1

PROCUREMENT & EVALUATION PLAN (PEP)
(INSERT PROJECT NUMBER) - (INSERT PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION)
(AZ NUMBER)
PROPONENT BRANCH:
ESTIMATED PROJECT VALUE: Total: $(excl. GST)
PROCUREMENT:<OPEN TENDER>
METHOD: <DEHP>
Prepared by:
Name:
Position:
Date:
Procurement & Evaluation Plan Endorsement:
I have reviewed and endorse/do not endorse this Procurement and Evaluation Plan in accordance with ID Directive 5.
Name:
Position:
Date:
Procurement & Evaluation Plan Approval:
I approve/do not approve this Procurement and Evaluation Plan in accordance with ID Directive 5.
Name:
Position:
Date:

PROCUREMENT AND EVALUATION PLAN

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Provide a brief overview of the project/s including location, size, current use, known contamination issues.

AIM

  1. This is the Procurement & Evaluation Plan (PEP) for the selection of a Lead Consultant and Technical Adviser (where applicable) from the Defence Environment and Heritage Panel (DEHP) to perform a Stage 1 desktop Environmental Investigation (EI)of [insert details of types of contamination] at [insert details of site(s)] (the Site(s)). If the desktop investigation justifies it, and DEIM agrees, the consultant will also be required to undertake a Stage 2 Intrusive EI of some or all of the Site(s) investigated, or other sites that become apparent from the investigations.
  2. [Provide a background on how and what sort of contamination was identified and state the relevant site(s)]
  3. [Explain why the program of works is necessary and what it needs to achieve]
  4. The program of works to be undertaken by the selected Lead Consultant (LC) is described in summary form in the next section of this PEP and a more detailed explanation of the requirements is specified in the Statement of Requirement (SOR)at Annexure A of the Request for Proposal (RFP) at Enclosure 1 of the PEP. The selection of the Consultant/s will be undertaken in accordance with the approved acquisition strategy and evaluation methodology.
  5. Approval is sought for this PEP including:
  6. the program of works;
  7. the proposed acquisition strategy for Consultant/s to perform the program of works;
  8. the evaluation process including the evaluation criteria, weightings and methodology, and the membership of the Tender Evaluation Board (Board)).

SCOPE OF WORK

Note to Drafters: This is a standard presentation of the work that is likely to be required for Phase 1 of a program of works (i.e. Stage 1, and if determined by DEIM, for Stage 2). It may be amended as required to fully capture any additional details required for a specific program of work, for example, by referring to specific forms of contamination at the identified Sites, and any particular services that may be required under the Stages. This should be included in the relevant paragraphs below. Most detail should be included in the SOR at Annexure A.

  1. Lead Consultant (LC)

Under the Stage 1 EI, the LC will be required to undertake an initial investigation of the site(s) through adesktop assessment to identify potential and known sources of contamination and contamination risks at theSite(s)which will provide more accurate information to develop risk profiles.

  1. The LC will provide a Stage 1 EIreport which:
  1. identifies all contamination and potential risks at the Site(s);
  2. provides adetailed risk assessment of all known and potential contamination atthe Site(s);
  3. provides recommendations for further work.
  1. If a Stage 2 Intrusive EI is required at all or some of the Sites, the LC will be authorised to proceed to Stage 2 for those Sites. If Stage 2 is not required, or required at some Sites only, the procurement will be terminated or reduced in scope at the end of Stage 1 in accordance with clause 6 of the Terms of Engagement under the DEHP arrangement.
  2. Under Stage 2 the LC will conduct a field program of intrusive sampling investigation. This will involve [amend as required]:
  3. sSoil/sediment/groundwater sampling and analysis to determine the nature, extent and severity of contamination of soil, groundwater and sediments;
  4. imagery scanning of underground features such as landfills or UXO.
  5. assessment of the risks of the contamination to people and the environment;
  6. identification of remedial or management actions required to reduce the risks to acceptable levels; and
  7. a risk assessment workshop to confirm the level of risk and sites requiring management and/or remediation.
  8. The LCwill provide aStage 2 EI report which:
  1. identifies all known and potential contamination at the Site(s) with a detailed risk assessment for each site;
  2. ranks sites according to health/environmental risk;
  3. provides recommendations and proposed risk management strategies for each site.
  1. A detailed list of services to be provided by the LCis specified in the SOR attached at Annexure A.
  2. Technical Adviser (TA)

If DEIM agrees that Stage 2 is to be performed, Defence will engage a Technical Adviser(TA) from the DEHP under a separate procurement to:

  1. provide technical advice and peer review on the methods of investigations, sampling techniques/results and the draft reports and recommendations prepared by the Lead Consultant under Stage 2;
  2. ensure the Lead Consultant’s work is comprehensive, meets Defence’s intended project outcomes and demonstrates due diligence; and
  3. ensure all work performed by the Lead Consultant complies with relevant local, state and national regulatory requirements.
  1. A detailed list of services to be provided by the TAis specified in the SOR attached at Annexure A.

PROJECT VALUE

Table 1: Project Budget Estimates

Budget Requirement / Budget Year $ / Forward Year Estimates $
FY11/12 / FY12/13 / FY14/15
Lead Consultant
Technical Adviser
Total Expenses
  1. The current estimated cost of the proposed program of works is: $ (excl. GST). This estimate has been derived on the following basis:
  1. [insert how estimate has been calculated]

Funding will be available from [insert source of funding] of which the total allocation is $ [insert] (excl. GST).

The preferred date of implementation of the project is (insert date). Funding will take place in the FY 20XX/20XX.

PROCUREMENT METHODOLOGY

Note to Drafters: The methodology outlined in this section can be amended as required to meet the needs of a particular procurement, or where a further justification is required for the methodology.

  1. The Lead Consultant(s)and Technical Adviser will be selected through a competitive process using the DEHP. DEIM intends submitting a Request for Proposal (RFP) to[insert names of companies selected to tender] for the Lead Consultant role and [insert names of companies selected to tender] for the Technical Adviser role. Each member of the DEHP issued with a RFP (in the form set out at Annexure C) will be requested to submit a proposal which:
  1. demonstrates an understanding of what Defence requires under the program of works including an understanding of Defence’s objectives and expected outcomes from the conduct of the program of works;
  2. provides details outlining its ability to perform the program of works with supporting evidence of expertise, experience and key personnel;
  3. provides costings for Stage 1, and the basis on which costings for Stage 2 would be determined by reference to its rates under the DEHP;
  4. offers criteria the respondent considers would enable Defence to assess the outcomes of Stage 1, and determine whether a Stage 2 investigation is required at any or all of the Sites;
  5. demonstrates an ability to meet all other requirements stated in the SOR.
  6. All proposals will be evaluated against the evaluation methodology set out in paragraphs 24? - 30 ?below.

The proposed acquisition is subject to the Mandatory Procurement Procedures for the purposes of Division 2 of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (CPGs). The procurement has the following characteristics:

  1. the total anticipated expenditure exceeds $80,000 (for non construction services); or,
  2. $9 million (for construction services); and
  3. none of the exemption categories detailed in AppendixA ofthe CPGs apply.
  1. Where the program of works involves a number of projects and Sites, and depending on the outcomes of the evaluation process, DEIM may select more than one lead consultant to undertake specific projects or perform services at specific Site(s). DEIM will only do so where the evaluation process demonstrates that those consultants can perform all the required services and provide value for money to Defence in accordance with the evaluation methodology set out below.
  2. The acquisition methodology is structured in a way which only commits Defence to a Stage 1 Desktop EI with the option to proceed to Stage 2if the outcomes of Stage 1 indicate that a more intrusive investigation is required at all or some of the Sites, and DEIM is satisfied after applying the criteria in the SOR that further investigations are justified. Completion of Stage 1 will therefore be treated as a go/no go point. This will enable Defence to achieve continuity in service delivery, enable DEIM to better manage consultant performance during the entire EI stage, remove the risk of different consultants providing different advice, and provide better value for money by reducing the number of procurement processes that need to be conducted while retaining competition at the selection stage.
  3. This proposed acquisition methodology:
  1. Is consistent with all applicable Commonwealth, Defence and ID procurement policy and processes;
  2. uses the processes applicable to the DEHP;
  3. is appropriate as DEHP members were pre-selected through an open tender process to provide environmental and heritage services throughout Australia to Defence in the areas of professional advice, environmental training, and the preparation of plans, reports, survey, studies and assessments which are relevant to this procurement, and DEHP members were found to provide value for money to Defence;
  4. Will ensure that the consultant(s) which provides the best value for money is selected.
  5. The acquisition process will commence when DEIM sends a letter inviting selected members of the DEHP to submit proposals in response to the Requests for Proposal (RFP). The RFP has three components:
  1. a set of rules which describe how the procurement will be conducted and how proposals will be evaluated;
  2. a SOR(in the form at Annexure A of the Request for Proposal (RFP) at Enclosure 1 of the PEP) which describes Defence’s requirements for the program of works and Services to be provided;
  3. returnable schedules which tenderers must complete and submit by the due date for evaluation.

VALUE FOR MONEY

  1. The proposed method of procurement described above will achieve value for money forDefenceas:
  1. it uses established procurement processes including the existing ID panel arrangements which were established following competitive processes;
  2. by sending RFPs to the panel members with the most relevant skill and experience in dealing with the contamination that is subject to the program of works, DEIM will be able to engage the most qualified consultant(s) to undertake the works, which is more likely to result in an effective outcome for Defence and the objectives of the National Program;
  3. the expected costs associated with this program of works are based on established panel rates, and are within the expected range of costs when compared to the historical data on such programs of works; and
  4. the procurement methodology applies all relevant Commonwealth and Defence procurement policies and processes intended to support the principle of value for money as the overarching objective stated in the CPGs.

RISK ASSESSMENT

  1. The procurement and evaluation process being used for this procurement has taken into account the risks to the conduct of the procurement process and successful delivery of the project, and incorporated measures and strategies likely to lessenthe identified risks.

Table 2: Procurement Risk Assessment

Risk / Mitigation
Proposal responses are received where the tenderers are not capable or and incapable tenderer is selected / Tenderers are selected from an established Defence panel where members have already been declared as capable of undertaking the type of work required.
Tender process is seen as discriminatory / Where possible all panel members with the appropriate capabilities to undertake the tasks required will be approached to submit a proposal. Where all panel members are not approached to tender for tasks within their capabilities there is sound reasoning behind the decision. Select tendering from the established panels is within the guidelines of the panel arrangements. This approach will ensure a non discriminatory process is still achieved.
  1. The risks associated with procuring consultants from established Defence panels are reduced due to the process by which they have been selected to become panel members.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

  1. A Tender Evaluation Board (Board) will be established to review the tender submissions. The Board will include a member independent from the NCRP team where possible.

25.Evaluation Steps

The evaluation process will be undertaken in accordance with the following steps:

  1. Step 1 – Receipt and Registration

Defence will register Proposals following the Proposal Closing Time. Proposals lodged otherwise than in accordance with this RFP will be registered separately and dealt with in accordance with the Tender Lodgement Procedures and Late Tenders policy detailed in Chapter 5.5 of the DPPM.

  1. Step 2 – Screening

Proposals will be screened by the Chairperson of the Board to identify those which are incomplete or non-compliant. They will initially be set aside but may be considered at a later stage in the evaluation process. Firms that do not submit a complying submission are to be noted and specifically discussed during the Board meeting. The Board Report is to specifically address the deliberations about non-conforming submissions that may be received.

  1. Step 3 - Detailed Evaluation

Each member of the assessment panel will be required to score each submission in accordance with the criteria prior to the Evaluation Board meeting. The individual pre-Board meeting scores are to be recorded and included as an Annex in the Board Report.

A Board meeting will assess the submissions received. The Board will discuss each submission and determine an agreed technical score. The agreed Board score will be included as an Annex in the Board Report. The Board may seek clarification from tenderers or undertake any other checks during this stage. The Board may shortlist Proposals at the end of this step. The details of any discussions held are to be recorded in the Board Report.

In the event that the Technical Merit identifies any Proposal that does not demonstrate sufficient capability to undertake the project requirements and present a high risk to Defence, the Board may exclude the Proposal from further evaluation. Reasons for exclusion will be documented in the Board reportand must be supported by the technical merit scores.

  1. Step 4 – Rates and Price

An assessment of rates and pricing will be undertaken following the detailed evaluation.

  1. Step 5 – Value for Money

The Board will then make an assessment of the Proposal(s) which represent best value for money to Defence. The Board will determine value for money by a consideration of:

(1)the detailed assessment against evaluation criteria;

(2)the rates and pricing;

(3)compliance generally with theRFP, and particularly the SOR; and

(4)any risks identified in the evaluation process.

The Board will then reach a preferred tenderer list and source selection recommendation. The Chair will record the discussions and comments against the technical merit evaluation and value for money assessment.

The Chair will facilitate scoring reconciliation where the evaluators in the TEB are unable to reconcile their assessments. Where resolution cannot be achieved between two evaluators in the TEB, the Chair will make the final decision. The Chair will enter the tenderer’s final agreed score for each evaluation criterion into an Excel spreadsheet and apply the weightings (where applicable).

  1. Proposals in response to the RFP are to be submitted as follows:
  1. Proposal Closing Time:[insert time]

[insert date].

  1. Location:[insert details of location/tender box]

29.Evaluation Criteria and Scoring

The following Evaluation Criteria will be used to evaluate Proposals:

  1. quality, experience and expertise of the Respondent and key personnel;
  2. project team performance and capacity including;

(1).the Respondent’s ability to undertake the program of works, including current workload and availability;

(2).number and quality of resources allocated to the program of works (i.e. are there enough hours allocated to people, are the most appropriate people doing the right tasks);and

  1. proposed pricing and potential cost to Defence.

Table 3: Selection Criteria and Weighting[Can be modified for specific projects]

CRITERION / CRITERION WEIGHTING (%)
1 / Proposed approach to the SOR tasks and methodology / 60%
a) Demonstrated insight and understanding of the nature and scope of program of works
b) Appreciation of the potential issues and risks associated with the project.
c) Proposed methodology and approach including ability to conduct strategic planning exercises, stakeholder consultation and technical reporting.
2 / Experience and Quality of Personnel / 30%
a) Demonstrated performance on Similar Projects
b) past performance of contractual and project obligations
c) description of proposed roles and responsibilities for the nominated key personnel
d) quality and experience of key personnel
3 / Capacity
a) Respondent’s ability to undertake the task including current workload and availability
b) Schedule of resources allocated to the project (i.e. are there enough hours allocated to people, are the most appropriate people doing the right tasks) / 10%
4 / TOTAL / 100%

The scoring system suggested for use in the evaluation process for the submissions is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Criteria scoring method

Score / Description / Interpretation
0 / Unacceptable / Has not demonstrated any capability
1 / Marginal / Has barely demonstrated capability
2 / Acceptable / Has demonstrated adequate capability without any enhancement
3 / Good / Has demonstrated more than adequate capabilities
4 / Very Good / Has demonstrated more than adequate capabilities and has additional factors which sets its apart
5 / Excellent / Outstanding in all respects

30.Evaluation Report (ER)

The evaluation process will result in an Evaluation Report (ER). The ER will document justification for the selection of preferred tenderer and detail the value for money assessment. The Board will formally endorse the evaluation process and recommendations by individually signing the ER.