PWD Part II, Procedural Directives, Volume A 15.3 Step 7

Step 7 Evaluation of Technical Proposals

Step 7.1 Technical Evaluation Committee

A technical evaluation committee shall be established to evaluate the proposals. The following guidelines apply:

• The technical evaluation committee shall consist of at least three persons who shall be technical specialists with more than 10 years of experience in the field of the assignment.
• The technical evaluation committee shall have no access to financial information until the technical evaluation, including any donor reviews and no objection, is completed.
• The technical evaluation committee shall prepare an evaluation report describing the evaluation process, declaring the results of the evaluation and describing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the proposals.
• All the records of the evaluation, such as comparative score sheets, shall be retained until completion of the project and its final audit.
• After completion of the technical evaluation, the project manager shall notify the consultants whose proposals did not meet the minimum qualifying mark or were considered non responsive to the request for proposals and TOR. Their financial proposals shall be returned unopened after completing the selection process.
• Simultaneously, the client shall notify the consultants that have secured the minimum qualifying marks, and indicate the date and time for opening the financial proposals not sooner than two weeks after the notification date.
  

Step 7.2 Technical Evaluation Guidelines

The process of evaluation of technical proposals shall be based on the principles of objectivity and transparency. The aim should be to select a proposal that is responsive to the TOR and proposes consultant’s who have the qualifications to perform the tasks. The suggested scoring is given in Table 15.4. The following guidelines apply:

• The evaluation shall be performed in strict conformity with the criteria stated in the request for proposals.
• The technical evaluation may include comparison with respect to approach, schedules, experience and capabilities of key personnel, the quality of supervisory leadership, attention to be given by principals of the consultant, facilities of the home office, and the assistance from others as specified in the request for proposals.
• The technical evaluation committee shall review the qualifications and experience of the proposed key personnel in their curriculum vitae which must be accurate, complete, and signed by the individual and certified by an authorized representative of the consultant.
• For assignments, which depend on the performance of key staff such as a team leader of a large team of specified individuals, the evaluation committee may consider interviewing the proposed team leaders.
• A proposal shall be considered unsuitable and shall be rejected if it does not respond to important aspects of the TOR or if it fails to achieve the minimum technical score specified in the request for proposals.
• Ex-staff of any applicant consultants who are holding a project manager position or is a member of the evaluation committee shall be removed from the evaluation process.
• Proposals shall identify the employment status of each proposed person: full-time working at least 8 hours per day; part-time working for other organisations; and length of service. Full-time employees with at least 1 year service may be given 100% score while other personnel should be given 75% score.
• Conflict of interest should not be entertained. The consultant shall not employ client's staff or close relatives.
• Any consultants with an association with existing or potential equipment suppliers or contractors must be notified that if they are awarded the consulting assignment, that their associated consultants shall not be eligible to supply goods or services to the project.
• Consultants shall not make contact with the evaluation committee during the process of evaluation.
• Evaluation committee for technical proposal shall not include accounting, legal or administrative specialists.
• Consultants may be disqualified during the technical evaluation process according to the rules described in the TOR. These rules usually are identified as Pass/Fail conditions. Pre-qualified consultants do not need to be ranked

Table 15.4 Suggested Scoring of Technical Evaluation

Criteria	Score (%)
1. Consultant’s Specific Experience Experience in similar projects Experience in similar geographical region Availability of staff from these projects Work load	5-10% 3-5% 3-5% 1-2% 1-2% (Negative)
2. Methodology and Work Plan Understanding of objectives and TOR Quality of methodology Innovativeness	20-50% 7-10% 10-25% 2-10%
3. Key Personnel Team Leader Other key staff	30-60% 20-25% 30-40%
4. Consultant’s Resources Technical resources Quality management systems	5-10% 2-5% 2-5%
5. Transfer of Knowledge	5-10%
6. Participation by Nationals (only for international RFP)	5-10%
Minimum Technical Score	60%

 

PPR -2007, Chapter 6 clause 76, 77,78

76. Manner of Evaluating Technical Proposal:

(1) While evaluating a technical proposal, each member of the evaluation committee shall evaluate in accordance with the criteria set forth in Sub-rule (6) of Rule 71 and ascertain the marks obtained by a proponent.

(2) After the marks are ascertained pursuant to Sub-rule (1), the evaluation committee shall find out average marks obtained by such proposal by computing the marks given by each member of the committee.

(3) After the evaluation under Sub-rule (1) and (2) is completed, the evaluation committee shall prepare a list of the proponents who have obtained the pass marks under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 71.

(4) The list under Sub-rule (3) shall be prepared respectively in descending order from the proponent securing the highest marks.

(5) The evaluation committee shall not open the financial proposal until the evaluation of the technical proposal is completed.

(6) The financial proposals only of the proponents included in the list prepared under Sub-rule (3) shall be opened pursuant to Rule 79.

(7) The proposals of the proponents, failed to be included into the list under Sub-rule (3), shall be returned unopened to the concerned proponents.

 

77. Evaluation Report to be Prepared:

(1) After completing the evaluation proceedings under Rule 76, the evaluation committee shall prepare a report on the quality of the proposal.

(2) The report under Sub-rule (1) shall contain the following matters as well:-

• Name and address of the proponent,
• Whether the proponent or its authorized representative has signed or not,
• Whether the documents evincing that the proponent is qualified under law to submit proposal are submitted or not,
• Where the joint venture agreement is required, whether such agreement is submitted or not,
• Whether or not the proposal is complete as per the instructions issued to the proponents contained in the documents relating to proposals; and
• Relative strength and weakness of each proposal and the result of evaluation.

78. Notice to be Given to the Proponent Selected from the Evaluation of Technical Proposal:

(1) A Public Entity shall have to serve notice to the proponent containing the place, date and time of opening financial proposal included into the list under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 76 to be present in that time and place.

(2) In serving a notice to the proponents for presence pursuant to Sub-rule (1), a period of at least seven days shall be given in the case of a national level proposal and of at least fifteen days in the case of an international level proposal.

(3) The financial proposals of the proponents failing to secure the pass marks shall be returned to him/her with a notice containing the grounds of failure of his/ her technical proposal.