EVALUATION PLAN
for
[…INSERT PROCUREMENT NAME AND NUMBER…]
COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
Note to drafters: The EP must be completed and approved before the opening of tenders following
the tender closing time, if not before.
Objective Document ID
Version
Status
Date
Produced By
Produced For
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1
1.2
AIM ......................................................................................................................................... 3
TIMELINES ............................................................................................................................... 3
EVALUATION TEAM (ET) .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3
1.4
1.5
THE EVALUATION TEAM (ET) .................................................................................................... 3
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES - EVALUATION TEAM (ET) ............................................................. 3
ADVISORS TO THE ET .............................................................................................................. 4
GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.6
PROBITY, ETHICS AND FAIR DEALING ........................................................................................ 4
COMMUNICATION WITH TENDERERS ............................................................................................. 4
1.7
1.8
POINT OF CONTACT ................................................................................................................. 5
COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................... 5
EVALUATION OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 5
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
REGISTRATION OF TENDERS..................................................................................................... 5
LATE TENDERS ........................................................................................................................ 6
UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF FORM ........................................................................................... 6
SHORTLISTING ......................................................................................................................... 6
TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 6
1.13
1.14
1.15
STAGE 1 – INITIAL SCREENING BASED ON THE COMPLIANCE CRITERIA ......................................... 8
STAGE 2 - A DETAILED EVALUATION AGAINST THE EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................... 8
STAGE 3 - AN ASSESSMENT OF VALUE FOR MONEY AND FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS ................. 10
EVALUATION REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.16
EVALUATION REPORT ............................................................................................................ 10
DEBRIEFING OF TENDERERS ......................................................................................................... 11
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Aim
1.1.1
The aim of this Evaluation Plan (EP) is to provide guidance, in accordance with the requirements of
the Commonwealth Procurement Framework, Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM) and
the Conditions of Tender, for the evaluation of tender responses to […INSERT BRIEF
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT…].
1.1.2
This EP provides a framework for:
a. the identification of the preferred Tenderer based on a systematised, defensible
assessment of each Tenderer's response against the evaluation criteria at paragraph
[…INSERT PARAGRAPH…] of this EP;
b. how the principles of best ‘value for money’ and the other procurement requirements as
defined in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and related web-based guidance
issued by Department of Finance will be applied through the evaluation criteria and
process; and
c. an evaluation process that meets the requirements of Defence’s legal and probity
requirements and guidelines.
1.2
1.2.1
Timelines
The estimated dates for the procurement process are outlined in the table below.
Note to drafters: Delete or add milestones as required.
Milestone
Estimated date
Release to Market
[Insert date]
Closing Time
[Insert time and date]
Approval of Tender Evaluation Report
[Insert date]
Negotiation Completed
[Insert date]
Contract Execution
[Insert date]
Debriefing of unsuccessful Tenderers
[Insert date]
EVALUATION TEAM
1.3
1.3.1
The Evaluation Team (ET)
The Evaluation Team is shown in the table below:
Members
Position
Chairperson
Member
Member
Financial evaluation
1.4
Role and responsibilities - Evaluation Team (ET)
1.4.1
The Evaluation Team (ET) is responsible for the evaluation process from receipt of Tender
responses, through to detailed and comparative evaluation, to presentation of a final Evaluation
Report (ER).
1.4.2
The members of the Evaluation Team (ET) are required to read and be familiar with the request
documentation and the Evaluation Plan (EP) prior to commencement of the evaluation as all
tenders will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria and methodology contained in
the request documentation and the EP.
1.4.3
The ET Chairperson will be responsible for:
a. chairing, or allocating a chair for, all meetings of the ET during the evaluation process;
b. ensuring the evaluation process complies with the request documentation and EP;
c. preparing the ER.
1.4.4
Members of the ET will be responsible for:
a. evaluating all Tenders in accordance with the EP;
b. assisting the ET Chairperson with the compilation of reports, including the ER as
required.
1.5
1.5.1
Advisors to the ET
The Chairperson of the ET may seek advice from specialist advisors from within Defence, other
Commonwealth agencies and externally, if required, to supplement the resources of the ET.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.6
Probity, Ethics and Fair Dealing
1.6.1
Establishing a climate of ethics and fair dealing from the commencement of the tender evaluation
process is essential. This will be achieved by ensuring that:
a. the evaluation is conducted strictly in accordance with the published Conditions of
Tender, this EP and the evaluation criteria;
b. a clear, appropriate documented audit trail of the process conducted and the basis for the
recommendations in the ER is established and maintained; and
c. the ET maintains its independence and objectivity be ensuring there is no public
perception of conflict of interest or bias.
1.6.2
All tenders, assessments, evaluations and the ER are to be treated as Commercial-In-Confidence,
in accordance with the procedures in the Defence Security Manual.
1.6.3
The probity register at Attachment […INSERT REFERENCE AS APPLICABLE…] will be used to
record all probity issues and risks.
1.7
Authority and Precedence
1.7.1
The evaluation criteria identified in this EP is identical to the evaluation criteria contained in
Request for Tender (RFT) […INSERT RFT REFERENCE…] and is to be used as the principle
reference for the evaluation.
1.7.2
In the event that an inconsistency between the RFT and the EP is found, the RFT takes
precedence. Accordingly, the evaluation criteria advertised in the RFT must be used to evaluate
tenders and must be related to tender response requirements.
1.7.3
The EP takes precedence over any working instructions developed within the ET. Members of the
ET must read the EP prior to commencement of the evaluation.
1.7.4
The evaluation criteria advised to industry in the RFT must not be altered during the evaluation
process without a formal request documentation amendment process. If there is a need to amend
the EP, approval is to be obtained from the FINMAN 2 Schedule 1 delegate.
COMMUNICATION WITH TENDERERS
1.8
Point of Contact
Note to drafters: The single point of contact nominated for the evaluation period is usually the ET
Chairperson. Another member of the ET may be nominated for administrative purposes however
approval for all communications with Tenderers will remain the responsibility of the ET Chairperson.
1.8.1
The point of contact for all matters relating to this project is:
[…INSERT CONTACT OFFICER’S DETAILS…]
1.8.2
The ET Chairperson will be responsible for authorising all communications with Tenderers.
1.8.3
The communications register at Attachment […INSERT REFERENCE AS APPLICABLE…] will be
used to retain a record of communications (including complaints, requests for information,
extension to the tender open period, etc).
1.9
Communications
1.9.1
If important information or data provided in a Tender response 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 Tenderer in writing. 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.
1.9.2
At any time during the evaluation, the ET 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 tenderers’ responses.
Comprehensive records of these questions and activities are to be kept by the ET.
1.9.3
Subsequent to any questions and activities undertaken, further discussions within the ET may take
place to achieve broad consensus and finalise the evaluation.
EVALUATION OVERVIEW
1.10 Registration of Tenders
1.10.1 […DELETE THIS PARA 1.10.1 AS APPLICABLE…] All tenders will be lodged using AusTender’s
Level 3 electronic distribution functionality which allows suppliers to submit tender responses to a
secure tenderbox via the AusTender website.
1.10.2 A representative of Defence will register the receipt of all tenders. Tenders shall not be opened
before the designated Tender Closing Time stipulated in the Request for Tender documentation.
1.11 Late Tenders
1.11.1 Tenders lodged after the Tender Closing Time specified in the RFT will be deemed to be “Late
Tenders”.
1.11.2 Late Tenders must be treated in accordance with the ‘Late Submission’ guidelines found at
paragraphs 10.24-10.27 of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
1.12 Unintentional errors of form
1.12.1 If the ET considers that there are unintentional errors of form in a tender, the ET may ask the
Tenderer to correct or clarify the error. However, no material alteration or addition to that tender
may be permitted.
1.12.2 Any decision to issue requests for correction or clarification of errors of form should be made at the
discretion of the Chairperson and ensure the probity of the process is maintained.
1.13 Shortlisting
1.13.1 Defence may create a shortlist of Tenderers at any time during the evaluation process. Sufficient
justification for this must be recorded in the Shortlisting report at Attachment […INSERT
REFERENCE AS APPLICABLE…] to seek FINMAN 2 Schedule 1 delegate approval of the
shortlisted tenderers.
TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
1.14 […INSERT EVALUATION CRITERIA AS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST
DOCUMENTATION…]
Note to drafters: It is essential that in the event of any changes to the original evaluation criteria,
they are advised to industry via AusTender before the commencement of the evaluation process.
Evaluation criteria should be measurable, clear and transparent. Typical criteria include:
Compliance criteria - this typically includes both mandatory criteria which must be met for tenderers
to progress to the next stage of evaluation and conformance type criteria such as did the tenderer
include all responses requirements and in the correct format. Mandatory criteria include all conditions
for participation, minimum content and format requirements and any requirements described as
essential. Conformance criteria are generally not mandatory but may impact the ability of a tenderer
be competitive if they are not substantially met.
Technical criteria – The evaluation criteria developed to assess the tenderer’s ability to meet the
Defence’s requirements as described in the request documentation. These criteria are generally
scored using a rating scale and a weighting applied based on their relative importance.
Financial criteria – The evaluation criteria developed to assess the tenderer’s pricing proposal.
Commercial criteria – Are there any areas on non-compliance with the draft contract? Is the
insurance coverage adequate? Is the financial viability/capacity of the supplier adequate?
Assessment of these criteria is typically based on the assessed risk to the Commonwealth of any
areas on non-compliance.
Two evaluation methodologies are proposed. One of the two should be selected. The two methods
are:
Comparative assessment – Comparative assessment involves ranking tenders in their relative order
of merit against the requirements of the request documentation and evaluating each criterion and the
risks associated with each criterion, to arrive at a recommendation of the overall merit of the tender
against all requirements. The rating system to be used should be defined in the EP.
Weighted assessment - Weightings should be allocated to each criterion reflecting their relative
importance to the total requirements. The weightings must be established in the Evaluation Plan.
Any suggestion to make each criterion and sub criterion equal in value should be made with caution
as it can skew the results and produce an unsatisfactory result, which does not reflect value for
money. Weightings may or may not be detailed in the request documents. Providing weightings in
the request documentation should be considered to provide the potential tenderers with a view of the
relative importance of each criterion. In order to avoid skewing the focus of potential tenderers too
much the weightings advised to tenderers should be at the higher levels only. The weightings
allocated across all evaluation criteria should total 100. Note: Weightings cannot be changed after
evaluation commences.
Consistent scoring across tenders is promoted through the use of a standard rating scale where
each criterion is rated. A standard numeric scale or word description is recommended, based on
how well the offer satisfies the criterion.
Should price be weighted? – The whole of life cost of the procurement may be assigned a weighting
or be unweighted. The evaluation methodology below is for procurement without a weighted price
criterion. Where price is not weighted the Evaluation Team is required to make a judgement of the
relative value for money offered by each tenderer having consideration of their technical score,
compliance, risks and price to determine which offers the Commonwealth the best value for money.
Having a weighted price removes some of the judgement required and may be perceived as being a
more objective way to rank tenderers, however caution should be exercised particularly to the size of
the weighting applied especially if the price of the good or service is difficult to predict. If weighting is
applied to following formula should be used to apply the weighting and be incorporated in to the
evaluation methodology with consideration for any scenarios, sensitivity modelling or normalisation
of pricing that may be required.
Calculating weighted scores for technical criteria and price.
The weighted score for technical criteria is calculated by applying the following formula: Agreed
score x weighted % x (100/highest number on the rating scale)
E.g. For an agreed score of 8 on a 0-10 rating scale the weighted score (WS) = 8 x 20% x (100/10) =
16
The weighted score for price is calculated by applying the following formula:
Whole of life cost score = weighting% x Lowest Tender Price
Each Tenderer’s Price
E.g. Tenderer A’s price is $100
Tenderer B’s price is $90 (and is the lowest price)
Price is weighted 20%
Tenderer A’s score = 20 x 90/100 = 18%
Tenderer B’s price = 20 x 90/90 = 20%
The total weighted score is the sum of all weighted scores.
The following table illustrates how weightings can be allocated to the scored evaluation criteria,
beginning with the major criteria and splitting the weighting into sub-criteria:
Major criteria
Criterion A – 40%
Sub-criteria
Sub-criterion A1 – 20%
Sub-criterion A2 – 10%
Sub-criterion A3 – 10%
1.14.1 The evaluation will consist of three stages:
a. Stage 1 - an initial screening based on the compliance criteria;
b. Stage 2 - a detailed evaluation against the evaluation criteria;
c. Stage 3 - an assessment of value for money and final ranking.
1.15 Stage 1 – initial screening based on the compliance criteria
1.15.1 Responses will be assessed against the compliance criteria detailed below:
Evaluation Criteria - Compliance criteria
Minimum content and format requirements
RFT
Reference
Scoring
[Insert criteria]
[Insert
reference]
[Pass/Fail]
[Insert criteria]
[Insert
reference]
[Pass/Fail]
[Insert criteria]
[Insert
reference]
[Pass/Fail]
[Insert criteria]
[Insert
reference]
[Pass/Fail]
[Insert
reference]
[Pass/Fail]
Conditions of Participation
Essential Requirements
[Insert criteria]
1.15.2 Responses that do not satisfy any mandatory criteria will not be considered for detailed evaluation
and will be set aside.
1.16 Stage 2 - a detailed evaluation against the evaluation criteria
1.16.1 Detailed assessment against the evaluation criteria will be conducted.
1.16.2 The ET will assess and score the responses in terms of:
a. the merit of the response and its conformity (including completeness) with the
requirements stated in the request documentation;
b. the degree with which the respondent’s assertions and claims are demonstrated or
supported, and the merit of any supporting information provided; and
c. the degree of any risk assessed by the ET as attaching to the response.
1.16.3 The financial evaluation will be conducted, to achieve a common whole of life price basis for
comparison.
1.16.4 The assessment will be undertaken against the following criteria […USE FOR COMPARATIVE
ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:
Evaluation criteria
Number
Evaluation Criteria
RFT Reference
1.16.5 The rating scale that will be used is […USE FOR COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT METHOD AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:

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 benefits to Defence; and

deficient: the tendered solution does not meet the requirement specified in the request
documentation.
1.16.6 Deficiencies may be further classified as […USE FOR COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT METHOD
- AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:

critical: a deficiency that cannot be readily remedied and which is of such significance that it may
seriously prevent the principal project objectives from being achieved or does not comply with
Defence Policy;

significant: a deficiency that has the potential to prevent an element of the principal project
objectives from being achieved; and

minor: a deficiency that has no substantial implications for the project objectives and, subject to
discussion with the tenderer, may be acceptable without remedial action.
1.16.7 The assessment will be undertaken against the following criteria […USE FOR WEIGHTED
ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:
Evaluation criteria
Number
Evaluation Criteria
RFT
Reference
Weighted
scoring
1.16.8 The rating scale that will be used is […USE FOR WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT METHOD - AMEND
OR DELETE AS APPLICAPLE…]:
Score
10
9
8
7
Definition
Exceptional
Meets and exceeded requirements in all areas. Completely convincing and
credible. Response demonstrates superior capability, capacity and experience
relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion.
Comprehensively documented with all claims fully substantiated. Low or no
risk.
Outstanding
Requirements are exceeded in most key areas & addressed to a very high
standard in all others. Response demonstrates outstanding capability, capacity
and experience relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the
evaluation criterion. Most claims are fully substantiated with others very well
substantiated. Low risk.
Very Good
Requirements met to a very high standard in all areas. All claims are well
substantiated. Response demonstrates very good capability, capacity and
experience relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation
criterion. Low risk.
Good
Specification requirements met to a high standard in all areas. Claims are well
substantiated in key areas. Response demonstrates good capability, capacity
and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the
evaluation criterion. Low to medium risk.
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Fair
Requirements are addressed well in all areas. Claims are well substantiated in
most areas. Credible strategies that fully address all minimum requirements
and exceed requirements in some areas. Response demonstrates fair
capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the
requirements of the evaluation criterion. Some minor shortcomings. Most key
risks are covered well. Medium risk.
Acceptable
Requirements addressed to a consistent acceptable standard with no major
shortcomings. Response demonstrates acceptable capability, capacity and
experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation
criterion. All claims are adequately substantiated. Some gaps identified.
Medium risk.
Marginal
Requirements not fully met. Response demonstrates marginal capability,
capacity and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of
the evaluation criterion. Some claims unsubstantiated; others only adequate.
Some proposals unworkable. Medium to high risk.
Poor
Requirements poorly addressed in some areas or not at all. Claims largely
unsubstantiated. Response demonstrates poor capability, capacity and
experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation
criterion. A number of proposals unworkable. High risk.
Very Poor
Requirements inadequately dealt with in most or all areas. Claims almost
totally unsubstantiated. A number of proposals unworkable with a high
probability of failure. Response demonstrates very poor capability, capacity
and experience, relevant to, or understanding of, the requirements of the
evaluation criterion. High to extreme risk.
Unacceptable
Requirements not met. Claims unsubstantiated and unworkable. Response
does not demonstrate capability, capacity and experience, relevant to, or
understanding of, the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Extreme risk.
Non-Compliant
Non-compliance either stated or demonstrated by the Respondent or there is
insufficient information to assess compliance, Respondent was not evaluated
as it did not provide minimum level of requested information and/or
contravened nominated restrictions.
1.17 Stage 3 - an assessment of value for money and final ranking of Tenders
1.17.1 The ET will conduct the value for money deliberations under the direction of the ET Chairperson.
The ET will determine overall best value for money from the evaluation of Tenders against the
evaluation criteria including any identified risks.
1.17.2 The ET will rank tenders to account for the assessment against all evaluation criteria thus
achieving a final value for money ranking. The result will be a recommendation of a preferred
Tenderer, and, if possible, a second-preferred Tenderer based on best value for money.
EVALUATION REPORT
1.18 Evaluation Report (ER)
1.18.1 An ER will be prepared to document the process and outcomes of the evaluation.
1.18.2 The Approval Authority for this evaluation process is the […INSERT DELEGATE…].
1.18.3 A Simple ER template is at Attachment A.
Note to drafters: To maintain fairness in a procurement process, the separation of duties is important.
Officials involved in evaluation should not be those who are approving the spending of relevant money.
DEBRIEFING OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL TENDERERS
1.18.4 Following the rejection of a submission or the award of a contract, officials must promptly inform
affected tenderers of the decision. Debriefings must be made available, on request, to
unsuccessful tenderers outlying the reasons the submission was unsuccessful. Debriefings must
also be made available, on request, to the successful supplier(s).
1.18.5 The assessments against the evaluation criteria will be used as the basis for debriefing the
Tenderers.
Attachment A
Procurement Evaluation Report: Simple Procurement
Request Documentation Identifier:
[Insert procurement name and number]
[Insert brief description of the requirement per SOW included in AC565 or Request for Quote and
Tasking Statement (RFQTS) if procured from a panel]
[Insert closing time and date specified in the request documents]
Description of goods or services:
Tender or Quotation Closing Time & Date:
SON ID:
[Insert if applicable]
[Include details of any late tenders not admitted to the evaluation or include a statement that no late
tenders were received]
[Insert]
Late Tenders:
Tender or Quotation Validity period requested
Evaluation Team (ET):
Name:
Position:
Subject Matter Evaluated:
[e.g. technical assessment/financial assessment]
Probity, ethics and fair dealing
All ET members were made aware of their obligations in regards to probity, ethics and fair dealing including conflicts of interest, confidentiality and
security. All ET members signed a conflict of interest declaration prior to commencing the evaluation.
Evaluation
Detailed evaluation (Comparative)
Note to drafters: The evaluation criteria fields are examples only.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1
[E.G. MINIMUM CONTENT AND
FORMAT AND CONDITIONS
FOR PARTICIPATION. EVERY
REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE
LISTED]
Type
[Compliance –
Mandatory]
[Company 1]
[e.g. This tender was
set aside and not
evaluated further on
the basis that they
did not meet the
mandatory
[Company 2]
[e.g. All requirements
met]
[Company 3]
[e.g. All requirements
met]
[Company 4]
Attachment A – Evaluation Report template
requirement xxx].
2
[E.G. COMPLIANCE WITH
TENDER REQUIREMENTS AND
DRAFT CONTRACT]
[Commercial]
[e.g. Fully compliant]
3
4
[E.G. CAPACITY TO PROVIDE
GOODS/SERVICES]
[Technical]
[E.G. CAPACITY TO MEET
DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS]
[Technical]
5
[E.G. RISK ASSOCIATED WITH
OFFER]
[Risk assessment]
6
[E.G. PRICE OFFERED]
[Financial]
[This has been
evaluated as a
compliant response.
The tenderer has
demonstrated adequate
experience in delivering
similar goods/services.]
[An assessment of
risks should be
undertaken and may
be included against
each criteria or
documented
separately]
[Insert details of the
pricing assessment
including assessed
whole of life cost,
relevant assumptions
and basis for price
variation over the
term of the contract]
[e.g. Three noncompliance issues were
documented. These are
x, y and z. All have
been assessed as low
risk and are acceptable
to Defence.]
[The response has
been evaluated as
deficient because it
does not meet the
following requirements:
x,y,z.
X and y are minor
deficiencies.
Z is a critical deficiency
because it does not
comply with Defence
Policy xx.]
Attachment A – Evaluation Report template
Detailed evaluation (Weighted)
Note to drafters: The evaluation criteria fields are examples only. All evaluation criteria must align with criteria stated in the request
documentation (e.g. AC565 or RFQTS).
Compliance and commercial evaluation
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Weighting
Type
[Company 1]
[Compliance –
Mandatory]
[e.g. This tender was
set aside and not
evaluated further on
the basis that they
did not meet the
mandatory
requirement xxx].
1
[E.G. MINIMUM
CONTENT AND
FORMAT AND
CONDITIONS FOR
PARTICIPATION]
2
3
4
[E.G. COMPLIANCE
WITH TENDER
REQUIREMENTS
AND DRAFT
CONTRACT
INCLUDING ANY
APPLICABLE
PROCUREMENT
CONNECTED
POLICIES]
INSURANCE
WARRANTY
DETAILS
Not weighted
[Company 2]
[e.g. All requirements
met]
[e.g. All
requirements
met]
[e.g. Fully compliant]
[e.g. Three noncompliance
issues were
documented.
These are x, y
and z. All have
been assessed
as low risk and
are acceptable to
Defence.]
Not weighted
[Commercial]
Not weighted
Not weighted
[Commercial]
[Commercial]
[Company 3]
[Company 4]
Attachment A – Evaluation Report template
Technical evaluation
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
3 [EXPERIENCE &
PERFORMANCE
HISTORY
PROVIDING
SIMILAR GOODS/
SERVICES]
4 [ABILITY TO MEET
THE SOW
REQUIREMENTS
TO ACHIEVE
FITNESS FOR
PURPOSE]
5 [CAPACITY TO
MEET DELIVERY
REQUIREMENTS]
TOTAL TECHNICAL
SCORE
Weighting
[Company 1]
[20%]
[Include details
of the weighted
score and
justification for
the score.]
[40%]
[20%]
[80%]
Financial evaluation
7
[PRICE
OFFERED]
[20%]
[Insert details of the
pricing assessment
including assessed
whole of life cost,
relevant assumptions,
basis for price variation
over the term of the
contract and the
weighted score, if
applicable]
WS
[Company 2]
WS
[Company 3]
WS
[Company 4]
WS
Attachment A – Evaluation Report template
Risk assessment
[Document assessed risks for each tender here or in the tables above.]
Clarification and communication
[Document any clarification or due diligence enquires undertaken as part of the evaluation.]
Value for money ranking (Comparative)
EVALUATION ELEMENT
[Company 1]
[Company 2]
[Company 3]
[Company 4]
[Company 3]
[Company 4]
COMPLIANCE
COMMERCIAL
TECHNICAL
RISK ASSESSMENT
FINANCIAL
VFM RANKING
[…Further rationale justifying the ranking should be included as required…]
Value for money ranking (Weighted)
EVALUATION ELEMENT
[Company 1]
[Company 2]
[60%]
[64%]
COMPLIANCE
COMMERCIAL
RISK ASSESSMENT
TECHNICAL
Attachment A – Evaluation Report template
FINANCIAL
[20%]
[18%]
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE
[80%]
[82%]
[2]
[1]
VFM RANKING
[…Further rationale justifying the ranking should be included as required…]
Summary and Recommendation:
On the basis of the ET’s evaluation, […INSERT TENDERERS REFERENCE…] represents best value for money and meets the requirements for the provision of
the goods/services to Defence.
The ET recommends that Defence:

Notify […INSERT TENDERERS REFERENCE…] that they have been selected as the preferred tenderer

[…INSERT ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS; THIS MAY INCLUDE ANY NEGOTIATION ISSUES IDENTIFIED…]
Attachments (as applicable)
Note to Drafters: Additional supporting evidence may be provided in the form of Attachments to support the procurement decision made.
Attachment A – Evaluation Report template
Approvals
The ET requests […INSERT FINMAN 2 Schedule 1 delegate…] endorse this recommendation by signing below.
Evaluation Team Chair
Evaluation Team member
Evaluation Team member
…………………………….
……………………………..
……………………………….
[INSERT Names, Position and PMKey’s No.]
[INSERT Names, Position and PMKey’s No.]
[INSERT Names, Position and PMKey’s No.]
………………………….
[INSERT date]
………………………….
[INSERT date]
………………………….
[INSERT date]
FINMAN 2 SCHEDULE 1 Delegate
PRINTED NAME
POSITION
PMKeys No.
SIGNATURE
DATE