Environmental - MR Bailey

Tender Evaluation Template (Tinson Pen - 2011)
Notes for completing the tender evaluation template
ells shaded gray should be used to enter data. Other cells are locked to ensure that they cannot be overtyped, as they contain formulae that calculate
he scores and perform the ranking for each tender.
is essential to ensure that the justification section is completed. It is suggested that this section be completed in respect of all questions to represent
est practice and mandatory for any questions where an acceptable score hasn't been achieved.
he evaluator should keep a complete record of the decision making process as this will enable the PAJ to provide better debriefing to unsuccessfu
idders and/or NCC and will assist in the event of any challenge to the award decision.
Scoring Rationale:
= No submission
= submission not relevant
= submission partially relevant but poor
= submission partially relevant and acceptable
= submission completely relevant and acceptable
.5 = submission completely relevant and good
= submission completely relevant and exceptional
otes for Scoring on each Criterion.
elevant Experience:
he Consultant should demonstrate his experience relevant to the SOW /TOR of this project. The Description, cost, duration and his role should be
milar as projected.
ast Performance
he Consultant should demonstrate how those tasks were performed. Were they within budget, variation, exceeded timeline etc.?
he Consultant will be assessed by his office support staff, as this will enable his capability to deliver within time and cost.
echnical Approach & Methodology
he Consultants should demonstrate his understanding of the SOW/TOR by explaining his technical approach to issues that may arise. Scheduling of
ctivities to meet time line as well as milestones and reporting frequency. Work plan should be demonstrated, phasing and reporting.
ey Staff
he Consultant should list, name and provide CV for each technical staff in the requisite category. The CV should demonstrate competence in the area of
ssignment. Expertise is based on general qualification and specific experience in the area of assignment.
EVALUATOR :Weighing
Specific Experience
( 10 points)
Technical & Quality Criteria.
Section
Weighting
(points)
CL Environmentakl
Weighted
Score
Score Weighted
(out of 5) Score
Section
Score
Justification for
scoring and
additional
comments
Smith Warner Int'l Ltd

Score (out Weighted
of 5)
Score
Section
Score
TEMN Ltd.
Score Weighte
(out of 5) d Score
Section
Score
Relevant Experience
Description of projects similar to this
assignment
Duration & Staff -months
10
50.0%
30.0%
2.4
1.2
20.0%
Role of Tenderer / Team-Leader
10.0
10.0
6.6
Organization & Staff

40.0%
Years of Establishment
30.0%
2.5
1.5
Key staff listed & appropriate CV
30.0%
2.5
1.5
40.0%
20.0%
40.0%
40.0%
30.0%
30.0%
Team Leader (15)
25.0%
15
12
Marine Environmentalist /Engineer(10)
16.7%
10
Civil/Coastal Engineer(10)
16.7%
10
13.3%
6.4
Socio Economist(7)
11.7%
Hydraulic Engineer(10)
16.7%
10
Methodology (40 points)
org chart & admin support
10
7.0
10.0
10.0
Technical Approach & Methodology

Understanding the Objectives
Issues identified and proposed solutions
10
Proposed methodology
10.0
10.0
10.0
Work Plan
Activities, phasing and milestones
deliverables, report etc
20
work schedule
20.0
20.0
20.0
Key Staff (60 points)
Technical Skills
Environmental Chemist (8)
60
Scoring Rationale:
0 = No submission
1 = submission not relevant
2 = submission partially relevant but poor
3 = submission partially relevant and acceptable
4 = submission completely relevant and acceptable
4.5 = submission completely relevant and good
5 = submission completely relevant and exceptional
60.0
48.0
5.6
4.2
39.2
Justification
for scoring
and additional
comments
Consultant's Name
Capability &
Experience 10%
Criteria / Sub-Criteria
SMADA
EVALUATOR
Maximum
Score
AVERAGE
SCORES
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
50.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
Relevant Experience
Key Staff 50%
Methodology 40%
Management Skills & Sysytem
Work Plan
Technical Skills
Prepared by devans 12/02/2015
Page 3
Consultant's Name
Capability &
Experience 10%
PRUDECON
EVALUATOR
Maximum
Score
AVERAGE
SCORES
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
50.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
Relevant Experience
Key Staff 50%
Methodology 40%
Work Plan
Technical Skills
Page 4
Consultant's Name
Capability &
Experience 10%
N. O. WHYTE & ASSOCIATES.
EVALUATOR
Maximum
Score
AVERAGE
SCORES
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
50.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
Relevant Experience
Key Staff 50%
Methodology 40%
Work Plan
Technical Skills
Page 5
Consultant's Name
Capability &
Experience 10%
WALLACE EVANS LTD
Maximum
Score
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
50.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
EVALUATOR
AVERAGE
SCORES
Relevant Experience
Key Staff 50%
Methodology 40%
Work Plan
Technical Skills
Page 6
Consultant's Name
Key Staff 50%
Methodology 40%
Capability &
Experience 10%
Beckford & Dixon Ltd
EVALUATOR
Maximum
Score
AVERAGE
SCORES
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
0.0%
#REF!
#REF!
0.0%
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
15.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
10.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
50.0%
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
Relevant Experience
Past Performance
Work Plan
Technical Skills
Page 7
APPENDIX 3
Evaluation Summary
Consultants' Name
Criteria
EVALUATOR 1
EVALUATOR 2
EVALUATOR 3
Total Score
Rank
Scores
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Proposals scoring below the minimum qualifying score of 80 points have been rejected

Environmental - MR Bailey

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Environmental - MR Bailey

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tender Evaluation Template (Tinson Pen - 2011)

Notes for completing the tender evaluation template

otes for Scoring on each Criterion.

echnical Approach & Methodology

Technical & Quality Criteria.

Smith Warner Int'l Ltd

Role of Tenderer / Team-Leader

Organization & Staff

Key staff listed & appropriate CV

Team Leader (15)

Marine Environmentalist /Engineer(10)

Methodology (40 points)

org chart & admin support

Technical Approach & Methodology

Key Staff (60 points)

Environmental Chemist (8)

Key Staff 50%

Management Skills & Sysytem

Technical Approach & Methodology

Prepared by devans 12/02/2015

Technical & Quality Criteria.

Key Staff 50%

Management Skills & Sysytem

Technical Approach & Methodology

Prepared by devans 12/02/2015

Technical & Quality Criteria.

N. O. WHYTE & ASSOCIATES.

Key Staff 50%

Management Skills & Sysytem

Technical Approach & Methodology

Prepared by devans 12/02/2015

Technical & Quality Criteria.

WALLACE EVANS LTD

Key Staff 50%

Management Skills & Sysytem

Technical Approach & Methodology

Prepared by devans 12/02/2015

Key Staff 50%

Technical & Quality Criteria.

Beckford & Dixon Ltd

Technical Approach & Methodology

Prepared by devans 12/02/2015

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen