition of criteria and weighting factors in

paragraph 3.2.3.2 of Chapter 3 of the Guide.

APPLICATION EXAMPLE

The tender documents of a tender procedure conducted using the restricted procedure

provide that the following criteria along with the respective weight factors shall be used to

rank candidate economic operators at the qualitative selection (prequalification) stage:

o Experience in the implementation of similar projects: Weighting factor 5

o Turnover: Weighting factor 3

o Number of permanently employed personnel: Weighting factor 2

For each one of the aforementioned criteria, the tender documents also identify specific

thresholds and respective marks, as follows:

o Experience in the implementation of similar projects

If the minimum number of projects implemented by the candidate economic operator

has been set to 3 projects, then the thresholds are determined as follows:

Number of projects: 3 – 5 MARK 1

Number of projects: 6 – 9 MARK 2

Number of projects: > 9 MARK 3

o Turnover




1-01-2008

If the minimum turnover has been set to 100% of the contract budget, then the

thresholds are determined as follows:

Turnover: 100% - 150% of the budget MARK 1

Turnover: 151% - 200% of the budget MARK 2

Turnover > 200% of the budget MARK 3

o Number of permanently employed personnel

If the minimum number of permanently employed personnel has been set to 20, then

the thresholds are determined as follows:

Number of employed personnel: 20 – 30 MARK 1

Number of employed personnel: 31 – 50 MARK 2

Number of employed personnel > 50 MARK 3

Eight (8) candidate economic operators submitted a request to participate in the tender

procedure.

During the procedure of preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders, of

verification of formal requirements for participation, and of the review of fulfilment of the

qualitative selection criteria, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders established

that seven (7) out of the eight (8) candidates may be considered eligible.

The characteristics of the seven candidates with respect to the criteria under evaluation are

as follows:

CANDIDATE 1

Number of projects: 2; Turnover: 120% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 25

CANDIDATE 2


CANDIDATE 3


CANDIDATE 4


CANDIDATE 5


CANDIDATE 6


CANDIDATE 7


After applying the marks and factors provided for in the tender documents, the following




1-01-2008

markings result for each candidate:

CANDIDATE 1: (1 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 10

CANDIDATE 2: (3 Χ 5) + (3 Χ 3) + (2 Χ 2) = 28

CANDIDATE 3: (1 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 13

CANDIDATE 4: (2 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (3 Χ 2) = 22

CANDIDATE 5: (1 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (3 Χ 2) = 17

CANDIDATE 6: (1 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (2 Χ 2) = 12

CANDIDATE 7: (2 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 15

The final ranking of the candidate economic operators is as follows:

CANDIDATE 1: 28

CANDIDATE 4: 22

CANDIDATE 5: 17

CANDIDATE 7: 15

CANDIDATE 3: 13

CANDIDATE 6: 12

CANDIDATE 1: 10

If the tender documents provide for limiting the number of candidates to five (5), Candidates

1 and 6 shall not be invited to tender for the purposes of technical evaluation.

Dealing with special cases during the Qualitative Selection procedure

During the conduct of the individual activities involved in the completion of the qualitative

selection stage, particular problems may emerge, on which the Competent Body for the

Evaluation must decide accordingly.

The following Table includes examples of such special cases, along with the manner

for dealing with each particular case:

DEALING WITH SPECIAL CASES DURING THE QUALITATIVE SELECTION PROCEDURE

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL CASE PROPER METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE CASE

In a restricted procedure, the number

of submitted requests to participate is

lower than the minimum number

provided for in the tender documents

(pursuant to the Law, this minimum

number is five - 5).

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may (but is not

obliged to) conclude the qualitative selection stage and proceed to

the second phase of the contract award, should it deem that the

number of the candidates it shall invite to tender is sufficient to

ensure genuine competition.

In a restricted procedure, the number The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may (but is not




1-01-2008



of candidates fulfilling the qualitative

selection criteria is lower than the

minimum number provided for in the

tender documents (pursuant to the

Law, this minimum number is five -

5).

obliged to) conclude the qualitative selection stage and proceed to

the second phase of the contract award, should the Competent

Body for the Award of the Contract deem that the number of the

candidates it shall invite to tender is sufficient to ensure genuine

competition.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders however may

not disregard the predetermined qualitative selection criteria and

thus admit to the second phase of the contract award certain

candidates who were initially excluded from the tender procedure,

only in order to secure the minimum number of prequalified

candidates.

Furthermore, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

may not include in the second phase of the contract award

economic operators who have not submitted a request to

participate, simply in order to secure the minimum number of

prequalified candidates.

In an open procedure, only one

economic operator submits a tender.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders proceeds to

conclude the qualitative selection stage, applying the relevant

provisions of the tender documents, and:

In case it is ascertained that this single tender does not fulfil the

qualitative selection criteria, then it shall draw up a report

recommending to the Competent Body for the Award of the

Contract the cancellation of the tender procedure.

In any other case, the evaluation procedure continues normally,

since the submission of a single tender does not necessarily

entail the cancellation of the tender procedure. However, it may

serve as indication that the terms of the tender documents

contain conditions or technical specifications to which potential

candidates can not respond, or that these specifications lead

exclusively to a specific economic operator. If the Competent

Body for the Award of the Contract confirms one of the

aforementioned indications, then it should cancel the tender

procedure. If such reasons for cancelling the tender procedure

do not exist, then the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders should proceed with the evaluation of the tender and

should cancel the tender procedure only if the evaluation result

shows that the single tender submitted does not meet the

requirements of the Contracting Authority in terms of the

expected level of quality and price. The term “expected level” is

taken to mean the level that the Contracting Authority could

have achieved had more tenderers participated in the tender




1-01-2008



procedure.

Drawing up of the Qualitative Selection Report

The procedure of verifying the fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria is concluded with

the preparation of a relevant report, which –only in the restricted procedure– the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders submits for approval to the Competent Body for the

Award of the Contract. In the open procedure, the Qualitative Selection Report should be

prepared together with the Technical Evaluation Report, and both of them should then be

submitted to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract. The indicative contents of

the Qualitative Selection Report are presented in Annex 4-1.

All individual Minutes of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, together with the

following duly completed tables, are attached to the Qualitative Selection Report and form

integral parts thereof:


VERIFICATION OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION

VERIFICATION OF PERSONAL SITUATION


VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITY

The procedure followed must be analysed in the Qualitative Selection Report, with

specific references to:

The cases of exclusion, if any, of tenderers from participation in the tender

procedure and from the further stages of the procedure regarding the evaluation of

their tenders.

The precise reasons for their exclusion, which must be described in a documented

manner, with mention of the specific point(s) of the tender documents or the specific

provisions of the Law that impose the exclusion.

The deviations, if any, considered to be minor.

The precise reasons and data on which the deviations considered to be minor were

based.

The minority vote, if any, expressed during the qualitative selection procedure, as

described in the respective Minutes.

The Qualitative Selection Report is essentially the text that brings together all individual

references to the above matters, as these are included in the Minutes drawn up for each

meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph 4.1.2 of this Chapter.




1-01-2008

Documenting exclusions is usually a simple procedure and can be expressed solely

by means of references to the points of the tender documents or to the provisions of

the Law from which the tender deviates. On the contrary, the detailed reference to the

reasons for which existing deviations are designated as minor and do not lead to exclusion,

is absolutely necessary. It is obvious that it is not possible to standardise the manner in

which a deviation is designated as substantial or minor. In any case, the Competent Body for

the Evaluation of Tenders must apply its fair judgement, taking into account the provisions of

the tender documents, the degree to which the specific qualitative selection criterion is

related to the specific scope of the contract, the type and magnitude of the deviation, the

existence of similar minor deviations, if any, in all or most of the tenders, etc.

Given that the participants have a legitimate interest in filing a hierarchical recourse

when they deem their interests to be at stake, the Competent Body for the Evaluation

of Tenders must take into account that a recourse filed by a tenderer against the non-

exclusion of one of its competitors is equally likely with a recourse filed by the same tenderer

against its own exclusion.

In the open procedure, and in cases of non-complex contracts or of contracts of

limited interest or low budget, this step may be omitted and the Qualitative Selection

Report may be included in the Technical Evaluation Report. However, in these cases too, the

description of the qualitative selection procedure must be fully distinct, so that the Competent

Body for the Award of the Contract may verify that the terms of the tender documents and

the provisions of the applicable legislation have been faithfully adhered to.

General evaluation of Technical Offers

This step commences immediately after the conclusion of the qualitative selection procedure

and the preparation of the Qualitative Selection Report.

It involves the review of the technical offers as to their completeness and the extent to which

they satisfy the requirements, terms of reference and specifications of the contract, as these

are described in the tender documents. It is understood that this review refers only to the

offers submitted by economic operators who have been qualified as a result of the qualitative

selection procedure.

This particular step presents serious difficulties for the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders, at least in the case of complex contracts with correspondingly complex technical

offers.

In order to successfully complete the procedure for the general evaluation of technical offers,

the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must:

Be fully prepared, having studied the tender documents and understood the scope of

the contract and the objectives of Contracting Authority, as described in Section 4.3.3

of the present Chapter.

Study thoroughly the technical offers, together with the requirements and

specifications of the tender documents.

Have a broad knowledge of the specific, depending on the nature of the contract,

market and of its potential.




1-01-2008

The way in which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions in this step of

the procedure depends on the knowledge, experience and culture of its members.

However, the Competent Body would be greatly assisted in the successful completion of its

tasks within the specified timeframe, which as a rule is particularly tight, if it were to follow a

well- planned and systematic procedure, which might indicatively include the steps presented

in the following Table:

INDICATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE GENERAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL OFFERS

STEP ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPETENT BODY

1

First meeting of the Competent Body for the purposes of the general evaluation of the

technical offers, during which the following take place:

Initial review of the offers to be evaluated, to obtain a general idea of their structure

and contents and to identify any serious omissions or shortcomings (i.e. omission of

an entire chapter from those required in the tender documents).

Undertaking by each member of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

to thoroughly review one or more technical offers, depending on their number. It is

obvious that where the number of offers is less than the members of the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, two members may undertake to review the same

offer.

Establishment of a work schedule for the tasks to be performed by the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, on the basis of the time constraints specified in

the tender documents.

Setting the date and time for the second meeting of the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders.

2

Thorough individual review of the technical offers (each member reviews the technical

offer for which he is responsible), and drawing up of a personal summary report,

containing general remarks by the member and a list of the strengths and weaknesses of

the offer, in the opinion of the member and in accordance with the requirements of the

tender documents, on which discussions and exchange of views should follow.

3 Second (or even third, if more time is needed) meeting of the Competent Body for the




1-01-2008

INDICATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE GENERAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL OFFERS

STEP ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPETENT BODY

Evaluation of Tenders, during which the following take place:

General presentation of each offer by the member(s) who reviewed it.

Distribution of the personal summary reports to all members of the Body.

Discussion and exchange of views about the general presentations.

Swapping of offers between members, with each member undertaking to review a

different offer than the one previously reviewed, so that all members may form a

personal opinion of every offer.

4 Individual review of the technical offers and incorporation by each member to the first

personal summary report for the offer under review, of any new remarks, additions or

comments.

5 Next meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation, during which:

The discussion and exchange of views on the contents of the technical offers is

continued.

The personal summary reports, in which the new remarks have been incorporated,

are distributed to all members of the Body.

Offers are swapped between members, with each member undertaking to review a

different offer than the ones he has already reviewed.

6 Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until all members have reviewed all technical offers.

Where the tender documents provide for the obligation of the tenderer to complete a

Tender Summary and Technical Specifications Compliance Table, in the format of a

relevant template contained in the tender documents, this template may serve as an

additional tool for the completion of the general evaluation of the technical offers by the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of tenders, with the points covered by the offer under

evaluation and those from which it deviates being noted on the Table.

Readers are reminded that the sole purpose of the above procedure or any procedure which

the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may choose to follow, is to ensure

conditions that will allow a correct and fair opinion to be formed regarding:

The possible rejections of offers not meeting the technical specifications and the

requirements of the terms of reference.

The marking of the rest of the offers during the next step of the procedure, if the

criterion for the award of the contract is the most economically advantageous tender.

The case of presentations of the Technical Offers

This step refers to the cases where the tender documents provide for the presentation of the

offers by the tenderers.




1-01-2008

The presentation of the offers is carried out in the manner and at the place specified in the

tender documents, and at a time set by the Contracting Authority during the period of the

technical evaluation.

This particular procedure aims to assist the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders in formulating a fair opinion of the technical value of the offered solutions.

Therefore, the presentations must be scheduled to take place within the period of time during

which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders reviews the contents of the

technical offers and, where the method outlined in the table of the previous Section is

followed, after Step 6 of the procedure.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders sets a specific date (or dates, if offers are

too many) and time for the presentations, and sends a relevant invitation to the tenderers. In

setting this specific date, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should take into

account:

The need for timely notification of the parties concerned.

The availability of the members, so as to eliminate the possibility of them being

unable to participate.

The need to secure a room and other projection/display facilities required for the

presentations.

The time allowed to tenderers for their presentations, which is recommended to vary

between 20 and 40 minutes, depending on the complexity of the contract scope, must be

made known to the tenderers so as to allow them to prepare accordingly for their

presentations.

The presentation of the offers may prove extremely useful to the Competent Body for

the Evaluation of Tenders in formulating a fair opinion. However, it involves risks

which must be taken into account in order to determine in advance the manner in which

presentations will be conducted and the privileges that will be granted to the tenderers during

them.

In particular, during the presentations the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tender should:

Avoid the extensive exchange of views and the submission of specific questions,

especially in connection with queries which have arisen during the review of the

technical offers. Readers are reminded that such queries can (and should) be

answered by means of requesting written clarifications.

Not allow the presentation of issues to which no relevant reference is made in the

offer or, in any case, stress that such references shall not be taken into account in the

evaluation.

During the presentations, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must keep

Minutes, where it shall record the procedure followed and the main points on which the

tenderers focused their presentations. These Minutes shall form part of the Technical

Evaluation Report.




1-01-2008

Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the technical evaluation

If, during the general evaluation of technical offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders ascertains that certain points need to be clarified, it may request tenderers to

provide relevant clarifications in writing.

It is understood that in the extreme case of an offer which is full of ambiguities to

such an extent that it becomes vague and impossible to evaluate, submission of a

request for clarifications is not advisable and the offer should be designated as eliminable.

Additionally, no request for clarifications is necessary in the case of offers which include

generalities or ambiguous and vague expressions which nevertheless do not lead to dispute

of the type or quality of the technical solutions offered. In such cases, the generalities or the

ambiguous and vague expressions may constitute grounds for a low mark in the next step of

the evaluation procedure, for contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically

advantageous tender.

The option to request clarifications must be exercised sparingly, must be strictly

defined for each particular case at the discretion of the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders, and must be governed by the principles of equal treatment, non

discrimination and transparency.

The main objective of the Competent Body in this case is to clarify any unclear points

of the offers, without however providing tenderers with the opportunity to differentiate

their offers or add elements not included in the solution which they have already offered.

In any case, should such a differentiation or addition occur as a result of a question for

clarification, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must not to take it into

account for the purposes of the evaluation, documenting this matter accordingly in the

Minutes.

Marking of Technical Offers

This step involves the marking of technical offers which have not been rejected during the

previous stage of the general technical evaluation, in the case of contracts for which the

award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.

Marking of the technical offers takes place in accordance with the procedure provided for in

the tender documents, and on the basis of the criteria and weighting factors contained in the

Table of Evaluation Criteria given in the tender documents.

Full understanding of the evaluation criteria, specified in the Tender Documents, in terms of

their detailed contents, the parts of the tender documents to which they are related, and any

specific parameters to be taken into account for their correct use, is a prerequisite for the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to proceed with the marking of the offers.

The breakdown of each evaluation criterion into individual parameters should be made by the

members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, based on their professional

experience and knowledge. In case the meaning of certain of the individual evaluation criteria

can not be easily understood from the tender documents, the Competent Body may contact




1-01-2008

the Contracting Authority or the team responsible for the preparation of the tender

documents, to request relevant clarifications.

To facilitate the understanding of the evaluation criteria, the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up /

complete on a case by case basis:

TABLE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation

Criterion

Relevant parts of

the tender documents Parameters to be taken into account

1.

Contract scope

implementation

schedule

Technical Offer – Section

Α, paragraph (c): Schedule

of activities

1. Timely implementation of the

contract and timely delivery of all

deliverables foreseen.

2. Feasibility and realistic nature of

the schedule, also in relation to the

resources made available.

3. Identification of critical points.

4. Correct interdependence of

activities.

2.

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.

1

2

4.

1

2

3

. .

Readers are reminded that in the case of public service contracts, the mark given to each

criterion may range from a minimum level, provided for in the tender documents for each

particular case, and up to a maximum level of 100 points, while in the case of public supply

contracts it may range from a minimum level to a maximum level in accordance with the

provisions of the tender documents (e.g. from 80 to 120 points).

The marking of technical offers at this stage of the evaluation procedure should be

based on the criteria specified in the Tender Documents, using as reference the

corresponding requirements of the Tender Documents and it should t be governed by the




1-01-2008

following basic rules:

If the requirement is fully met, the mark given to the corresponding criterion is 100

points.

Especially in the case of public supply contracts, if the requirement is exceeded, the

marks given to the specific criterion may reach up to the maximum level provided for

in the tender documents (usually 120 points).

In the event that the requirement is not fully met but the offer has been already

deemed admissible and the deviation has been considered as minor, the mark given

to the specific criterion is lowered, and may even reach the minimum level provided

for in the tender documents for each particular case (usually 80 points).

It should be clear that no mark below the minimum level specified in the tender

documents is allowed to be given to any of the evaluation criteria, as this would mean

that the offer should have been excluded in the previous step of the general technical

evaluation. However, it can not be ruled out that, as a result of the verification of the level to

which a particular evaluation criterion is met, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders may ascertain that an offer contains substantial deviations from the requirements of

the tender documents regarding the specific criterion. In such a case, the Competent Body

must record its findings in the Minutes of the corresponding meeting, and must designate the

specific offer as eliminable.

The technical offers are marked by being compared to the requirements of the

Contracting Authority and not by being compared to each other. The Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should not give high marks to an offer simply because it

is better than the others, which are of a poor level. Additionally, the marking of offers should

not necessarily cover the entire range of marking options, with the best offer (regardless of

how good it is) being given the highest mark and the worst offer (regardless of how poor it is)

being given by default the lowest mark. In other words, the marking of each offer should not

be related to the other offers but to the requirements of the Contracting Authority, as these

are expressed in the tender documents.

To conclude the marking procedure of the technical offers, each member of the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to give a mark to each criterion in the Table of

Evaluation Criteria.

The final mark of each evaluation criterion is the average of the individual marks given by the

members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders.

It is understood that before the marking procedure commences, a relevant discussion

and exchange of views should take place between the members of the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in order to reach the highest possible degree of

convergence.

The final mark of each individual criterion is then weighted using the weighting factor for that

particular criterion, and is rounded to 2 decimal digits.

The sum of the weighted marks of the individual criteria is the final technical evaluation mark

of each tender.




1-01-2008

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use for

each offer under evaluation a table in the following form, which it should draw up /

complete on a case by case basis:

MARKING OF OFFER 1

Evaluation criteria

Weighting factor

(%)

Member Α

Member Β

Member C

Member D

Member Ε

Average mark

Average mark

Χ weighting

factor

1 Α

2 Β

3 C

4 D

5 Ε

6 F

7 G

8 Η

9 I

10 J

FINAL EVALUATION MARK OF OFFER 1

The final evaluation marks of the Technical Offers are then recorded in the Minutes of the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, with adequate documentation of the marks

given.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should adequately justify the

marks given to all criteria for all offers. The justification must clearly mention the

shortcomings that led to a reduction in the mark given or the advantages that led to a higher

mark. The advantages or shortcomings should concern the individual parameters into which

each criterion has been broken down.

It is understood that, in all cases, the per cent rate by which the mark is increased or lowered

must be commensurate to the respective shortcoming or advantage, with strict observance of

the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

The justification of the marks given by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders becomes extremely difficult when the views of the members diverge and

extreme deviations are observed in their markings. Furthermore, the divergence of views

between the members also gives rise to doubts within the Competent Body for the Award of

the Contract regarding the way the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions

and, in the event of a hierarchical recourse being filed in the future, increases the risk of

cancellation decisions being issued by the Tenders Review Authority. For these reasons, it is

absolutely necessary, in all cases where such divergence of views occurs, for the members

of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to discuss the matter extensively and

exchange views and arguments, with the aim to reach unanimity or at least some degree of

convergence. If, despite the efforts made, it proves impossible for the views of the members




1-01-2008

of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to converge, a specific reference to the

divergence should be made in the Minutes, and the different views should be recorded

together with the justification of each one of them.

In cases where the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender,

and where the tender documents provide that tenders failing to obtain a mark higher

than the minimum mark specified in the tender documents, which is calculated as a

percentage of the mark obtained by the tender with the highest technical evaluation mark,

shall not proceed to the stage of evaluation of Financial Offers, the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders must rank the tenders in decreasing order of the technical offer

evaluation mark.

For presenting the ranking of the technical offers in such a case, the Competent Body

for the Evaluation of Tenders may use the following table:

RANKING OF TECHNICAL OFFERS

No.

NAME OF TENDERER

TECHNICAL

OFFER EVALUATION

MARK (Τ)

PERCENT RATE

OF HIGHEST TECHNICAL

EVALUATION MARK (Τ)

PARTICIPATION IN THE

FINANCIAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE (YES – NO)

1

2

3

4

5

6

. .

. .

. .

Drawing up of the Technical Evaluation Report

The procedure for the evaluation and marking of the technical offers is concluded with the

preparation of a relevant report. The following are attached to the Technical Evaluation

Report, forming integral thereof:

All the individual Minutes of the meetings of the Competent Body for the Evaluation

of Tenders.

The Minutes drawn up during the presentations of offers, if any took place.

The additional clarifications supplied by the tenderers, if any were requested.

The completed tables used for marking each offer.

The table with the ranking of technical offers, if such a table was used.




1-01-2008

The Technical Evaluation Report must present an analysis of the procedure followed, with

specific references to:

The cases of any tenders rejected during the general evaluation procedure.

The precise reasons for rejection, which must be described in a documented

manner, with mention of the specific point(s) of the tender documents and, more

specifically, of the technical specifications and of the terms of reference, that

necessitated the rejection.

The deviations, if any, considered to be minor by the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders.

The precise reasons and data on which the Competent Body for the Evaluation

based its reasoning in determining these deviations to be minor.

The general and specific reasons for individual marks given by the members of the

Competent Body for Evaluation to the evaluation criteria, should assessments

between the members differ.

The Technical Evaluation Report is essentially the text that brings together all individual

references to the above matters, as these are included in the Minutes drawn up for each

meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph 4.1.2 of this Chapter. The indicative contents of the Technical

Evaluation Report are presented in Annex 4-1.

If the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders assesses, that none of the offers

meets the terms or the technical specifications of the tender documents or that, on

account of certain of the terms or technical specifications, the tender procedure leads

exclusively to a specific economic operator and provided that it can support its assessment

by indisputable evidence, it may recommend in the Technical Evaluation Report the

cancellation of the tender procedure by the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract.

The Technical Evaluation Report must address in a satisfactory way all intentions of

disputing the manner in which the procedure for the technical evaluation and marking

of the offers was conducted. Furthermore, it should be drawn up with a view to defending the

actions of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and of the Contracting Authority

in the event of a hierarchical recourse being filed, so that in such a case the hierarchical

recourse may be rebutted merely by using the texts of the Technical Evaluation Report.

Approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report

The body responsible for approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation

Report, may:

Approve the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report and accept the

recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders regarding:

The offers that were considered to be eliminable, and

The marking of the rest of the offers.




1-01-2008

Approve the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report and accept the

relevant recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders,

cancelling the tender procedure.

Choose not to accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation

of Tenders regarding the rejection of one or more of the tenderers or the marking of

one or more of the criteria, and decide otherwise.


of Tenders, and cancel the tender procedure.

It is understood that despite the aforementioned theoretical option of not accepting the

recommendations of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, the

Competent Body for the Award of the Contract is usually expected to agree with the

recommendation, with the exception of the case where the cancellation of the tender

procedure is necessitated for departmental reasons not having to do with the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and of the potential existence of serious and

substantiated suspicions regarding the functioning of the Competent Body for the Evaluation

of Tenders and the legitimacy of its actions in the performance of its duties.

General evaluation of Financial Offers

After the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report is approved by the

appropriate competent body, the sub-envelopes of the financial offers are opened (where the

submission of two separate sub-envelopes is provided for) for the tenders that have not been

rejected in the previous stages of evaluation, and the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders proceeds to the step of the general evaluation of the financial offers.

For the purposes of this stage, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should

establish the responsiveness of the financial offer to the relevant requirements of the tender

documents by examining the contents of the financial offers. In particular, it checks the

completed tables of the financial offer to confirm their completeness and the correctness of

the relevant calculations.

If the offered price does not result with absolute clarity from the contents of the

financial offer, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may deem the offer

to be eliminable. However, if the financial offer contains minor omissions or errors which may

be objectively considered to be obvious and which can be corrected without raising doubts

as to the accuracy of the correction, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may,

and is advised to, make the relevant corrections. Especially in cases where the tender

documents specify the manner in which wrong calculations are to be handled (e.g. the tender

documents of a public works contract may provide for the possibility of correcting arithmetical

errors, where if there is a discrepancy between the unit price and the total price for the

quantity, the unit price shall prevail and the total price shall be corrected), the Competent

Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to make the relevant corrections.

The evaluation of financial offers, in contrast to that of technical offers, is comparative.

In addition to checking the relevant tables of the financial offer, the Competent Body

for the Evaluation of Tenders should take all actions required in order to ensure the

comparability of the offers under evaluation and, more specifically:




1-01-2008

Where the prices of an offer are expressed in foreign currency, it must convert them

to Euro, using the Foreign to Euro exchange rate (sale price) published by the Central

Bank on the closing date for the submission of tenders. If the closing date for the

submission of tenders is a bank holiday, then the exchange rate of the working day

which immediately precedes the closing date shall be used.

Where a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, and if the offers

specify different payment methods, it must proceed to convert all amounts payable to

current prices using the factor for conversion to current prices which is specified in


Where a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, and if any of the

proposed solutions require special conditions to be secured by the Contracting

Authority, it must apply the procedure specified in the tender documents in order to

make the offers comparable.

If, during the general evaluation of financial offers, it is ascertained that certain offers do not

meet the terms and conditions specified in the tender documents, e.g. when the offered price

is denominated in a currency not included in the allowed currencies, or a payment method

other then the specified one is proposed, or if conditions contradictory to the general

conditions of contract are imposed regarding the time and method of payment, the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must designate these offers as eliminable,

documenting the precise reasons for their rejection.

Special reasons for rejection which may arise during this step of the procedure, in addition to

those indicatively mentioned in the previous paragraph, are the following:

In the case of public supply contracts, when it is ascertained that the price policy

applied in an offer involves sale prices which are below the manufacturing cost of the

product or the acquisition price of the product for trading (price dumping), or if export

subsidy is received for the product offered.

In all cases of public contracts, when it is ascertained that the proposed price of an

offer appears to be abnormally low.

The case where the price of an offer is substantially lower than that of others presents

considerable difficulties. To begin with, it is only to be expected that the members of

the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders will be favourably disposed towards an

offer that seems to suit the requirements of the Contracting Authority, while in parallel

allowing savings to be made in terms of the resources that the Contracting Authority was

expecting to allocate for the specific contract. However, an abnormally low offer may conceal

circumstances which could potentially compromise the successful implementation of the

contract, or even illegal activities. For example, the specific economic operator may have

offered a low price for one or more of the following reasons:

It has misread the requirements of the Contracting Authority.

It has erroneously estimated the potential risks and their consequences.

It acts unfairly, at the expense of healthy competition, in order to maximise its

chances of being awarded the contract.




1-01-2008

It exploits the personnel in its employment or does not comply with the provisions

regarding the protection of employees and their working conditions.

It intends to claim later, as an offset, a decrease of its obligations, taking advantage

of any shortcomings or ambiguities in the tender documents.

In any case, particularly so if it suspects that any of the above is true, the Competent Body

for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to consider the offered price as abnormally low.

In both the above cases which refer to price dumping or to the occurrence of

abnormally low offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged,

before designating the offers as eliminable, to request relevant clarifications in writing by the

tenderers and then decide whether it will accept the clarifications or reject the offers.

The request for clarifications on the financial offers involves the risk of leading to

changes in the offered price, a situation that the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders will not find easy to handle without considerable risk. For this reason, it should be

used solely in the aforementioned cases, and always in accordance with the principles of

equal treatment and transparency.

Regarding public supply contracts, if it is ascertained that the price policy applied involves

sale prices which are below the manufacturing cost of the product or the acquisition price of

the product for trading (dumping price), or if export subsidy is received for the product

offered, the clarifications supplied by the tenderers must confirm that:

The tenderers are aware of the relevant measures applicable in the country of origin

of the product or in the country of the manufacturer.

The offered product is not part of a price dumping policy and no export subsidy is

received for it.

In the case of abnormally low offers, the supplied clarifications may particularly refer to:

The economics of the construction method, the manufacturing process or the services

provided;

The technical solutions chosen and/or any exceptionally favourable conditions

available to the tenderer for the execution of the work, for the supply of the goods or

services;

The originality of the work, supplies or services proposed by the tenderer.

Compliance with the provisions relating to employment protection and working

conditions in force at the place where the work, service or supply is to be performed;

The possibility of the tenderer obtaining State aid.

Marking of Financial Offers

In this step of the evaluation procedure, the relative cost of each offer is calculated as

follows:

Financial Offer of Lowest Bidder

Relative cost = ------------------------------------------------------- x 100




1-01-2008

Financial Offer under Evaluation

where the Financial Offer under Evaluation is defined as the total amount which the tenderer

intends to charge for implementing the contract, exclusive of VAT, and the Financial Offer of

Lowest Bidder is defined as the offer with the lowest price.

The step of marking the financial offers forms part of the evaluation procedure only in the

case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous

tender.

Ranking of tenders

After the conclusion of the procedure of evaluation of financial offers, the Competent Body

for the Evaluation of Tenders must proceed to establish the final ranking of the tenders.

In the case of contracts for which the award criterion is exclusively the lowest price, the

tenders are ranked in decreasing order of offered price.

For presenting the final ranking of tenders in the case of contracts for which the award

criterion is exclusively the lowest price, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders may use the following table:

FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS

No. NAME OF TENDERER OFFERED PRICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

. .

. .

. .

In the case of equivalent tenders with the same –lowest– price, their details are

entered in rows #1 and #2 of the Table. It is pointed out that in this case the award of

the contract by the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract shall take place by draw or

by applying any other procedure (e.g. splitting of the contract scope, if this is feasible)

provided for in the tender documents.

In the case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous

tender, the tenders are ranked in decreasing order of their Final Mark (L), which is calculated

by applying the formula specified in the tender documents, which has the following form:

L = Τ * <per cent weighting factor> + C * < per cent weighting factor>




1-01-2008

where:

Τ = the technical offer evaluation mark, and

C = the relative cost of the financial offer.

The most economically advantageous tender is that with the highest Final mark (L) and, in

the case of tenders with the same Final Mark (L), the tender with the highest technical offer

evaluation mark, when a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents.

For presenting the final ranking of tenders in the case of contracts for which the award

criterion is the most economically advantageous tender, the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders may use the following table:

FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS

No. NAME OF TENDERER

OFFERED PRICE

RELATIVE COST

(C)

TECHNICAL OFFER

EVALUATION MARK

(Τ)

FINAL MARK

OF TENDER

(L)

1

2

3

4

5

6

. .

. .

. .

Drawing up the Final Evaluation Report

The evaluation procedure is concluded with the preparation and submission of the Final

Evaluation Report to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract for approval.

The following are attached to the Final Evaluation Report, forming integral parts thereof:

The Qualitative Selection Report.

The Technical Evaluation Report.

The individual Minutes of the meetings of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders, held for the purposes of evaluating the financial offers.

The additional clarifications supplied by the tenderers, if any were requested.




1-01-2008

All documentation material collected or drawn up by the Competent Body for the

Evaluation of Tenders in the performance of its work.

The Final Evaluation Report is duly submitted and is accompanied by the tenders and any

other element of the tender procedure file which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders may have available.

If the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders estimates, for reasons which it

may indisputably document, that the prices of all offers meeting the terms and

technical specifications of the tender documents are unrealistic or appear to be the product

of collusion between the tenderers, resulting in the circumvention of healthy competition, it

may recommend in the Final Evaluation Report the cancellation of the tender procedure by

the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract

The submission of the Final Evaluation Report signals the conclusion of the activities of the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, subject to the future need, if any, to support

the Contracting Authority, should a hierarchical recourse be filed against its final decisions.

4.4 AWARD OF CONTRACT

4.4.1 Approval of the Final Evaluation Report and Award of the

Contract

The body responsible for approval of the Final Evaluation Report, has the power to:

Approve the Final Evaluation Report and accept the relevant recommendation of the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders:

Awarding the contract to the tenderer whose tender was selected, following

the evaluation procedure, as the most economically advantageous one or the

one with the lowest price, in the case of contracts for which the award criterion

is the most economically advantageous tender or exclusively the lowest price,

respectively.

Rejecting the tenders considered, in accordance with the Final Evaluation

Report, to be eliminable.

Approve the Final Evaluation Report and accept the relevant recommendation of the

Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, cancelling the tender procedure.


of Tenders, and award the contract to a tenderer other than the tenderer suggested

by the Competent Body.


of Tenders, and cancel the tender procedure.

It is understood that despite the aforementioned theoretical option of not accepting the

recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, the Competent Body

for the Award of the Contract is usually expected to agree with the recommendation, with the

exception of the case where the cancellation of the tender procedure is necessitated for




1-01-2008

departmental reasons not having to do with the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders, and of the potential existence of serious and substantiated suspicions

regarding the functioning of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and the

legitimacy of its actions in the performance of its work.

4.4.2 Cancellation of the tender procedure

The tender procedure may be cancelled before the date set for the expiry of the deadline for

the submission of Tenders for specific and justified reasons, by decision of the Contracting

Authority.

Cancellation of the tender procedure after expiry of the deadline for the submission of

tenders may be decided by the competent body of the Contracting Authority, where one or

more of the following conditions apply:

a. When no tender has been submitted within the specified deadline,

b. When it is established that the tender documents contain terms or technical

specifications that can not be met by any of the tenderers or that these

specifications lead exclusively to a specific economic operator,

c. When the prices of all tenders meeting the terms and the technical requirements of

the tender documents are unrealistic or appear to be the product of collusion

between the tenderers, resulting in the circumvention of healthy competition,

d. When the circumstances under which the tender procedure was announced have

changed to such an extent that the scope of the tender procedure is no longer

necessary, or

e. When any other serious unforeseeable reason, which the Competent Body deems

to be justifiable, applies.

The decision of the Contracting Authority to cancel the tender procedure must be fully

justified, particularly so when the cancellation is due to a change in the circumstances

under which the tender procedure was announced or to other unforeseeable reasons. In any

case, the fact that the interested economic operators consumed time and resources, which

can not be considered negligible, for preparing their tenders should not be neglected,

especially in the case of complex contracts with a complicated scope.

In any case, the Contracting Authority should bear in mind that the cancellation of the

tender procedure is a decision that precedes the conclusion of the contract and as

such, pursuant to the law, gives the right to any interested party who has or had an interest in

being awarded the specific contract, and who has sustained or is likely to sustain a loss as a

result of the cancellation, to file a hierarchical recourse to the Tenders Review Authority.




1-01-2008

4.5 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC

OPERATORS

4.5.1 Initial notice to all interested parties

The Contracting Authority informs promptly:

In the event that the tender procedure is cancelled, all tenderers by means of a letter

with the same content, and

In the event that the tender procedure has been concluded, by means of letters with

different content:

The candidate Contractor,

The tenderers who were either excluded during the qualitative selection

procedure or whose tenders were rejected during the technical or financial

evaluation procedure, or who, despite having been qualified, were not

selected for the award of the contract.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the minimum obligations regarding the provision of

information to candidates and tenderers are determined as follows:

The Contracting Authorities inform in writing as soon as possible, and upon request,

the candidates and the tenderers of the decisions taken in connection with the award

of the contract, including the reasons for which they have decided not to award the

contract.

Following a written request by the interested party, the Contracting Authorities notify

within fifteen (15) days at the latest from receipt of the request:

o To each unsuccessful candidate, the reasons for rejecting his application

o To each rejected tenderer, the reasons for the rejection of its tender, justifying

their decision about the non equivalence of the technical specifications or their

decision that the works, supplies or services do not meet the performance or

operation requirements.

o To each tenderer having submitted an admissible tender, the characteristics

and relevant advantages of the selected tender as well as the name of the

contractor.

It is however recommended, as best practice which is also aligned with the key

principle of transparency in public procurement, that the Contracting Authority

examine the possibility to include in the initial letters a summary reference to the specific

reasons that led to the cancellation, exclusion, rejection or non-selection.

It is understood that every tenderer or candidate who so wishes may submit to the

Contracting Authority a request for more detailed information, and the Contracting Authority

is obliged to provide such information.

The Contracting Authority may decide not to disclose certain information, referred to in




1-01-2008

the previous paragraph, concerning the award of the contract, if the disclosure of the said

information may, in its objective judgement, prevent the application of the laws, be contrary

to the public interest or harm the legitimate commercial interests of public or private

economic operators or the conditions of fair competition between them.

4.5.2 Notice to the Contractor

The Contracting Authority informs the candidate contractor of the Award Decision, as soon

as possible after this decision is issued, as described in Section 4.5.1 of the present Chapter.

The initial informational letter should point out that it is sent subject to the filing of hierarchical

recourses, if any, and, consequently, to the issue of relevant decisions by the Tenders

Review Authority.

The initial informational letter to the candidate Contractor should be in the format of the

relevant Template No. 2, contained in Annex 4-2 of the present Chapter.

After establishing that no intention to file a hierarchical recourse has been notified, the

Contracting Authority, within no more than thirty (30) days from the date of issue of the

Award Decision, invites in writing the candidate Contractor to present himself, within a fixed

deadline which should not exceed thirty (30) days, for signing the relevant agreement.

In the event that an intention to file a hierarchical recourse is disclosed, as described in

Section 4.5.4 of the present Chapter, the Contracting Authority notifies accordingly the

candidate Contractor, mentioning specifically any impediment to the signature of the

agreement that arises.

It is understood that the Contracting Authority is responsible for ensuring that all

tenders and tender guarantees submitted in response to the tender procedure remain

valid for the period of time during which any interested party has the right to express its

intention to file an hierarchical recourse. The tender of the candidate Contractor, in particular,

must remain valid at least until the date of signature of the relevant agreement. Should one

or more tenderers express their intention to file a hierarchical recourse within the above-

mentioned period of time, the Contracting Authority must ensure that all tenders remain valid

until the final decisions are taken by the Tenders Review Authority or until signature of the

agreement.

4.5.3 Notice to unsuccessful tenderers

The Contracting Authority informs the unsuccessful tenderers (i.e. the tenderers who were

either excluded during the qualitative selection procedure or whose tenders were rejected

during the technical or financial evaluation procedure, or who, despite having been qualified,

were not selected for the award of the contract) of the Award Decision, as soon as possible

after it is issued.

The initial informational letter to the unsuccessful tenderers should be in the format of

the relevant Template No. 3, contained in Annex 4-2 of the present Chapter.




1-01-2008

4.5.4 Handling of Hierarchical Recourses

Procedure for filing and examination of hierarchical recourses

Pursuant to the provisions of article 94 of the Coordination of Procedures for the Award of

Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts and for

Related Matters Law of 2006 (Law 12(I)/2006) and, respectively, to the provisions of article

78 of the corresponding Water, Energy, Transport and Postal Services Sector Law of 2006

(Law 11(Ι)/2006), the appeal procedures provided for in Title IV – “Tenders Review Authority”

of the Award of Public Contracts (Supplies, Works and Services) Law of 2003 (Law

101(I)/2003) remain in force until a new Law providing for the coordination of appeal

procedures is applied.

Pursuant to Law 11(Ι)/2006, the competence of the Tenders Review Authority to

examine appeals applies only to contracts of an estimated value above the thresholds

of article 15 of Law 11(Ι)/2006.

The procedure in force regarding the filing and examination of hierarchical recourses, as

provided for in Title IV – “Tenders Review Authority” of the Award of Public Contracts

(Supplies, Works and Services) Law of 2003 (Law 101(I)/2003), is presented in Annex 4-3

(by means of a diagram) and is summarised in the following tables.

FILING AND EXAMINATION OF HIERARCHICAL RECOURSES

TABLE 1. FILING OF A HIERARCHICAL RECOURSE

1 RIGHT TO FILE

A HIERARCHICAL

RECOURSE TO THE

TENDERS REVIEW

AUTHORITY

Every interested party who has or had an interest in being

awarded a specific contract and who has sustained or is likely

to sustain a loss as a result of an act or decision of the

Contracting Authority which violates any provision of the

applicable law and precedes the conclusion of the contract.

2 PRELIMINARY

OBLIGATIONS OF THE

INTERESTED PARTY

Prior to filing a hierarchical recourse to the Tenders Review

Authority, the interested party must, within a deadline of five

(5) days from the date on which it became aware, by any

means whatsoever, of the act or decision of the Contracting

Authority, notify in writing the Contracting Authority with

simultaneous notification to the Competent Authority, of the

alleged violation and of its intention to file a hierarchical

recourse.

3 EXAMINATION OF THE

OBJECTIONS OF THE

INTERESTED PARTY BY

THE CONTRACTING

AUTHORITY

The Contracting Authority examines the objections of the

interested party and issues a reasoned decision within five (5)

days from the date it receives the written notification and, if it

deems the said objections to be well-founded, takes

appropriate measures. Should the deadline elapse, the

objections of the interested party shall be presumed to have

been rejected.




1-01-2008

4 TIME LIMIT FOR THE

FILING OF A

HIERARCHICAL

RECOURSE TO THE

TENDERS REVIEW

AUTHORITY

The hierarchical recourse is filed within a deadline of ten (10)

days from the date on which the interested party was notified

of the reasoned decision of the Contracting Authority or from

the expiry of the deadline of five (5) days of the previous

paragraph.

5 SPECIAL FEE FOR THE

FILING OF A

HIERARCHICAL

RECOURSE

For filing a hierarchical recourse to the Tenders Review

Authority, the applicant pays a special fee, in accordance with

the provisions, as applicable in each case, of the applicable

relevant decision of the Minister of Finance, published in the

Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus. The above fee is

non-refundable and is deposited into the General Government

Account. More information is available from the web site of the

Tenders Review Authority (www.tra.gov.cy).

6 CONTENT OF

HIERARCHICAL

RECOURSE

The interested party states specifically the grounds of the law

and the facts on which the recourse is based, and

accompanies them by full evidence, including the following

information:

Full particulars of the natural or legal person filing the

recourse.

Name of the Contracting Authority.

Particulars of the contract or invitation to tender.

Initial information letter by the Contracting Authority

regarding the award of the contract, if this has been sent

to the interested party.

Proof of payment of the special fee of the previous

paragraph.

If the evidence accompanying the recourse is incomplete or

inadequate, the Tenders Review Authority may at its absolute

discretion request the applicant to submit, within a deadline of

three (3) days, any further information which it deems

necessary.

Although covered by the Law, the Contracting Authority should not prefer the “do

nothing” option, leaving the deadline of five (5) days to elapse, instead of issuing the

reasoned decision described in item (3) of Table 1. A reasoned decision that answers each

one of the objections of the interested party, presenting all the technical details or legal

arguments documenting the answer, may discourage the interested party from filing a

hierarchical recourse with the Tenders Review Authority. It may also help the Contracting

Authority draw up immediately the written report of item (1) of Table 2, should a hierarchical

recourse be eventually filed.

http://www.tra.gov.cy/




1-01-2008

TABLE 2. PROCEDURE FOR THE EXAMINATION OF A HIERARCHICAL RECOURSE

1 NOTIFICATION OF THE

CONTRACTING

AUTHORITY

The Tenders Review Authority shall, within two (2) days from

the filing of the hierarchical recourse, notify the Contracting

Authority of such recourse and request that a written report,

including any other information which it considers necessary

be submitted within a 10 day period.

2 SETTING OF THE DATE

FOR THE EXAMINATION

OF THE RECOURSE

Upon receipt of the written report of the Contracting Authority,

the Tenders Review Authority shall fix a prompt date for the

examination of the recourse and shall notify in writing the

interested party or his representative and the Contracting

Authority or its representative, to appear before it and present

their views regarding any matter raised in the hierarchical

recourse examined by it.

3 TIME OF COMPLETION OF

THE PROCEDURE FOR

THE EXAMINATION OF

THE RECOURSE

The procedure for the examination of the hierarchical recourse

is completed as quickly as possible, and the decision of the

Tenders Review Authority is issued within thirty (30) days at

the latest from the date on which the hierarchical recourse

was filed.

It is understood that the written report mentioned in item (1) of Table 2 must be drawn

up the Contracting Authority with due care and diligence and with the support of the

competent body, as appropriate in each case (e.g. the Procurement Team responsible for

preparing the tender documents, in the case of a recourse against the tender documents, or

the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in the case of a recourse against the

results of the evaluation). It is also understood that the written report may be based on the

reasoned decision of item (3) of Table 1, provided that the reasoned decision was drawn up

with the same diligence. In the particular case of a recourse against a decision of the

evaluation stage, in drawing up the written report the Contracting Authority should seek

assistance by looking up the information contained in the Qualitative Selection and Technical

Evaluation Report and in the Final Evaluation Report, drawn up by the Competent Body for

the Evaluation of Tenders in the performance of its work.

TABLE 3. DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY

1 The Tenders Review Authority may examine summarily and reject any hierarchical

recourse which it deems to be groundless, without inviting the interested party or the

Contracting Authority to appear before it.

2 The Tenders Review Authority rejects the recourse, if the submitted evidence is

incomplete or inadequate and the applicant fails or refuses to provide any further

information requested of him.

3 After the examination of the hierarchical recourse, the Tenders Review Authority, on the

basis of the evidence submitted to it, may:

1. Confirm the act or decision of the Contracting Authority.




1-01-2008

TABLE 3. DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY

2. Annul the act or decision of the Contracting Authority, if this violates any provision

of the applicable law and precedes the conclusion of the contract.

3. Annul or amend by reason of contravention of any provision of the applicable law,

any condition contained in the invitation to tender or in the tender documents or in

any other document which is related to the tender procedure and concerns

technical, economic and financial specifications.

Impediments to the conclusion of the contract

Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the following are definite impediments to the

conclusion of the contract:

1. The deadline of five (5) days for the notification of the Contracting Authority by the

interested party which intends to file a hierarchical recourse (item 2 of Table 1).

2. The deadline of five (5) days from notification, within which the Contracting Authority

must issue a relevant reasoned decision (item 3 of Table 1).

3. The deadline of ten (10) days (for the filing of the hierarchical recourse) from

notification of the reasoned decision to the interested party or from the idle lapse of

the deadline of five (5) days of the previous paragraph (item 4 of the Table 1).

4. The deadline of two (2) days from the date on which the hierarchical recourse was

filed to the Tenders Review Authority, within which the hierarchical recourse must be

notified to the Contracting Authority (item 1 of Table 2).

After the deadline of the paragraph (4) above elapses, the impediments to the

signature of the contract cease to exist unless, concurrently with the filing of the

hierarchical recourse, the interested party submits a unilateral application for interim

measures.

ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES

The procedure in force, as provided for in Title IV – “Tenders Review Authority” of the Award

of Public Contracts (Supplies, Works and Services) Law of 2003 (Law 101(I)/2003),

regarding the adoption of interim measures for suspension the contract award and signature

procedure after a hierarchical recourse has been filed, is summarised in the following table.

TABLE 4. ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES

1 CONDITIONS

FOR THE ADOPTION OF

INTERIM MEASURES

The Tenders Review Authority may, after a hierarchical

recourse has been filed and following a unilateral request by

the party concerned, if it is thought highly likely that the

applicable law has been violated and the adoption of interim

measures is considered necessary in order to prevent further

loss to the interests of the applicant, suspend the procedure

for awarding the contract or the execution of any other act or




1-01-2008

TABLE 4. ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES

decision of the Contracting Authority in connection with the

award procedure, as well as the signature of the contract.

2 DURATION OF

SUSPENSION IN THE

CASE OF ADOPTION OF

INTERIM MEASURES

1. The Tenders Review Authority may suspend the relevant

procedures initially for a period of two (2) days, within

which the Contracting Authority is invited to appear before

the Tenders Review Authority and present its views

regarding the damages likely to be caused by the further

suspension of the relevant procedures.

2. The Tenders Review Authority may decide to suspend all

relevant procedures for a period of time up to its final

decision on the hierarchical recourse.

3 REASONS FOR

REJECTING THE

APPLICATION FOR

INTERIM MEASURES

No interim measure is adopted if, after having assessed the

loss of the applicant, the interests of third parties and the

public interest, the Tenders Review Authority considers that

the adverse effects of granting the application will be more

serious than the benefit to the applicant.

It is understood that the rejection of the application should not

impair any other rights of the applicant.

If the Contracting Authority is invited to present its views, in accordance with item (2.1)

of Table 4, it must prove to the Tenders Review Authority that the adverse

consequences in the event of a decision to adopt the interim measures, i.e. the loss,

resulting from the delay, to the interests of the Contracting Authority or of those benefited by

the implementation of the contract (who, in the case of public contracts, are as a rule a small

or larger part of the country’s population), will be more serious than the potential benefit to

the interested party. The evidence to document this claim may, for example, consist of the

references made in the tender documents to the purpose and benefits of the contract, or the

texts on the strategic choices of the Contracting Authority and its business plans, of which

the specific contract forms part.

Consequences for, and rights of, the applicants and the Contracting Authority

In the case of rejection of a hierarchical recourse in accordance with items (1) and (2) of

Table 3, or in the case of ratification of the act or decision of the Contracting Authority in

accordance with item (3.1) of the same Table:

The Tenders Review Authority may impose on the applicant the payment of all

expenses of the procedure and, additionally, a fine, as it may deem appropriate under

the circumstances.

If the interested party considers the decision of the Tenders Review Authority to be

unfair for him, it may appeal to the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 146 of

the Constitution.




1-01-2008

In the case of annulment of the act or decision of the Contracting Authority in accordance

with items (3.2) and (3.3) of Table 3:

taking place after the conclusion of the relevant contract, the interested party may, if

it has sustained loss as a result of the specific act or decision, seek compensation

from the Contracting Authority by means of an action filed before the District Court.

Irrespective of the time it takes place, if the Contracting Authority considers, on the

basis of appropriate documentation, that the relevant decision of the Tenders Review

Authority is unfair, it may appeal to the Supreme Court, in accordance to Article 146

of the Constitution.

If the Tenders Review Authority annuls an act or decision of the Contracting Authority

after the conclusion of the relevant contract, the latter is not affected, unless the

award procedure had been suspended and interim measures had been adopted prior to its

conclusion. Therefore, if no application for interim measures is filed concurrently with the

hierarchical recourse, or if the application to be filed is rejected, the Contracting Authority

may proceed to sign the contract without bearing the risk of its cancellation, even if the

Tenders Review Authority rules in favour of the interested party. However, within the

framework of the transaction ethics which must govern the functioning of administrative

authorities and as a gesture of goodwill, the Contracting Authority should consider delaying

the signature of the contract, if this does not create serious problems for it, until the final

decision of the Tenders Review Authority is issued.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the deadline of five (5) days under item (2) in

Table 1, within which the interested party must disclose its intention to file a

hierarchical recourse, starts from the time when the party becomes aware, in any manner

whatsoever, of the act or decision of the Contracting Authority which violates any provision of

the applicable law, as a result of which the interested party has sustained or is likely to

sustain loss.

In order to limit the period of time during which hierarchical recourses are likely to be

filed (also in accordance with the foregoing) but also for reasons of transparency and

equity, it is advisable and recommended to the Contracting Authority to consider, in all cases,

the possibility to mention, in the initial informational letter to the economic operators

participating in the procedure, the reasons for the exclusion or rejection of a tender.

The case of decisions favourable for the applicant prior to the signature of the

contract

If the Tenders Review Authority decides, prior to the signature of the contract, to annul or

amend an act or decision of the Contracting Authority, recognising that such act or decision

violates any provision of the applicable law, the Contracting Authority must comply with this

decision and take all appropriate actions in order to remedy the violation.

The method of remedy is not always obvious and, in certain cases, the remedy may prove

unfeasible. In all cases, the Contracting Authority must exhaust all the available possibilities

for completing the procedure and concluding the contract, taking into account that after the

issue of the new decision –replacing the one cancelled– the period of time during which an

interested party has the right to file a hierarchical recourse is renewed.




1-01-2008

The Table below contains the most common examples of cases involving decisions of

the Tenders Review Authority which are favourable for the applicant, together with

guidelines on how to handle these in each case:

DEALING WITH CANCELLATION DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY

CONTENT OF RECOURSE PROPOSED RESPONSE

The recourse was filed against the

tender documents, claiming that

they contained terms or

specifications which violate the

provisions of applicable law.

The Tenders Review Authority

decided to cancel the invitation to

tender and amend all or some of

the points indicated in the recourse.

The Contracting Authority must:

1. Cancel the previous tender procedure.

2. Call a meeting of the Procurement Team responsible for the

preparation of the tender documents, which it shall inform of the

decision taken by the Tenders Review Authority, for adapting

the contents in accordance with the suggestions made.

3. Verify the correctness of the tender documents after their

adaptation.

4. Take all necessary actions to repeat the invitation to the tender,

in the same manner as that of the initial invitation, i.e. using the

same advertising means and the same deadlines as the initial

ones.

The recourse was filed against the

act whereby an economic operator

was excluded during the qualitative

selection phase.


decided to cancel the exclusion act

and reinstate the applicant.


1. Call a meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders, which it shall inform of the decision taken by the

Tenders Review Authority.

2. The Competent Body shall repeat the evaluation procedure for

the specific economic operator and, in particular:

It shall complete the qualitative evaluation of the economic

operator.

It shall proceed to evaluate its technical offer in relation to

the contents of the tender documents.

Provided that the technical offer shall not be deemed

eliminable during the general technical evaluation, it shall

mark it on the basis of the Table of Evaluation Criteria

contained in the tender documents, in the case of a

contract for which the award criterion is the most


It shall proceed to evaluate its financial offer and, provided

this shall not be deemed eliminable during the general

evaluation, shall mark it comparatively, in the case of a

contract for which the award criterion is the most

economically advantageous tender. It is understood that in




1-01-2008



this case, if the specific tender proves to be the one with

the lowest price, it shall proceed to comparatively mark

again all offers which have already been evaluated.

It shall redraft the table of final ranking of the tenders and

shall deliver it for approval to the competent body of the

Contracting Authority, together with a Special Evaluation

Report where the procedure followed shall be described

and the relevant decisions shall be mentioned and

documented.

3. After the examination and approval of the Special Evaluation

Report, the competent body of the Contracting Authority, shall

issue a new award decision and shall inform the interested

economic operators accordingly.

The recourse was filed against an

act whereby a tender was rejected

during the technical evaluation

procedure.


decided to cancel the rejection act

and reinstate the applicant.


1. Call a meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of

Tenders, which it shall inform of the decision taken by the

Tenders Review Authority.

2. The Competent Body shall repeat the evaluation procedure for

the specific economic operator and, in particular:

It shall complete the evaluation of the technical offer of the

economic operator in relation to the contents of the tender

documents.

Provided that the technical offer shall not be deemed

eliminable for any other reasons during the general

technical evaluation, it shall mark it on the basis of the

Table of Evaluation Criteria contained in the tender

documents, in the case of a contract for which the award

criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.

It shall proceed to evaluate its financial offer and

comparatively mark it, in the case of a contract for which

the award criterion is the most economically advantageous

tender. It is understood that in this case, if the specific

tender proves to be the one with the lowest price, it shall

proceed to comparatively mark again all offers which have

already been evaluated.

It shall redraft the table of final ranking of the tenders and

shall deliver it for approval to the competent body of the

Contracting Authority, together with a Special Evaluation




1-01-2008



Report where the procedure followed shall be described

and the relevant decisions shall be mentioned and

documented.

3. After the examination and approval of the Special Evaluation

Report, the competent body of the Contracting Authority, shall

issue a new award decision and shall inform the interested

economic operators accordingly.

Dealing with the issues arising because of cancellation decisions of the Tenders Review

Authority is usually difficult and time-consuming. Regarding the second and third cases of the

above table, where the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender, the

difficulty lies primarily in the fact that the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders

should act in line with the principle of equal treatment, although during the marking of the

economic operator in favour of which the decision of the Tenders Review Authority was

issued the financial offers and comparative ranking of its competitors shall be known. The

position of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders becomes even more difficult if

the object of the recourse which led to the cancellation decision was the marking of the

economic operator in favour of which the decision of the Tenders Review Authority was

issued, as in this case the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders will know in

advance if and how the new marking affects the final ranking.

If the established bodies participating in the tender procedure and in the contract

award procedure observe all terms of the tender documents, the Laws applicable in the

Republic of Cyprus and the Regulations applicable in each case, and act within the

framework of the principles of the Treaty, the likelihood of hierarchical recourses being filed

is reduced and the risk of cancellation decisions being issued, should hierarchical recourses

be eventually filed, is minimised.

4.6 CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT

After it has notified the economic operators who participated in the tender procedure and

after the deadline for the filing of hierarchical recourses elapses, and provided that the award

and signature of the contract is not suspended by interim measures, and that the procedure

for the examination of hierarchical recourses, if any, is completed as described in Section

4.5.4 of the present Chapter, the Contracting Authority may proceed to complete the

procedure for the conclusion of the Contract, as described below.

Content of the Contract

The Contract between the Contracting Authority and the Contractor consists of the following

uniform and integral parts:




1-01-2008

a. The Agreement, which is signed by the interested parties and includes the key

information and the special conditions of the contract (Part B of the model tender

documents, which must be completed, where required, with the actual data from the

Contractor's tender).

b. Any relevant correspondence exchanged between the Contracting Authority and the

Contractor for clarifying any points in the tender.

c. The Technical and Financial Offer of the Contractor.

d. The tender documents, except for the part referring to the conduct of the tender

procedure (in the model tender documents, these are Annex I. GENERAL CONDITIONS

FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS, and Annex II. TERMS OF REFERENCE – TECHNICAL

SPECIFICATIONS).

In the case of a difference between the contracting parties regarding the performance

of the Contractor’s obligations, the provisions of the constituent parts of the Contract

shall apply in the same order as above during the period of validity of the Contract.

Inviting the candidate Contractor to sign the Agreement

After the text of the Agreement has been completed as appropriate and finalised, , the

Contracting Authority invites the Contractor to sign the Contract.

The Contractor is obliged to present himself within a specified period of time or on a specific

date set by the Contracting Authority, bringing with him the credentials required in the tender

documents for each particular case, which usually include:

a. The Performance Guarantee for the Contract.

b. The certificates, certifications or other evidence confirming that the requirements for

participation in the tender procedure have been met, for which the Contractor had

submitted together with his tender the solemn declaration contained in the Appendix to


c. The authorisation documents for the person who shall sign the Agreement, if the

Contractor is a legal person or a consortium,.

d. Additionally, in the case of a consortium of natural and/or legal persons:

The final Cooperation Agreement determining the participation rate of each member

in the consortium, the legal representative of the consortium and the consortium

member to act as the leader of the consortium. It is understood that this information

must be the same with that stated in the tender and evaluated.

If a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, the act of

establishment of a legal person with the specific legal form as provided for in the

tender documents.

The contents of the written invitation to the candidate Contractor to present himself for

signing the relevant agreement may be identical or similar to the relevant Template

No. 4, contained in Annex 4-2 of the present Chapter.




1-01-2008

Failure of the Contractor to present himself for the signature of the Contract

If the Contractor who has been awarded the contract fails to present himself to sign the

Agreement within the specified period of time and at the place specified by the Contracting

Authority, then he shall be declared in default of the award made in his name and of all rights

deriving from it, and the Tender Guarantee shall simultaneously be forfeited in favour of the

Contracting Authority.

In such a case, if a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, the

Competent Body for the Award of the Contract may decide to award the Contract to the

tenderer ranked second in the ranking of the Final Evaluation Report, provided that the

tender and the guarantee of such tenderer are in force. Otherwise the Competent Body for

the Award of the Contract must cancel the tender procedure.

Notification of tender procedure results to the European Commission

A Contracting Authority which has concluded a public contract of an estimated value which is

higher than the thresholds specified in article 19 of Law 12(Ι)/2006, shall dispatch to the

European Commission a contract award notice no later than 48 days from the conclusion of

the contract.

Similarly, a Contracting Entity which has awarded a contract of an estimated value which is

higher than the thresholds specified in article 15 of Law 11(Ι)/2006, shall dispatch to the

European Commission a contract award notice within a period of two months from the award

of the contract.

This specific notice is drawn up and dispatched in the manner and in accordance with the

procedure described in the Law, using the specified standardised forms. In addition to the

information requested in the standardised forms, the Contracting Authority may include any

additional information which it may consider useful.

Certain information may not be published, when their notification may prevent the application

of the laws, be contrary to the public interest or harm the legitimate commercial interests of

public or private economic operators or the conditions of fair competition between them.

In addition to the above obligation, Cyprus, as a Member State of the European Union, is

obliged to inform the European Commission of its activities regarding the contracts awarded

by the public and wider public sector:

Either by supplying statistical information about the contracts awarded by each

Contracting Authority and overall in the Republic of Cyprus,

Or by supplying specific information, upon request by the European Commission,

about likely acts or omissions of the Contracting Authority in connection with a

particular contract award procedure.

The European Commission may demand the provision of specific information about a

particular contract, following a relevant report or complaint by an offended economic

operator who, pursuant to Community Law, may appeal to this procedure in order to

safeguard his interests.




1-01-2008

The obligation to inform the European Commission is reflected in the harmonising laws of

2006 on the Coordination of Procedures for the Award of Public Works Contracts, Public

Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts and for Related Matters, and more

specifically in articles 49, 86 and 87 of Law 12(Ι)/2006, and articles 52 and 71 or Law

11(Ι)/2006.

In all cases, the provision of information to the European Commission is carried out by the

Contracting Authority, through the Competent Authority of Public Procurement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS - … · TABLE OF CONTENTS ... procedural matters, this step is essentially...

Documents

Transcript of TABLE OF CONTENTS - … · TABLE OF CONTENTS ... procedural matters, this step is essentially...