Proposal Evaluation
and
Recommendation Report
for the Steering Committee

Insert Name of Proposed Procurement>

Request Number: SUB/<insert TRIM Number>

Evaluation Report TemplateAs at December 2011

Issue 1

Executive Summary

Purpose
To obtain your approval of this Evaluation and Recommendation Report for the <Procurement Name>. The value for money assessment has identified <Name(s)> as the Preferred Respondent for the RFT. This report seeks to progress due diligence checks and negotiations with the Preferred Respondent(s).

Background

  • Edith Cowan University (ECU) is seeking to appoint a preferred vendor for <Procurement>.
  • <Number of vendors> vendors were shortlisted for the provision of these services to the University based on the Procurement Plan approved on <date>.
  • The RFT was issued on <date> and responses from <Number of vendors> vendors were received on <date>.
  • These responses were subject to 3 major evaluations:
  • Qualitative Assessment – Performed by Qualitative Panel;
  • Quantitative Assessment – Performed by Quantitative Panel; and
  • Value for Money and Risk assessments – Performed by Strategic Procurement and Evaluation Team.

Recommendations

  • Qualitative and quantitative scores were assigned independently by the evaluation panel. Subsequently, the respondents were ranked based on their Value for Money. Table below summarises the outcomes from the evaluation:

Vendor / Qualitative Score / Quantitative Cost / Value for Money / Ranking
Name
Name
Name
  • This methodology leads to <Name(s)>being chosen as the Preferred Respondent. Further details are available in this Report.

Next Steps

  • Engage <Name(s)> in negotiating terms and pricing model.
  • Conduct due diligence check if required.
  • Finalise contract for execution.

Consultation

This Evaluation and Recommendation Report is prepared in consultation with the following personnel:

  • XXX,
  • XXX and
  • Andrew Kong, Manager, Strategic Sourcing and Contracts

Approval

Name / Date / Signature
APPROVED BY / Name of Project Steering Committee Members
Title
APPROVED BY / Name of Project Steering Committee Members
Title

Contents

1Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Purpose of this Report

1.3 Recommendation

2Project Overview

2.1Project background

3Evaluation Summary

3.1Compliance Criteria

3.2Qualitative Assessment

3.3Quantitative Assessment

3.4Value for Money Assessment

3.5Probity

3.6Risk Assessment

4Recommendation for Approval & Next Steps

5Recommendation

5.1Respondent(s)

5.2Scope of negotiations

6Next Steps

7Endorsement

8Appendices 1 – Approved Procurement Plan

1Introduction and Executive Summary

1.21.1Introduction

The University requires goods or services outlined below as identified in the Procurement Plan and Business Case dated <date> and <date> respectively.

Goods and/or services required include:

  • XXX
  • XXX
  • XXX

Anopen/closed/restricted tender was published on <date>and <number>suppliers were invited to respond/responded to the tender.

<Name of School/Centre> facilitated the tender in consultation with Strategic Procurement.

1.31.2Purpose of this Report

This report summarises theprocess undertakenfor the above procurement, the outcome of the tender, the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee (EC), and seeks approval from the Steering Committee to:

Short list preferred respondents
Enter negotiations with the Prime and Second Respondents.
Enter negotiations with a preferred respondent

1.41.3Recommendation

The Evaluation Committee recommends proceeding to a stage of negotiation with:

Insert name of preferred respondent
The following respondents should be kept on hold as back up choices during this process.
Insert name of remaining short listed respondents, if applicable.

The decision is based upon evaluation of the submissions as outlined in Section 4, a value for money analysis and due diligence check.

2Project Overview

2.2Project background

The University is seeking to appoint a preferred supplier/s, to provide <insert the name of the goods or services planned to be procured> to support and conduct a range of activities on behalf of <insert the name of the Faculty or Service Centre owning the procurement>. The new contract will be expected to maintain current levels in effectiveness and efficiency at a minimum, with preference for identification of opportunities for improvements in future activities. Estimated costs associated with the procurement are indicated below:

Total estimated expenditure for the initial term / $
Initial term / # years
Extension term / # extensions of # years.

3Evaluation Summary

3.1Compliance Criteria

Based on the compliant criteria outlined in the Evaluation Handbook, the following submissions were considered compliant and non compliant:

Compliant? / Name of respondent / Reason for non-compliance
Yes / Vendor / Not Applicable
No / Vendor / Reason

3.2Qualitative Assessment

A normalisation session was conducted on Date and the following principles were used:

  • Eliminated

Respondents with a consensus score below 3 in relation to one or more of the RFT qualitative criteria were eliminated (i.e. as documented in the Evaluation Handbook); and

  • In consideration

Respondents with a consensus score of 3 and above met the minimum requirements and were progressed to the Value for Money Assessment stage. The outcomes of the qualitative assessment are documented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Qualitative Score

Major Criteria / Weighting / Name / Name / Name / Name
Score / Score / Score / Score
Financial Viability & Organisational fit / 25% / 25% / 25% / 25% / 20.8%
Demonstrable Capability and Experience / 35% / 17% / 19.4% / 20% / 18.4%
Service Delivery and Relationship Management / 30% / 5% / 2% / 5% / 5%
Value Added / Associated Benefits / 10% / 20% / 20% / 10% / 20%
100%
Weighted Score / 92.6% / 94.0% / 82.4% / 88.6%

Reference check were also conducted on Key2Creative to assess its suitability to provide the services to the University. The following reference site was used:

Name
Contact Information

The following is a summary of the commentary from the referees:

XXX

3.3Quantitative Assessment

The Quantitative Assessment was concluded on date and the findings are detailed below:

  • Respondents were scored based on a scenario outlined in the Evaluation Plan. The assumptions made in this scenario do not necessarily represent the current stateperfectly, however were deemed realistic and were formulated on the basis of ensuring a like-for-like comparison between respondents.
  • The outcomes of the scenario analysis are documented in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Quantitative Score

Vendor / Total Quantitative Score
Name / $
Name / $
Name / $

3.4Value for Money Assessment

Having considered the collective outcomes from the qualitative and quantitative assessment, Table 3 summarises the outcomes from the Value for Money Assessment stage.

  • It is clear that <Name> is the more favoured respondent, cost was competitive and scored significantly higher on their qualitative scoring, thus yielding a better Value for Money rank overall.

Table 3: Value for Money Assessment (Ranking)

Vendor / Value for Money / Ranking
Name / $ XXX / X
Name / $ XXX / X
Name / $ XXX / X

3.5Probity

A Probity Advisor was appointed / was not appointed to review the process used to evaluate the submissions and identify the recommended supplier. The findings of the review will be submitted at the end of the procurement process. The following / No issues were identified / not identified.

  • Issue 1
  • Issue 2

3.6Risk Assessment

Following analysis of the VFM results, it was decided to proceed with the evaluation of only <insert names of short listed respondents>given that their offerings significantly surpassed that of <insert names of respondents not short listed.

A comprehensive evaluation of the risks associated with the Preferred Respondent was then undertaken. A summary of the findings is shown below:

Risk Identified / Responsibility / Proposed Treatment
Risk #1 / XXX / XXX

The risk analysis demonstrates that there is only a moderate> degree of risk inproceeding to a stage of negotiation with the <insert the name of the preferred respondent>.The University has clearly outlined ways in which these risks can be mitigated.

4Recommendation for Approval & Next Steps

The Evaluation Committee met on dateto review the results from the Value for Money Assessment stage.

As a result from the review, the EC recommends the Steering Committee to approve <Preferred Respondent Name(s)> as the Preferred Respondent and to progress to the next phase – Due Diligence Check and Contracts Negotiations.

4.1Due Diligence

The EC recommends that the following due diligence checks to be conducted prior to the Negotiation and finalisation of Contracts phase:

  • Reference checks;
  • Standard financial assessment; and
  • Variation of terms & conditions assessment.

A final memo will be prepared to document the outcomes from the due diligence and will be included as an addendum to this Evaluation Report.

5Recommendation

5.2Respondent(s)

The EC recommends the Steering Committee approve entering into negotiations with <insert the name of the preferred respondent>based on the results of the evaluation of the selection criteria, the reference site feedback and the fit with the University business requirements.

5.3Scope of negotiations

It is proposed that negotiations will lead on the following areas:

Pricing / <insert aspects of pricing to be negotiated>
Service Delivery / <insert aspects of service delivery to be negotiated>
Transition and Service Commencement / <insert aspects of transition requirements and service commencement details to be negotiated>
Additional Benefits / <insert details of additional benefits to be leveraged on>
Relationship management / Agreements on reports to be made available
Quarterly Review meeting’s agenda and frequency
Discussions on Service Level Agreement

6Next Steps

Approval for this report and Steering Committee sign-off
Approval to short list for negotiations

7Endorsement

Name / Date / Signature
RECOMMENDED / Name of Strategic Procurement Team
Title
ENDORSED BY / Name of Evaluation Committee Team Member
Title
ENDORSED BY / Name of Evaluation Committee Team Member
Title
ENDORSED BY / Name of Evaluation Committee Team Member
Title
ENDORSED BY / Name of Evaluation Committee Team Member
Title

8Appendices 1 – Approved Procurement Plan

<Attached approved Procurement Plan>

Evaluation Report TemplateAs at December 2011

Issue 1