Evaluation Process - Department of Health, Social Services and

Evaluation Process Overview
Health Estates Investment Group
Construction Procurement Policy
July 2011
• To provide an overview of the PQQ/
Tender Evaluation Process
• To ensure that all personnel are aware of
their role in the process
Evaluation Process
• The evaluation of PQQ’s and Tenders is a crucial stage in the
procurement process
• It is essential that those engaged in procuring goods, services or
works ensure that the evaluation of its tenders is in accordance with:
Applicable international and national
rules that regulate the procurement
process ie The Public Contracts Regulations 2006
Northern Ireland Public Procurement
Probity Standards
Evaluation Panel
All members of the Evaluation Panel must adhere to the principles underlying probity
and act in a manner consistent with Northern Ireland Public Procurement Policy, the
Principles of Public Life and the NICS Code of Ethics.
Size, make up and experience of the Panel must reflect the scale and complexity of
the activity to be evaluated , including the degree of specialist input consistent with
the nature of the procurement.
Evaluation Panel must have a minimum of three members and at least one member
should be a CoPE Representative. The Panel must have a Chair person.
All Panel Members must sign a Conflict of Interest Declaration and panel members
who are not public servants may be required to enter into a Confidentiality
A person with any external personal, professional or monetary interests in the tenders
they are being asked to evaluate cannot remain on the Panel.
Principles of Public Life (1)
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should
not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their
family, or their friends.
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other
obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in
in the performance of their official duties.
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding
contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public
office should make choices on merit.
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public
and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Principles of Public Life (2)
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their
decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating
to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a
way that protects the public interest.
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by
leadership and example.
These principles apply to all aspects of public life.
Guiding Principles of Northern Ireland Public Procurement
Policy (1)
ACCOUNTABILITY: effective mechanisms must be in place in order to enable Departmental
Accounting Officers and their equivalents in other public bodies to discharge their personal
responsibility on issues of procurement risk and expenditure.
COMPETITIVE SUPPLY: procurement should be carried out by competition unless there are
convincing reasons to the contrary.
CONSISTENCY: suppliers, should, all other things being equal, be able to expect the same general
procurement policy across the public sector.
EFFECTIVENESS: public bodies should meet the commercial, regulatory and socio-economic goals of
government in a balanced manner appropriate to the procurement requirement.
EFFICIENCY: procurement processes should be carried out as cost effectively as possible.
FAIR-DEALING: suppliers should be treated fairly and without unfair discrimination, including
protection of commercial confidentiality where required. Public bodies should not impose
unnecessary burdens or constraints on suppliers or potential suppliers.
Guiding Principles of Northern Ireland Public Procurement
Policy (2)
INTEGRATION: in line with the statutory duties on equality of opportunity and sustainable
development and the Executive’s policy on joined –up government, procurement
policy should pay due regard to the Executive’s other economic, social and
environmental policies, rather than cut across them.
INTEGRITY: there should be no corruption or collusion with suppliers or others.
INFORMED DECISION-MAKING: public bodies need to base decisions on accurate
information and to monitor requirements to ensure that they are being met.
LEGALITY: public bodies must conform to European Community and other legal
RESPONSIVENESS: public bodies should endeavour to meet the aspirations,
expectations and needs of the community served by the procurement.
TRANSPARENCY: public bodies should ensure that there is openness and clarity on
procurement policy and its delivery.
Role of Chairperson
The role of the Chairperson is to:
Ensure panel members are appointed who have the necessary knowledge, skills,
competency and availability to carry out the evaluation
Ensure panel members have no conflict of interest at all stages of the process and
that the appropriate conflict of interest declarations/confidentiality agreements are
Ensure all evaluation documents, including all evaluation comments, justifications,
marks, and amendments are fully documented, signed off and dated by both the
panel members and the Chairperson
Ensure due cognisance is taken of the professional procurement advice provided by
the CoPE
Conduct a moderation exercise, if required
Be available to support with debriefing of unsuccessful Applicants/tenderers
Role of Panel Members
The role of a Panel Member is to:
Evaluate, in an open, proportionate and transparent manner each submission for evidence of how
the submission meets the requirements of the selection/award criteria and to score the submission
in accordance with the details contained in the PQQ/Tender Documents
Confirm that they have no conflict of interest at all stages of the process and that they have
completed the appropriate conflict of interest declaration/confidentiality agreement
Ensure that they sign off and date all evaluation documents, including all evaluation comments,
justifications, marks, and amendments
Ensure due cognisance is taken of the professional procurement advice provided by the CoPE
Contribute to a moderation exercise, if required
Be available to support with debriefing of unsuccessful Applicants/tenderers
Evaluating the Submissions (1)
Panel members must be competent evaluators:
The Contracting Authority has a statutory duty to the tenderer to comply with
the Procurement Directives and Contract Regulations which regulate the
procurement process
All procurements are subject to the principles of the EC Treaty, in particular
equality, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and
Incompetence or failure to follow a fair process may lead to the tender process
being subject to judicial proceedings resulting in the award being set aside,
thereby incurring additional costs and delays.
Where such an incident occurs as a result of an action which is known to be
unlawful or carried out with indifference to the consequences by a member of
the evaluation panel, the officer involved could be accused of misfeasance or
malfeasance in public office, which is an indictable offence that can result in
the officer being made personally liable for damages and costs awarded to an
injured party.
Evaluating the Submissions (2)
• Misfeasance
- A term used to describe an act that is legal but performed
• Malfeasance
- The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or
completely wrongful .
Competence and Fairness Requirements (1)
Appropriate Knowledge – panel members must have an understanding
and ability to exercise judgement in:
- regulatory environment and policy surrounding public procurement
- use of electronic system where appropriate
- requirements of the specification
- contents of each offer
- criteria and weightings for evaluation
- evaluation process
The Process – panel members should:
- ensure strict adherence by the bidders to the instructions given
- communicate material changes in the evaluation process
simultaneously to all tenderers before the closing date for receipt
- assess bids independently of each other and assign their own
individual scores (all bids should be marked by at least two
Competence and Fairness Requirements (2)
The Process (contd) – panel members should:
- use a common approach – based on standard mark sheet and guidance
- use the evaluation criteria and weightings detailed in the documentation
- Take care to preserve the equity of treatment between tenderers and to fully understand
and document the reasons for all decisions leading to selection and rejection of bids and/or
the award of the contract
Relevant Considerations – panel members should take into account:
- all relevant considerations related to each offer including:
the tenderers’ responses to all other information that
tenderers were required to supply
any variant bids offering economic advantage to the Client
(where permitted)
Irrelevant Considerations – panel members should NOT take into account:
- any irrelevant considerations related to each offer including:
anything outside the published selection/award criteria or information
anything at award stage which has been evaluated at selection/shortlisting
Competence and Fairness Requirements (3)
Conflicts of Interest – panel members should
Evidence of Probity – panel members must mark according to strictly defined scoring mechanism/marking
Speculation or suspicion or the personal knowledge of a panel member must not be used
Confidentiality – each bid should be viewed as commercially confidential information
not accept gifts or hospitality from tenderers and avoid contact with tenderers during the evaluation
process. Note: All contact with tenderers during the evaluation process must be handled by CPD/CoPE
Discuss any possible conflict of interest or issue of bias with the Chairperson – the Chairperson will
decide on an appropriate course of action
The contents of bids should not be disclosed to any party outside the formal evaluation process
Commenting during the Tender Evaluation Process – panel members should not discuss any element of the
tender evaluation process with work colleagues or any other party
the Chairperson of the panel (through CPD or CoPE) is the only permitted route for
commenting to outside parties
Recording of Evaluation Scores
Panel members must record individual scores against relevant
criteria, with substantiating notes. These notes will provide an
audit trail and form the basis of any debrief.
A separate set of scores may be taken where presentations form
part of the process. This score should be added to the score for
the written submission. Contracts must never be awarded solely
on the basis of presentations.
The Chairperson conducts a moderation procedure, producing a
score sheet of agreed, average or accumulated scores, in
accordance with the procedure set out in the PQQ/tender
documents. This is circulated to the panel for review. This will
assist with feedback to unsuccessful applicants/tenderers, and
identify any inconsistencies in marking or errors.
Panel Meetings
The panel may meet to discuss and agree the
outcomes of the initial marking process and finalise
recommendations. The Chairperson will prepare a
formal record of all discussions and decisions taken at
panel meetings.
The Contracting Authority ie the HSC Trust or Public
Safety Body will not reconsider the judgement of the
Evaluation Panel. The sole ground on which an
appeal may normally be made is one of improper
procedure. Only if investigation reveals a manifest
irregularity in the process will the scores be examined.

similar documents