Evaluation and Qualification Requirements

Report
Evaluation and Qualification
Requirements
Evaluation & Qualification
Requirements
The success of procurement is measured by obtaining the goods,
works, and physical services in a timely manner, at the required
quality, and at the best (lowest) possible price the market can
offer. To meet this objective, the procurement process
conducted by the procuring entity should ensure that the
contract is awarded to a bidder who:
(i) is capable to perform the contract on time ;
(ii) will provide the goods, works and services at the required
quality (determination of the responsiveness of the bid) ; and
(iii) at the best price conditions.
QUALIFICATION
PROCEDURES
PRE-QUALIFICATION
 FIRST STEP IN PROCUREMENT PROCESS
 APPLICABLE TO LARGE AND COMPLEX
CONTRACTS IN:
 CIVIL WORKS (e.g. dams, hydropower stations, power
transmission lines, pipelines, roads, railways, ports,
airports, water treatment plants, etc.)
 INFORMATION SYSTEMS (hardware + software)
 PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION (e.g. management
contracts, BOT-BOO-BOOT, concession)
 ALL PRE-QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS ARE
INVITED TO BID
QUALIFICATION
PROCEDURES (cont’d)
CLASSIFICATION
 PRECONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN BIDDING
 APPLICABLE TO NATIONAL CONTRACTORS
CLASSIFIED BY CATEGORIES OF WORKS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT TYPE AND SIZE
AND CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATION
 ONLY CONTRACTORS BELONGING TO
CATEGORY/IES SPECIFIED IN INVITATION TO BID
ARE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE
QUALIFICATION
PROCEDURES (cont’d)
POST-QUALIFICATION
 LAST STEP IN BID EVALUATION PROCESS
 APPLICABLE TO ALL GOODS AND WORKS
CONTRACTS
 AWARD OF CONTRACT TO QUALIFIED
BIDDER WITH LOWEST EVALUATED
RESPONSIVE BID
QUALIFICATION
PASS-FAIL CRITERIA (cont.d)
1. GENERAL EXPERIENCE
 AVERAGE ANNUAL TURNOVER:
“MINIMUM 2 (1,5) OF AVERAGE ESTIMATED
COST/YEAR IN LAST - (two to five) - YEARS”
QUALIFICATION
PASS-FAIL CRITERIA
2. SPECIALISED EXPERIENCE
 SCOPE OF WORKS:
SIMILAR TYPE & SIZE OF CONTRACTS
SIMILAR CONDITIONS (e.g. climate)
“MINIMUM NUMBER - (one to three) - OF
CONTRACTS DURING LAST - (five to ten) -YEARS
QUALIFICATION
PASS-FAIL CRITERIA (cont.d)
3. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
 MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL KEY POSITIONS:
 MINIMUM NUMBER OF SIMILAR PROJECTS
SUCCESSFULLY MANAGED BY THE INCUMBENT
 MINIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
(TOTAL AND IN POSITION)
QUALIFICATION
PASS-FAIL CRITERIA (cont.d)
4. FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES
 PAST PERFORMANCES
 LIABILITIES/ASSETS
 CASH FLOW REQUIREMENT
“MINIMUM AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR THE PERIOD
IN MONTHS BEFORE PAYMENT IS RECEIVED BY
CONTRACTOR
e.g: CW/PS: $240 M. /48 MTHS = $5m*4 MTHS: $20M.
IS: $12M./24 MTHS = $0.5m* 4 MTHS: $2M.
QUALIFICATION
PASS-FAIL CRITERIA (cont.d)
5. EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES
 MINIMUM KEY EQUIPMENT LISTED
QUALIFICATION
PASS-FAIL CRITERIA (cont.d)
6. CONTRACT COMMITMENTS
 CURRENT CONTRACTS COMMITMENTS
& WORKS IN PROGRESS
7. LEGAL STATUS
8. LITIGATION
9. REFERENCES
PRE-QUALIFICATION
FOR ICB
 PRACTICE
 LARGE OR
COMPLEX CIVIL WORKS
 CUSTOM
DESIGNED EQUIPMENT
 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
 INDUSTRIAL PLANT
 PRIVATE SECTOR OPERATIONS
 SPECIALIZED SERVICES
PRE-QUALIFICATION
FOR ICB (cont’d)
 OBJECTIVE
 SAVES EXPENSE OF BIDDING FOR
UNQUALIFIED BIDDERS
 IMPROVES INTEREST OF
LEADING CONTRACTORS
 INDICATES INTEREST OF
POTENTIAL CONTRACTORS
 ESTABLISHES ELIGIBILITY FOR
DOMESTIC PREFERENCE (IF ANY)
 REDUCES POTENTIAL FOR
CONTROVERSY
PRE-QUALIFICATION
FOR ICB (cont’d)
 INFORMATION PROVIDED
 DESCRIPTION OF WORKS,
SIZE OR COST
 SCOPE OF CONTRACT
 SOURCE OF FINANCE,
TERMS OF PAYMENT
 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
 ELIGIBILITY, LANGUAGE,
PROCEDURES
 PRE-QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
PRE-QUALIFICATION
FOR ICB (cont’d)
 INFORMATION REQUESTED
 MINIMUM NECESSARY
 AVOID CERTIFICATES
 USE STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE
 NUMBER PRE-QUALIFIED
 ALL FIRMS WHO MEET CRITERIA
(NO MAXIMUM)
Bid Evaluation
 OBJECTIVE
 SECURE GOODS/SERVICES AT
MOST ECONOMICAL COST
 PRICE ONLY ONE FACTOR
 OTHER FACTORS








TIME OF DELIVERY/COMPLETION
TERMS OF PAYMENT
OPERATING COST
EFFICIENCY AND COMPATIBILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES AND SPARE PARTS
RELATED TRAININIG
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
OTHER FACTORS OTHER THAN PRICE TO BE USED
FOR DETERMINING THE LEB SHALL BE TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE EXPRESSED IN MONETARY TERMS,
I.E RESALE VALUE.
Evaluation Methodology Commercial
Features (cont’d)
 TIME OF DELIVERY
 EVALUATE LOSS OR GAIN BY
LATE OR EARLY DELIVERY
 PAYMENT TERMS
 EVALUATE VARIATIONS AT SPECIFIED
INTEREST/DISCOUNT RATE
Evaluation Methodology
Technical Features
 OPERATING COST
 FUEL
 TRAINING
 MAINTENANCE COST
 STANDARDISATION
 RESALE VALUE /DEPRECIATED COST
 LIFE CYCLE COST
 OWNERSHIP COST
 CAPACITY
 PRODUCTIVITY
Evaluation Methodology
Minimum Technical Specifications
PASS/FAIL CRITERIA
 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
 BELOW MINIMUM: REJECTED
 NO CREDIT FOR BETTER SPEC
 RESPONSIVE = LEB
 MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT
 RANGE PARAMETERS (MAX <>min)
Life Cycle
Cost Methods
 COST TO OWN AND OPERATE ITEM
DURING ITS USEFUL LIFE
 INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE
 ADJUSTED FOR EXTRAS, DELIVERY,
VARIATIONS IN PAYMENT TERM, ETC.
 VALUE FOR ADJUSTMENTS ADDED TO BID PRICE
 OPERATING COST DURING LIFE OF ITEM
 FUEL, SPARE PARTS, MAINTENANCE (X YEARS)
 ANNUAL COST DISCOUNTED TO NPV
 OWNERSHIP COST DURING LIFE OF ITEM
 ECONOMICAL USEFUL LIFE (X YEARS)
 RESALE OR SCRAP VALUE DISCOUNTED TO NPV
Life Cycle
Cost Methods (cont’d)
 EFFICIENCY COST METHOD
 CAPITALIZE DIFFERENCES IN
EFFICIENCY IN OPERATION OF ITEMS
i.e. BOILER, TURBINE,
TRANSFORMER,
ETC. DURING LIFE
 PRODUCTIVITY COST METHOD
 DETERMINE LIFE CYCLE COST PER UNIT OF
OUTPUT FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES
 LIFE CYCLE COST OF PLANT (x YEARS)
NPV DIVIDED BY TOTAL UNIT
OUTPUT OF PLANT
On
“Life Cycle Cost” Basis
ALL FIGURES IN USD
A
B
TOTAL EVALUATED INITIAL COST
(without preference)
FUEL COST FOR 8 YEARS 1
MAINTENANCE COST FOR 8 YEARS
MINUS DEPRECIATED COST/
RESALE VALUE
46,400
44,350
45,000
34,000
46,000
28,000
-2,000
-5,000
LIFE CYCLE COST
RANKING
130,400
2
113,350
1
1 DISCOUNTED TO PRESENT VALUE
Bid Evaluation Using
Life Cycle Costing for Procurement
of 100 Urban Buses
RELEVANT PART OF THE BID EVALUATION
CLAUSES IN THE BIDDING DOCUMENTS
THE EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF BIDS SHALL BE
BASED ON THE LIFE CYCLE COST FOR THE VEHICLES
DURING THE FIRST 6 YEARS, WORKED OUT IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER

INITIAL PRICE
 CIF PRICE QUOTED FOR BUSES
OFFERED FROM ABROAD
 EX-FACTORY/EX-SHOWROOM PRICE FOR
VEHICLES OFFERED FROM WITHIN THE
COUNTRY
Bid Evaluation Using
Life Cycle Costing for Procurement
of 100 Urban Buses (cont’d)
 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
 FUEL COSTS SHALL BE COMPUTED ON
THE BASIS OF 100,000 KM OF
OPERATION PER YEAR AT
A FUEL PRICE OF
0.80 USD PER LITER,
DISCOUNTED TO NET PRESENT VALUE
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 10%
Bid Evaluation Using
Life Cycle Costing for Procurement
of 100 Urban Buses (cont’d)
 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
 SPARE PARTS COST SHALL BE BASED ON 100,000
KM PER YEAR OF OPERATION,
BASED ON THE GUARANTEED FIGURES
PROVIDED BY THE BIDDER FOR EACH YEAR,
DISCOUNTED TO NET PRESENT VALUES
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 10 PERCENT
 IF GUARANTEED FIGURES ARE NOT PROVIDED,
PURCHASER MAY USE
ESTIMATED FIGURES BASED ON
PAST EXPERIENCE, IF AVAILABLE
Bid Evaluation Using
Life Cycle Costing for Procurement
of 100 Urban Buses (cont’d)
 DEPRECIATED COST
 PURCHASER SHALL ESTIMATE
THE DEPRECIATED COST OF THE VEHICLE
OFFERED BASED ON THE
GUARANTEED LIFE PRIOR TO THE FIRST
MAJOR OVERHAUL, OR
BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE, BUT
IN NO CASE MORE THAN 8 YEARS.
 BIDDERS SHALL FURNISH ALL THE DATA
REQUIRED FOR THE ABOVE COMPUTATIONS
AS FURTHER OUTLINED UNDER CLAUSE OF
THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Bid Evaluation Using
Life Cycle Costing for Procurement
of 100 Urban Buses (cont’d)
ALL FIGURES IN 000’ USD
A
C
1.
2.
3.
4.
INITIAL COST
BID PRICE EX-FACTORY/CIF
EVALUATION ADJUSTMENT
FOR DELIVERY SCHEDULE
EVALUATION ADJUSTMENT FOR
VARIATION IN PAYMENT TERMS
TOTAL
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FUEL - GUARANTEED COST (AVERAGE)
FOR EACH YEAR
NPV FOR 6 YEARS
SPARES - GUARANTEED COST (AVERAGE)
FOR EACH YEAR
NPV FOR 6 YEARS
TOTAL
DEPRECIATED VALUE (DEDUCT)
LIFE
DEPRECIATED VALUE
TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST
RANKING
65,000
70,000
6,000
---
--71,000
1,000
71,000
(8,000)
34,840
(6,000)
26,130
(5,000)
21,775
56,615
(4,000)
17,420
43,550
(6 YRS)
0
127,615
2
(8 YRS)
12,500
102,050
1
Bid Evaluation Using
Life Cycle Costing for
Oil Palm Plant
RELEVANT PART OF THE BID EVALUATION
CLAUSES IN THE BIDDING DOCUMENTS
 THE EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF
RESPONSIVE BIDS SHALL BE BASED ON THE TOTAL
LIFE CYCLE COST FOR SIX YEARS, PER UNIT OF
OUTPUT
 THE LIFE CYCLE COST SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PLANT AND THE
COST OF OPERATION IN ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR SIX
YEARS OF OPERATION AT A UNIT COST OF US$ 0.10
PER KWH,
DISCOUNTED TO PRESENT VALUE AT 12%
Bid Evaluation Using
Life Cycle Costing for
Oil Palm Plant (cont’d)
3.
4.
5.
6.
BID EVALUATION AND COMPARISON
ALL FIGURES IN 000’ USD
A
C
INITIAL COST
9,500
10,300
OPERATING COST PER YEAR
(1,200)
(1,000)
OPERATING COST FOR 6 YEARS
NPV AT 12%
4,933
4,111
TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST
14,433
14,411
OUTPUT PER YEAR (TONS)
3,600
4,000
EVALUATED COST PER TON OF OUTPUT
4.01
3.60
RANKING
2
1
*
*
A:12 MILLION KWH @.10 PER KWH
B:10 MILLION KWH @.10 PER KWH
1.
2.
Evaluation Methodology
Merit Point System (NOT recommended by the World
Bank )
 ALLOCATE WEIGHTS TO
DIFFERENT TECHNICAL FEATURES
 ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN QUALITY AND PRICE
 SELECT BID WITH

HIGHEST NO. OF POINTS or

LOWEST PRICE PER POINT
 ADVANTAGE: SIMPLE
 DISADVANTAGE: SUBJECTIVE
ASSIGNMENT OF POINTS
Evaluation Methodology
Merit Point System (cont’d)
(NOT recommended by the World Bank )
 POINT WEIGHTAGES
TYPICAL
 EQUIPMENT PRICE
65-70
 SPARE PARTS
8 - 10
 TECHNICAL FEATURES
8 - 10
 AFTER SALES SERVICE
4- 5
 STANDARDIZATION
4- 5
TOTAL
 BIDDING DOCUMENTS
 SPECIFIES POINT WEIGHTAGE
100
Evaluation Methodology
Multiple Lots
LOTS INCLUDE ALL ITEMS
 INCOMPLETE LOTS

> 10% REJECTED

< 10% PRICE TO BE ADJUSTED
 EVALUATION OF EACH LOT (1, 2, …) FROM
EACH BIDDER (A, B, C, …)
 COST OF ALL COMBINATIONS OF LOTS

A(1) + B(2) + C(3)

A(1+2) + B(3)

A(1+2+3)
 LOWEST EVALUATED COST COMBINATION

similar documents