PROCUREMENT & EVALUATION PLAN (PEP)
(INSERT PROJECT NUMBER) - (INSERT PROJECT NAME AND
LOCATION)
(AZ NUMBER)
PROPONENT BRANCH:
ESTIMATED PROJECT VALUE:
Total: $ (excl. GST)
PROCUREMENT: <OPEN TENDER>
METHOD:
<DEHP>
Prepared by:
Name:
Position:
Date:
Procurement & Evaluation Plan Endorsement:
I have reviewed and endorse/do not endorse this Procurement and Evaluation Plan in accordance with
ID Directive 5.
Name:
Position:
Date:
Procurement & Evaluation Plan Approval:
I approve/do not approve this Procurement and Evaluation Plan in accordance with ID Directive 5.
Name:
Position:
Date:
2
PROCUREMENT AND EVALUATION PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief overview of the project/s including location, size, current use, known contamination
issues.
AIM
1.
This is the Procurement & Evaluation Plan (PEP) for the selection of a Lead Consultant
and Technical Adviser (where applicable) from the Defence Environment and Heritage Panel
(DEHP) to perform a Stage 1 desktop Environmental Investigation (EI) of [insert details of
types of contamination] at [insert details of site(s)] (the Site(s)). If the desktop investigation
justifies it, and DEIM agrees, the consultant will also be required to undertake a Stage 2
Intrusive EI of some or all of the Site(s) investigated, or other sites that become apparent from
the investigations.
2.
[Provide a background on how and what sort of contamination was identified and state
the relevant site(s)]
3.
[Explain why the program of works is necessary and what it needs to achieve]
4.
The program of works to be undertaken by the selected Lead Consultant (LC) is
described in summary form in the next section of this PEP and a more detailed explanation of
the requirements is specified in the Statement of Requirement (SOR) at Annexure A of the
Request for Proposal (RFP) at Enclosure 1 of the PEP. The selection of the Consultant/s will
be undertaken in accordance with the approved acquisition strategy and evaluation
methodology.
5.
Approval is sought for this PEP including:
a.
the program of works;
b.
the proposed acquisition strategy for Consultant/s to perform the program of
works;
c.
the evaluation process including the evaluation criteria, weightings and
methodology, and the membership of the Tender Evaluation Board (Board).
SCOPE OF WORK
Note to Drafters: This is a standard presentation of the work that is likely to be required
for Phase 1 of a program of works (i.e. Stage 1, and if determined by DEIM, for Stage 2).
It may be amended as required to fully capture any additional details required for a specific
program of work, for example, by referring to specific forms of contamination at the
identified Sites, and any particular services that may be required under the Stages. This
should be included in the relevant paragraphs below. Most detail should be included in the
SOR at Annexure A.
6.
Lead Consultant (LC)
Under the Stage 1 EI, the LC will be required to undertake an initial investigation of the
site(s) through a desktop assessment to identify potential and known sources of contamination
3
and contamination risks at the Site(s) which will provide more accurate information to
develop risk profiles.
7.
The LC will provide a Stage 1 EI report which:
a.
identifies all contamination and potential risks at the Site(s);
b.
provides a detailed risk assessment of all known and potential contamination at
the Site(s);
c.
provides recommendations for further work.
8.
If a Stage 2 Intrusive EI is required at all or some of the Sites, the LC will be authorised
to proceed to Stage 2 for those Sites. If Stage 2 is not required, or required at some Sites only,
the procurement will be terminated or reduced in scope at the end of Stage 1 in accordance
with clause 6 of the Terms of Engagement under the DEHP arrangement.
9.
Under Stage 2 the LC will conduct a field program of intrusive sampling investigation.
This will involve [amend as required]:
10.
a.
soil/sediment/groundwater sampling and analysis to determine the nature, extent
and severity of contamination of soil, groundwater and sediments;
b.
imagery scanning of underground features such as landfills or UXO.
c.
assessment of the risks of the contamination to people and the environment;
d.
identification of remedial or management actions required to reduce the risks to
acceptable levels; and
e.
a risk assessment workshop to confirm the level of risk and sites requiring
management and/or remediation.
The LC will provide a Stage 2 EI report which:
a.
identifies all known and potential contamination at the Site(s) with a detailed risk
assessment for each site;
b.
ranks sites according to health/environmental risk;
c.
provides recommendations and proposed risk management strategies for each site.
11. A detailed list of services to be provided by the LC is specified in the SOR attached at
Annexure A.
12.
Technical Adviser (TA)
If DEIM agrees that Stage 2 is to be performed, Defence will engage a Technical Adviser
(TA) from the DEHP under a separate procurement to:
a.
provide technical advice and peer review on the methods of investigations,
sampling techniques/results and the draft reports and recommendations prepared
by the Lead Consultant under Stage 2;
b.
ensure the Lead Consultant’s work is comprehensive, meets Defence’s intended
project outcomes and demonstrates due diligence; and
c.
ensure all work performed by the Lead Consultant complies with relevant local,
state and national regulatory requirements.
13. A detailed list of services to be provided by the TA is specified in the SOR attached at
Annexure A.
4
PROJECT VALUE
Table 1: Project Budget Estimates
Budget Requirement
Budget Year $
FY11/12
Forward Year Estimates $
FY12/13
FY14/15
Lead Consultant
Technical Adviser
Total Expenses
14. The current estimated cost of the proposed program of works is: $ (excl. GST). This
estimate has been derived on the following basis:
a.
[insert how estimate has been calculated]
Funding will be available from [insert source of funding] of which the total allocation is $
[insert] (excl. GST).
The preferred date of implementation of the project is (insert date). Funding will take place in
the FY 20XX/20XX.
PROCUREMENT METHODOLOGY
Note to Drafters: The methodology outlined in this section can be amended as required to
meet the needs of a particular procurement, or where a further justification is required for
the methodology.
15. The Lead Consultant(s) and Technical Adviser will be selected through a competitive
process using the DEHP. DEIM intends submitting a Request for Proposal (RFP) to [insert
names of companies selected to tender] for the Lead Consultant role and [insert names of
companies selected to tender] for the Technical Adviser role. Each member of the DEHP
issued with a RFP (in the form set out at Annexure C) will be requested to submit a proposal
which:
a.
demonstrates an understanding of what Defence requires under the program of
works including an understanding of Defence’s objectives and expected outcomes
from the conduct of the program of works;
b.
provides details outlining its ability to perform the program of works with
supporting evidence of expertise, experience and key personnel;
c.
provides costings for Stage 1, and the basis on which costings for Stage 2 would
be determined by reference to its rates under the DEHP;
d.
offers criteria the respondent considers would enable Defence to assess the
outcomes of Stage 1, and determine whether a Stage 2 investigation is required at
any or all of the Sites;
e.
demonstrates an ability to meet all other requirements stated in the SOR.
5
16. All proposals will be evaluated against the evaluation methodology set out in
paragraphs 24 - 30 below.
The proposed acquisition is subject to the Mandatory Procurement Procedures for the
purposes of Division 2 of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (CPGs). The
procurement has the following characteristics:
a.
the total anticipated expenditure exceeds $80,000 (for non construction services);
or,
b.
$9 million (for construction services); and
c.
none of the exemption categories detailed in Appendix A of the CPGs apply.
17. Where the program of works involves a number of projects and Sites, and depending on
the outcomes of the evaluation process, DEIM may select more than one lead consultant to
undertake specific projects or perform services at specific Site(s). DEIM will only do so
where the evaluation process demonstrates that those consultants can perform all the required
services and provide value for money to Defence in accordance with the evaluation
methodology set out below.
18. The acquisition methodology is structured in a way which only commits Defence to a
Stage 1 Desktop EI with the option to proceed to Stage 2 if the outcomes of Stage 1 indicate
that a more intrusive investigation is required at all or some of the Sites, and DEIM is
satisfied after applying the criteria in the SOR that further investigations are justified.
Completion of Stage 1 will therefore be treated as a go/no go point. This will enable Defence
to achieve continuity in service delivery, enable DEIM to better manage consultant
performance during the entire EI stage, remove the risk of different consultants providing
different advice, and provide better value for money by reducing the number of procurement
processes that need to be conducted while retaining competition at the selection stage.
19.
This proposed acquisition methodology:
a.
Is consistent with all applicable Commonwealth, Defence and ID procurement
policy and processes;
b.
uses the processes applicable to the DEHP;
c.
is appropriate as DEHP members were pre-selected through an open tender
process to provide environmental and heritage services throughout Australia to
Defence in the areas of professional advice, environmental training, and the
preparation of plans, reports, survey, studies and assessments which are relevant
to this procurement, and DEHP members were found to provide value for money
to Defence;
d.
Will ensure that the consultant(s) which provides the best value for money is
selected.
20. The acquisition process will commence when DEIM sends a letter inviting selected
members of the DEHP to submit proposals in response to the Requests for Proposal (RFP).
The RFP has three components:
a.
a set of rules which describe how the procurement will be conducted and how
proposals will be evaluated;
b.
a SOR (in the form at Annexure A of the Request for Proposal (RFP) at Enclosure
1 of the PEP) which describes Defence’s requirements for the program of works
and Services to be provided;
6
c.
returnable schedules which tenderers must complete and submit by the due date
for evaluation.
VALUE FOR MONEY
21. The proposed method of procurement described above will achieve value for money for
Defence as:
a.
it uses established procurement processes including the existing ID panel
arrangements which were established following competitive processes;
b.
by sending RFPs to the panel members with the most relevant skill and experience
in dealing with the contamination that is subject to the program of works, DEIM
will be able to engage the most qualified consultant(s) to undertake the works,
which is more likely to result in an effective outcome for Defence and the
objectives of the National Program;
c.
the expected costs associated with this program of works are based on established
panel rates, and are within the expected range of costs when compared to the
historical data on such programs of works; and
d.
the procurement methodology applies all relevant Commonwealth and Defence
procurement policies and processes intended to support the principle of value for
money as the overarching objective stated in the CPGs.
RISK ASSESSMENT
22. The procurement and evaluation process being used for this procurement has taken into
account the risks to the conduct of the procurement process and successful delivery of the
project, and incorporated measures and strategies likely to lessen the identified risks.
Table 2: Procurement Risk Assessment
Risk
Mitigation
Proposal responses are Tenderers are selected from an established Defence panel
received
where
the where members have already been declared as capable of
tenderers are not capable undertaking the type of work required.
or and incapable tenderer
is selected
Tender process is seen as Where possible all panel members with the appropriate
discriminatory
capabilities to undertake the tasks required will be approached
to submit a proposal. Where all panel members are not
approached to tender for tasks within their capabilities there is
sound reasoning behind the decision. Select tendering from the
established panels is within the guidelines of the panel
arrangements. This approach will ensure a non discriminatory
process is still achieved.
7
23. The risks associated with procuring consultants from established Defence panels are
reduced due to the process by which they have been selected to become panel members.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
24. A Tender Evaluation Board (Board) will be established to review the tender
submissions. The Board will include a member independent from the NCRP team where
possible.
25.
Evaluation Steps
The evaluation process will be undertaken in accordance with the following steps:
a.
Step 1 – Receipt and Registration
Defence will register Proposals following the Proposal Closing Time. Proposals
lodged otherwise than in accordance with this RFP will be registered separately
and dealt with in accordance with the Tender Lodgement Procedures and Late
Tenders policy detailed in Chapter 5.5 of the DPPM.
b.
Step 2 – Screening
Proposals will be screened by the Chairperson of the Board to identify those
which are incomplete or non-compliant. They will initially be set aside but may
be considered at a later stage in the evaluation process. Firms that do not submit a
complying submission are to be noted and specifically discussed during the Board
meeting. The Board Report is to specifically address the deliberations about nonconforming submissions that may be received.
c.
Step 3 - Detailed Evaluation
Each member of the assessment panel will be required to score each submission in
accordance with the criteria prior to the Evaluation Board meeting. The
individual pre-Board meeting scores are to be recorded and included as an Annex
in the Board Report.
A Board meeting will assess the submissions received. The Board will discuss
each submission and determine an agreed technical score. The agreed Board
score will be included as an Annex in the Board Report. The Board may seek
clarification from tenderers or undertake any other checks during this stage. The
Board may shortlist Proposals at the end of this step. The details of any
discussions held are to be recorded in the Board Report.
In the event that the Technical Merit identifies any Proposal that does not demonstrate
sufficient capability to undertake the project requirements and present a high risk to
Defence, the Board may exclude the Proposal from further evaluation. Reasons for
exclusion will be documented in the Board report and must be supported by the
technical merit scores.
d.
Step 4 – Rates and Price
An assessment of rates and pricing will be undertaken following the detailed evaluation.
8
e.
Step 5 – Value for Money
The Board will then make an assessment of the Proposal(s) which represent best value for
money to Defence. The Board will determine value for money by a consideration of:
(1)
the detailed assessment against evaluation criteria;
(2)
the rates and pricing;
(3)
compliance generally with the RFP, and particularly the SOR; and
(4)
any risks identified in the evaluation process.
The Board will then reach a preferred tenderer list and source selection recommendation.
The Chair will record the discussions and comments against the technical merit
evaluation and value for money assessment.
The Chair will facilitate scoring reconciliation where the evaluators in the TEB are unable
to reconcile their assessments. Where resolution cannot be achieved between two
evaluators in the TEB, the Chair will make the final decision. The Chair will enter the
tenderer’s final agreed score for each evaluation criterion into an Excel spreadsheet and
apply the weightings (where applicable).
26.
Proposals in response to the RFP are to be submitted as follows:
a.
Proposal Closing Time: [insert time]
[insert date].
b.
29.
Location:
[insert details of location/tender box]
Evaluation Criteria and Scoring
The following Evaluation Criteria will be used to evaluate Proposals:
a.
b.
c.
quality, experience and expertise of the Respondent and key personnel;
project team performance and capacity including;
(1). the Respondent’s ability to undertake the program of works, including
current workload and availability;
(2). number and quality of resources allocated to the program of works (i.e. are
there enough hours allocated to people, are the most appropriate people
doing the right tasks);and
proposed pricing and potential cost to Defence.
Table 3: Selection Criteria and Weighting[Can be modified for specific projects]
CRITERION
1
Proposed approach to the SOR tasks and methodology
a) Demonstrated insight and understanding of the nature and scope of
program of works
b) Appreciation of the potential issues and risks associated with the
project.
CRITERION
WEIGHTING
(%)
60%
9
CRITERION
2
c) Proposed methodology and approach including ability to conduct
strategic planning exercises, stakeholder consultation and technical
reporting.
Experience and Quality of Personnel
CRITERION
WEIGHTING
(%)
30%
a) Demonstrated performance on Similar Projects
b) past performance of contractual and project obligations
c) description of proposed roles and responsibilities for the
nominated key personnel
d) quality and experience of key personnel
3
Capacity
10%
a) Respondent’s ability to undertake the task including current
workload and availability
b) Schedule of resources allocated to the project (i.e. are there
enough hours allocated to people, are the most appropriate people
doing the right tasks)
4
TOTAL
100%
The scoring system suggested for use in the evaluation process for the submissions is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Criteria scoring method
Score
Description
Interpretation
0
Unacceptable Has not demonstrated any capability
1
Marginal
Has barely demonstrated capability
2
Acceptable
Has demonstrated adequate capability without any enhancement
3
Good
Has demonstrated more than adequate capabilities
4
Very Good
Has demonstrated more than adequate capabilities and has
additional factors which sets its apart
5
Excellent
Outstanding in all respects
30.
Evaluation Report (ER)
The evaluation process will result in an Evaluation Report (ER). The ER will document justification for
the selection of preferred tenderer and detail the value for money assessment. The Board will formally
endorse the evaluation process and recommendations by individually signing the ER.
31. The ER will be submitted for endorsement and approval to personnel with delegate approval
allocations in accordance with ID Directive #5 (Financial Delegations and Procurement Governance for
EPE Branch).
10
32.
Completing the Evaluation Process
The Approval Authority for this evaluation process is the [insert delegate].
33. On approval of the ER, the Board Chair will advise the preferred respondent(s) in
writing of its/their preferred status.
34. As any contract with a member of the DEHP will be based on the Terms of Engagement
contained in the DEHP Manual, negotiations will be based on:
a.
those terms in the Terms of Engagement which require a consideration of the
Request for Proposal;
b.
the SOR;
c.
the respondent(s) pricing proposal; and
d.
any other details contained in the respondent(s) proposal which DEIM considers
should bind the respondent(s).
35. It is intended that negotiations between the Commonwealth and the preferred
respondent(s) will result in a contract in accordance with the process described in the DEHP
Manual with an agreed SOR and prices.
36.
Once contract approval has been obtained:
a.
the DEHP Letter 4 template will be used to notify the successful company; and
b.
a contract will be formed between the Commonwealth and the selected
respondent(s) in accordance with the process described in the DEHP Manual.
37. The Board Chair will notify unsuccessful tenderers in writing (Letter 5 template) and
offer to conduct a verbal de-briefing. The debriefing will be conducted with the ‘Unsuccessful
Tenderer Debriefing Proforma’ available on the IM and debriefing minutes will be stored on
file.
38.
Table 5 details the members of the Tender Board
Table 5: Tender Board Members
Description
Name
Organisation/Position
Chairperson
[insert]
[insert]
Independent Member
[insert]
[insert]
Second Member
[insert]
[insert]
Additional Member [add as
required e.g. probity
advisor]
[insert]
[insert]
PROBITY, ETHICS AND FAIR DEALING
39. A climate of ethics and fair dealing from the commencement of the procurement
process is essential and will be achieved by ensuring that:
11
c. the evaluation is conducted strictly in accordance with the published RFP and
this PEP;
d. a clear, appropriate documented audit trail of the process conducted and the
basis for the recommendations in the Evaluation Report (ER) is established and
maintained; and
e. the Board maintains its independence and objectivity by ensuring there is no
public perception of conflict of interest or bias.
37. Board members are required to act in accordance with Defence security requirements, including
confidentiality arrangements related to the evaluation process. Defence personnel are required to comply
with Defence values and the APS Codes of Conduct.
38. All Proposals, assessments, evaluations and the ER will be treated as Commercial-In-Confidence, in
accordance with the procedures in the Defence Security Manual.
39. Any concerns by any party or breaches of probity will be raised in the first instance with the Board
Chairperson. Where the concerns or breaches relate to the Board Chairperson the individual may raise it
directly with [ insert appropriate higher authority such as the Probity Adviser or Project Director ].
40.
Authority and Precedence
This PEP is consistent with the evaluation criteria provided in the RFP and will be used as the principle
reference for the evaluation. In the event that an inconsistency between the RFP and the PEP is found, the
RFP takes precedence.
37. The PEP takes precedence over any working instructions developed within the Board. Members of
the Board will read the PEP prior to commencement of the evaluation.
38.
If there is a need to amend the PEP, approval is to be obtained from the delegate.
41.
Communication with tenderers
Point of Contact for all matters relating to this project is:
[insert contact officer’s details].
The Board Chairperson will be responsible for authorising all communications with Respondents.
39. If important information or data provided in a Proposal cannot be evaluated because it is unclear, it
lacks evidence or if contradictory or potentially contradictory statements are found, a Clarifying Question
may be submitted to the Respondent in writing through the Evaluation Contact Officer. Clarifying
Questions will not be used to enable revision of the Tenderer’s submission. Responses to Clarifying
Questions that change, or are interpreted as changing, the original tender response will be disallowed.
40.
The process to be followed:
a.
issues potentially requiring clarification are identified during the initial reading of
the Proposals by assessors;
b.
issues are discussed by the Board and clarification, follow up issues or questions
are agreed;
12
c.
the Board Chair coordinates the drafting of questions and transmission to the
Respondent;
d.
the Respondent responds to the questions in writing, addressing the specific
question only;
e.
the Respondent’s response to the question is vetted by the Board Chairperson on
receipt before admitting it to the Board to ensure that the response does not alter
the substance or substantial elements of the Respondent’s proposal.
42. At any time during the evaluation, the Board may conduct activities, including but not limited to,
meetings, interviews, presentations, site visits and referee checks. The purpose of these questions and
activities is to address issues for clarification and/or confirm Respondent’s Proposals. Comprehensive
records of these questions and activities are to be kept by the Board.
Note to Drafters: State whether a Probity Adviser has been/is to be engaged for this
procurement. Note that under Infrastructure Division (Id) Directive 15 all projects valued
above $6m (inc. GST) will be required to engage the services of a Probity Adviser. A
probity adviser should also be considered for projects that may not meet the $6m (inc GST)
threshold but that have significant risks inherent in the project profile. Delete one of the
following options as relevant.
43.
Probity
A Probity Adviser has been engaged for this procurement [and a probity plan has been
drafted for this procurement and is included as Attachment # ].
44.
A Probity Adviser has not been engaged for this procurement for the following reasons:
a.
the program of works is considered to be of low risk [see the risk assessment at
paragraph 14 above]
b.
the project team will manage the probity issues for the procurement as follows:
[provide an explanation of how probity will be managed throughout the
procurement. Refer to [Stage 1 – Probity, Legal and External Advisers] and
[Probity Checklist] for more information.]
SCHEDULE
45. The timetable for the evaluation of proposal and selection of the consultant(s), and
execution of a contract is shown in Table 6: [use the below table as an example]
Table 6: Evaluation Schedule
Task
Date
Proposals Opened
[insert date]
Evaluation Team meets
[insert date]
Evaluation Report Submitted for approval
[insert date]
Delegate approval of recommendation
[insert date]
13
Consultant advised
[insert date]
Unsuccessful respondents debriefed
[insert date]
Contract established
[insert date]
RECOMMENDATIONS
46. That the Director notes that this Procurement and Evaluation Plan has been developed
in accordance with the FMA Act 1997, and Commonwealth and Defence specific
procurement policies and processes set out in the CPG’s, the CEI’s and the DPPM.
47. That the Director approve this Procurement and Evaluation Plan (by signing and dating
the front page of the PEP) for the engagement of consultants to undertake development of the
(INSERT PROJECT NAME) from (DATE) to (DATE) at an estimated total value of $ (excl.
GST).
48. As delegate sign the proposal and procurement approval section of the PEP Financial
Approval Page on page 2 of the PEP.
Prepared By:
Project Manager Name
Project Manager Title
Section Name
Tel:
Fax:
Alternative Contact Name
Tel:
Fax:
Enclosures:
1
Request for Proposal (RFP)
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
[The following pages comprise Enclosure 1—RFP ]