Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report
Request for X (number)
(Tender name)
(Date)
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 3
1.1
SELECTION STRATEGY ................................................................................ 3
1.2
RESPONDENT SELECTION............................................................................ 3
1.3
RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................... 3
1.4
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................. 4
2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 5
2.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
2.2
OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 5
2.3
ROLE, SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES AND CODE OF CONDUCT ................................. 5
2.4
CONFIDENTIALITY ....................................................................................... 6
2.5
SECURITY ................................................................................................... 6
2.6
COMMUNICATION WITH ANY EXTERNAL PARTIES ........................................... 6
2.7
COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEDIA .............................................................. 6
2.8
STEERING COMMITTEE .............................................................................. 6
2.9
TENDER EVALUATION TEAM ....................................................................... 7
3. EVALUATION PROCESS ................................................................................ 8
3.1
VARIATIONS TO EVALUATION PLAN .............................................................. 8
3.2
EVALUATION CRITERIA WEIGHTINGS ............................................................ 8
3.3
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 8
4. OUTCOME OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................. 12
4.1
RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................... 12
(1)
ALIGNMENT WITH AGREED OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES... ERROR! BOOKMARK
NOT DEFINED.
(2)
NOTIFICATION OF THE OUTCOME ................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
(3)
DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL TENDERERS ............. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
DEFINED.
(4)
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
(5)
PROBITY AUDITOR ..................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 2 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
<Provide a short description of the tender, including tender no and name, date of evaluation, and
other relevant information. Below is an example.>
The Tender Evaluation Team (TET) has completed the evaluation of responses to the Request for X
<No. ><Name>.
The evaluation was conducted on <date/s>. Referee reports were satisfactorily obtained for the
<no.> preferred supplier/s <service provider/s> on <date/s>. Based on the outcome of the evaluation
process, and in line with the intent of the Selection Strategy (see below), the <no.> preferred
supplier/s <service provider/s> are:


1.1
<company name>
<company name>
Selection Strategy
<Explain the Selection Strategy – information from the approved Evaluation Plan.>
The following selection strategy was used during the evaluation of the RFx response selection
process:

1.2
Preference to have a minimum of <no.> supplier/s <service provider/s>, which will be selected
based on value-for-money.
Respondent Selection
<Describe the final rank order of respondents based from evaluation results.>
The final rank order of respondents, based on the value-for-money score, is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.3
<company name>
<company name>
<company name>
<company name>
<company name>
ABN xx xxx xxx xxx
ABN xx xxx xxx xxx
ABN xx xxx xxx xxx
ABN xx xxx xxx xxx
ABN xx xxx xxx xxx
Recommendation
<Explain the TET recommendation.>
The TET recommends that:
<Company Name/s> be awarded a contract for the <indicate requirement>. <Indicate the tendered
price, and any conditions set for the award.>
<Select one of the following:

The tendered price of $Z is within the budgeted funding of $X approved at the initiation of the
project

The tendered price of $Z is $Y more than the $X approved as funding at the initiation of the
project. Before negotiations start approval for the additional funding will need to be provided.>
<Describe the company results, following is an example.> Company A is the highest-ranked
respondent with the highest value-for-money score. It is fifth-ranked in non-price (staff and relevant
company experience) score and has the second-lowest hourly rate.
Company B is the second preferred respondent based on it having the second highest value-formoney score. It is the highest-ranked in non-price score, and fifth lowest in hourly rate.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 3 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
Both Company A and Company B provide xxx services for procurement projects for Commonwealth
and State agencies and local councils. They have demonstrated adequate experience in the
provision of xxx services.
In the unlikely event that entering into a contract with either Company A or Company B fails, TET
recommends that either Company C or Company D, equal third-ranked, be considered for the award
of contract.
<Describe the attributes of the top-ranked respondents by using the table below, as an example.>
The positives, negatives and other attributes of the <no.> top-ranked respondents are:
Summary of Respondents
Categories of Evaluation
 <Include all factors/criteria as
these justify the decision>
 Over-all cost effective
solution
Positives
Pricing
Negatives
Non-Price Factors
 <Include all factors/criteria as these justify the decision>
 All staff proposed by the respondent meet the skill sets
required by the SOR
 The respondent addressed all requirements in the SOR
to a high standard
 The respondents transition plan met the objectives of
the Department and was well constructed to minimise
risk
 <Include all factors/criteria as these justify the decision>
Examples:
 The respondents submission meet the minimum
capacity requirements for the SOR, provisions for
implementation were not well explained
 <Include all factors/criteria as
these justify the decision>
 <Summarise risk assessment results, if applicable>
 Example: Implementation costs are not well defined this
may need inclusion as a negation point
 <Summarise risk assessment
results, if applicable>
 Example: An implementation
risk has been applied to the
respondent’s submission.
$30,000 pa has been added
to the overall price
evaluation. Refer to Price
normalisation factors.
Risks
Company A
Respo
ndent
Note: The table above is repeated to include all Top rank respondents
1.4
List of Appendices

Appendix 1 – Evaluation Plan

Appendix 2 – Tender Opening Report

Appendix 3 – TET Consolidated Final Scoresheets

Appendix 4 – Financial Assessment Reports (if applicable)

Appendix 5 - <add as applicable)
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 4 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Introduction
<Insert purpose of the Report, RFx number and name, selection strategy, and short details of the
Evaluation Plan, see example below.>
The purpose of this Evaluation Report is to document the results of the evaluation of the responses
received for Request for X <No.> <Name> and to make recommendations for the award of contract to
the <no.> highest-ranked respondents providing the best value-for-money. The recommendation
follows the conclusion of a <i.e., single-stage, multi-stage> sourcing strategy.
The evaluation of responses was carried out in accordance with the Evaluation Plan (Appendix 1),
which was approved by the <Chief Procurement Officer / Category Manager> prior to the opening of
responses.
The procurement methodology for this RFx aims to identify <no.> respondents who best meet the
specific requirements in accordance with Part xx of the RFx.
Background
<Insert information on need identification, date the RFx was issued, number of responses received,
names of respondents, whether addendum was issued, etc.)
Example:
On 6 December 2010, following the submission of a completed Agency Application Form, the Deputy
Director-General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC), granted blanket approval to the
Department for the engagement of Probity Auditors for a series of anticipated procurement projects for
twelve months.
On <date>, an RFx was issued using the government e-tendering website with a closing date of
<date>.
A total of <no.> responses were received from the following companies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.2
<company name>
<company name>
<company name>
<company name>
<company name>
Objectives
<Insert primary objective of the Evaluation Report, including evaluation methodology.>
The primary objective of the Evaluation Report is to document the outcomes of the evaluation
process, the TET determination and recommendation, for the DEC Delegate's <i.e., Commercial
Director/SC/CPO> approval, that will lead to a solution which meets the requirements of the
Department.
The objectives of the evaluation methodology were to:
<insert Evaluation Methodology text from Evaluation Plan>
2.3
Role, Scope of Activities and Code of Conduct
<Describe the actions taken in relation to Conflict of Interest Declaration, Code of Conduct, etc.>
The TET members were asked to declare any organisational or personal association with, ownership
of, beneficial interest in, and like matters, relating to respondents who responded to this RFx.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 5 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
Team Members considered if they had a potential conflict of interest that affected, or could be
perceived to affect, their ability to conduct an unbiased evaluation. No team members declared
potential conflicts of interest to the Chairperson of the TET.
All persons involved in the evaluation process signed and abided by the Code of Conduct.
2.4
Confidentiality
<Describe the actions taken in relation of confidentiality.>
The TET members were instructed not to discuss or review the RFx evaluation with persons outside
the TET.
2.5
Security
<Describe the actions taken in relation to the security of RFx documents, including responses and
evaluation working papers.>
All RFx responses and evaluation working papers were kept in a locked cabinet when not in use.
Electronic files including Scoresheets were saved in a secure file share.
Following completion of the evaluation, all paper working documents were securely destroyed, and all
computer files not forming part of this Report were deleted.
2.6
Communication with any external parties
<Describe any communication/contact between the TET and respondents and any external parties.>
Any questions or clarifications to external parties were documented and signed by the <TET
Chairperson/SC Chairperson> before being emailed to the respondent. Responses to clarifications
were compiled with the tender responses.
No contact between any Team Member and a respondent occurred during the evaluation, other than
via the process described above.
2.7
Communication with the Media
<Describe any communication/contact between the TET and the media, if any, see example below.>
No media enquiries were received by any member of the TET during the evaluation process.
2.8
Steering Committee (if applicable, otherwise delete this table)
The Steering Committee consisted of the following members:
Member
Name
Position Title
Chairperson
Member
Member
Member
Member
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 6 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
2.9 Tender Evaluation Team
The TET consisted of the following members:
Member
Name
Position Title
Chairperson
Member
Member
Member
Member
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 7 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
3.
EVALUATION PROCESS
<Described the evaluation process followed, see example below.>
The evaluation process is defined in the Evaluation Plan (Appendix 1). The documented processes
were followed throughout the evaluation phase.
3.1
Variations to Evaluation Plan
<Describe any variations made to the Evaluation Plan, if any, see example below.>
No variations were made to the Evaluation Plan at any time after the tender closed.
3.2
Evaluation Criteria Weightings
<The following table is an example. Complete the information below from the approved Evaluation
Plan.>
The weighting scheme shown below was identified in the Evaluation Plan.
Table 1 – Weighting Scheme
Evaluation
Criteria
RFx References
SubWeightings
Non-price
factors
XX%
Price
XX%
100%
3.3
Evaluation Methodology
<Describe the evaluation methodology applied in accordance with the Evaluation Plan, see example
below.>
The overall evaluation process involved the following sequence:
Pre-Evaluation
The Tender Opening Committee, following downloading from the e-Tendering system, checked that
all responses were lodged and received prior to the closing time.
A Tender Opening Report was prepared and delivered to the TET Chairperson together with one CD
containing the copies of the electronic responses.
Stage 1: General RFx Compliance
<Describe the process observed in determining compliance of general RFx requirements, see
example below. Include if late responses were received, and describe how these were treated.>
The TET commenced the evaluation by reviewing the <no.> responses to check compliance to the
following:

Lodgement of the response by the closing date and time;
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 8 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>

Legal identity of the tenderer;

Conditions of tendering; and

Submission in correct format and all required documents were received.

Any other compliance requirements (examples Licence requirements, registered status (Not
for profit) or qualifying requirement (registered RTO)).
<no.>responses that were found to be compliant were progressed to Stage 2.
Stage 2: Scoring of Non-Price Responses
<Describe the process/results/activities undertaken in the evaluation of the non-price factors, see
example below.>
Example:
Responses were evaluated individually by each member of the TET.
The TET scored the x responses against the non-price factors to develop a total score for each
respondent. The evaluation criteria, together with the individual sub-weightings and weightings are
shown in table 2.
Detailed Scoring of Responses
The set of responses were evaluated by each member of the TET. The Non-Price Weighted Scores
in the table below were reached by (consensus or by taking the mathematical average of the total
individual TET member’s scores – delete which is not applicable) for each criterion.
The results of the weighted scoring for non-price factors are as follows:
Table 2 – Weighted Scores for Non-Price Factors
Evaluation Criteria
Respondent
Evaluation
Criteria 3
Evaluation
Criteria 3
Evaluation
Criteria 3
Total nonprice score
<company name>
35
20
34
89
<company name>
36
25
27.5
88.5
<company name>
36
30
24
90
Note: Evaluation Criteria will be specified in the Evaluation Plan and the result in the table must be
consistent with the guidance in that Plan. Any respondent scoring lower than 61 must not proceed to
the next stage.
All <no.> tenderers proceeded through to Stage 3. (Note: If the Evaluation Plan identifies a secondary
cull based on the Non-Price criteria the reasons for the cull of suppliers should be noted.)
Stage 3: Evaluation of Price Responses
<Describe the process/results/activities undertaken in the evaluation of the tendered price/s, see
example table below.>
The price evaluation should be guided by the specifications in the RFx and responses received.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 9 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
Table 3 - Tendered Price
Respondent
Tendered Price ($)
Factors to be considered in Price Evaluation
<company name>

<company name>

<company name>

<company name>

Note: the factors to be considered in price may relate to price risks such as conditions that the
suppliers raise in their submission. The TET should ensure that the price submitted by each
respondent is defined by the scope of deliverables. All items required under the SOR should be
included in the respondent price.
Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) requirements
The NSW Government’s Small and Medium Enterprises Policy Framework includes requirements for
considering SMEs in Government procurement.
You must ensure that any SME opportunity or participation requirements from the Evaluation Plan are
applied.
Normalisation of Price Factors
<Describe the adjustments applied to normalise the tendered prices. The TET may add factors to the
submitted price where there have been omissions by the respondent. Any normalisation required
must be conducted with an experienced procurement professional and explained in detail.>
Stage 4: Consolidation of Results
Clarification
<Describe the clarifications requested during the evaluation process. Clarifications can only be
related to a respondent’s submission and questions on facts. Clarifications cannot add content to a
respondent’s submission or adjust price unless to resolve any obvious omissions required to ensure
accurate and fair comparison (refer below for example). If clarifications are required the nature of the
clarification is to be recorded together with the reply from the respondent.>
Example: (Price)
Respondent Clarification
A clarification question on the tendered price was sent by email to three (3) of the respondents whose
price did not appear to include GST. The clarification question and tenderer’s relevant response are
as follows:
Clarification Question:
Please confirm if you have included GST in your tendered price?
Clarification Answer from Respondent X:
The price submitted includes GST.
Consolidation of Results
The results of non-price and price evaluations from Stages 2 and 3 were consolidated to determine
the overall assessment for each Tenderer using the Price Weighted Method.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 10 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
The non-price score contributed 60 per cent to the total score and the price score 40 per cent.
The tender with the highest combined non-price and price score is considered to offer the best valuefor-money.
Example: The table below summarises the results (in rank order based on the highest total score):
Table 4 – Consolidated Results
Respondent
Non-Price
Score
Tendered
Price ($)
Weighted
Non-Price
Score
Weighted
Price
Score
Total
Weighted
Score
Final
Ranking
<company
name>
88
185
52.8
40.0
92.8
1
<company
name>
90
220
54.0
33.6
87.6
2
<company
name>
88.5
215
53.1
34.2
87.5
3
<company
name>
89.5
220
53.7
33.6
87.3
4
Due Diligence
<Confirm the activities undertaken to complete the evaluation. Examples include: site visits, referee
checks, supplier presentation, technical assessment of material or goods, financial assessment, etc.>
Stage 5: Post-Evaluation Activities
<Confirm the activities undertaken following the completion of the evaluation.
sensitivity analysis, risk assessment, financial assessment, etc.>
Example include:
Sensitivity Analysis
<In the event that sensitivity analysis was considered appropriate, detail the results and impact of the
analysis with regard to any uncertainty surrounding the criteria weighting and evaluation scoring.>
Risk Assessment
<Detail the results of the risk assessment undertaken relating to the terms and conditions of contract,
warranty, service levels, etc.>
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 11 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
4.
OUTCOME OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS
4.1
Recommendation
<Describe the TET’s recommendation/s, see example below.>
Example: The TET recommends the following respondents be included in the negotiations for
establishing a contract:

Company A

Company B
This recommendation is conditional on negotiation of contractual terms satisfactory to the
Department.
The TET recommends that, should contract negotiations fail with either of the recommended
respondents, contract negotiations be undertaken with either of the third-ranked service providers,
Company C or Company D.
Recommendation by the tender evaluation team
Member / Title
Name
Signature
Name
Signature
Chairperson
Title
Member
Title
Member
Title
Member
Title
Member
Title
Procurement Endorsement:
Procurement Title
CPO /
Category Manager
Noting:

This recommendation aligns with the original objectives and strategies as noted in the
Strategy Approval Submission (SAS): <Copy and paste content from Evaluation Plan items 1.5
and 1.6>

Probity Advice was provided by <Indicate if PSD or an external a Probity Adviser was engaged, if
an external Probity Adviser or Auditor was required indicate why and provide details of the
company and attach their report>
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Page 12 of 13
Evaluation Report
RFx <DETPR-xx-xx><RFx Name>
Business Manager – Approval of recommendation and next steps:
Following approval by the Business Manager below,
Tick
or N/A
Timing / Sequencing /
Comment if applicable
Action
Negotiation with successful respondent
<Briefly describe requirements of negotiation and conduct
– refer Negotiation Plan>
Contract executed under Delegation PWP03
<Describe who is required to execute>
Minister Briefing to Note
<Describe nature of information for noting>
Unsuccessful respondents notified in writing
<Who, how, what, when>
Debriefing of Unsuccessful Tenderers – on request
<Describe the conduct of debriefing, who.>
Communications / Media / Announcements
<Do the details of the contract need to be
communicated? If so described details to who, why,
when, who will manage this and how.>
Public disclosure of the contract/s
<who, how>
Within 45 days of contract
execution (legal requirement).
Records
A single set of electronic documents will be retained by
the DEC Procurement Solutions as archival records.
All other documentation is to be destroyed by <Indicate
how RFx-related documents, including electronic copies
and evaluation worksheets are to be handed back,
deleted, shredded, etc.>
The undersigned confirms that funding and financial delegation to commit funds in line with the
outcome has been obtained and approves the recommendation and commencement of the above
actions:
Title
Name
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Report template – DOC13/20314 V1.6, 9 October 2014
Signature
Page 13 of 13