Open Tender Evaluation Guide
Abbreviations and Terms
BoT
DFA
ET
MoE
RFQ
SPA
Board of Trustees
Delegated Financial Authority
Evaluation Team
Ministry of Education
Request for Quotes
School Property Advisor
Approach to Market
Buyer
Tender
Respondent
Single stage RFP
Two stage ROI/RFP
COI
EIS
GETS
RFP
ROI
Conflict of Interest
Education Infrastructure Service
Government Electronic Tender Service
Request for Proposals
(request for) Registrations of Interest
The process of advertising or inviting responses to an RFP/ROI/RFQ.
The recipient of the procurement (EIS or a BoT)
A contract opportunity described in an RFP/ROI/RFQ
A potential supplier that has submitted a response to an Approach to Market.
A tender process where the RFP is openly advertised
A tender process where an openly advertised ROI is followed by a closed RFP with
shortlisted respondents
Introduction
This document provides guidance to ET members evaluating school property related open tenders.
The objective of the evaluation process is to identify the response/Respondent that represents best fit for
purpose and value for money (taking into account all whole-of-life costs including acquisition, operation and
disposal).
For further guidance, also see:

Open Tender Guide: details the process for conducting an open tender

Works Price Evaluation Guide: details a process for the evaluation of price for construction works.
Probity
Everyone involved in procurement must:

be impartial, fair, responsible and trustworthy

act solely in the best interests of the Ministry and/or the relevant school

act responsibly, lawfully and with integrity

report to the Ministry where fraud and/or corruption is suspected or identified

maintain the confidentiality of the procurement process, suppliers’ information, intellectual property
and other related information (except as legislatively required e.g. Official Information Act)

report any real, perceived or potential COIs

not accept any gift, hospitality or benefit from any potential supplier and immediately report any
such instance as a COI.
Conflicts of Interest Management
A COI is a circumstance where an individual has a personal interest, obligation or relationship that may
influence the individual’s performance of the responsibilities of their job/position. A COI may result in an
individual’s independence, objectivity or impartiality being called into question.
COIs may be:
1

actual; the conflict currently exists

potential; the conflict is about to happen, or could happen

perceived; another party may reasonably believe that a conflict exists

positive or negative (e.g. result un-due bias for or against a particular Respondent).
Everyone must complete, sign and submit (to the Procurement Officer) a COI declaration at the
commencement of their involvement in an open tender procurement. All staff must immediately declare (to
the Procurement Officer) any COI that arises at any time during the procurement. Failure to declare a COI
or making a false COI declaration may be regarded as serious misconduct.
For each COI identified, a Conflict Management Plan must be approved by the Project Sponsor (or the
Project Sponsor’s manager or the BoT for any COI relating to the Project Sponsor). The COI management
plan must include regular review to ensure that the COI is being managed appropriately. Treatments for
managing a COI include:

Report Advise involved personnel (e.g. the Evaluation Team) and request any perceived undue
bias is reported.

Restrict Limit the person’s involvement in the procurement.

Recruit Engage independent probity advisor to oversee the procurement.

Remove Remove the person completely from the procurement.

Relinquish The person gives up their private interest.

Resign The person resigns from the Ministry/BoT.
Instructions for Evaluators
General instructions for ET members are:

Complete and submit (to the Procurement Officer) a Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality
Agreement (COI declaration) immediately at the commencement of your involvement in the
procurement (prior to receiving evaluation material). Update your COI declaration by immediately
reporting any COI you become aware of at any time during the procurement (including any
perceived undue bias of another evaluator).

In order to maintain the confidentiality of Respondents’ information during the procurement
process, do not discuss the evaluation with anyone not officially involved in the procurement.

Conduct your individual evaluation independently. Do not discuss your individual evaluation with
anyone including other ET members prior to the ET meeting.

Evaluation and scoring must be:
o
fair/objective/unbiased/impartial/based solely on the best interests of the school
o
based on evidence (do not take into account speculation, assumptions, hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinion)
o
based on good judgement and sound reasoning
o
consistent, balanced and reasonable
o
defendable (evaluation/scoring must be able to be justified)

Document the reasons/rationale for scores above or below 5 and note points for discussion and/or
clarification. Ensure that all written comments are appropriate (all written material relating to the
procurement is discoverable and may be subject to an Official Information Act request).

Upon completion of the individual evaluation and scoring of each response, review your
evaluation:
2

o
do your scores (including the total non-price score) accurately reflect your overall
assessment of the merits and dsadvantages of the response as a fit for purpose
solution? (if not, re-score)
o
have you sufficiently documented the rationale for scores above or below 5?
o
Have you noted all of the points for clarification?
Do not contact Respondents. All requests for clarification must be made to the Procurement
Officer.
Evaluation of Criteria
Considerations when evaluating Responses include:
Proposed Solution
Does the proposed solution meet minimum requirements?

If yes, to what extend does it provide additional benefit/reduction of risk?

If no, to what extent is it deficient and/or an increases in risk?
Is the proposed solution comprehensive (cover all areas of the requirement)?
Is the proposed solution practical/reasonable/workable/robust?
Does the proposed solution indicate that the Respondent has a clear understanding of the requirement?
Is the proposed solution likely to deliver the intended outcome?
Capability
Does the Respondent (including specifically named personnel and sub-contractors/consultants) have
sufficient skills/expertise to deliver the requirement?

If yes, to what extent does the Respondent’s capability provide additional benefit/reduce risk?

If no, to what extent is the Respondent‘s capability deficient and/or an increase in risk?
Capability is evidenced by the Respondent’s:

professional association memberships, accreditations, certifications and (for named personnel)
qualifications

experience: the quantity of recent/relevant/comparable previous performance

track record: the quality of recent/relevant/comparable previous performance evaluated through
reference checks and due diligence (See separate section below) .
Capacity
Does the Respondent have sufficient available resources (normally personnel) to deliver the requirement?

If yes, to what extent does the Respondent’s capacity provide additional benefit/reduce risk?

If no, to what extent is the Respondent‘s capacity deficient and/or an increase in risk?
Capacity is evidenced by the Respondent’s:

Resources: Are there enough suitable resources to deliver the requirement?

Availability: Will sufficient capable resources be available to deliver the requirement by the
intended completion date? Will named personnel be available when required?

Contingency (optional): Are there sufficient back-up resources to provide assurance that the
requirement will be delivered by the intended completion date?
3
References Checks
Reference checks are used to verify a Respondent’s experience and evaluate their track record (the quality
of their previous performance). Reference checks can include obtaining feedback from:

referees nominated by a Respondent in their response

a Respondent’s other previous or existing clients (including from within the school property sector
(e.g. other schools, EIS)

any other relevant third party (e.g. Local Councils).
Reference checks are usually conducted by the Procurement Officer and reported to ET at the ET meeting.
Considerations for the evaluation of reference checks include:

feedback must be based on first-hand experience with the Respondent: that is, not on
unsubstantiated opinions, assumptions, speculation or hearsay

feedback must be able to be substantiated

previous performance (nature of the project and the Respondent’s role) upon which feedback is
based should be comparable to the intended engagement

feedback must be attributable to the Respondent’s actual performance: care must be taken to
ascertain whether issues with a project were due to the Respondent’s poor performance or to
other factors such as poor communication by the client

where negative feedback would likely lead to de-selection, the Respondent should be given the
opportunity to address the feedback (right of reply) prior to final scoring.
4
Open Tender Evaluation Process
START
1. Initial review of ROI or RFP responses
by Procurement Officer and ET Chair
2. ET Briefing
3. Individual evaluation of ROI or RFP
responses non-price criteria by ET
members
4. Procurement Officer undertakes price
analysis of RFP responses
5. ET meeting to review consolidated
individual non-price scores
Clarifications or
presentations
required?
Yes
ET meeting to review consolidated
No
individual non-price scores
Confirm ET non-price scores and shortlist
respondents
Two stage (open ROI and closed RFP)
Single stage or two
stage process?
Conduct closed RFP with shortlisted
respondents
Single stage (open RFP)
Conduct closed RFP with shortlisted
respondents
Evaluate RFP responses and confirm ET
non-price scores
Score prices and calculate ET total scores
(price + non-price scores)
Select a preferred respondent
6. Draft and obtain Procurement Sponsor
approval for the recommendation report
5
1.
Following the tender deadline, the Procurement Officer and ET Chair conduct an initial review of
responses for:

compliance with the tender process terms and conditions

initial due diligence (e.g. insurance requirements)

compliance with pre-conditions (if any).
Written approval of the Procurement Sponsor is required to exclude a response from evaluation.
2.
The Procurement Officer briefs the ET including:

confirming the Respondents to be evaluated

updating COI declarations

providing specific evaluation instructions

issuing copies of:
o Responses
o the Evaluation workbook
o the Procurement Plan
o the ROI/RFP.
3.
ET members conduct separate individual evaluations of Responses for non-price criteria.
Completed evaluation workbooks with scores and commentary are returned to the Procurement
Officer.
4.
The Procurement Officer conducts separate price analysis (RFP only).
5.
An ET meeting is held to:
a. review consolidated individual non-price scores
b. agree provisional team non-price scores (by consensus)
c. identify any requirement for clarifications/presentations/interviews/site visits/trials/due
diligence or reference checks and if required:
i.
adjourn the meeting
ii.
obtain clarifications and/or conduct presentations/interviews/site visits/trials/due
diligence or reference checks
iii.
reconvene the meeting
iv.
adjust ET scores
v.
document rationale for score changes
d. confirm final ET non-price weighted scores and rank proposals
Single Stage RFP
e. determine a short-list of acceptable proposals
f. Procurement Officer presents and scores prices
g. calculation of total ET scores (non-price score + price score) for proposals shortlisted as
acceptable
h. presentation of the results of due diligence and Respondents’ acceptance of contract terms
and conditions
i. select the preferred Respondent based on:

highest total ET score

acceptance of the contract

due diligence
j. note (for the recommendation report):

any requirement for additional due diligence

areas for negotiation

information for supplier debriefs
Two Stage ROI/RFP
e. determine a shortlist of acceptable Responses to be invited to respond to a closed RFP
f. draft and obtain the approval of the Procurement Sponsor for a recommendation report
summarising the ROI evaluation and recommending a shortlist of ROI respondents to be
invited to participate in the subsequent closed RFP
g. conduct a closed RFP process (through GETS) with shortlisted Respondents
h. evaluate RFP and select a preferred Respondent (as per single stage RFP evaluation
detailed above)
6
6.
Draft and obtain approval of the recommendation report summarising the evaluation,
recommending entering into negotiation with the preferred Respondent and outlining a negotiation
plan. The Procurement Officer drafts the Recommendation Report, the Evaluation Team endorses
it, the ET chair signs it and the Procurement Sponsor approves it.
Scoring
The following decision path should be applied when scoring each response against each
criterion:
START
Does the Response
meet minimum
requirements for the
criterion?
No
Yes
How significant is
the deficiency/risk?
How much additional
benefit and/or
reduction of risk?
Unacceptable
Major
Minor
Acceptable
Good
Excellent
Unacceptable
Deficiencies
Deficiencies
Meets the
Some additional
Substantial
additional
deficiency/risk
Major
Minor
requirement but
benefit or
(or does not
deficiency/risk
deficiency/risk
with no
reduction of risk
additional
comply or
insufficient
benefit or
information)
reduction of risk
Score 0
Score 1 or 2
Score 5
Score 3 or 4
benefit or
reduction of risk
Score 6, 7 or 8
Score 9 or 10
The scale for scoring responses for each criterion is:
Rating
Definition
Score
EXCELLENT
Exceeds the criterion to provide substantial additional benefit and/or
reduction of risk
9-10
GOOD
Exceeds the criterion to provide some additional benefit and/or
reduction of risk
6-8
ACCEPTABLE
Meets the criterion
5
MINOR
DEFICIENCIES
Does not meet the criterion due to minor deficiency or risk
3-4
MAJOR
DEFICIENCIES
Does not meet the criterion due to major deficiency or risk
1-2
UNACCEPTABLE
Does not comply, insufficient information provided or unacceptable
deficiency or risk
0
7
8