Scoring projects

Victor

I'm not sure where to put this, so I've put it here.

Some tenders aren't on a lowest bidder basis, some are best economic value or beauty competitions or a mixture of both. For example, if a state agency is looking for emergency electrical generators of a certain power output and all consume the same amount of fuel and are a similar price, but one can generate substantially more electricity, because it is more fuel efficient, then that one might be selected. Potentially the tender could be structured as 80% cost, 10% fuel efficiency and 10% electrical output or whatever.

So, when the tenders are being scored, does the best in a category get all of the marks available and the worst none or how is it structured?

TheCostumeShop.ie: Ronan

usually you get marked on each area and the tender with the highest overall score wins.

Victor

Oh sure, but in the example I give, let use says the marks are given as 10%/10% and there are five tenderers and the fuel efficiencies are as follows.

A Tenderer. 53
B Tenderer. 57
C Tenderer. 51
D Tenderer. 60
E Tenderer. 65

If the stated requirement is for a minimum of 50, do they all get 10%/10% or would it be scored 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% or 7%, 8%, 6%, 9%, 10%?

TheCostumeShop.ie: Ronan

It depends on the wording of the tender, usually you can arrange a meeting with the agency before you submit to clarify these things. If they say a minimum level of 50, then the higher the performance the better. Obviously if they say it must preform at a level and there is no advantage of over performance then meeting the criteria. Then everyone will meet the criteria who submits and its not an important decision factor. In the case of fuel efficiency there is an ongoing cost saving which may justify the extra spend. It may be possible to have both an option for 50 Fuel efficiency and 70 fuel efficiency in the same tender.

antoinolachtnai

It is really up to the tenderer. The tenderer can set any rule they like really. There is nothing legally wrong with having a badly configured tender process, providing it is fair. The issue is usually whether they apply the rule as stated and apply it fairly.

The scenario you described is not really helpful to understand. It bas some hallmarks of a badly conceived tender.

1. Nobody buys a backup generator on the basis of fuel efficiency.

2. Service and reliability is the main issue with backup generators.

3. If a certain power output is the requirement, then it doesn't make sense to have points for power output. It either meets/exceeds the criterion or it doesn't.

3. The generator isn't actually any more efficient for the required power output. It is only more efficient if the required power output is changed (i.e., increased) at a future point. But the possibility of an increased power output was not part of the tender, it was certain. It should not really be taken into account at all if the tender was as you described.