Procurement and Contracting Support Branch
Contracting and Legal Division
Commercial Group
Defence Materiel Organisation
Department of Defence
Commonwealth of Australia
Tender Evaluation
Plan Low Risk V1.1
Released 1 July 2012
Defence Scope
This publication should be considered best practice guidance for Defence and DMO staff undertaking
procurement activities.
Note to External Agencies
External agencies intending to use this template will need to tailor it in order to meet their specific
procurement requirements (including relevant internal guidance) and should seek appropriate
professional guidance as required.
Disclaimer
The information in this publication is provided by Defence and DMO for the purpose of disseminating
procurement guidance to its staff. While every effort has been made to ensure the guidance in this
publication is accurate and up-to-date, any user should exercise independent skill and judgment before
relying on it. Further, this publication is not a substitute for independent professional advice and users
external to Defence and DMO should obtain appropriate advice relevant to their particular
circumstances.
Defence and DMO does not make any representation or warranty about the accuracy, reliability,
currency or completeness of any material contained in this publication and nothing in this publication
should be considered a representation by the Commonwealth. In publishing this information, Defence
and DMO does not warrant that the information will be used in any particular procurement process.
Defence and DMO is not liable for any loss resulting from any action taken or reliance made on any
information or material in this publication (including, without limitation, third party information).
Copyright
Commonwealth of Australia 2012
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, this publication is provided under a Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence.
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website
(accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence.
This publication should be attributed as Department of Defence Tender Evaluation Plan Low Risk V1.1.
Use of the Coat of Arms
The terms under which the Coat of Arms can be used are detailed on the It’s an Honour website.
Feedback
All feedback on this publication and suggestions for improvement should be sent to:
Procurement.instructions@defence.gov.au
Amendment Record
Version
Release Date
1.1
1 July 2012
Closure Date
Description of
Amendments
CPR and Delegations
533571226
PROCESS TEMPLATE
Tender Evaluation Plan (Low Risk)
General Information For Users
Use Of The Tender Evaluation Plan (Low Risk) Process Template
1.
This Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) (Low Risk) process template has been developed for
Complex Procurements that are assessed as low risk. Normally these evaluations are
characterised by the absence of Tender Evaluation Working Groups as the evaluation is
conducted by members of the Tender Evaluation Team itself with only a limited specialist
input. Please note that the template may still require tailoring to suit the complexity and
nature of the acquisition.
2.
All Complex Procurements require a formal TEP that must be signed prior to release of the
solicitation documentation. Before beginning, drafters must refer to the Defence Procurement
Policy Manual (DPPM), the relevant Defence or DMO CEI 2.1 – Procurement (as applicable),
and DMO users must also refer to relevant Defence Materiel Instructions (DMIs) including
DMI(PROC) 13-0-001.
3.
Similar to the ASDEFCON suite of contracting templates, this process template includes
CORE and OPTIONAL paragraphs. Drafters are advised to retain all CORE paragraphs,
however, OPTIONAL paragraphs may be deleted if they are not necessary or appropriate to
the acquisition. While all paragraphs can be tailored to suit the requirements of the
acquisition, CORE paragraphs should not be deleted.
4.
The TEP process template also contains “Options” within paragraphs where the drafter may
be required to choose from two or more alternatives. A brief note to drafters describing the
circumstances in which an “Option” must be used precedes the paragraph. “Options” not
selected for use should be deleted in their entirety prior to submitting the plan to the delegate
for signature. As distinct from the ASDEFCON suite of templates, if “Options” are not
selected for use, there is no requirement to follow the ASDEFCON convention of retaining the
paragraph number and inserting “Not Used” as a marker to the reader. Paragraphs should
simply be deleted; however drafters should ensure consistency of any cross-references
identified.
5.
Text utilising examples has been included where appropriate to further guide the types of
information that should be contained in various sections of the template. The example text
uses a different formatting style; the text is shaded grey and bordered to differentiate it from
the rest of the process template and to ensure that the automatic numbering of paragraphs is
not adversely affected. The examples are merely suggestions and not definitive prescriptions
of what might be contained in each of the sections.
6.
All ‘Notes to drafters’ and ‘Examples’ must be removed before the completed document is
provided to the delegate for signature. The section entitled ‘General Information for Users’
should also be deleted.
Formatting in the Template
7.
Within the template sections of text may be contained in table boxes. When modifying the
template, if drafters wish to retain the text they should first cut the text out of the box (using
Ctrl x), paste it into the document (Ctrl v) and then delete the box. If the text formatting is lost,
simply highlight the text and then select the relevant formatting style from the ‘Styles and
Formatting’ drop down menu on the Microsoft Word tool bar.
Contracting Assistance
8.
Where assistance with drafting a TEP is required, contact your relevant contracting specialist.
For DMO personnel please refer to DMI(PROC) 13-0-001.
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
Tender Evaluation Plan
TEMPLATE
For Complex Procurements (Low Risk)
Note to drafters: This template is designed for use for low risk tender evaluations and is not
appropriate for Strategic or higher end Complex Procurement evaluations. The paragraphs
may be tailored as appropriate.
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
[…INSERT PROCUREMENT IDENTIFIER…] TENDER EVALUATION PLAN
1
OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2
TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA ...................................................................................3
2.1
3
Organisation ............................................................................................................................. 3
Approvals and Delegations (Core) ........................................................................................... 3
Tender Evaluation Team (TET) (Core) .................................................................................... 3
Access and Review of Tender Annexes (Core) ....................................................................... 3
ETHICS, PROBITY AND FAIR DEALING..........................................................................5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5
Tender Evaluation Criteria (Core) ............................................................................................ 3
APPROVALS, DELEGATIONS AND TENDER EVALUATION ORGANISATION ...........3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4
Introduction (Core) .................................................................................................................. 1
Aim (Core) ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background (Core) ................................................................................................................... 1
Indicative Schedule of Activities (Core) ................................................................................... 2
Evaluation Requirements (Core) .............................................................................................. 5
Accountability, Probity, Ethics and Fair Dealing (Core) ........................................................... 5
Conflicts of Interest (Core) ....................................................................................................... 5
Confidentiality and Security of Documentation (Core) ............................................................. 5
Communication with Third Parties (Core) ................................................................................ 5
Clarification of Tender Responses (Core)................................................................................ 5
TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ............................................7
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Registration of Tenders (Core) ................................................................................................ 7
Late Tenders (Core) ................................................................................................................. 7
Initial Distribution (Core)........................................................................................................... 7
Initial Screening (Core) ............................................................................................................ 7
Shortlisting (Optional) ............................................................................................................... 7
Discretion of TET to Set Aside a Tender (Core) ...................................................................... 8
Detailed Evaluation, Methodology, and Production of the SER (Core) ................................... 8
Notification and Debriefing of Tenderers (Core) ...................................................................... 9
ANNEXES
A.
Evaluation Guide and Definitions (Core)
B.
Screening and Shortlisting Template (Optional)
i
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
TENDER EVALUATION PLAN FOR […INSERT TITLE…]
Note to drafters: The TEP and Request Documentation should be developed and approved at
the same time. The same delegate should approve both documents prior to release of the
Request Documentation.
References:
A.
[…INSERT REFERENCE TO PROCUREMENT RELATED APPROVAL DOCUMENTS
SUCH AS MAA/MSA REFERENCES, SUBMISSIONS, ETC…]
B.
[…INSERT “Delegate Submission seeking Regulation 9 Approval”];
C.
[…INSERT ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AS APPLICABLE…]
1
OVERVIEW
1.1
Introduction (Core)
1.1.1
This Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) details the arrangements and framework for evaluating
tenders for the supply of […INSERT DESCRIPTION…] to the requirements of […INSERT
REQUEST DOCUMENTATION TITLE AND NUMBER…] to be issued on […INSERT
PROPOSED RELEASE DATE…].
1.2
Aim (Core)
1.2.1
[…INSERT OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF THE TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS…]
Example:

The overall objective of the tender evaluation is to determine the tender that best meets
Defence’s requirements as stated in the Request Documentation and which represents best
value for money.

This TEP provides a framework and methodology for the evaluation of tenders, and details
the activities and responsibilities of the Tender Evaluation Team.
Note to drafters: Throughout this template examples are provided using bullet points in order
that the automatic numbering of paragraphs is not adversely affected. If the Drafter chooses to
incorporate the example text provided, the bullets, formatting, and any text boxes should be
removed, and the numbered formatting used throughout the document should be adopted.
1.3
Background (Core)
1.3.1
[…INSERT BACKGROUND OF REQUIREMENT…]
Note to drafters: Insert a brief summary of the background of the tender being released
including why the requirement exists. The background should also outline the method chosen
to approach the market, for example, whether Request Documentation will be released as an
open, limited or prequalified tender.
Example: (Sourced from DMO Institute Complex Procurement Training Materials)

Reference A provides a recent survey identifying that a high percentage of staff in XYZ
Group working in finance related positions have no formal financial/accounting training.
Therefore, the DG XYZ has decided that Defence requires a basic, Defence specific
accounting training package to be developed and delivered as soon as possible.

Corporate Training Administration and Development (CTAD) is nominally responsible for
design and delivery of training courses within Defence but does not currently have the
1
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
resources or expertise to meet this requirement.

Consequently it has been decided to engage a service provider to develop and deliver
training package based on PSP40504 Certificate IV in Government (Financial Services) that
is Defence specific.

The request documentation has been based on ASDEFCON (Services) and will be released
open tender. The requirement is for design of the training courses and materials, and the
delivery of 12 pilot courses in locations around Australia.
1.4
Indicative Schedule of Activities (Core)
1.4.1
The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the following indicative schedule:
Request Documentation released to tenderers
dd/mm/yyyy
Closing date for tenders
dd/mm/yyyy
Evaluation of tenders complete
dd/mm/yyyy
SER provided to Section 44 Delegate
dd/mm/yyyy
Delegate approval of SER
dd/mm/yyyy
Section 44 Delegation exercised
dd/mm/yyyy
2
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
2
TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA
2.1
Tender Evaluation Criteria (Core)
Note to drafters: TEP evaluation criteria must align with the criteria listed in your Request
Documentation.
2.1.1
2.1.2
The tender evaluation criteria will form the basis for the evaluation of tenders and
assessments against which value for money ranking and source recommendations will be
made. Tender evaluation criteria to be applied for the purposes of evaluation will include the
following, not in any order of importance:
a.
[…INSERT
THE
EVALUATION
DOCUMENTATION…]
b.
etc
c.
etc
CRITERIA
FROM
THE
REQUEST
The evaluation criteria above are sourced directly from the Request Documentation and
have not been weighted or otherwise put in an order of priority.
Note to drafters: Assigning weightings or priorities to evaluation criteria entails a high level of
risk and should be avoided.
3
APPROVALS, DELEGATIONS AND TENDER EVALUATION ORGANISATION
3.1
Organisation (Core)
3.1.1
The Tender Evaluation will be conducted by a Tender Evaluation Team who will report the
outcomes of their evaluation to the Section 44 Delegate in accordance with this Tender
Evaluation Plan.
3.2
Approvals and Delegations (Core)
3.2.1
The delegates nominated in the […INSERT Relevant Financial Approvals Submission …] to
approve actions, and persons/bodies who will provide review and advice of actions, are as
follows:
Action
FMAR 10 Approval
Regulation 9 Approval
Approve Request Documentation for
release
Approve TEP
Approve Source Evaluation Report
Position
(Note: should be the same delegate as
Regulation 9 Approver)
(Note: should be the same as the Section
44 Delegate)
Section 44 Delegation exercised
3.3
Tender Evaluation Team (TET) (Core)
3.3.1
The Tender Evaluation Team (TET) consists of the following members who will provide
subject matter expertise in the identified specialty areas.
[…INSERT NAME, POSITION, SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE AND ALLOCATED
EVALUATION CRITERIA…]
3.3.2
All members of the TET must understand their obligations and comply with this TEP.
3.4
Access and Review of Tender Annexes (Core)
Note to drafters: Tender deliverables may be described as Tender Data Requirements (TDRs)
or Tender Annexes depending on the template used.
3
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
3.4.1
Members of the Tender Evaluation Team will be allocated to evaluate the following tender
deliverables in accordance with their designated evaluation criteria:
(…INSERT TET MEMBER AND RELEVANT TENDER ANNEX…)

Joan Sloan, Engineer: Technical Information, Annex D

Winston Smith, Ass. Finance Manager: Statement of Non-Compliance, Annex B
3.4.2
Where possible, TET members who are not conducting the financial and commercial
evaluation should not have access to financial and pricing information prior to them
concluding their evaluation.
3.4.3
If a TET member requests access to a particular Tender Deliverable in order to conduct its
evaluation and that Tender annex is not allocated to the TET member, (…INSERT
DELEGATE…) will determine whether or not access to the Tender Deliverable is granted.
4
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
4
ETHICS, PROBITY AND FAIR DEALING
4.1
Evaluation Requirements (Core)
4.1.1
Prior to the receipt of tenders the TET members must familiarise themselves with the
requirements of the TEP and broader Commonwealth and Defence procurement policy. In
particular, TET members should familiarise themselves with the following:
a.
accountability, probity, ethics and fair dealing;
b.
conflicts of interest;
c.
security requirements and arrangements;
d.
the tender clarification process;
e.
administrative arrangements (for example distribution of tender volumes, the venue
for evaluation, the use of evaluation tools and database); and
f.
areas of responsibility for evaluation, evaluation stages and required outputs, and
the tender evaluation schedule.
4.2
Accountability, Probity, Ethics and Fair Dealing (Core)
4.2.1
Staff involved with the tender evaluation must recognise their public duty and ensure that the
principles and ethics of probity are upheld. APS staff and ADF members are not required to
sign personal non-disclosure agreements as they are held accountable under the Public
Service Act 1999 or the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (as applicable).
4.2.2
The following principles must be demonstrated and adhered to at all times:
a.
accountability – see DPPM Chapter 1.2; and
b.
probity, ethics and fair dealing – see DPPM Chapter 3.13.
4.3
Conflicts of Interest (Core)
4.3.1
Participants in the tender evaluation process are advised that should a real or perceived
conflict of interest situation arise at any time during the evaluation, they will be required to
declare any such conflict and may be required to exclude themselves from further
participation in the process.
4.4
Confidentiality and Security of Documentation (Core)
4.4.1
Throughout the evaluation process, all tendered material must be handled appropriately.
Information provided by tenderers will be treated as Commercial-in-Confidence (CIC), kept
secure and not be used for personal gain or to prejudice effective competition. For further
information on security and confidentiality principles see DPPM Chapters 3.9 and 3.11.
4.5
Communication with Third Parties (Core)
4.5.1
TET members are not permitted to contact any respondents during the evaluation without
prior approval from (…INSERT DELEGATE…). All contact with respondents should be in
writing and any other enquiries must be noted as a record of conversation.
4.5.2
All conversations with non-TET members relating to the tender will be documented as a
record of conversation including the date, time, source, detail and response to any request
for information.
4.6
Clarification of Tender Responses (Core)
Note to drafters: For procurements conducted in the DMO this section must be consistent with
DMI(PROC) 13-0-001.
4.6.1
Communication between the Commonwealth and tenderers must not be designed to solicit
new information from tenderers. Any communication between the Commonwealth and
5
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
tenderers will be restricted to clarification of issues that would assist the evaluation process.
Clarification questions must be approved for release by (…INSERT DELEGATE…). When a
tenderer’s response to a clarifying question foreshadows a change in scope, schedule or
cost, (…INSERT DELEGATE…) will, with the assistance of necessary advisers, determine
whether the information is admissible for evaluation purposes.
4.6.2
Any clarification questions will, where possible, be consolidated into a single request and
passed to the (…INSERT Nominated TET Member…). Requests for clarifying information
will be issued by the (…INSERT Nominated TET Member…) to the relevant tenderers in
writing.
6
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
5
TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
5.1
Registration of Tenders (Core)
5.1.1
A representative of Defence will register the receipt of all tenders in the presence of at least
two witnesses in accordance with Defence’s policy and procedures as described in the
DPPM at Chapter 5.5.
5.1.2
All tenders will be stored securely by the representative in a manner that ensures no person,
including members of the TET, has access to them until the evaluation commences.
5.2
Late Tenders (Core)
5.2.1
Tenders lodged after the closing time specified in this Request for Tender may be deemed to
be “Late Tenders”.
5.2.2
Late Tenders must be treated in accordance with the Late Tenders Policy found in the
DPPM at Chapter 5.5.
Note to drafters: The Late Tender process must be consistent with the Request
Documentation.
5.3
Initial Distribution (Core)
5.3.1
The (…INSERT Nominated TET Officer…) will ensure that copies (or relevant parts of) each
tender are made available to each member of the TET. These copies are to be held in a
secure lockable storage medium. If the members of the TET are not co-located then it is
important to take additional care to protect Commercial in Confidence (CIC) nature of the
tenders. The appropriate security measures should also be adhered to by individuals in
accordance with paragraph 4.4.
5.4
Initial Screening (Core)
5.4.1
The TET will initially check tenders against the:
a.
minimum content and format requirements;
b.
conditions for participation; and
c.
Essential requirements identified in the Request Documentation.
Option: For procurements subject to the additional rules that apply under Division 2 of the
Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs) .
5.4.2
Tenders that do not satisfy the minimum content and format requirements, do not meet the
conditions for participation, or do not satisfy Essential requirements specified in the Request
Documentation must not be considered for detailed evaluation and will be set aside.
Option: For procurements not subject to the additional rules that apply under Division 2 of the
Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs)
5.4.3
Tenders that do not satisfy the minimum content and format requirements, do not meet the
conditions for participation, or do not satisfy Essential requirements specified in the Request
Documentation must be brought to the attention of the source selection delegate and may be
excluded from detailed evaluation and set aside.
5.5
Shortlisting (Optional)
5.5.1
Tenders that have satisfied initial screening may be subject to shortlisting in order to identify
non-competitive tenders that have no reasonable prospect of exhibiting the best value for
money in comparison to other tenders received. Tenders that are identified as non
competitive will not be considered for detailed evaluation and will be set aside.
5.5.2
Shortlisting must be conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria, the Evaluation
Guide and Definitions (Annex A) and evaluation principles outlined at paragraph 5.7.
7
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
Shortlisting must be of sufficient rigour to ensure that excluded tenderers would stand no
reasonable chance of exhibiting the best value for money under more detailed evaluation.
5.5.3
The TET will produce a Screening and Shortlisting Report for approval by (…INSERT
DELEGATE…) in accordance with Annex B.
Note to drafters: The report template addresses both screening and shortlisting. Where
shortlisting is not used prior to detailed evaluation it will generally not be necessary to prepare
a minute which addresses screening only as this may be summarised in the SER.
5.5.4
Tenderers who have been declined will be informed as soon as practicable after the source
selection delegate has approved and signed the Screening and Shortlisting Report.
5.6
Discretion of TET to Set Aside a Tender (Core)
5.6.1
At the discretion of the TET, if it becomes apparent at any stage of the process that a tender
is clearly non-competitive or otherwise has no reasonable prospect of exhibiting value for
money, it may be set aside. The SER will document the justification for setting aside any
tender that occurs after detailed evaluation has commenced.
5.7
Detailed Evaluation, Methodology, and Production of the SER (Core)
Note to drafters: The SER Process Template and Chapter 5.6 of the DPPM provide further
guidance on evaluation methodologies.
5.7.1
Detailed evaluation will commence with the TET using the standard Compliance Ratings and
Risk Assessments found at Annex A to assess the tender deliverables against the
requirements of the Request Documentation.
5.7.2
Where relevant, the TET should consider material tendered in response to one evaluation
criterion in the evaluation of other criteria. In addition to evaluating the tender deliverables or
annexes, the TET may consider any additional information that relates to evaluation criteria
provided that the use of such information is in accordance with the Conditions of Tender.
Information which may be suitable includes reports from credit rating agencies, the use of
company scorecards, and, subject to any IP and confidentiality obligations, material received
from the tenderers in response to other tender processes.
5.7.3
The level of detail documented by the TET will be commensurate with the complexity of the
procurement. Working notes may be attached in tabular form as an Annex to the SER.
5.7.4
For each tender, based on the results of detailed evaluation, the TET will produce an
analysis of each tender’s performance against each evaluation criteria in the form of a
qualitative statement that addresses key strengths and weaknesses of each tender and the
compliance and risk assessments conducted. The qualitative statements will be included in
the SER to provide a summary assessment of each tender. Quantitative methods may be
used to support the qualitative statement where appropriate.
5.7.5
The TET will use the qualitative statements as the basis to produce a comparative
assessment against the evaluation criteria, containing a narrative that describes key
discriminators which formed the basis of the selection decision.
Note to drafters: Quantitative methods may be suitable for evaluation specific criteria,
especially those relating to performance against the Statement of Work or technical aspects
and may be used within individual members evaluation to support the qualitative statements
required. If the use of quantitative methods or an evaluation tool is proposed, the details can
be included at Annex A and should specify which evaluation criteria the quantitative methods
will apply to.
5.7.6
If during detailed evaluation tenders are identified as having Critical Deficiencies in
accordance with Annex A, they may be set aside at the discretion of (…INSERT
DELEGATE…).
5.7.7
The TET will produce a Value for Money assessment and may provide an overall ranking of
tenders. The Value for Money assessment will evaluate the performance of each tender
against the evaluation criteria (capability) against cost, taking into account risk
8
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
assessments/confidence ratings in accordance with DPPM Chapter 5.6.
Note to drafters: For further information regarding the content of the SER refer to the SER
Process Template.
5.7.8
The SER records the detailed evaluation results, provides the source from which issues for
contract negotiation will be drawn, and serves as an audit trail for the detailed assessments
made in arriving at the source selection recommendation. The SER will then be submitted to
the delegate for approval, before letters to preferred and non-preferred tenderers are issued.
Note to drafters: Letters declining the tender should not be sent unless it is absolutely clear
that the Commonwealth will not contemplate further consideration of the tender at a future
stage (for example, if negotiations break down with the preferred tenderer or other tenderers
withdraw their bids.)
5.8
Notification and Debriefing of Tenderers (Core)
5.8.1
Notification of tenderers must not occur until after the Screening and Shortlisting Report, or
the Source Evaluation Report (as appropriate), have been approved and signed by
(…INSERT DELEGATE…).
5.8.2
As soon as possible after the appropriate approvals for source selection and its
announcement have been obtained, the TET is to formally notify tenderers. In notifying
unsuccessful tenderers, all tenderers will be provided with the opportunity of a debriefing.
The debriefing will not occur before successful negotiations with the preferred tenderer are
concluded.
5.8.3
The Contact Officer identified in the Request Documentation (Conditions of Tender) will be
the signatory for notifications to tenderers, unless (…INSERT DELEGATE…) determines
otherwise.
[…INSERT ADDRESS BLOCK OF APPROVER…]
[…INSERT DATE…]
9
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
ANNEX A
EVALUATION GUIDE AND DEFINITIONS (CORE)
Compliance Rating
1.
2.
3.
This comprises guidance on how the evaluation will assess the extent to which the
Response complies with the requirements of the Request Documentation.
Exceeds:
The tendered solution exceeds the requirement specified in the request
documentation in a manner which offers significant additional benefits to
Defence;
Compliant:
The tendered solution meets the requirement specified in the request
documentation or, where it exceeds the requirement, there is no significant
additional benefit to Defence; and
Deficient:
The tendered solution does not meet the requirement specified in the request
documentation.
If a tender is assessed as being non-compliant against a requirement of the Request
Documentation it will be classed as deficient. Deficiencies will be further classified as follows:
Deficient - Critical:
A deficiency that cannot be readily remedied which is of such
significance that it may seriously prevent the principal
requirements from being achieved;
Deficient - Significant:
A deficiency that has the potential to prevent an element of
the principal requirements from being achieved; and
Deficient - Minor:
A deficiency that has no substantial implications for the
requirements and may be acceptable without remedial action.
If a deficiency can be readily rectified the deficiency will not be assessed as “critical”. In
applying the criteria, each deficiency is to be judged on its merits as presented, irrespective
of the ease or cost of rectification. Having made this judgement, a further assessment is to
be made of how readily deficiencies might be overcome and whether or not such
deficiencies should be rectified or identified as a shortcoming in the response.
Risk Assessment
4.
Once compliance has been assessed then a Risk Assessment will be applied to each
criterion which addresses the level of confidence of the TEO members conducting
evaluation. The evaluation of confidence provides an indication of an assessment of risk
associated with the tender. A high level of confidence would indicate a low level of risk in the
claims of the respondent.
5.
Any risk identified in a response will be assessed by Defence and taken into account in the
evaluation. The DMO Project Risk Management Manual will be used as the prime source of
reference for risk assessments in tender evaluation.
6.
The following terminology for risk ratings will be used:
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
A-1
Consequence
Likelihood
Insignificant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Severe
Almost Certain
Medium
Medium
High
High
Extreme
Likely
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Extreme
Possible
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
Unlikely
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Rare
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
7.
The TET will consider confidence level ratings in determining an overall risk assessment for
the comparative assessment report.
Evaluation Tools (Optional)
8.
[…INSERT DETAILS OF ANY EVALUATION TOOLS OR QUANTITATIVE METHODS
HERE…]
Note to drafters: If particular evaluation tools, or quantitative methods, are proposed for the
evaluation of one or more evaluation criteria the details of the proposed approach can be
provided in this Annex.
Quantitative methods will generally not be applicable to all criteria. For example, quantitative
methods will not usually assist with evaluating criteria related to compliance with commercial
terms, intellectual property rights, financial terms and pricing schedules and the tenderer’s
past performance, commercial viability and technical and managerial capability.
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
A-2
ANNEX B
SCREENING AND SHORTLISTING TEMPLATE (OPTIONAL)
[INSERT ANNEX B HERE – MS WORD FILE IS MAINTAINED SEPARATELY]
COMMERCIAL–IN–CONFIDENCE
B-1