You'll need to decide a rating scale to judge your criteria against, and an evaluation model to determine how you'll weight the criteria against each other.
Your rating scale tells the evaluation panel how to score criteria.
Use a 0-5 scale in most instances with the option of a 0-10 scale where you need more differentiation, eg:
|Excellent||Exceeds the requirement. Exceptional demonstration by the supplier of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the services. Response identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with supporting evidence.||5|
|Good||Satisfies the requirement with minor additional benefits. Above average demonstration by the supplier of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the services. Response identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with supporting evidence.||4|
|Acceptable||Satisfies the requirement. Demonstration by the supplier of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource, and quality measures required to provide the services, with supporting evidence.||3|
|Minor Reservations||Satisfies the requirement with minor reservations. Some minor reservations of the supplier’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the services, with little or no supporting evidence.||2|
|Serious Reservations||Satisfies the requirement with major reservations. Considerable reservations of the supplier’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the goods / services, with little or no supporting evidence.||1|
|Unacceptable||Does not meet the requirement. Does not comply and/or insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the supplier has the ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the services, with little or no supporting evidence.||0|
There are other kinds of rating scales you can use – see the three options in the section on How to score each submission in the template below.
The evaluation model determines how you'll weight your evaluation criteria. There are five main ways to do this:
Use it when:
This method is not recommended for complex procurements as it doesn't consider the relative importance of the criteria or judge value for money.
Use it when:
This is the most common methodology used in public sector procurement.
(out of 10)
|Total weighted score (out of 10)||8|
Use it when:
You can treat price as one of your weighted criteria, or you can evaluate price separately.
If price is a weighted criterion it is important to carry out some level of sensitivity analysis to ensure that the level of weighting is appropriate. Consideration should also be given to the risk of unreasonable and unrealistically low-priced offers achieving the highest overall weighted score where it is clear that the goods/services cannot be delivered within the quoted price.
Price is often not included as a weighted criterion in the procurement of social services.
Where price is not a weighted criterion, price information is usually kept from the evaluation panel until after the evaluation on the merits and scoring is finalised. There are a few ways to evaluate price in this case.
Continue until a satisfactory agreement is negotiated. A supplier that has been rejected from the process should not be recalled for further negotiations.
|Short listed supplier||Total weighted score||Price|
A variation on the above method that is often used in the social sector is to select a supplier based on non-price criteria and then negotiate with them on price considering value for money, rather than other offers.
This method is purely mathematically based.
|Provider||Total weighted score||Price||Cost-effectiveness ratio|
|A||9||$100,000||1 : 1.1|
|B||9||$150,000||1 : 1.6|
|C||9||$200,000||1 : 2.2|
|D||5||$100,000||1 : 2.0|
This model involves deciding on the basis of extra value added.
The target price model is useful when the available budget is the main constraint, or when it's genuinely difficult to define the scope of the work in the specification of requirements – in this case, the agency is likely to receive a range of offers with prices that are hard to compare and might exceed the available budget.
One solution is to include the available budget (the ‘target price’) in the RFP as a guide for defining the scope of the services, and then invite suppliers to specify what they can do for that price.
The focus of the evaluation is then on the quality, quantity and outcomes of the services to be provided rather than price.
Use it when:
The Brooks’ Law model is useful where quality is the most important factor.
Use it when: