By Eng. Eva Mbuya Lupembe, PPRA
Introduction
The Quality and Cost Based Selection
(QCBS) is a method of selecting consulting firms based on both the quality of
their technical proposals and the costs shown in their financial proposals. This
method uses a competitive process among short-listed firms that takes into
account the quality of the proposal and the cost of the services in the
selection of the successful firm. Cost as a factor of selection shall be used
judiciously. The relative weight to be given to the quality and cost shall be
determined for each case depending on the nature of the assignment.
When QCBS is used the Terms of
Reference (TOR) must be detailed and specific. The scope of the consultant's
work must be precisely defined and the required inputs and all the other
requirements affecting the cost of the services must be indicated, so that the
consultants can prepare detailed and complete financial proposals. TOR shall be
prepared by a person(s) or a firm specialized in the area of the assignment.
The scope of the services described in the TOR shall be compatible with the
available budget. TOR shall define clearly the objectives, goals, and scope of
the assignment and provide background information (including a list of existing
relevant studies and basic data) to facilitate the consultants’ preparation of
their proposals. If transfer of knowledge or training is an objective, it
should be specifically outlined along with details of number of staff to be
trained, and so forth, to enable consultants to estimate the required
resources. TOR shall list the services
and surveys necessary to carry out the assignment and the expected outputs (for
example, reports, data, maps, surveys). Firms shall be encouraged to comment on
the TOR in their proposals.
Procedure for
Submission of Proposals
The Request for Proposal (RFP) asks the consultants to submit
their technical and financial proposals at the same time in separate sealed
envelopes. Any proposals received after the submission deadline are rejected.
Evaluation of the Proposals
After the closing time for submitting proposals, the selected
committee for opening the proposals opens the envelopes containing the
technical proposals only and the unopened financial proposals are safely stored.
The proposals are evaluated by the selected evaluation committee (normally not
less than five specialists for evaluating the technical proposal and three
specialists for the financial proposal) in two stages, first the technical
quality and then the cost. The evaluation committee members should not have
access to the financial proposals until the technical evaluation process has
been completed.
Evaluation of the Quality/ Technical Proposals
The evaluation committee members separately evaluate the
technical proposals using the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP. The
evaluation criteria are such as: (a) understanding of terms of reference; (b)
Overall quality of the offer and quality of the methodology proposed; (c) the
qualifications of the key personnel proposed and experience in the field of the
assignment; and (d) the extent of inclusion of local experts among key staff in
the performance of the assignment. Each criterion shall be marked on a scale of
1 to 100. Then the marks shall be weighted to become scores. Weights on table 1
below are indicative. The actual percentage figures to be used shall fit the
specific assignment and shall be within the ranges indicated below as per the Public
Procurement (Selection and Employment of Consultants) Regulations 2005. The
proposed weights shall be disclosed in the RFP.
Table 1: Criteria with their Indicative Weights
No.
|
Criteria
|
Weights
|
1
|
Understanding
of terms of reference
|
10% to 20%
|
2
|
Overall
quality of the offer, quality of work and methodology
|
20% to 30%
|
3
|
Qualifications
of the key personnel proposed and experience in the field of the assignment
|
40% to 60%
|
4
|
Inclusion of
local experts
|
5% to 15%
|
Total:
|
100 points
|
These are the main criteria and are
normally divided into sub-criteria. For example, sub-criteria under methodology
might be innovation and level of detail. However, the number of
sub-criteria should be kept to the essential. Evaluation of the qualifications
of the key personnel is crucial since it ultimately determines the quality of
performance and thus more weight should be assigned to this criterion if the
proposed assignment is complex. The Evaluation Committee shall review the
qualifications and experience of proposed key personnel in their curricula vitae, which must be accurate,
complete, and signed by an authorized official of the consulting firm and the
individual proposed. The individuals shall be rated in the following three
sub-criteria, as relevant to the task:
(a)
general
qualifications: general education and training, length of experience, positions
held, time with the consulting firm as staff, experience in developing
countries, and so forth;
(b) adequacy for the assignment:
education, training, and experience in the specific sector, field, subject, and
so forth, relevant to the particular assignment; and
(c)
experience
in the region: knowledge of the local language, culture, administrative system, government organization, and so forth.
Basically, the evaluation committee should
evaluate each proposal on the basis of its responsiveness to the TOR. When
scoring the committee members may consider using the alternative scoring
method. The steps in this method are as follows:
Step 1: Classify your assessments as: Very Good, Good, Satisfactory and Poor.
This should be agreed upon by the evaluation committee prior to beginning of
the evaluation.
Step 2: Assign the assessment with ratings in percentage
(%) as follows:
Very Good = 100
Good = 80
Satisfactory = 60
Poor = 40
Very poor = 0
Step 3: Assigning
Weights
Now; suppose under a criteria “Overall quality of
the offer, quality of the work and methodology” 26 points are allocated
(in your situation different points may be allocated); with sub criteria as
follows: Technical Approach (10 points); Work plan (10 points) and organising
and staff (6 points) i.e.
Overall quality of the offer, quality of the work
and methodology
|
Technical Approach and Methodology
|
10
|
Work plan
|
10
|
|
Staffing plan
|
6
|
|
Total
|
26
|
Now; if you assess Technical Approach of a firm as
satisfactory and give it a percentage 60 for satisfactory as in Step 2 above
the Score will be calculated as follows;
Step 4: Calculation
to arrive at Score
10 (technical approach) x 60/100 (Rating of
Satisfactory) = 6 (score).
Now for each criteria and sub criteria you can do
the same.
The evaluation committee members then
meet to rank the technical proposals. Any proposals that score less than the
minimum specified mark is considered non-responsive to the RFP. These technical
proposals will have their financial proposals returned unopened at the end of
the selection process.
At the end of the process, the evaluation committee shall prepare a Technical Evaluation
Report of the “quality” which will
be submitted to the Procurement Management Unit and thereafter to the Tender
Board for approval. The report shall substantiate the results of the evaluation
and describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. All
records relating to the evaluation, such as individual mark sheets, shall be
attached to the report.
Evaluation of the Cost/
Financial Proposals
The technical proposals considered satisfactory and
classified by order of merit shall have the corresponding financial proposals
opened. The consultants whose technical proposals scored above the minimum
specified mark will be informed the time and place where their financial
proposals will be publicly opened. The public opening is scheduled at least two
weeks after the notification. The financial proposals are opened in the presence
of any consultants' representatives who choose to attend. The technical
proposal scores are read aloud, then the financial proposals are opened and the
total prices shown are read aloud. Minutes are prepared of the proceedings at
the opening.
Thereafter the financial proposals are reviewed to correct
any arithmetical errors and to ensure that all the costs of implementing the
activities proposed in the technical proposals are covered. Any errors and
omissions are corrected so that the proposals can be compared. Conversion of
currencies is done using the source and date for the exchange rate that was
shown in the RFP. The RFP asks the consultants to identify in the financial
proposals any local income taxes that will be imposed on the international experts
and these are excluded from the calculations of the final prices of the
proposals. The lowest-priced financial proposal is given a score of 100 and the
other proposals are given scores that are inversely proportional to their
prices.
The formula used to determine the score of each financial
proposal is:
Sf = 100 x Fm / F
Where:
Sf is the financial score
Fm is the
lowest priced proposal
F is the price
of the proposal being considered.
The technical and financial proposals shall be weighted as
specified in the request for proposal and the combined value of the two
proposals shall be calculated for each firm. The total score for each
consultant is calculated by weighting the scores for technical quality and cost
and adding them. The weight for technical quality is normally 80 per cent and
the weight for cost is 20 per cent. These weights are fixed and should be equal
to 100 per cent.
The Formula used to determine the combined score is:
S= St x T% + Sf x P%
Where:
S = Combined (Total) Score
St = Score of the Technical Proposal
T = Weight for Technical quality
Sf = Score of the Financial Proposal
P = Weight for cost
Illustration on
Computing the Financial and Combined Scores
Table 2 below shows the technical scores for the 6 consulting
firms who submitted their proposals and the financial proposals prizes after
arithmetic corrections and conversion.
Assuming that:
1. The minimum pass mark specified in
the RFP is 75, meaning that those who score below 75 their financial proposals
will be returned unopened.
2. The Weight for technical quality, T
is 80% and that for cost, P is 20%
Table 2: Consulting Firms with their
Technical Score and Financial Proposal Prizes
No.
|
Name of Consulting Firm
|
Score of Technical
Proposal
(St)
|
Financial Proposal Prize (after arithmetic
corrections and conversion)
(Million USD)
|
1
|
Apple
|
76
|
200
|
2
|
RRI
|
88
|
250
|
3
|
Trevor
|
55
|
Below the pass mark so financial proposal to be returned
unopened
|
4
|
TSB
|
60
|
|
5
|
Barclay
|
80
|
210
|
6
|
SSTP
|
78
|
290
|
From the formula used to determine the score of each
financial proposal
Sf = 100 x Fm / F
From Table 2 above Fm = the lowest
priced proposal = 200
Table 3: Financial Score Calculation
No.
|
Name of Consulting
Firm
|
Price of the Proposal being considered
(F)
|
Financial Score
(Sf)
|
1
|
Apple
|
200
|
= 100 x 200/200 =
100
|
2
|
RRI
|
250
|
= 100 x 200/250 = 80
|
3
|
Trevor
|
Below the pass mark so financial proposal to be returned
unopened
|
|
4
|
TSB
|
||
5
|
Barclay
|
210
|
=100 x 200/210 =
95.24
|
6
|
SSTP
|
290
|
=100 x 200/290 =
68.96
|
Table 4: Combined Score Calculation
No.
|
Name of Consulting
Firm
|
Score of Technical Proposal
(St)
|
Financial Score
(Sf)
|
Combined Score
(S)
S = St x T% + Sf x P%
|
Ranking
|
1
|
Apple
|
76
|
100
|
= 76 x 0.8 + 100 x 0.2 = 80.8
|
3
|
2
|
RRI
|
88
|
80
|
= 88 x 0.8 + 80 x 0.2 = 86.4
|
1
|
3
|
Trevor
|
55
|
Below the minimum qualifying mark so financial proposal to
be returned unopened
|
||
4
|
TSB
|
60
|
|||
5
|
Barclay
|
80
|
95.24
|
= 80 x 0.8 + 95.24 x 0.2 = 83.05
|
2
|
6
|
SSTP
|
78
|
68.96
|
= 78 x 0.8 + 68.96 x 0.2 = 76.19
|
4
|
Therefore, the first ranked
consultant or the consultant with the highest score is RRI Consulting Firm
Confidentiality
No information on the evaluation and ranking of consultants'
proposals is disclosed to any person other than those directly concerned with
the selection process. Any consultant or other person who tries to influence
the evaluation, ranking will have its proposal rejected and
may be subject to the provisions of the Government’s antifraud and corruption
policy.
Negotiations
Before commencement of negotiations the evaluation report
must be submitted to Tender Board for approval.
Contract negotiations are scheduled with the first ranked
consultant or with the firm with the highest combined score and are conducted until
an agreement is reached with one of the firms whose technical proposals are
considered satisfactory and retained. The negotiations include technical
discussions of the methodology and comments on the TOR, the staffing and the
executing agency's counterpart facilities. It is important that these
discussions do not substantially alter the requirements in the TOR because this
might alter the terms of the consultant's technical proposal offer and its
costs. During the financial negotiations, the experts' remuneration rates and
the other unit costs shown in the consultant's financial proposal are not
changed; however, minor changes may be made in the inputs and the quantities of
cost items.
After a contract has been successfully negotiated, the other
firms who submitted technical proposals that scored below the minimum
qualifying mark are advised in writing that they were unsuccessful. The
financial proposals submitted by any firms whose technical proposals scored below
the minimum qualifying mark are returned unopened.
References
The Public Procurement (Selection and
Employment of Consultants) Regulations, 2005
Guidelines: Selection and Employment
of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers, May 2004 – Revised on October 1st
2006
No comments:
Post a Comment