DCS0611 Evaluation Criteria (Document 5)

Adult Social Care Commissioning

Contract Ref: DCS0611

Contract Name: Help to Live at Home (HTLAH)

Evaluation Criteria

Contact Name:Theo Biney, Senior Contracts Officer

Wiltshire Council

County Hall

Bythesea Rd

Trowbridge

Wiltshire

BA14 8JN

E-mail:

Section A

Bidding Principles and Evaluation Criteria

  1. Bidding Principles
  2. There are 6 Contractual Bidding areas East 1, South 1,2,3,4 and 5.
  3. Selection of the successful bid will be on the based on the bid which represents best value for the Commissioners.
  4. Bids from Providers will be weighted to consider:
  • Best quality/cost ratio of the bid
  • Level of market choice maintained across the County by the bid
  1. Evaluation Process Summary
  2. The Evaluation Process will consist of the following elements.
  3. Completion of the Gateway documentation (document 2a) Bidders must pass the gateway questions in order to progress to the next stage of evaluation.
  4. Evaluation of Tenderer’s Bids to establish their Quality score based on the response to the ITT questionnaire parts A and B (document 6).
  5. Evaluation of presentation focusing on how the Tenderer will implement this contract in the contract area to Commissioners, Customers and Stakeholders.
  6. A quality benchmark of 60% is set. Any bid not achieving 60% will be deemed non-compliant.
  7. Calculation of the financial cost of the bid for the area based on completion of the Financial Model Template (document 7a) as outlined in the Pricing schedule (document 7). Costs shall include all features highlighted in Document 1 Instructions to Tender Tenderer’s will submit:
  8. Rate Card costs
  9. Cost of Sheltered Accommodation support in contractual area
  10. Transition Costs

2.2.5.Quality/ marks for the case study scenario/Cost ratio 60:40 will be applied to establish a Tender score.

2.3.The Commissioner reserves the right to invite ‘Best and Final’ offers to all Tenderer’spassing the quality benchmark. It is anticipated that this right will only be exercised should the bid costs be prohibitive to awarding the contracts.

2.4.As part of due diligence the Commissioner will also carry out a Financial Sustainability check on all bids.

  1. Evaluating Quality
  2. Provider Bids will be allocated a quality score based on their responses to the:
  3. ITT Tender questionnaire (document 6)
  4. The Scenario (document 6a)
  5. The evaluation of the Customer and Stakeholder presentation.
  1. Tenders which fail to score at least 60% across all requirements may be deemed as non-compliant and therefore eliminated from the tender evaluation process.
  2. The Tender Questionnaire (document 6) and presentationwill be marked by a selected panel:
  3. Evaluators will allocate a mark to each question between 0 and 10.
  4. Scoring Criteria

Each Question will be scored out of the maximum marks available on the following basis:

The following guidance indicates characteristics of best and worst responses to questions. The marks out of 10 will be for the quality questionnaire. These characteristics will be used by evaluators when assessing your tender document.

These ratings will be applied by a panel based on how well the Tenderer can demonstrate the criteria, characteristics, innovativeness or qualities requested by the question

Excellent / The response by the Bidder provides a very high degree of confidence of being able to support the achievement of the intended outcomes of Help to Live at Home.
The response is fully detailed with appropriate explanations and supporting evidence, there are no minor issues and no major issues.
The response demonstrates a number of strengths and that the desired standards will be exceeded in most respects.
Quality
10
Good / The response by the Bidder provides a high degree of confidence of being able to support the achievement of the intended outcomes of Help to Live at Home.
The response is detailed with appropriate explanations and supporting evidence, there are a limited number of minor issues and no major issues.
The response demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses and that the desired standards will be exceeded in some respects.
Quality
8 - 9
Acceptable / The response by the Bidder provides an acceptable degree of confidence of being able to support the achievement of the intended outcomes of Help to Live at Home.
The response is sufficiently detailed with some appropriate explanations and supporting evidence, there are a number of minor issues and it is anticipated that the very limited number of major issues can be readily resolved.
The response demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses and that the desired standards will be met.
Quality
6 - 7
Concern / The response by the Bidder gives rise to concerns about being able to support the achievement of the intended outcomes of Help to Live at Home.
The response has limited detail with limited appropriate explanations and supporting evidence, there are a significant number of minor and major issues.
The response demonstrates less strength than weaknesses and that the desired standards may not be met.
Quality
4 - 5
Poor / The response by the Bidder gives rise to considerable concern about being able to support the achievement of the intended outcomes of Help to Live at Home.
The response has limited detail with limited appropriate explanations and supporting evidence, there are many minor issues and a high number of major issues.
The response demonstrates less strength than weaknesses and that the desired standards are unlikely to be met.
Quality
2 - 3
Unacceptable / The response by the Bidder does not provide the confidence that it will be able to support the achievement of the intended outcomes of Help to Live at Home.
The response is incomplete and/or has insufficient detail with virtually no appropriate explanations and supporting evidence. There are a substantial number of minor issues and major issues.
The desired standards are highly unlikely to be met.
Quality
0 - 1
  1. Evaluating Costs
  2. Tenderer’s will submit using the Financial Model Template (document 7a)
  • Rate Card costing sheet for the contract area,
  • Transition Costs,
  • Financial Template for the contractual area the Tenderer wishes to bid on.

4.2.Rate Cards

The costs submitted will allow the evaluators to translate the rate cards into the total annualised cost of the bid for the contractual area the bid relates to.

4.3.Transitional Costs

For evaluation purposes 20% of any transitional costs will be added to the total annualised cost for the first year of the contract term.

4.4.Discounts

No multi-area discounts will be applied at this point.

4.5.Bids will be allocated a score based on the cost of the bid for the area compared to the lowest bid for the contract area.

  1. Tender Rating
  2. Quality and Cost scores will be aggregated into an overall Quality/Cost ratio to produce an initial ‘Tender Score’
  3. The Quality/Cost ratio will be 60:40
  1. Customer and Stakeholder Presentations
  2. Qualifying Tenderers for the contractual area(s) will be invited to deliver presentations to the Commissioners, selected Customers and Stakeholders. The presentation will form 10% of the overall quality score based on the evaluation criteria described below. The purpose of the presentation will be to obtain a clear understanding of how the Tenderer intends to implement this contract in the contract area. It will also be an opportunity for the Commissioner, Customers and Stakeholders pose questions to the Tenderers.
  3. Invitations to presentations will be proffered to those Tenderers who submit a qualifying bid.
  4. Scores for the presentations will form a part of the overall Quality Score. The quality score for the presentation will be added to the score achieved through the Tender Questionnaire submission creating the total Quality Score.
  5. Presentation Scoring Criteria.

The total marks available for this presentation will be 100 marks. The questions will be developed by the customer reference group and distributed to all qualifying Tenderers in advance of the presentation.

The questions will be marked based on the following criteria with weightings applied to each question.

0Unacceptable - Does not meet the requirement. Insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the Tenderer has the ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required.

1Serious reservations -Satisfies the requirement but with considerable reservations of the Tenderer’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource & quality measures; little or no evidence to support the response.

2Minor Reservations - Satisfies the requirement with minor reservations of the Tenderer’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource & quality measures required; limited evidence to support the response

3Acceptable - Satisfies the requirement. Demonstration by the Tenderer of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource & quality measures required; evidence to support the response.

4Good - Satisfies the requirement with minor additional benefits. Above average demonstration by the Tenderer of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource & quality measures required. Identifies factors that will offer potential added value; evidence to support the response.

5Excellent - Exceeds the requirement. Exceptional demonstration by the Tenderer of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource & quality measures required. Response identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with evidence to support the response.

7.Cost Modelling for Qualifying Bids.

7.1Bids for the Contract Area will be subject to a Risk Weighting Factor as set out below.

N.B. Whilst contract areas East 2, North 1&2, West 1&2 are not included within this tender process, existing Providers in these areas will be subject to the same weighting principles as outlined in 6.7 of this document.

7.2East 1 and 2, North 1 and 2 and West 1 and 2 equate to weighted Contract Areas, for the purposes of this tender South any 3 lots within the South zone equate to one weighted Contract Area.

Number of areas bid / Additional Weighting (%)
Two / 2
Three / 4
Four / 20
Five / 30
Six / 40
Seven / 50
Eight / 60

7.3Application of the above process will result in a new cost score

8.Tender Rating

8.1For all qualifying bids Quality and Cost scores will be aggregated into an overall Quality/Cost ratio to produce a final ‘Tender Score’.

8.2The Quality/Cost ratio will be 60:40.

8.3In the event that more than one bid for any combination results in the same Tender rating, the Bid representing the least cost will have preference.

9.Best Value

9.1The Commissioner is committed to identifying the combination of contract awards that results in the Best Value.

9.2The bidding scenarios that represent the Best Value will form the preferred combination of contract awards for the contractual area.

10.Approval to Award

The contract award that effects Best Value will be submitted to the Council Officer with Delegated Authority to approve.

11.Enhanced Bids

11.1The Commissioner reserves the right to invite ‘Best and Final’ offers to all Tenderer passing the quality benchmark.

11.2Should the Commissioner invite enhanced bids:

11.2.1The Commissioner will inform all Tenderers who have met the Quality threshold.

11.2.2Enhanced Bids are to be unqualified.

11.2.3Changes to Costs submitted (if any) will be updated and final Tender Scores will be recalculated.

11.2.4The Tenderer with the highest Tender Score for the (revised) contract area will be awarded the Contract at the Councils discretion.

Section B

Section B outlines the set criteria for each section on how the scoring and weighting mechanism applies. For ease of reference, the relevant questions are marked against each criterion.

Invitation to Tender Questionnaire
Section A – Requirements
This section will be marked as Pass / Fail based on achieving at least 80% compliance.
NB. Section 10 will require 100% compliance
Section B - Scenario
This section will be marked in accordance with the Scoring Criteria as set out at 3.4. Marks will be awarded in accordance with the table below,a maximum of 450 marks is available which will account for 10% of the Quality mark awarded.
Scenario element / Marks Available
Ability to evidence understanding of the service specification and principles of the service in support planning. / 10
Ability to demonstrate innovation and creativity in support planning, making use of relevant local resources and suggesting creative means of delivering a range of outcomes. / 10
Assessment A (submitted on Support plan)
5 outcomes / (10 marks for each outcome)
Total marks available-50
Assessment B (submitted on Support plan)
16 outcomes / (10 marks for each outcome)
Total marks available-160
Assessment C (submitted on Support plan)
1 outcome / (10 marks for each outcome)
Total marks available-10
Assessment D (submitted on Support plan)
19 outcomes / (10 marks for each outcome)
Total marks available-190
Assessment E (submitted on Support plan)
CHC / Total marks available-10
Assessment F (submitted on Support plan)
CHC / Total marks availible-10
Section C – Detailed Questions
Quality Questionnaire / Weighting
(1:5) / Total Score available
1 / How will you ensure that you are able to deliver safe, timely and appropriate care across the life of the contract? / 5 / 400
2 / How will you recruit, retain and develop a skilled and stable workforce for the life of this contract? / 5 / 450
3 / How will you incorporate the principles of ‘Help to Live at Home’ into a sustainable business model that is attractive to the statutory sector and is also marketable to the private sectors? / 5 / 250
4 / How will you maintain and improve the quality of the service you provide throughout the life of the contract and ensure that you continue to meet legally required standards? / 2 / 100

Section C

Quality Scoring Breakdown
Document 2a / Pass/Fail
Section A (Requirements) / Pass/Fail
Section B Marks Available (10%) of quality score / 450
Section C Marks Available (80% of quality score) / 1200
Presentation Marks Available (10% of quality score) / 100
Total Quality Marks Available (60% of total score) / 1750

© Wiltshire Council1