JSC/SCM/003

Defence and Security Invitation to Tender (ITT) Evaluation Matrix.

For the NATO Codification of Materiel (LOT 1) and For the
Digitisation of Source Data (LOT 2).

Evaluation Process

Part: Evaluation Process

The Commercial Compliance Matrix- Any bids found to be non-
compliant (i.e. FAIL) will be excluded from the competition, and will not
Part A be evaluated further.
Part B The Technical Evaluation will be out of a possible score of 60.
Part C The Financial Evaluation will be out of a possible score of 40.
Part D The Total Evaluation score will be out of a possible score of 100.

1
 JSC/SCM/003

Part A- The Commercial Compliance Matrix

Tenderers are required to fully complete Column (b) of the Commercial Compliance
Matrix with a compliant/non- compliant response and return along with your Tender.

In order to progress to The Technical Evaluation (Part B) and The Financial

Evaluation (Part C), the tenderer must be COMPLIANT in ALL parts at Part A (with a
score of 70); those that are will receive a PASS score. Those tenders that are NON-
COMPLIANT at any part of Part A will not be assessed further and will receive a
FAIL score.

Where a tender is commercially non- compliant the Authority will not allocate a
technical or financial score.

2
 JSC/SCM/003

Part B- The Technical Evaluation- LOT 1

The Technical Evaluation for LOT 1 will be marked against the technical criteria
(outlined in tables 1-4). Each criteria response will be awarded:

Mark Definition
0 The Authority will award a score of ‘0’ where the bidder is non- compliant, or
(Unacceptable) the bidder has provided little or no evidence.
2
(Needs The Authority will award a score of ‘2’ where the bidder’s evidence needs
Development) development.
4 The Authority will award a score of ‘4’ where the bidder’s evidence is fully
(Acceptable) compliant and acceptable to the Authority.
6 The Authority will award the Maximum Mark ‘6’ where the bidder is fully
(Excellent) compliant and the bidder has provided excellent evidence.

Some elements of the Quality Plan and Risk Plan attract a higher weighting given
their relative importance. Those elements will clearly be indicated as offering a
maximum mark of 12. The marking criteria for these elements is shown below:

Mark Definition
0 The Authority will award a score of ‘0’ where the bidder is non- compliant, or
(Unacceptable) the bidder has provided little or no evidence
4
(Needs The Authority will award a score of ‘4’ where the bidder’s evidence needs
Development) development
8 The Authority will award a score of ‘8’ where the bidder’s evidence is fully
(Acceptable) complaint and acceptable to the Authority.
12 The Authority will award the Maximum Mark ‘12’ where the bidder is fully
(Excellent) compliant and the bidder has provided excellent evidence.

Table 1 Risk Scoring

Risk Scoring
Low Risk
The Authority will award a low risk where the bidder has provided
a clear statement outlining the bidders intentions to resource the
project and has provided clear detail on the transition period and
year one.

Medium Risk The Authority will award a medium risk where the bidder has
provide a statement which lacks in detail on how they intend to
resource the project the transition period and year one.

High Risk The Authority will award a high risk where the bidder has not
provided a statement or the statement does not satisfy the
Authority.

3
 JSC/SCM/003

The total maximum technical mark for LOT 1 is 198

For technical compliance a bidder will need to:

 Score a minimum of ‘4’ (Acceptable) in each criteria. Or a score of ‘8’

(Acceptable) where the questions attract a higher weighting
 Gain an overall technical score of 104 or above.
 Score an overall ‘Low Risk’ against Table 1.

The evaluation is out of 100 (as this represents 100% of the total score) the split is
60/40 technical / pricing. A score of 60 will be allocated to the best technically
compliant LOT 1 tender. The technical scores of the other tenders will be calculated
using a percentage (%) difference method.

Example

Technical Score = Total Available Marks x Tender Technical Mark

Highest Technical Mark

4
 JSC/SCM/003

Table 1

Statement Scoring

Please provide a statement of how you intend to resource the Please see risk scoring
project, paying particular attention to the transition period and above
year one.

5
 JSC/SCM/003

Table 2 (Quality Plan)

Marking Criteria for the Quality Plan Max Mark

Mar awa
k rded
Organisation and Responsibilities 6

Resource Management 6

Quality Management System Activities:

Processes (General requirements) 6

Documentation requirements 6

Product Realisation Activities:

Planning of product realisation 6

Customer related processes 6

Purchasing including control of the sub-suppliers 6

Production and service provisioning 12

Configuration management 6

Measurement, Analysis and Improvement Activities:

Customer Satisfaction 6

Internal Audit 12

Control of non-conforming product 12

Analysis of data 12

Improvement 6

NATO Additional Requirements 6

Total Mark 114

Note:

Bidder to produce a Deliverable Quality Plan (tailored to the potential requirement) in

accordance with AQAP 2105 (Edition 2)

6
 JSC/SCM/003

Table 3 (Risk Plan)

Marking Criteria for the Risk Plan Max Mark

Mar awa
k rded
Organisation, Roles, Reporting Procedures (related to Risk 6
Management)

Methodology (Identification, Analysis, Planning and Management) 12

Risk Management Activities 12

Reviews (Frequency) 6

Risk Register (Purpose and Use) 6

Identification of Key Risk Areas (which should include work surge 12

periods)

Total Mark 54

Table 4 (Business Continuity Plan)

Marking Criteria for the Business Continuity Plan Max Mark

Mar awa
k rded
Maintenance (in the event of unplanned business disruption) 6

Business Continuity Risk Management 6

Planning 6

Resources 6

Recovery 6

Total Mark 30

7
 JSC/SCM/003

Part B- The Technical Evaluation- LOT 2

The Technical Evaluation for LOT 2 will be marked against the technical criteria
(outlined in tables 5 and 6). Each criteria response will be awarded:

Mark Definition
0 The Authority will award a score of ‘0’ where the bidder is non- compliant, or
(Unacceptable) the bidder has provided little or no evidence.
2
(Needs The Authority will award a score of ‘2’ where the bidder’s evidence needs
Development) development.
4 The Authority will award a score of ‘4’ where the bidder’s evidence is fully
(Acceptable) compliant and acceptable to the Authority.
6 The Authority will award the Maximum Mark ‘6’ where the bidder is fully
(Excellent) compliant and the bidder has provided excellent evidence.

The total maximum technical mark for LOT 2 is 12

For technical compliance a bidder will need to:

 Score a minimum of ‘4’ (Acceptable) in each criteria.

 Gain an overall technical score of 8 or above.

The evaluation is out of 100 (as this represents 100% of the total score) the split is
60/40 technical / pricing. A score of 60 will be allocated to the best technically
compliant LOT 2 tender. The technical scores of the other tenders will be calculated
using a percentage (%) difference method.

Example

Technical Score = Total Available Marks x Tender Technical Mark

Highest Technical Mark

8
 JSC/SCM/003

Table 5

Statement Scoring

As above
Bidder to state level of expertise, experience, equipment and
capacity to fulfil the LOT 2 requirement.

9
 JSC/SCM/003

Table 6

Statement Scoring

As above

Bidder to provider a process plan/diagram to show how they will

manage the throughput of these drawings (e.g. Quality Assurance
Processes).

10
 JSC/SCM/003

Part C- The Financial Evaluation

A score of 40 will be allocated to the lowest price for lot 1 and 2; the price on the
remaining tenders will be calculated using a percentage (%) difference method.

Example

Pricing Score = Total Available Marks x Lowest Priced Technically and

Commercially Compliant Tender
Tender Price

11
 JSC/SCM/003

Part D- Total Evaluation Score

The Technical Evaluation (Part B) and The Financial Evaluation (Part C) scores are
added together to give a total score that takes account of all award criteria. The
successful tender is the one with the highest total score that was classified as
‘commercially compliant’ at Part A.

An example is provided below for illustrative purposes only.

COMPANY COMMERCIALLY TECHNICAL FINANCIAL OVERALL COMPANY

COMPLIANT EVALUTATION EVALUATION EVALUATION RANKING
(Part A) SCORE (Part SCORE (Part SCORE (1 being
B- Max 60) C- Max 40) (Max 100) highest)

A Yes 40 40 80 2
B Yes 60 30 90 1
C Yes 30 20 50 3
D No - - - -

In this example the Contract would be awarded to company B.

NOTE:

 For the purpose of tender evaluation Technical Evaluation and Financial

Evaluation for LOTS 1 and 2 will be calculated and assessed separately.

 In the event of two or more tenders being awarded the same total the
Authority shall choose the tender with the lowest price.

12