4.3.4 Evaluation procedure

Home Page  <<  >>

In accordance with the provisions of the legislation on the award of public contracts, the evaluation procedure comprises two key distinct stages:

The qualitative selection of the candidate economic operators, and
The evaluation of the tenders of the economic operators found to meet the qualitative selection criteria, for the appointment of the contractor and the award of the contract.

The aim of the qualitative selection stage is to verify the existence of the characteristics and capacities which the Contracting Authority deems necessary for economic operators to possess in order to be eligible to participate in the tender procedure conducted, being thus considered as potentially capable of performing the contract.

The stage of appointment of contractor, which follows the qualitative selection stage, is directly linked to the technical and financial evaluation of the tenders of economic operators who, during the previous stage, were considered as potentially capable of performing the contract.

The stage of qualitative selection of candidate economic operators constitutes the prequalification phase (in the case of contracts put out to tender using the restricted procedure) or the first phase of the evaluation (in the case of contracts put out to tender using the open procedure), with no differences as to its objectives and the method of its implementation between the two cases. The only difference is the eventual limitation of the number of candidate economic operators during the prequalification stage under the restricted procedure, if a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents. This particular case is dealt with below by means of a special reference.

To facilitate the work of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and ensure the soundest allocation of its individual activities from the viewpoint of methodology, it is advisable to break down the two above-mentioned evaluation stages into successive steps, as follows:

Stage of qualitative selection of candidate economic operators:

Preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders.
Verification of formal requirements for participation.
Verification of the fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria.
Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the qualitative selection.
Ranking of participants, where a specific number of candidates to be invited to tender is provided for (in the case of a restricted procedure).
Drawing up of part Α of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report, concerning the qualitative selection.

Where the tender procedure is conducted in accordance with the restricted procedure, the Qualitative Selection Report is a separate report and is submitted for approval to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract.

Stage of evaluation of tenders for the award of the contract:

General evaluation of the technical offers.
Presentation of tenders, if provided for in the tender documents.
Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the technical evaluation.
Marking of technical offers, when the contract award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.
Drawing up of part Β of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report, concerning the technical evaluation.

At this point, the approval of the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract concerning the Qualitative Selection and of Technical Evaluation Report is obtained (if two separate sub-envelopes are provided for).

General evaluation of financial offers.
Marking of financial offers.
Ranking of tenders.
Drawing up of the Final Evaluation Report.

In the following Sections of this Chapter, a detailed presentation is made of the tasks and activities of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, as well as of the manner of addressing any problems emerging during each of the successive stages of the evaluation procedure.

Preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders

In this step, tenders are checked to establish whether or not they conform to the provisions of the tender documents regarding:

Their packaging and proper labelling with the titles of the tender procedure.
The existence of separate sub-envelopes (one for the supporting documents and technical offer, and one for the financial offer of each tenderer), if a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents.
The existence of magnetic media (CD), if the tender documents provide for the submission of tenders also in electronic form.
The existence of the required number of copies of each tender, as provided for in the tender documents.
The signature of the tender by the appropriate person, as per the terms of the tender procedure.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETENESS OF TENDERS

REQUIREMENTS

OF TENDER DOCUMENTS

FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

TENDERER Α

TENDERER Β

TENDERER C

TENDERER D

PACKAGING OF TENDER

P

P

P

P

SEPARATE SUB-ENVELOPES

P

P

P

 

LABELLING OF ENVELOPE /
SUB-ENVELOPES

P

P

 

 

MAGNETIC MEDIA

P

 

 

 

1 ORIGINAL AND 2 COPIES

 

 

 

 

SIGNATURE OF THE TENDER

 

 

 

 

For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick () in the cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements of the tender documents have been met.

If a tenderer fails to meet any one of the requirements in the above table, the corresponding cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically mentioned and designated as substantial or minor. This designation should be supported by adequate justification.

It is understood that in the case of minor deviations from the provisions of the tender documents, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may at its discretion consider the respective tenders to be admissible. Readers are reminded that minor deviations are taken to mean deviations which do not affect the extent of the Project scope or the quality of its execution, do not limit in any respect the rights of the Contracting Authority or the obligations of the Contractor, and do not impair the principle of equal treatment of Tenderers. In any case, however, the above discretion of the Competent Body must be exercised equitably and in accordance with common sense. In the preliminary examination stage, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders could for example consider a grammatical error in the labelling of the envelope or sub-envelopes, or even the submission of three copies of the tender even though the tender documents call for four copies, to be minor deviations; it should however consider as inadmissible a tender which does not contain the financial offer in a sealed sub-envelope, when this is clearly provided for in the tender documents.

After completing the above table, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders proceeds to the next stage of the evaluation procedure, for the tenders for which the preliminary examination procedure has been successful.

Verification of formal requirements for participation

During this step, the existence of information certifying the eligibility of the economic operator to submit a tender, in accordance with the specific provisions of the tender documents applicable in each case, is verified. In particular, and if the relevant provisions have been made in the tender documents, the following are checked:

a.The tender guarantee, which, if issued by a bank, must be drawn up in strict compliance with the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the Tender Documents, must be issued for the amount specified in the tender documents and must be valid for the period of time indicated in the tender documents.
b.The country of establishment of the tenderer.
c.If the tenderer is a legal person:
The existence of proof of establishment of the legal person.
d.If the Tenderer is a Consortium:
The existence of a Cooperation Agreement, signed by all participants in the consortium, stating:
The intention of each participant to participate in the consortium,
The participation rate of each member in the consortium,
The member to be the leader of the consortium, and
The person appointed as Representative of the consortium.
e.the existence of a Certificate establishing the tenderers enrollment on a professional or trade register, or a declaration on oath regarding the pursuit of the profession, or a certificate issued by a Competent Public Authority certifying the pursuit of the profession or, in the case of aliens, the existence of a certificate from the competent authority in their country of origin certifying their enrollment on the registers of the relevant chamber or other equivalent organisations.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:

VERIFICATION OF FORMAL PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS

REQUIREMENTS

OF TENDER DOCUMENTS

fulfilment OF REQUIREMENTS

NATURAL PERSONS

LEGAL PERSONS

CONSORTIA

TENDERER Α

TENDERER Β

TENDERER C

TENDERER D

PERSON Α

PERSON Β

TENDER GUARANTEE

 

 

 

 

COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT

 

 

 

 


PROOF OF ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL PERSON

 

 

 

 


SIGNATURE AUTHORISATION

 

 

 

 


COOPERATION AGREEMENT

 

 

 

 

ENROLLMENT ON A REGISTER

 

 

 

 


For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (P) in the cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements of the tender documents have been met.

If any one of the participation requirements in the table is not met, the corresponding cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting or to the Qualitative Selection Report, where the deviation should be specifically mentioned.

The formal requirements for participation examined in this stage are very important and no deviation from the provisions of the tender documents is allowed. Should such a deviation exist, it must lead to the rejection of the tender (or to the exclusion of the economic operator from participating in the tender submission stage, in the case of the restricted procedure).

After completing the above table, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders proceeds to the next stage of the evaluation procedure, for the tenders for which the verification of formal requirements for participation has been successful.

Verification of fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria

In this stage, the supporting documents for participation of candidate economic operators are validated, and fulfilment of the participation requirements regarding the economic operators personal situation, economic and financial standing and technical and/or professional ability, as specified in the tender documents, is verified.

More specifically:

a.To verify the personal situation of each tenderer, the following are checked:
The existence of a completed and duly signed Solemn Declaration certifying the Tenderer's Personal Situation, in the format of the template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents.
In the case of public service contracts or public works contracts, a relevant certification confirming that the tenderer is aware of and fulfils the obligations deriving from the provisions of the legislation on the protection of the employees and on working conditions, as in force in the Republic of Cyprus, drawn up in the format of the template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents.

If the tenderer is a consortium of persons or if the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties in accordance with the provisions of article 53(2) of Law 12(I)/2006 (or with the corresponding provisions of article 55(4) of Law 11(Ι)/2006), the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must verify the personal situation of each member of the consortium or of each third party, respectively.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must confirm that the contents of the submitted declarations and/or certifications comply fully with the relevant templates contained in the tender documents.

Members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may from their experience be aware of one or more reasons for exclusion, related to the personal situation of a tenderer, despite the existence of a declaration or certification to the contrary. In such a case, or in case the Contracting Authority is informed in writing by an economic operator participating in the tender procedure of the participation of a competitor of that operator, as described in Section 4.2.1 of this Chapter, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to investigate the matter in more detail, in order to establish the truth and decide accordingly. This investigation may for example be conducted by means of written communication with another competent public authority of the Republic of Cyprus or of another EU Member State, when there are suspicions that a candidate has been deprived of the right to participate in tender procedures due, for example, to failure to fulfil its contractual obligations.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:

VERIFICATION OF PERSONAL SITUATION

REQUIREMENTS OF

TENDER DOCUMENTS

FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

 

TENDERER Α

 

TENDERER Β

 

TENDERER C

CONSORTIA

TENDERER D

PERSON Α

PERSON Β

Existence of Solemn Declaration certifying the tenderer's personal situation

 

 

 

 

 

Declaration drawn up in accordance with the relevant template contained in the tender documents

 

 

 

 

 

Existence of certification regarding the protection of employees

 

 

 

 

 

Certification drawn up in accordance with the relevant template contained in the tender documents

 

 

 

 

 

For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (P) in the cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been met.

If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met, the corresponding cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted items be deemed necessary, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with the provisions of the Law.

b.To verify the Economic and Financial standing of each tenderer, the following are checked (if the relevant provisions have been made in the tender documents):
The existence of the Table documenting the tenderers economic and financial standing, duly completed and in the format of the template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents, from which it may be established that the criteria specified in the tender documents have been met (e.g. that the average annual turnover for the last three (3) financial years is higher than the threshold specified in the tender documents).
The existence of copies or extracts of audited financial statements for the last three (3) financial years, if the tenderer is obligated to publish its audited financial statements (where the publication of audited financial statements is required under the company laws of the country in which the tenderer is established), which should confirm the accuracy of the information provided in the Table documenting the tenderers economic and financial standing.
The existence of a statement confirming the tenderer's total annual turnover and, where appropriate, the turnover in the area of activity that corresponds to the contract scope, where the tenderer is not obliged to publish audited financial statements, from which the accuracy of the data presented in the Table documenting the tenderers economic and financial standing may be confirmed.
The existence of appropriate statements from banks or, where appropriate, of evidence of professional risk indemnity insurance, should their submission be provided for in the tender documents.
If the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, in accordance with the provisions of article 53(2) of Law 12(Ι)/2006 (or with the corresponding provisions of article 55(4) of Law 11(Ι)/2006), the availability of the necessary resources in such third parties is also checked, while an additional check is made to confirm the existence of declarations by these entities, whereby they guarantee to the Contracting Authority that, should the tenderer be appointed contractor, they shall place at its disposal the necessary resources as appropriate, or of any other documentation to that effect as may be provided for in the tender documents.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, if a tenderer is unable, for well-founded reasons, to produce the documentation required in the tender documents, then that tenderer may submit any other document(s), which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to examine as to their suitability. It is understood that in this case the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must also examine the validity of the reasons cited by the tenderer as justification for not submitting the documentation required in the tender documents. The Competent Body may request additional data or clarifications, should this be deemed necessary.

If the tenderer is a consortium of persons, the thresholds specified in the tender documents as criteria for verifying the tenderers economic and financial standing should be satisfied by all members of the consortium, in accordance with the provisions of tender documents. Similarly, if the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, the thresholds should be satisfied by the tenderer as well as by such third parties, in accordance with the provisions of the tender documents.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:

VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING

REQUIREMENTS OF

TENDER DOCUMENTS

FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

 

TENDERER Α

 

TENDERER Β

 

TENDERER C

CONSORTIA

TENDERER D

PERSON Α

PERSON Β

Existence of duly completed Table documenting the tenderers economic and financial standing

 

 

 

 

Fulfilment of the requirement ......... (e.g. of minimum average turnover)

 

 

 

 

Existence of copies or extracts of audited financial statements

 

 

 

 

 

Correct transfer of audited financial statements data to the Table documenting the economic and financial standing

 

 

 

 

Existence of statement of total annual turnover

 

 

 

 

 

Consistency of the statement with the Table and the requirements of the tender documents

 

 

 

 

Existence of bank statements or of evidence of professional risk indemnity insurance

 

 

 

 

For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick () in the cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been met.

If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met, the corresponding cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted items be deemed necessary, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with the provisions of the Law.

The above table, which presents the overall picture of the results of the verification of the economic and financial standing of tenderers, may be supported by individual tables documenting the fulfilment of individual requirements. For example, regarding the fulfilment of the requirement for a minimum average turnover, the following table could be used:

 

VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING

REQUIREMENTS OF

TENDER DOCUMENTS

CRITERION: Average turnover for the last three financial years

TENDERER Α

TENDERER Β

TENDERER C

TENDERER D

TENDERER E

Minimum: EUR .......

 

 

 

 

 

The threshold of the average turnover specified in the tender documents is entered in the above table, together with the average turnovers of all tenderers.

c.To verify the Technical and/or Professional ability of each tenderer, a check is conducted to confirm that the relevant criteria specified in the tender documents are fulfilled. Depending on each particular case, these criteria may concern the following:
Experience in the implementation of contracts similar to the contract being put out to tender.
The number of personnel employed and the suitability of the key experts and other members of the Project team, in the case of public service contracts and public work contracts.
Requirements regarding the suitability of products, technical equipment, equipment and means of study and research, organisation and staffing of technical bodies, machinery, facilities and other infrastructures.
Compliance with quality assurance standards or environmental management standards.

To verify the fulfilment of the specified criteria, the following are checked:

The existence of a statement (if provided for in the tender documents) containing general information about the tenderers business structure, activity areas, services provided, and facilities and equipment.
The existence of a list (if provided for in the tender documents) of the personnel of the tenderer employed under a permanent employment relationship, in the format of the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents, confirming that the corresponding participation requirement as specified in the tender documents has been met.
The existence of CVs (if required) of the key experts or other members of the proposed Project team, in the format of the standardised templates contained in the Appendix to the tender documents, confirming that the corresponding participation requirements as specified in the tender documents (number of experts, minimum qualifications of each expert) have been met.
The existence of a list of Projects (if provided for in the tender documents), in the format of the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents, the actual degree of relevance of the Projects in the list to the scope of the contract, and the implementation of the minimum required number of contracts with a relevant scope, as provided for in the tender documents.
The existence of data (if required) documenting the successful implementation of the projects, as provided for in the tender documents.
The existence of a certification (if required) establishing the tenderers compliance with a quality assurance standard based on the CYS EN ISO 9000 series of Cyprus standards or other equivalent certification(s) issued by organisations having their registered office in other Member States, or other evidence of equivalent quality assurance measures, as provided for in the tender documents.
The existence of a certificate (if required) establishing that the tenderer complies with specific standards concerning environmental management, or other equivalent evidence of environmental management measures.
The availability of the necessary resources in the third parties (ιf the tenderer relies on the capacities of such third parties) and the existence of declarations by the third parties, whereby they guarantee to the Contracting Authority that, should the tenderer be appointed contractor, they shall place at its disposal the necessary resources as appropriate, or any other documentation to that effect as may be specified in the tender documents.

If the tenderer is a consortium of persons, the specific requirements of the tender documents specified as criteria for verifying the tenderers technical or professional ability must be met by all members of the consortium, in accordance with the provisions of the tender documents. Similarly, if the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, the requirements must be met cumulatively by the tenderer and by such third parties, in accordance with the provisions of the tender documents.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:

VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITY

REQUIREMENTS OF

TENDER DOCUMENTS

FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

 

TENDERER Α

 

TENDERER Β

 

TENDERER C

CONSORTIA

TENDERER D

PERSON Α

PERSON Β

Experience in the implementation of relevant contracts

 

 

 

 

List <number> of contracts

 

 

 

 

Documentation of successful implementation <number> of contracts

 

 

 

 

Minimum personnel employed
<number>

 

 

 

 

Suitability of key experts of the Project Team, on the basis of their CVs (may be developed into detailed individual verifications for each key expert and for each individual qualification requested of such expert).

 

 

 

 

Suitability of products, technical equipment, equipment and means of study and research, organisation and staffing of technical bodies, machinery, facilities and other infrastructures (as applicable in each case).

 

 

 

 

Compliance with quality assurance standards

 

 

 

 

Compliance with environmental management standards

 

 

 

 

Statements by third parties

 

 

 

 

For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick () in the cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been fully met.

If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met or it is partially met, the corresponding cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted informational documents be considered necessary, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with the provisions of the Law.

The above table, which presents the overall picture of the results of the verification of the technical and professional ability of the tenderers, may be supported by specific tables documenting the fulfilment of individual requirements. For example, regarding the fulfilment of the requirement for a minimum number of contracts with a relevant scope, the following Table could be completed:

 

VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITIES

REQUIREMENTS OF

TENDER DOCUMENTS

CRITERION: Number of contracts with a relevant scope

TENDERER Α

Minimum number of contracts: ...........

Title of contract 1

Title of contract 2

Title of contract 3

Relevance of scope

 

 

 

Minimum budget of each contract: EUR ....

Budget of contract 1

Budget of contract 2

Budget of contract 3

Minimum participation rate in each contract: ..%

Participation rate
in contract 1

Participation rate
in contract 2

Participation rate
in contract 3

Minimum completion rate of each contract: ..%

Completion rate
of contract 1

Completion rate
of contract 2

Completion rate
of contract 3

REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS

TENDERER Β

Minimum number of contracts: ...........

Title of contract 1

Title of contract 2

Title of contract 3

Relevance of scope

 

 

 

Minimum budget of each contract: EUR ....

Budget of contract 1

Budget of contract 2

Budget of contract 3

Minimum participation rate in each contract: ..%

Participation rate
in contract 1

Participation rate
in contract 2

Participation rate
in contract 3

Minimum completion rate of each contract: ..%

Completion rate
of contract 1

Completion rate
of contract 2

Completion rate
of contract 3

The minimum requirements specified in the tender documents are entered in the first column of the above table, while the respective performance of each tenderer is entered in each one of the other columns. A tick (P) is entered in the cells of the “Relevance of scope” row to indicate that the requirement has been met.

Clarifications for the purposes of the qualitative selection

If during the verification of the personal situation, economic and financial standing, and technical and/or professional ability of the tenderers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders ascertains that additions or clarifications are required in connection with the supporting documents submitted together with the tenders, then it may request tenderers to provide such clarifications.

The option to request clarifications must be strictly defined at the discretion of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and must be governed by the principles of equal treatment, transparency, non-discrimination, proportionality and mutual recognition. It is obvious that, in line with these principles, the possibility to provide clarifications on, or make additions to, supporting documents that refer to the same qualitative selection criterion and to similar ambiguities or omissions, is not allowed to be granted selectively to specific tenderers.

Supplementing submitted documents may under no circumstances be considered as a clarification on, or addition to, such documents. Thus, it is not allowed to replace:

Supporting documents not submitted together with the tender.
Supporting documents and information not submitted in accordance with the law.

The meaning of the term “not submitted in accordance with the law” includes e.g. certificates with a date of issue other than the one specified in the tender documents.

In this respect, an addition to, or clarification on, submitted documents and certificates is taken to mean the addition to a submitted document of any data which had been omitted by mistake.

Moreover, the submission of missing supporting documents at a time after the submission of the tender can not be considered as addition or clarification, as the latter refer exclusively to supporting documents which have already been submitted. Thus, for example, the submission after the deadline for the submission of tenders of documentation (certificates or acceptance protocols) regarding the successful implementation of the projects listed in the table of relevant projects for the purpose of documenting the experience of the tenderer, can not possibly be considered as addition to, or clarification on, the supporting documents submitted.

Ranking of participants on the basis of the qualitative selection

If, in the case of a restricted procedure, the tender documents provide for a limited number of candidates who shall be invited to tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged, upon completion of the verification of fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria as described in the previous Section, to proceed to the ranking of the candidates meeting the qualitative selection criteria, by applying the relevant rules provided for in the tender documents.

No ranking is required, even if provided for in the tender documents, in the event that the number of candidate economic operators who submit a request to participate in the tender procedure, or the number of those of them who fulfil the qualitative selection criteria, is lower than or equal to the maximum number of candidates who will be invited to tender as provided for in the tender documents.

The candidates meeting the qualitative selection criteria are ranked using one of the qualitative selection criteria or a combination of suitably weighted qualitative selection criteria, in accordance with the method provided for in the tender documents.

The procedure to be followed by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders regarding the ranking of candidates is obvious, provided such action is specified in the tender documents, and it is carried out as follows:

Either by using only one of the qualitative selection criteria, e.g. based on the turnover or on the number of persons in the permanent employment of the tenderers or on the number of successfully completed relevant contracts and, if the number of relevant contracts is the same, on their budget,
Or by using more than one criteria but without the weighting procedure, e.g. based on the number of successfully completed relevant contracts and, if the number of relevant contracts is the same, on the number of persons in the permanent employment of the tenderers.

Contrary to the above, if the tender documents provide for a procedure involving the weighting of several criteria for the ranking of candidates, then the task of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders becomes more complex.

To understand the optimal working method of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders as far as the procedure for the ranking of candidate economic operators is concerned, a relevant application example is given below. This example follows the corresponding example presented for the definition of criteria and weighting factors in paragraph 3.2.3.2 of Chapter 3 of the Guide.

 

APPLICATION EXAMPLE

The tender documents of a tender procedure conducted using the restricted procedure provide that the following criteria along with the respective weight factors shall be used to rank candidate economic operators at the qualitative selection (prequalification) stage:

oExperience in the implementation of similar projects:        Weighting factor 5
oTurnover:                                                        Weighting factor 3
oNumber of permanently employed personnel:                Weighting factor 2

For each one of the aforementioned criteria, the tender documents also identify specific thresholds and respective marks, as follows:

oExperience in the implementation of similar projects

If the minimum number of projects implemented by the candidate economic operator has been set to 3 projects, then the thresholds are determined as follows:

       Number of projects: 3 5                MARK 1

       Number of projects: 6 9                MARK 2

       Number of projects: > 9                MARK 3

oTurnover

If the minimum turnover has been set to 100% of the contract budget, then the thresholds are determined as follows:

       Turnover: 100% - 150% of the budget                        MARK 1

       Turnover: 151% - 200% of the budget                        MARK 2

       Turnover > 200% of the budget                                MARK 3

oNumber of permanently employed personnel

If the minimum number of permanently employed personnel has been set to 20, then the thresholds are determined as follows:

       Number of employed personnel: 20 30                        MARK 1

       Number of employed personnel: 31 50                        MARK 2

       Number of employed personnel > 50                        MARK 3

Eight (8) candidate economic operators submitted a request to participate in the tender procedure.

During the procedure of preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders, of verification of formal requirements for participation, and of the review of fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders established that seven (7) out of the eight (8) candidates may be considered eligible.

The characteristics of the seven candidates with respect to the criteria under evaluation are as follows:

CANDIDATE 1

Number of projects: 2; Turnover: 120% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 25

CANDIDATE 2

Number of projects: 10; Turnover: 210% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 42

CANDIDATE 3

Number of projects: 5; Turnover: 170% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 30

CANDIDATE 4

Number of projects: 6; Turnover: 160% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 54

CANDIDATE 5

Number of projects: 3; Turnover: 180% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 60

CANDIDATE 6

Number of projects: 4; Turnover: 130% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 31

CANDIDATE 7

Number of projects: 6; Turnover: 100% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 22

After applying the marks and factors provided for in the tender documents, the following markings result for each candidate:

CANDIDATE 1: (1 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 10

CANDIDATE 2: (3 Χ 5) + (3 Χ 3) + (2 Χ 2) = 28

CANDIDATE 3: (1 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 13

CANDIDATE 4: (2 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (3 Χ 2) = 22

CANDIDATE 5: (1 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (3 Χ 2) = 17

CANDIDATE 6: (1 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (2 Χ 2) = 12

CANDIDATE 7: (2 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 15

The final ranking of the candidate economic operators is as follows:

CANDIDATE 1: 28

CANDIDATE 4: 22

CANDIDATE 5: 17

CANDIDATE 7: 15

CANDIDATE 3: 13

CANDIDATE 6: 12

CANDIDATE 1: 10

If the tender documents provide for limiting the number of candidates to five (5), Candidates 1 and 6 shall not be invited to tender for the purposes of technical evaluation.

Dealing with special cases during the Qualitative Selection procedure

During the conduct of the individual activities involved in the completion of the qualitative selection stage, particular problems may emerge, on which the Competent Body for the Evaluation must decide accordingly.

The following Table includes examples of such special cases, along with the manner for dealing with each particular case:

DEALING WITH SPECIAL CASES DURING THE QUALITATIVE SELECTION PROCEDURE

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL CASE

PROPER METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE CASE

In a restricted procedure, the number of submitted requests to participate is lower than the minimum number provided for in the tender documents (pursuant to the Law, this minimum number is five - 5).

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may (but is not obliged to) conclude the qualitative selection stage and proceed to the second phase of the contract award, should it deem that the number of the candidates it shall invite to tender is sufficient to ensure genuine competition.

In a restricted procedure, the number of candidates fulfilling the qualitative selection criteria is lower than the minimum number provided for in the tender documents (pursuant to the Law, this minimum number is five - 5).

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may (but is not obliged to) conclude the qualitative selection stage and proceed to the second phase of the contract award, should the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract deem that the number of the candidates it shall invite to tender is sufficient to ensure genuine competition.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders however may not disregard the predetermined qualitative selection criteria and thus admit to the second phase of the contract award certain candidates who were initially excluded from the tender procedure, only in order to secure the minimum number of prequalified candidates.

Furthermore, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may not include in the second phase of the contract award economic operators who have not submitted a request to participate, simply in order to secure the minimum number of prequalified candidates.

In an open procedure, only one economic operator submits a tender.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders proceeds to conclude the qualitative selection stage, applying the relevant provisions of the tender documents, and:

In case it is ascertained that this single tender does not fulfil the qualitative selection criteria, then it shall draw up a report recommending to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract the cancellation of the tender procedure.
In any other case, the evaluation procedure continues normally, since the submission of a single tender does not necessarily entail the cancellation of the tender procedure. However, it may serve as indication that the terms of the tender documents contain conditions or technical specifications to which potential candidates can not respond, or that these specifications lead exclusively to a specific economic operator. If the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract confirms one of the aforementioned indications, then it should cancel the tender procedure. If such reasons for cancelling the tender procedure do not exist, then the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should proceed with the evaluation of the tender and should cancel the tender procedure only if the evaluation result shows that the single tender submitted does not meet the requirements of the Contracting Authority in terms of the expected level of quality and price. The term “expected level” is taken to mean the level that the Contracting Authority could have achieved had more tenderers participated in the tender procedure.

 

Drawing up of the Qualitative Selection Report

The procedure of verifying the fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria is concluded with the preparation of a relevant report, which only in the restricted procedure the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders submits for approval to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract. In the open procedure, the Qualitative Selection Report should be prepared together with the Technical Evaluation Report, and both of them should then be submitted to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract. The indicative contents of the Qualitative Selection Report are presented in Annex 4-1.

All individual Minutes of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, together with the following duly completed tables, are attached to the Qualitative Selection Report and form integral parts thereof:

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETENESS OF TENDERS
VERIFICATION OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION
VERIFICATION OF PERSONAL SITUATION
VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING
VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITY

The procedure followed must be analysed in the Qualitative Selection Report, with specific references to:

The cases of exclusion, if any, of tenderers from participation in the tender procedure and from the further stages of the procedure regarding the evaluation of their tenders.
The precise reasons for their exclusion, which must be described in a documented manner, with mention of the specific point(s) of the tender documents or the specific provisions of the Law that impose the exclusion.
The deviations, if any, considered to be minor.
The precise reasons and data on which the deviations considered to be minor were based.
The minority vote, if any, expressed during the qualitative selection procedure, as described in the respective Minutes.

The Qualitative Selection Report is essentially the text that brings together all individual references to the above matters, as these are included in the Minutes drawn up for each meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4.1.2 of this Chapter.

Documenting exclusions is usually a simple procedure and can be expressed solely by means of references to the points of the tender documents or to the provisions of the Law from which the tender deviates. On the contrary, the detailed reference to the reasons for which existing deviations are designated as minor and do not lead to exclusion, is absolutely necessary. It is obvious that it is not possible to standardise the manner in which a deviation is designated as substantial or minor. In any case, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must apply its fair judgement, taking into account the provisions of the tender documents, the degree to which the specific qualitative selection criterion is related to the specific scope of the contract, the type and magnitude of the deviation, the existence of similar minor deviations, if any, in all or most of the tenders, etc.

Given that the participants have a legitimate interest in filing a hierarchical recourse when they deem their interests to be at stake, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must take into account that a recourse filed by a tenderer against the non-exclusion of one of its competitors is equally likely with a recourse filed by the same tenderer against its own exclusion.

In the open procedure, and in cases of non-complex contracts or of contracts of limited interest or low budget, this step may be omitted and the Qualitative Selection Report may be included in the Technical Evaluation Report. However, in these cases too, the description of the qualitative selection procedure must be fully distinct, so that the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract may verify that the terms of the tender documents and the provisions of the applicable legislation have been faithfully adhered to.

General evaluation of Technical Offers

This step commences immediately after the conclusion of the qualitative selection procedure and the preparation of the Qualitative Selection Report.

It involves the review of the technical offers as to their completeness and the extent to which they satisfy the requirements, terms of reference and specifications of the contract, as these are described in the tender documents. It is understood that this review refers only to the offers submitted by economic operators who have been qualified as a result of the qualitative selection procedure.

This particular step presents serious difficulties for the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, at least in the case of complex contracts with correspondingly complex technical offers.

In order to successfully complete the procedure for the general evaluation of technical offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must:

Be fully prepared, having studied the tender documents and understood the scope of the contract and the objectives of Contracting Authority, as described in Section 4.3.3 of the present Chapter.
Study thoroughly the technical offers, together with the requirements and specifications of the tender documents.
Have a broad knowledge of the specific, depending on the nature of the contract, market and of its potential.

The way in which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions in this step of the procedure depends on the knowledge, experience and culture of its members. However, the Competent Body would be greatly assisted in the successful completion of its tasks within the specified timeframe, which as a rule is particularly tight, if it were to follow a well- planned and systematic procedure, which might indicatively include the steps presented in the following Table:

 

INDICATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE GENERAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL OFFERS

STEP

ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPETENT BODY

1

First meeting of the Competent Body for the purposes of the general evaluation of the technical offers, during which the following take place:

Initial review of the offers to be evaluated, to obtain a general idea of their structure and contents and to identify any serious omissions or shortcomings (i.e. omission of an entire chapter from those required in the tender documents).
Undertaking by each member of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to thoroughly review one or more technical offers, depending on their number. It is obvious that where the number of offers is less than the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, two members may undertake to review the same offer.
Establishment of a work schedule for the tasks to be performed by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, on the basis of the time constraints specified in the tender documents.
Setting the date and time for the second meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders.

2

Thorough individual review of the technical offers (each member reviews the technical offer for which he is responsible), and drawing up of a personal summary report, containing general remarks by the member and a list of the strengths and weaknesses of the offer, in the opinion of the member and in accordance with the requirements of the tender documents, on which discussions and exchange of views should follow.

3

Second (or even third, if more time is needed) meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, during which the following take place:

General presentation of each offer by the member(s) who reviewed it.
Distribution of the personal summary reports to all members of the Body.
Discussion and exchange of views about the general presentations.
Swapping of offers between members, with each member undertaking to review a different offer than the one previously reviewed, so that all members may form a personal opinion of every offer.

4

Individual review of the technical offers and incorporation by each member to the first personal summary report for the offer under review, of any new remarks, additions or comments.

5

Next meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation, during which:

The discussion and exchange of views on the contents of the technical offers is continued.
The personal summary reports, in which the new remarks have been incorporated, are distributed to all members of the Body.
Offers are swapped between members, with each member undertaking to review a different offer than the ones he has already reviewed.

6

Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until all members have reviewed all technical offers.

 

Where the tender documents provide for the obligation of the tenderer to complete a Tender Summary and Technical Specifications Compliance Table, in the format of a relevant template contained in the tender documents, this template may serve as an additional tool for the completion of the general evaluation of the technical offers by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of tenders, with the points covered by the offer under evaluation and those from which it deviates being noted on the Table.

Readers are reminded that the sole purpose of the above procedure or any procedure which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may choose to follow, is to ensure conditions that will allow a correct and fair opinion to be formed regarding:

The possible rejections of offers not meeting the technical specifications and the requirements of the terms of reference.
The marking of the rest of the offers during the next step of the procedure, if the criterion for the award of the contract is the most economically advantageous tender.

The case of presentations of the Technical Offers

This step refers to the cases where the tender documents provide for the presentation of the offers by the tenderers.

The presentation of the offers is carried out in the manner and at the place specified in the tender documents, and at a time set by the Contracting Authority during the period of the technical evaluation.

This particular procedure aims to assist the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders in formulating a fair opinion of the technical value of the offered solutions. Therefore, the presentations must be scheduled to take place within the period of time during which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders reviews the contents of the technical offers and, where the method outlined in the table of the previous Section is followed, after Step 6 of the procedure.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders sets a specific date (or dates, if offers are too many) and time for the presentations, and sends a relevant invitation to the tenderers. In setting this specific date, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should take into account:

The need for timely notification of the parties concerned.
The availability of the members, so as to eliminate the possibility of them being unable to participate.
The need to secure a room and other projection/display facilities required for the presentations.

The time allowed to tenderers for their presentations, which is recommended to vary between 20 and 40 minutes, depending on the complexity of the contract scope, must be made known to the tenderers so as to allow them to prepare accordingly for their presentations.

The presentation of the offers may prove extremely useful to the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders in formulating a fair opinion. However, it involves risks which must be taken into account in order to determine in advance the manner in which presentations will be conducted and the privileges that will be granted to the tenderers during them.

In particular, during the presentations the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tender should:

Avoid the extensive exchange of views and the submission of specific questions, especially in connection with queries which have arisen during the review of the technical offers. Readers are reminded that such queries can (and should) be answered by means of requesting written clarifications.
Not allow the presentation of issues to which no relevant reference is made in the offer or, in any case, stress that such references shall not be taken into account in the evaluation.

During the presentations, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must keep Minutes, where it shall record the procedure followed and the main points on which the tenderers focused their presentations. These Minutes shall form part of the Technical Evaluation Report.

Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the technical evaluation

If, during the general evaluation of technical offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders ascertains that certain points need to be clarified, it may request tenderers to provide relevant clarifications in writing.

It is understood that in the extreme case of an offer which is full of ambiguities to such an extent that it becomes vague and impossible to evaluate, submission of a request for clarifications is not advisable and the offer should be designated as eliminable.

Additionally, no request for clarifications is necessary in the case of offers which include generalities or ambiguous and vague expressions which nevertheless do not lead to dispute of the type or quality of the technical solutions offered. In such cases, the generalities or the ambiguous and vague expressions may constitute grounds for a low mark in the next step of the evaluation procedure, for contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.

The option to request clarifications must be exercised sparingly, must be strictly defined for each particular case at the discretion of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and must be governed by the principles of equal treatment, non discrimination and transparency.

The main objective of the Competent Body in this case is to clarify any unclear points of the offers, without however providing tenderers with the opportunity to differentiate their offers or add elements not included in the solution which they have already offered.

In any case, should such a differentiation or addition occur as a result of a question for clarification, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must not to take it into account for the purposes of the evaluation, documenting this matter accordingly in the Minutes.

Marking of Technical Offers

This step involves the marking of technical offers which have not been rejected during the previous stage of the general technical evaluation, in the case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.

Marking of the technical offers takes place in accordance with the procedure provided for in the tender documents, and on the basis of the criteria and weighting factors contained in the Table of Evaluation Criteria given in the tender documents.

Full understanding of the evaluation criteria, specified in the Tender Documents, in terms of their detailed contents, the parts of the tender documents to which they are related, and any specific parameters to be taken into account for their correct use, is a prerequisite for the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to proceed with the marking of the offers.

The breakdown of each evaluation criterion into individual parameters should be made by the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, based on their professional experience and knowledge. In case the meaning of certain of the individual evaluation criteria can not be easily understood from the tender documents, the Competent Body may contact the Contracting Authority or the team responsible for the preparation of the tender documents, to request relevant clarifications.

To facilitate the understanding of the evaluation criteria, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete on a case by case basis:

TABLE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation
Criterion

Relevant parts of
the tender documents

Parameters to be taken into account

1. Contract scope implementation schedule

Technical Offer Section Α, paragraph (c): Schedule of activities

1. Timely implementation of the contract and timely delivery of all deliverables foreseen.

2. Feasibility and realistic nature of the schedule, also in relation to the resources made available.

3. Identification of critical points.

4. Correct interdependence of activities.

2.
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.

 

1

2

4.

 

1

2

3

. .

 

 

Readers are reminded that in the case of public service contracts, the mark given to each criterion may range from a minimum level, provided for in the tender documents for each particular case, and up to a maximum level of 100 points, while in the case of public supply contracts it may range from a minimum level to a maximum level in accordance with the provisions of the tender documents (e.g. from 80 to 120 points).

The marking of technical offers at this stage of the evaluation procedure should be based on the criteria specified in the Tender Documents, using as reference the corresponding requirements of the Tender Documents and it should t be governed by the following basic rules:

If the requirement is fully met, the mark given to the corresponding criterion is 100 points.
Especially in the case of public supply contracts, if the requirement is exceeded, the marks given to the specific criterion may reach up to the maximum level provided for in the tender documents (usually 120 points).
In the event that the requirement is not fully met but the offer has been already deemed admissible and the deviation has been considered as minor, the mark given to the specific criterion is lowered, and may even reach the minimum level provided for in the tender documents for each particular case (usually 80 points).

It should be clear that no mark below the minimum level specified in the tender documents is allowed to be given to any of the evaluation criteria, as this would mean that the offer should have been excluded in the previous step of the general technical evaluation. However, it can not be ruled out that, as a result of the verification of the level to which a particular evaluation criterion is met, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may ascertain that an offer contains substantial deviations from the requirements of the tender documents regarding the specific criterion. In such a case, the Competent Body must record its findings in the Minutes of the corresponding meeting, and must designate the specific offer as eliminable.

The technical offers are marked by being compared to the requirements of the Contracting Authority and not by being compared to each other. The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should not give high marks to an offer simply because it is better than the others, which are of a poor level. Additionally, the marking of offers should not necessarily cover the entire range of marking options, with the best offer (regardless of how good it is) being given the highest mark and the worst offer (regardless of how poor it is) being given by default the lowest mark. In other words, the marking of each offer should not be related to the other offers but to the requirements of the Contracting Authority, as these are expressed in the tender documents.

To conclude the marking procedure of the technical offers, each member of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to give a mark to each criterion in the Table of Evaluation Criteria.

The final mark of each evaluation criterion is the average of the individual marks given by the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders.

It is understood that before the marking procedure commences, a relevant discussion and exchange of views should take place between the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in order to reach the highest possible degree of convergence.

The final mark of each individual criterion is then weighted using the weighting factor for that particular criterion, and is rounded to 2 decimal digits.

The sum of the weighted marks of the individual criteria is the final technical evaluation mark of each tender.

To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use for each offer under evaluation a table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete on a case by case basis:

MARKING OF OFFER 1

Evaluation criteria

Weighting factor

(%)

Member Α

Member
Β

Member
C

Member D

Member Ε

Average mark

Average mark

Χ

weighting factor

1

Α

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Β

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

Ε

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

Η

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL EVALUATION MARK OF OFFER 1

 

The final evaluation marks of the Technical Offers are then recorded in the Minutes of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, with adequate documentation of the marks given.

The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should adequately justify the marks given to all criteria for all offers. The justification must clearly mention the shortcomings that led to a reduction in the mark given or the advantages that led to a higher mark. The advantages or shortcomings should concern the individual parameters into which each criterion has been broken down.

It is understood that, in all cases, the per cent rate by which the mark is increased or lowered must be commensurate to the respective shortcoming or advantage, with strict observance of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

The justification of the marks given by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders becomes extremely difficult when the views of the members diverge and extreme deviations are observed in their markings. Furthermore, the divergence of views between the members also gives rise to doubts within the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract regarding the way the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions and, in the event of a hierarchical recourse being filed in the future, increases the risk of cancellation decisions being issued by the Tenders Review Authority. For these reasons, it is absolutely necessary, in all cases where such divergence of views occurs, for the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to discuss the matter extensively and exchange views and arguments, with the aim to reach unanimity or at least some degree of convergence. If, despite the efforts made, it proves impossible for the views of the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to converge, a specific reference to the divergence should be made in the Minutes, and the different views should be recorded together with the justification of each one of them.

In cases where the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender, and where the tender documents provide that tenders failing to obtain a mark higher than the minimum mark specified in the tender documents, which is calculated as a percentage of the mark obtained by the tender with the highest technical evaluation mark, shall not proceed to the stage of evaluation of Financial Offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must rank the tenders in decreasing order of the technical offer evaluation mark.

For presenting the ranking of the technical offers in such a case, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use the following table:

RANKING OF TECHNICAL OFFERS

 

 

No.

 

NAME OF TENDERER

 

TECHNICAL OFFER EVALUATION MARK

(Τ)

 

PERCENT RATE

OF HIGHEST TECHNICAL EVALUATION MARK (Τ)

 

PARTICIPATION IN THE FINANCIAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE

(YES NO)

1

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

. .

 

 

 

 

. .

 

 

 

 

. .

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing up of the Technical Evaluation Report

The procedure for the evaluation and marking of the technical offers is concluded with the preparation of a relevant report. The following are attached to the Technical Evaluation Report, forming integral thereof:

All the individual Minutes of the meetings of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders.
The Minutes drawn up during the presentations of offers, if any took place.
The additional clarifications supplied by the tenderers, if any were requested.
The completed tables used for marking each offer.
The table with the ranking of technical offers, if such a table was used.

The Technical Evaluation Report must present an analysis of the procedure followed, with specific references to:

The cases of any tenders rejected during the general evaluation procedure.
The precise reasons for rejection, which must be described in a documented manner, with mention of the specific point(s) of the tender documents and, more specifically, of the technical specifications and of the terms of reference, that necessitated the rejection.
The deviations, if any, considered to be minor by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders.
The precise reasons and data on which the Competent Body for the Evaluation based its reasoning in determining these deviations to be minor.
The general and specific reasons for individual marks given by the members of the Competent Body for Evaluation to the evaluation criteria, should assessments between the members differ.

The Technical Evaluation Report is essentially the text that brings together all individual references to the above matters, as these are included in the Minutes drawn up for each meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4.1.2 of this Chapter. The indicative contents of the Technical Evaluation Report are presented in Annex 4-1.

If the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders assesses, that none of the offers meets the terms or the technical specifications of the tender documents or that, on account of certain of the terms or technical specifications, the tender procedure leads exclusively to a specific economic operator and provided that it can support its assessment by indisputable evidence, it may recommend in the Technical Evaluation Report the cancellation of the tender procedure by the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract.

The Technical Evaluation Report must address in a satisfactory way all intentions of disputing the manner in which the procedure for the technical evaluation and marking of the offers was conducted. Furthermore, it should be drawn up with a view to defending the actions of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and of the Contracting Authority in the event of a hierarchical recourse being filed, so that in such a case the hierarchical recourse may be rebutted merely by using the texts of the Technical Evaluation Report.

Approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report

The body responsible for approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report, may:

PApprove the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report and accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders regarding:
PThe offers that were considered to be eliminable, and
PThe marking of the rest of the offers.
PApprove the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report and accept the relevant recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, cancelling the tender procedure.
PChoose not to accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders regarding the rejection of one or more of the tenderers or the marking of one or more of the criteria, and decide otherwise.
PChoose not to accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and cancel the tender procedure.

It is understood that despite the aforementioned theoretical option of not accepting the recommendations of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract is usually expected to agree with the recommendation, with the exception of the case where the cancellation of the tender procedure is necessitated for departmental reasons not having to do with the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and of the potential existence of serious and substantiated suspicions regarding the functioning of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and the legitimacy of its actions in the performance of its duties.

General evaluation of Financial Offers

After the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report is approved by the appropriate competent body, the sub-envelopes of the financial offers are opened (where the submission of two separate sub-envelopes is provided for) for the tenders that have not been rejected in the previous stages of evaluation, and the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders proceeds to the step of the general evaluation of the financial offers.

For the purposes of this stage, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should establish the responsiveness of the financial offer to the relevant requirements of the tender documents by examining the contents of the financial offers. In particular, it checks the completed tables of the financial offer to confirm their completeness and the correctness of the relevant calculations.

If the offered price does not result with absolute clarity from the contents of the financial offer, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may deem the offer to be eliminable. However, if the financial offer contains minor omissions or errors which may be objectively considered to be obvious and which can be corrected without raising doubts as to the accuracy of the correction, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may, and is advised to, make the relevant corrections. Especially in cases where the tender documents specify the manner in which wrong calculations are to be handled (e.g. the tender documents of a public works contract may provide for the possibility of correcting arithmetical errors, where if there is a discrepancy between the unit price and the total price for the quantity, the unit price shall prevail and the total price shall be corrected), the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to make the relevant corrections.

The evaluation of financial offers, in contrast to that of technical offers, is comparative. In addition to checking the relevant tables of the financial offer, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should take all actions required in order to ensure the comparability of the offers under evaluation and, more specifically:

Where the prices of an offer are expressed in a currency other than Euro, they must be  converted to Euro using the relevant exchange rate (sale price) published by the Central Bank on the closing date for the submission of tenders. If the closing date for the submission of tenders is a bank holiday, then the exchange rate of the working day which immediately precedes the closing date shall be used.
Where a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, and if the offers specify different payment methods, it must proceed to convert all amounts payable to current prices using the factor for conversion to current prices which is specified in the tender documents.
Where a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, and if any of the proposed solutions require special conditions to be secured by the Contracting Authority, it must apply the procedure specified in the tender documents in order to make the offers comparable.

If, during the general evaluation of financial offers, it is ascertained that certain offers do not meet the terms and conditions specified in the tender documents, e.g. when the offered price is denominated in a currency not included in the allowed currencies, or a payment method other then the specified one is proposed, or if conditions contradictory to the general conditions of contract are imposed regarding the time and method of payment, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must designate these offers as eliminable, documenting the precise reasons for their rejection.

Special reasons for rejection which may arise during this step of the procedure, in addition to those indicatively mentioned in the previous paragraph, are the following:

In the case of public supply contracts, when it is ascertained that the price policy applied in an offer involves sale prices which are below the manufacturing cost of the product or the acquisition price of the product for trading (price dumping), or if export subsidy is received for the product offered.
In all cases of public contracts, when it is ascertained that the proposed price of an offer appears to be abnormally low.

The case where the price of an offer is substantially lower than that of others presents considerable difficulties. To begin with, it is only to be expected that the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders will be favourably disposed towards an offer that seems to suit the requirements of the Contracting Authority, while in parallel allowing savings to be made in terms of the resources that the Contracting Authority was expecting to allocate for the specific contract. However, an abnormally low offer may conceal circumstances which could potentially compromise the successful implementation of the contract, or even illegal activities. For example, the specific economic operator may have offered a low price for one or more of the following reasons:

It has misread the requirements of the Contracting Authority.
It has erroneously estimated the potential risks and their consequences.
It acts unfairly, at the expense of healthy competition, in order to maximise its chances of being awarded the contract.
It exploits the personnel in its employment or does not comply with the provisions regarding the protection of employees and their working conditions.
It intends to claim later, as an offset, a decrease of its obligations, taking advantage of any shortcomings or ambiguities in the tender documents.

In any case, particularly so if it suspects that any of the above is true, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to consider the offered price as abnormally low.

In both the above cases which refer to price dumping or to the occurrence of abnormally low offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged, before designating the offers as eliminable, to request relevant clarifications in writing by the tenderers and then decide whether it will accept the clarifications or reject the offers.

The request for clarifications on the financial offers involves the risk of leading to changes in the offered price, a situation that the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders will not find easy to handle without considerable risk. For this reason, it should be used solely in the aforementioned cases, and always in accordance with the principles of equal treatment and transparency.

Regarding public supply contracts, if it is ascertained that the price policy applied involves sale prices which are below the manufacturing cost of the product or the acquisition price of the product for trading (dumping price), or if export subsidy is received for the product offered, the clarifications supplied by the tenderers must confirm that:

The tenderers are aware of the relevant measures applicable in the country of origin of the product or in the country of the manufacturer.
The offered product is not part of a price dumping policy and no export subsidy is received for it.

In the case of abnormally low offers, the supplied clarifications may particularly refer to:

The economics of the construction method, the manufacturing process or the services provided;
The technical solutions chosen and/or any exceptionally favourable conditions available to the tenderer for the execution of the work, for the supply of the goods or services;
The originality of the work, supplies or services proposed by the tenderer.
Compliance with the provisions relating to employment protection and working conditions in force at the place where the work, service or supply is to be performed;
The possibility of the tenderer obtaining State aid.

Marking of Financial Offers

In this step of the evaluation procedure, the relative cost of each offer is calculated as follows:

  Financial Offer of Lowest Bidder

Relative cost        = ------------------------------------------------------- x 100

Financial Offer under Evaluation

where the Financial Offer under Evaluation is defined as the total amount which the tenderer intends to charge for implementing the contract, exclusive of VAT, and the Financial Offer of Lowest Bidder is defined as the offer with the lowest price.

The step of marking the financial offers forms part of the evaluation procedure only in the case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.

Ranking of tenders

After the conclusion of the procedure of evaluation of financial offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must proceed to establish the final ranking of the tenders.

In the case of contracts for which the award criterion is exclusively the lowest price, the tenders are ranked in decreasing order of offered price.

For presenting the final ranking of tenders in the case of contracts for which the award criterion is exclusively the lowest price, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use the following table:

FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS

No.

NAME OF TENDERER

OFFERED PRICE

1

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

4

 

 

5

 

 

6

 

 

. .

 

 

. .

 

 

. .

 

 

In the case of equivalent tenders with the same lowest price, their details are entered in rows #1 and #2 of the Table. It is pointed out that in this case the award of the contract by the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract shall take place by draw or by applying any other procedure (e.g. splitting of the contract scope, if this is feasible) provided for in the tender documents.

In the case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender, the tenders are ranked in decreasing order of their Final Mark (L), which is calculated by applying the formula specified in the tender documents, which has the following form:

L = Τ * <per cent weighting factor> + C * < per cent weighting factor>

where:

Τ = the technical offer evaluation mark, and

C = the relative cost of the financial offer.

The most economically advantageous tender is that with the highest Final mark (L) and, in the case of tenders with the same Final Mark (L), the tender with the highest technical offer evaluation mark, when a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents.

For presenting the final ranking of tenders in the case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use the following table:

FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS

No.

NAME
OF TENDERER

OFFERED
PRICE

RELATIVE COST

(C)

TECHNICAL OFFER EVALUATION MARK

(Τ)

FINAL
MARK
OF TENDER

(L)

1

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

. .

 

 

 

 

 

. .

 

 

 

 

 

. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing up the Final Evaluation Report

The evaluation procedure is concluded with the preparation and submission of the Final Evaluation Report to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract for approval.

The following are attached to the Final Evaluation Report, forming integral parts thereof:

The Qualitative Selection Report.
The Technical Evaluation Report.
The individual Minutes of the meetings of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, held for the purposes of evaluating the financial offers.
The additional clarifications supplied by the tenderers, if any were requested.
All documentation material collected or drawn up by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders in the performance of its work.

The Final Evaluation Report is duly submitted and is accompanied by the tenders and any other element of the tender procedure file which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may have available.

If the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders estimates, for reasons which it may indisputably document, that the prices of all offers meeting the terms and technical specifications of the tender documents are unrealistic or appear to be the product of collusion between the tenderers, resulting in the circumvention of healthy competition, it may recommend in the Final Evaluation Report the cancellation of the tender procedure by the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract

The submission of the Final Evaluation Report signals the conclusion of the activities of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, subject to the future need, if any, to support the Contracting Authority, should a hierarchical recourse be filed against its final decisions.


© 2007 Republic of Cyprus, Treasury of the Republic, Public Procurement Directorate
Home Page | Government Web Portal | Disclaimer | Webmaster