RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation Plan
Request for X <RFX No.>
<RFX Name>
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 1 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.
3.
1.1.
Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.
Objectives of the Evaluation Plan .......................................................................................................... 3
1.3.
Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4.
Amendments to the Evaluation Plan ...................................................................................................... 3
1.5.
Background................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.6.
Business Objectives of the RFX ............................................................................................................. 4
1.7.
Composition of the Tender Document ................................................................................................... 4
1.8.
Timetable of the <RFX> Process ........................................................................................................... 4
Management of the Evaluation Process ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1.
Overview of the Evaluation Process ...................................................................................................... 6
2.2.
Selection Strategy..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.
Steering Committee .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4.
Tender Evaluation Team ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.5.
Quality Assurance..................................................................................................................................... 8
2.6.
Tender Opening Committee .................................................................................................................... 8
2.7.
Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct .............................................................................................. 9
2.8.
Confidentiality ............................................................................................................................................ 9
2.9.
Security .................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.10.
Maintenance of Records ................................................................................................................... 10
2.11.
Late Responses .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.12.
Communication with Suppliers and External Parties .................................................................... 10
2.13.
Communication with the Media ........................................................................................................ 10
2.14.
Destruction of Documents ................................................................................................................. 10
2.15.
Probity Auditor .................................................................................................................................... 11
Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.1.
Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.
Stage 1 – General RFX Compliance ................................................................................................... 13
3.3.
Stage 2 – Scoring of Non-Price Factors .............................................................................................. 13
3.4.
Stage 3 – Evaluation of Price Factors ................................................................................................. 14
3.5.
Stage 4 – Consolidation of Evaluation Results .................................................................................. 15
3.6.
Stage 5 – Post-Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................... 16
3.7.
Evaluation Report and Recommendation ........................................................................................... 16
3.8.
Notification of Tenderers ....................................................................................................................... 16
3.9.
Negotiation ............................................................................................................................................... 16
3.10.
4.
5.
Supplier Debriefing ............................................................................................................................. 16
Endorsements and Approval ......................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.
Endorsement by the Tender Evaluation Team ................................................................................... 17
4.1.
Approval of the Plan ............................................................................................................................... 17
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
5.1
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................. 18
5.2
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................. 21
5.3
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................................. 22
5.4
Appendix D .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 2 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
1.
Introduction
1.1. Overview
This Evaluation Plan details the methodology to be used to evaluate the submissions received in
response to <RFX number> <RFX name>.
It provides a framework within which the Tender Evaluation Team (TET) may evaluate and subsequently
recommend the tender response/s that best meet/s the objectives of the RFX.
It clearly defines the evaluation and selection process that will be applied to all responses. The objective
of the evaluation process is to identify the most acceptable response/s to the RF(X) as well as
demonstrate the highest possible confidence in the results.
An endorsement of this Evaluation Plan and a declaration of understanding and agreement to compliance
with
the
Code
of
Conduct
(Appendix
A)
and
Conflict
of
Interest
must be signed separately by all members of the TET and approved by the <Chief Procurement Officer
(CPO)/Steering Committee/Department Executive>, (add/delete as applicable)> before responses can be
obtained for evaluation.
1.2. Objectives of the Evaluation Plan
The objective of the Evaluation Plan is to provide a workable framework within which the Tender
Evaluation Team (TET) may determine and subsequently recommend, through the <Steering
Committee/CPO> (add/delete as applicable), to the Department Executive, for approval, an outcome that
will lead to a solution/s that best meet/s the requirements of the Department compliant to the terms of the
RFX.
1.3. Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation methodology aims to:
1.
Develop an objective, rational and auditable method for the assessment of offerings received
in response to the RFX; and
2.
Provide a methodology to:







Identify a value-for-money solution to the requirement;
Assess the capability of respondents to undertake the work or the supply of goods as
outlined in the RFX Statement of Requirements;
Achieve the highest possible level of confidence in the robustness of the evaluation;
Identify a short list of suppliers, in rank order, to be recommended by the TET to the
<Steering Committee/CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable) for
inclusion in any subsequent negotiations for establishing a contract;
Select supplier/s in consideration of achieving aggregation benefits; and
Apply appropriate Small and Medium Enterprise Policy Framework and CIPS
preference margins to the prices.
<add/delete as applicable>
1.4. Amendments to the Evaluation Plan
Changes to the Evaluation Plan requested by TET Members prior to the opening of tender, should be
communicated to the TET Chairperson.
The final version of the Evaluation Plan will require the endorsement by all TET Members and then the
approval by <the Steering Committee/CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable).
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 3 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
If it becomes necessary to modify the criteria, weightings or evaluation rules, these changes are to be
recorded together with reasons for the changes and approval sought from the <Steering
Committee/CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable).
1.5. Background
The Request for X <RFX No.> was published on the government tenders website on <date>. It invites
prospective suppliers to tender for <purpose of the tender> as defined in the Statement of Requirements
<Part __> of the RFX.
As per the Strategy Approval Submission (SAS), the sourcing strategy was:
The selection strategy is:
And the agreed Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) considerations are:
The closing date for the submission of responses is on <date>.
1.6. Business Objectives of the RFX
As per the Strategy Approval Submission (SAS), the business objectives of this tender are to:



<add as applicable>
Manage risks; and
Achieve value-for-money.
1.7. Composition of the Tender Document
The RFX documentation details the requirements that a respondent must address in its response. The
documentation consists of the following:
Part A – Overview
Part B – Conditions of Tender
Part C – Tender Response
Part D – Conditions of Contract
Part E – Statement of Requirements
<add/delete as applicable>
1.8. Timetable of the <RFX> Process
The proposed timetable for this <RFX> is as follows:
Activity
Target Date (s)
Publication of the RFX
Review and endorsement of the Evaluation Plan by the TET
Endorsement of the Evaluation Plan by the Steering Committee
(add/delete as applicable)
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 4 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
Tender briefing
RFX closes
Opening of tender
Evaluation of responses
Preparation of Evaluation Report and Recommendation (s)
Review and endorsement of the Evaluation Report and
recommendation by the <Steering Committee/CPO/Department
Executive> (add/delete as applicable)
Notification of preferred tenderer/s
Contract negotiation with preferred tenderer/s
Contract signing by successful tenderer/s
Contract signing by DEC delegate
Notification of outcome to all unsuccessful tenderers
Notification of outcome on the e-tendering website
Tender respondent de-briefing (if requested)
<add/delete as applicable>
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 5 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
2.
Management of the Evaluation Process
2.1. Overview of the Evaluation Process
The primary purpose of the evaluation process is to identify a supplier(s) who is/are appropriately
qualified and capable of meeting the RFX requirements, from which the Department can confidently
procure. The process must be carried out with the principal objective of achieving value-for-money within
a framework of probity and fair dealing.
Management responsibility for the evaluation process rests with the Department. The evaluation process
will be carried out in according with this Evaluation Plan.
The evaluation structure that will apply to this RFX will generally be:
OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Opening of Tenders
List of Supplier
Responses
TENDER
OPENING
COMMITTEE
Evaluation of General
RFx Compliance
PROBITY
ADVISOR/
AUDITOR
(As Required)
Evaluation of Non Price
Factors
TENDER
EVALUATION
TEAM
Evaluation of Price
Factors
(Inc
Evaluation
Support Team
as required)
Consolidation of
Evaluation Results
Prepare Evaluation
Report
Endorsement of Report
and Approval of
Recommendation
2.2. Selection Strategy
The following selection strategy will be used during the evaluation of responses:



<add/delete/change as applicable>
Preference to have a minimum/maximum of <insert number> suppliers to form the Statewide list who will be selected based on value for money and ability to address the selection
criteria;
If the State-wide suppliers are unable to cover certain remote areas, regional providers may
be considered for these areas.
2.3. Steering Committee (if required, otherwise mention that one has not been formed and remove
all reference to SC.)
A Steering Committee (SC) will oversee the activities of the Tender Evaluation Team (TET), and will
consider the recommendations made by the TET.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 6 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
The Steering Committee will be responsible for endorsing the Evaluation Report prepared by the TET.
The Steering Committee undertakes the following:








Approve the Evaluation Plan;
Provide guidance to the TET (if required);
Administer and review progress of the evaluation process in accordance with the Evaluation
Plan and probity and timeframe requirements;
The Chairperson of the SC should ensure that members of the SC sign the Conflict of
Interest and Code of Conduct Declarations prior to any involvement in the evaluation
process;
Ensure resource requirements are identified and met;
Review the TET’s recommendation to ensure it meets the objectives of the <RFX>;
Manage any complaints as well as all media and Parliamentary inquiries;
Ensure that its decisions are based on all available supporting evidence.
Members of the Steering Committee for this <RFX> are following:
Member Position
Name
Position Title/Organisation
Chairperson
Member
Member
Member
Member
2.4. Tender Evaluation Team
A Tender Evaluation Team (TET) will be formed with the prime responsibility for all RFX evaluation
activities in accordance with this Plan. These activities include, but are not limited to, the evaluation of
the responses against the criteria, preparing the Evaluation Report and recommendation/s to the
<SC/CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable) in the form of an interim and final Tender
Evaluation Reports, as applicable.
All members of the TET must sign the Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct Declarations prior to any
involvement in the evaluation process. Membership of the TET will not be varied during the evaluation
process unless unavoidable, and only with the approval of the <SC/CPO/Department Executive>
(add/delete as applicable).
The TET may be divided into various sub-groups to evaluate various criteria as per their expertise. The
evaluation results from these sub-groups are to be collated by the TET Chairperson.
The TET, following approval from the <SC/CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable), may
call in subject matter expert/s for advice, if required. The subject matter expert would be required to sign
the Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct Declarations prior to any involvement.
The Chairperson of the TET is to ensure that minutes are taken of all meetings, and that the minutes are
collated and delivered to the DEC Procurement Solutions representative at the completion of the
evaluation.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 7 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
Approaches to respondents for clarification, if any, shall be made only by the Chairperson following
approval from the <SC/CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable). At least two (2) TET
members must be present at all times if face-to-face meetings with respondents are required.
The TET will comprise a representative of DEC Procurement Solutions, who will provide advice and
guidance on the evaluation process as well as any probity and fair-dealing issues, which may arise. The
DEC Procurement Solutions Representative is not required to be a voting member of the TET.
The Tender Evaluation Team consists of:
Member Position
Name
Position Title/Organisation
Chairperson
Member
Member
Member
2.5. Quality Assurance
The TET Chairperson is responsible for ensuring that scoring by the Evaluation Team is performed fairly
and consistently across all vendor offerings, and will test the scoring and conclusions in the Evaluation
Report to ensure that results are accurate and justifiable.
Specific responsibilities of the TET Chairperson include:

Cross-checking of scoring of related requirements to ensure that scoring patterns are
consistent;

Ensuring the scoring criteria are applied consistently between vendor offerings;

Reviewing reports and other documentation to ensure that it is complete, that conclusions
reflect the evidence, and that reports are easily read and understood.

Ensuring that reference checks and financial assessment are carried out on successful
supplier/s and the results are included in the Evaluation Report, as applicable.
2.6. Tender Opening Committee
The Tender Opening Committee (TOC) consists of at least three (3) members, e.g., a Convenor and two
witnesses.
All members of the TOC must sign the Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct Declarations prior to any
involvement in the opening of tender, copies of which are attached to the Tender Opening Report.
The TOC is responsible for:

Ensuring that an approved Evaluation Plan is sighted prior to the opening of tender;

Opening the tender on the e-tendering website and downloading the responses from the etendering website;

Preparing two (2) CD copies of the responses - one (1) copy for the client and one (1) for
DEC Procurement Solutions. A master file of the responses will be stored in a confidential
project file in the electronic share-drive of DEC Procurement Solutions;
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 8 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan

Preparing the Tender Opening Report to include, among others:
a.
b.
c.
d.

List of respondents and the accompanying documents for each response;
List of late responses and the accompanying documents for each late response;
Any issues that may have arisen during the tender opening process; and
Signatures of the members; and
Presenting the Tender Opening Report and CD to the Chairperson of the Tender Evaluation
Team.
The Tender Opening Committee consists of the following:
Member Position
Name
Position Title/Organisation
Convenor
Witness
Witness
2.7. Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct
A Code of Conduct applies to all persons and each must sign the Conflict of Interest and Code of
Conduct (Appendix A). Declarations prior to any involvement in the opening and evaluation of tender
responses. The signed copies must be delivered to the Procurement Solutions representative prior to the
commencement of the tender evaluation activity.
Members of the Steering Committee (add/delete as applicable) and Tender Evaluation Team must
disclose in writing to their respective Chairperson if they become aware of any interest that might possibly
be thought to be in conflict with their involvement in the tender evaluation process.
Should it become apparent that a conflict of interest exists the Chairperson of the relevant committee
shall consult with the <CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable) to deliberate upon
whether the appropriate committee member is to continue to play a role in the tender process.
If the conflict is not serious, no action beyond disclosure may be required. If the conflict is serious, it may
be necessary for the member to be replaced. The basis for any decisions and conditions applied are to
be recorded and filed with the other <RFX> documents.
The Code is complementary to, not a substitute for, other Codes of Conduct or Ethics, with which NSW
Public Servants may have a responsibility to comply with when performing other roles or functions.
All consultants, advisers or personnel from other organisations involved in the evaluation process must
also sign the Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct Declarations.
2.8. Confidentiality
Members of the Steering Committee (if applicable) and Tender Evaluation Team are advised that all
information contained in tender responses is to be treated as commercial-in-confidence. Such
information must be kept secure and is not to be disclosed to any other tenderer or third party, or to any
persons in the Public Sector who has no official interest in the <RFX> process. A breach of confidentiality
may be unlawful, and the requirement for confidentiality will not cease with the award of the contract(s).
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 9 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
2.9. Security
Tender responses, evaluation working papers and reports are to be kept in a locked container or locked
room when not in use. The keys shall be kept by the TET Chairperson and access will be limited to the
members of the TET.
No RFX submission and evaluation documentation is to be removed from the secure area without the
authorisation of the TET Chairperson.
Electronic files, including Score Sheets and Risk Register, will be saved in a secure file share established
for the project and accessible only to TET members.
Internal communication is not to be facilitated via facsimile, and email communication must be protected
by a secure password if the email carries or has attached to it any confidential information relating to the
evaluation. Confidential information may include marks, rankings, weightings, comments or reports about
the tenderers.
2.10.
Maintenance of Records
The TET will be responsible for documenting all the necessary auditable evaluation and decision-making
information and correspondence.
DEC Procurement Solutions will retain a copy of all relevant information resulting from the evaluation
process. The information will be maintained and stored in accordance with DEC Procurement Solutions
records management policy and probity requirements.
2.11.
Late Responses
Responses delivered after the <RFX> closing time may not be considered except where the TET is
satisfied that the integrity and competitiveness of the <RFX> process has not been compromised.
A tenderer whose response is received after the closing time will not be penalised if the delay is due
solely to problems with the e-tender system or mishandling by DEC.
2.12.
Communication with Suppliers and External Parties
All inquiries concerning the RFX evaluation process will be directed to the TET Chairperson <or
Chairperson of the Steering Committee> (add/delete as applicable). No other TET Member is to
communicate with any suppliers or external parties. All contacts made with any suppliers or external
parties in regard to RFX shall be recorded.
Any supplier or third party contacts or communication must be in writing, and must be referred to the
Chairperson, with the exception of questions asked verbally at supplier presentations. All written
correspondence to respondents is to be signed by the Chairperson.
The outcome of the RFX process will be communicated in writing to all respondents by DEC Procurement
Solutions <change as applicable>.
2.13.
Communication with the Media
All media inquiries in relation to the evaluation process will be referred to the <Steering Committee
Chairperson/CPO> (add/delete as applicable), and any media statements must be dealt with through the
Department’s Media Unit.
2.14.
Destruction of Documents
Any surplus sets of tender responses and working documents used in the evaluation must be securely
destroyed. Only one set of these documents will be retained by DEC Procurement Solutions for archival
records.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 10 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
2.15.
Probity Auditor
<A Probity Auditor is engaged for high-value, complex and sensitive procurement projects. A Probity
Auditor could be from DEC Audit or an independent Probity Auditor may be engaged if the procurement is
of sensitive/controversial nature or the DEC Probity Auditor is unavailable within the required time frame.
If a Probity Auditor is not engaged, state the reason/s for the decision and how the probity of the tender
evaluation process will be managed.>
The Probity Auditor engaged for the evaluation of the RFX responses will be independent of the
evaluation process.
The Probity Auditor is responsible for reviewing the application of the following probity principles to the
evaluation process:





accountability;
transparency;
value-for-money;
conflict of interest management; and
confidentiality agreement,
and may recommend on 1) fair operation of the process and methodology, 2) adherence to
security/confidentiality requirements, and any probity issues arising and their resolution.
The Probity Auditor may be required to:




Attend at selected TET meetings;
Provide period reports on the tender process;
Contact all tenderers to seek feedback on the probity aspects of the tender process from a
tenderer’s perspective; and
Provide a written report to the TET <Steering Committee/CPO> (add/delete as applicable)
prior to the <SC/CPO/Department Executive> (add/delete as applicable) endorsing the
Evaluation Report.
The Probity Auditor engaged for this <RFX> is:
Probity Auditor
Position Title/Organisation
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 11 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
3.
Evaluation Methodology
3.1. Overview
This section details the methodology that will be adopted for the evaluation of the responses received,
which has been developed within a framework in which an assessment of solutions will be undertaken
and value-for-money and maximum advantage to the Department achieved.
This framework will include assessments of the following evaluation criteria:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
<add the RFX evaluation criteria> (Some examples follow.)
Tenderer’s ability to meet the Statement of Requirements in Part <xx> of the <RFX>;
Tenderer’s certifications and qualifications in accordance with the Statement of
Requirements in Part xx of the <RFX>;
Tenderer’s ability to have the necessary resources to provide the services in a timely manner
in accordance with the Project Plan;
Price;
Value-added services; and
Referee Reports (if considered appropriate).
Once these assessments have been completed, it will be possible to examine the trade-offs in each
supplier’s offering and between offerings.
Each response needs to pass through Stage 1 before being progressed. At the end of Stage 5, a Final
Report and Recommendation/s will be prepared by the TET.
<Note: For complex or sensitive tenders, consideration may be given for the Steering Committee (if
applicable) to set aside responses that do not pass any Stage.>
The evaluation process will involve five Stages, as illustrated in the diagram below.
EVALUATION STAGES
Stage 1 General RFx Compliance
Full list of
Responses
Evaluation of
General RFx
Compliance
Stage 2 Scoring of Non Price Factors
List of
Conforming
Responses
Evaluation of
Non Price
Factors
List of
Scored
Responses
List of Non
Conforming
Responses
Stage 3 Scoring of Price Factors
Evaluation of
Price
Factors
Stage 4 Consolidation of Evaluation Results
List of
Scored
Responses
Consolidation
of Evaluation
Results
Stage 5 Post Evaluation Activities
Financial
Assessment
Report
Risk
Assessment
Sensitivity
Analysis
Final list of
responses in rank
order of total
weighted scores
Recommendation & Endorsement
Prepare
Evaluation
Report
Endorsement of
Report and
Approval of
recommendation
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 12 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
3.2. Stage 1 – General RFX Compliance
Following receipt of tender responses from the Tender Opening Committee, the TET reviews all
responses to determine which response does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the RFX
and general conditions of participation (or acceptance or compliance). The findings of the review will be
documented.
The TET determines whether or not to set aside responses based on the review, including late
responses. Responses found to comply with the mandatory requirements and general conditions will
then be progressed to Stage 2 of the evaluation process.
3.3. Stage 2 – Scoring of Non-Price Factors
This Stage comprises the scoring of tenderers’ responses against the weighted evaluation criteria for
non-price categories, and calculating a total score for each tender.
The non-price evaluation criteria for this <RFX> are:
Evaluation Criteria
Sub-Weighting
Weighting
Total
The specific guide notes for scoring these criteria are listed at Appendix C.
The following evaluation process will apply:
1.
Voting TET members will individually evaluate the non-price information submitted by each
tenderer, and score each non-price tender evaluation criterion. Team members must be
able to justify their scores by reference to the information supplied in the responses.
2.
Subsequently, TET members will compare their scores and reach consensus. If a
consensus cannot be reached, the TET’s score will be reached by taking the mathematical
average of the individual TET member’s scores. Where consensus is not achieved, a
Minority Report may be raised and referred to the <Steering Committee/CPO/Department
Executive> (add/delete as applicable). TET must keep appropriate notes to substantiate the
Team evaluation score.
3.
The average scores will be weighted by the criteria percentage sub-weightings and
weightings. The weightings are established using the paired analysis method.
4.
The final weighted score for each criterion will be added to produce a Total Weighted Score
for each tender.
5.
The total score for each tenderer will be used in Stage 4 of the evaluation process to
produce the consolidated results.
In the event that the TET requires a clarification from a tenderer regarding its response, details of the
clarification are to be given to the Chairperson, who will facilitate all communication with the tenderer.
Each requirement may have a specific scoring scale associated with it, with instruction to evaluators on
what attributes of an offering are required to gain a specific score in the scale. For consistency in the
scoring process, TET members will use the Evaluation Scoring Standards (Appendix B) and scoring
guide notes (Appendix C).
Due Diligence
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 13 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
Any of the following activities may be undertaken to provide evidence of the evaluation:





Conduct Site Visits;
Conduct Reference Checks (number to be determined);
Any approach to referees will be undertaken within a consistent framework. All questions are
to be consistent across each referee contacted.
The referee checks should be conducted by the TET Chairperson and at least one other TET
member using a speaker telephone, or via email sending out pre-agreed questions.
If a tenderer does not satisfy a referee check, it may be culled.
Conduct Supplier Presentations;
When presentations or demonstrations are required, these should be closely managed by
TET members to ensure all tenderers are treated equally. A standard and detailed agenda,
with explicit time limits, is to be adopted and enforced for all tenderers.
Request and evaluate samples from preferred tenderer/s; and
Obtain Financial Assessment Reports – refer to Strategy Approval Submission (SAS) to see
if this is required (for the preferred tenderer/s only).
Note: If the evaluation process includes any of the above, it is done as part of the non-price scoring
completed at Stage 2 to help validate the evaluation process. Results of the above activities may be
incorporated into the scores and/or in the form of written notes in the Evaluation Report..
3.4. Stage 3 – Evaluation of Price Factors
This Stage would involve scoring the Prices submitted in accordance with the assigned weighting.
Tenderers were required to submit their price(s) by completing the Price Schedule in Part <xxx >of the
<RFX>
<Below is a template of a Price Schedule>
Requirement
Tendered
Price
(excl. GST)
GST
Component
Total Price
(incl. GST)
In the event that the TET requires a clarification from a tenderer regarding its response, details of the
clarification are to be given to the Chairperson, who will facilitate all communication with the tenderer.
Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Policy Framework
<Guide Note: All projects must address SME capability of tenders via the SME Opportunities Statement in
the Strategy Approval Submission (SAS) documentation (or in the Project Initiation Document (PID) for
those projects going from PID to active). An SME Participation Plan is required to be completed by
tenderers of projects valued over $10 million.>
Normalisation of Price Factors (if applicable)
Where respondents have submitted responses subject to disparate terms and conditions, it is necessary
to normalise the competing tenders (tendered prices) so that there is a common basis for comparison.
Adjustments may be required for the following terms by assessing their effect on relative tender prices or
the relativity of other criteria, such as: (examples)

firm versus variable prices;
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 14 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan






different price variation provisions;
free-in-store (FIS) versus Free-on-Board (FOB);
where maintenance/training, etc. are included or excluded;
different warranty periods;
different settlement discount arrangements; and
different payment arrangements.
3.5. Stage 4 – Consolidation of Evaluation Results
Once all scoring is completed, the raw scores are weighted to reflect the relative importance of both the
requirement categories and of the individual requirements within each category.
At the top level, the categories are weighted according to the table below <table below is an example and
weightings should be set by considering the relative importance of each requirement>:
Weighting Category
Weighting (%)
Non-Price Factors
60%
Pricing
40%
Within each evaluation category, each requirement is assigned a weighting that represents its relative
importance in delivering the best possible solution. Each category has a total of 100 points distributed
among its requirements.
The results of both non-price and price evaluations will be consolidated to determine the overall
assessment for each tenderer.
Value-for-Money Calculation <example>
Based on the table above, the following formula will be used:

The Non-Price Score will contribute 60% to the Total Score:
Non-Price Weighted Score = Evaluated Non-Price Scores x 60/100

The Price Score will contribute 40% to the Total Score:
Price Weighted Score = Lowest Tendered Price/Tendered Price x 40/100
The respondent with the highest combined weighted non-price and price score is considered to offer the
best value-for-money.
Below is a Table of Consolidated Results using the Price Weighted Method: Non-Price 60% and Price
40%:
Responden
t
Evaluate
d Nonprice
Score
(out of
100)
Company A
Company B
Company C
Price
Weighted
Score
Final Weighted
Score
(Non-Price
Weighted Score +
Price Weighted
Score)
Final
Ranking
52.8%
40.0%
92.8%
1
54.0%
33.6%
87.6%
2
53.1%
34.4%
87.5%
3
Tendere
d Price
($)
NonPrice
Weighted
Score
88
185
90
220
88.5
215
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 15 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
3.6. Stage 5 – Post-Evaluation Activities
Following the completion of the evaluation, the TET <in consultation with the Steering Committee>
(add/delete as applicable) may consider it necessary to undertake any of the following activities in relation
to the shortlisted tenderers:

Obtain Financial Assessment Reports (for the preferred tenderer/s only);

Risk Assessment; and
A risk analysis may be conducted by the TET, if deemed necessary. The risk analysis tests
additional information in the responses relating to the terms and conditions surrounding price
variation, warranty and service levels. The analysis should not be used to test criteria which
should have been evaluated in the main evaluation.

Sensitivity Analysis.
If deemed necessary, the TET may undertake a sensitivity analysis. The analysis tests the
robustness of the evaluation having regard to any uncertainty surrounding the criteria
weighting and evaluation scoring. It shows how the evaluation outcomes are affected by
variations in the components of the evaluation. It can also include scenario modelling to
ensure volume variations are taken into account.
The TET may include the results of the sensitivity analysis in recommending acceptance or
culling of a response.
<Note: If the evaluation process includes any of the above, it is done outside of the non-price scoring
completed at Stage 2 to provide an additional level of confidence in the evaluation process. Results of
the above activities will be in the form of written notes in the Evaluation Report.>
3.7. Evaluation Report and Recommendation
Following the completion of the evaluation process, the TET will prepare an Evaluation Report <use
available template> and submit a recommendation to the <Steering Committee/CPO/Department
Executive> (add/delete as applicable) for endorsement, and the final submission will then be forwarded to
the <DEC Executive name and title> for signing of the contract between the Department and the
recommended supplier/s.
3.8. Notification of Tenderers
Upon signing of the contract between DEC and the recommended supplier/s, all respondents will be
notified, in writing, of the outcome of the <RFX>.
The contract will be disclosed in the government Contract Register in accordance with the Government
Information Public Access Act (GIPAA) 2009.
3.9. Negotiation
<Note: For complex procurement, there may be the need to negotiate with the preferred supplier/s. In
which case, a Negotiation Plan is required to be prepared. Use the available Negotiation Plan template.>
3.10.
Supplier Debriefing
Following a request from any respondent, the TET will conduct at a mutually-convenient time, a supplier
debriefing, which will be attended by at least two (2) TET members.
In the debriefing, a respondent will only be provided with general comments regarding their tender
submission and evaluation of each of the criteria as it relates to their submission. A respondent will not
be provided with any specific information contained in any unsuccessful or successful respondent’s
submission beyond that which is required to be publicly disclosed.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 16 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
4.
Endorsements and Approval
4.1. Endorsement by the Tender Evaluation Team
Member
Name
Acceptance
Chairperson
Member
Michelle
Member
Member
Member
4.1. Approval of the Plan by the Steering Committee Chairperson, Category Manager (if not
otherwise involved) or Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)
Title
Name
Acceptance
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 17 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
5.
Appendices
5.1 Appendix A
CODE OF CONDUCT
1.
Introduction
This code may be used as a confidentiality agreement for any persons involved in a formal Request for
Tender (such as a tender, the selection of a preferred supplier etc) or any other significant procurement
activity.
Procurement and contracting are areas where, even with the best of intentions, significant ethical
problems can arise unless those involved are aware of the potential pitfalls and take conscious action to
avoid them.
By providing guidance in these areas this Code is intended to help the Contract Management Committee
and Evaluation Team members fulfil their roles. Members who are unclear about any aspects of this Code
are urged to discuss it with the Chairperson of their Committee.
2.
Accountability
Contract Management Committee and Evaluation Team members are responsible for obtaining maximum
value for the goods and/or services purchased under the contract(s) that involves their Committee.
Consistent with an environment of professionalism and fair dealing, members should take reasonable
steps to ensure that the information on which decisions or recommendations are based:
 is correct and complete;
 excludes irrelevant information or unsubstantiated opinions;
 is fully and properly documented; and
 minimises personal bias.
In particular, where there is any departure from policy, procedures or normal practice, the reasons for the
departure must be documented.
Members finding unethical or suspected unethical behaviour or practices should immediately inform the
Chairperson of their committee or the Project Manager. Alternatively, if that action is not considered
appropriate, the information should be disclosed to the Independent Commission against Corruption.
3.
Confidentiality
Quotation details, and any other material provided to the Contract Management Committee or Evaluation
Team on a “Commercial in Confidence” basis must be kept secure and not disclosed to any supplier or
third party, or to any person in the Public Sector who has no official interest in the particular supply
matter. The requirement for confidentiality does not cease with the award of the contract concerned.
Confidential information about current and future purchasing plans and initiatives of the NSW
Government or DEC must not be disclosed.
4.
Conflict of Interest
Members must not use information obtained in the course of their Contract Management Committee or
Evaluation Team duties to gain a direct or indirect advantage for themselves or any party other than NSW
Government clients.
Members must disclose in writing to the Chairperson of their Committee, if they become aware of any
interest that they or any member of their immediate family hold or are offered, which MAY be seen to
conflict with their duty to the Contract Management Committee or Evaluation Team.
For example:
 a family member or relative works for a supply company that is in pursuit of a contract, or
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 18 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan

the member, or a family member, holds shares in one or more companies dealing with the
Management Committee or Evaluation Team.
In most cases, early and open disclosure of such an interest will allow the Chairperson or Project
Manager to prevent a conflict of interest occurring. If the conflict is not serious, no action beyond
disclosure may be required. A serious conflict may require the member to be replaced.
Members must advise the Chairperson or the Project Manager if they are offered employment by a
private company which has any interest in a supply matter or confidential material being handled by their
Contract Management Committee or Evaluation Team.
Each nominee to the opening and evaluation committees is to be notified that a declaration of personal
interest in any company or agency involved in the Request for Tender submission is required prior to
appointment. Please see the form at the end of this Code.
All declarations of interest are to be retained on file with the Request for Tender documents.
Should it become apparent that a conflict of interests exists the convenor of the relevant committee shall
consult with the nominating officer to deliberate upon whether the appropriate committee member is to
continue to play a role in the procurement. The basis for any decisions and conditions applied are to be
recorded and filed with the Request for Tender documents.
5.
Gifts, Gratuities, Hospitality
These can be moneys, credits, discounts, special occasion presents, edibles, drinks, appliances or
furnishings, clothing, loans of goods or money, tickets to events or theatres, dinners, parties,
transportation, vacation travel or hotel expenses and any other form of entertainment.
While it is appropriate to maintain working relationships with suppliers, this must be done without subtle
and inappropriate obligations being placed on Contract Management Committee or Evaluation Team
members or suppliers. In particular:

Members must avoid giving any indication that gifts, gratuities or hospitality will be accepted, or that
these may influence decisions.

Committee members may accept only token gifts and modest hospitality. A guideline as to acceptable
hospitality or token gift is what DEC would provide in return to that company or those individuals.
Members should immediately inform the Chairperson or the Project Manager of any offers of more
substantial gifts made on an individual or committee basis.

It is unethical for members to accept such offers from suppliers on behalf of spouses, relatives or
friends.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 19 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
Code of Conduct for Requests for Offers
Confidentiality/Declaration of Interest Agreement
This form may be used as a confidentiality agreement for any persons involved in a formal Request for
Tender (such as a tender, the selection of a preferred supplier etc.) or any other significant procurement
activity.
Confidentiality Agreement:
I have read and understood the DEC document entitled Department of Education, Code of Conduct for
Request for Offers and agree to be bound by its contents in respect of my duties related to the
procurement of:
Evaluation Team Member
Declaration of Interest Agreement:
In addition, I undertake to disclose to the Director-General or a nominee any direct or indirect involvement
on my part with the product or service being the subject of a Request for Tender, in the opening,
evaluation or review of which I have been invited to participate. Involvement includes an interest in a
personal enterprise or interest in a company or partnership of which I or a member of my family or close
relative are directors, shareholders or members.
Name: ________________________________________________
Signature:
________________________________________________
Position:
________________________________________________
Agency:
________________________________________________
Date:
________________________________________________
Declaration information:
Please return to the relevant Chairperson of the Contract Management Committee or the Project
Manager.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 20 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
5.2 Appendix B
EVALUATION SCORING STANDARDS
Detailed evaluation of tenders will be made by individual TET members and then collectively as a team
who will consider the merits of each Quotation response against the established criteria.
Primary emphasis in evaluating tenders will be placed on the analysis of the way each tenderer proposes
to satisfy the requirements and the risks and costs associated with the tenderer’s proposal. The numerical
scoring system detailed here will be used to translate the tenderer’s proposals into quantitative terms.
Explicit guidance is provided for scoring proposals. Scoring standards also provide the means for
recognising a Quotation proposal that is clearly superior. Scoring standards have been established that
provide the same set of values for uniformity in evaluation and to aid in comparison and understanding of
evaluation results.
The rating descriptions should be looked upon as examples of typical characteristics of that rating, and
should be used as a guide or reference rather than a rigid measure to be followed word-for-word. TET
members will be instructed to select the rating/description that most closely fits the value or desirability of
the tenderer's proposal.
Rating Scale
The following standards for scoring are established for this evaluation:
Table: Scoring Scale
NUMERICAL
SCORE 81 TO
100
(EXCELLENT)
SCORE 61 TO 80
(GOOD)
SCORE 41 TO 60
(FAIR)
SCORE 21 TO 40
(POOR)
SCORE 0 TO 20
(UNACCEPTABL
E)
DESCRIPTION
 proposal described in detail, demonstrating a standard of
excellence.
 displays a high level of innovation, technical competence, and
managerial ability.
 evaluation criteria very well addressed or met.
 very high probability of meeting the DEC's requirements with
minimum risk.
 demonstrates that the tenderer is able to interpret requirements
and project them into plans/analyses, etc., in a clear, concise
manner.
 demonstrates a clear awareness of the requirements.
 evaluation criteria adequately addressed or met.
 strong promise of meeting the DEC's requirements.
 no identifiable areas of major risk.
 does not go into sufficient depth to demonstrate a sound
awareness of the requirements.
 Information is frequently provided only to the minimum extent
requested.
 reasonably meets the requirements, but demonstrates few, if any,
exceptional features or originality.
 evaluation criteria addressed or met with only minimum adequacy.
 some identifiable areas of risk.
 a shallow, or less than full, understanding of the requirements or
operational considerations.
 proposal is weak.
 significant risk areas.
 insufficient understanding of requirements
 non-compliant in several areas.
 significant omissions and/or errors.
 evaluation criteria not addressed.
 fails to meet a minimum requirement.
 very high unacceptable areas of risk.
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 21 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
5.3 Appendix C
SCORING GUIDE NOTES
Criteria
Guide Notes
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 22 of 23
RFX <Number>
<RFX Name>
Evaluation Plan
5.4 Appendix D
SCORING SPREADSHEETS
The Scoring Spreadsheet usually consists of Excel tables to present the results of Stages 2, 3 and
4 of the evaluation. It includes the scores of the Evaluation Team, calculates the weighted scores
and finally calculates the consolidated price versus non-price scores. The final consolidated
scores are used to then present the final ranking of suppliers.
Examples of the scoresheets tabs are:

Non-Price Scores: This table is used to present the weighted scores of tenderers’ Non-Price
Factors (refer Section 3.3 Stage 2)

Tendered Price scores: Scoring of prices submitted by tenderers (refer Section 3.4 Stage 3)

Consolidated Scores: This spreadsheet is used to present the relative importance of each of the
Non-price versus price weighted scores (explained in 3.5 Stage 4). It is also used to present the
final ranking of tenderers (refer Section 3.5 Stage 4)
Department of Education and Communities – Procurement Solutions Directorate
Evaluation Plan Template – DOC12/102854 V1.6, 28 January 2015
Page 23 of 23