TQE 18/10 - Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan · The actions of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) will be in accordance with the contents of this TEP. This document has been

Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan

Kempsey Shire Council TQE 18/10 Page 1 of 21

Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan Sourcing Activity: Supply of Goods

RFT Number: TEQ 18/10

Description: Tender for the Supply, Delivery and Installation of Cabin Furniture - Macleay Valley Coast Holiday Parks.

Date: Friday, 13 July 2018

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1 1. Introduction 3

1.1. About this Evaluation 3 1.2. About This Evaluation Plan 3 1.3. Objective of the Evaluation 3

2. The Procurement 4 2.1. Purpose of the Procurement 4 2.2. Tenders / Quotations Received 4

3. The Evaluation Governance 4 3.1. Tender Evaluation Program 4 3.2. Declared Evaluation Roles 5 3.3. The Tender Evaluation Committee 5 3.4. The Role of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) 5 3.5. The Procurement Delegate 6 3.6. Weighted Evaluation Criteria 6 3.7. Changes to the Evaluation Plan 6 3.8. Commencing the Evaluation 6 3.9. Clarification/Presentations/Interviews 6 3.10. Unintentional Errors of Form 7 3.11. Scoring Scales 7 3.12. Scoring Price 7 3.13. Total score 8 3.14. Close or equal highest scoring 8



3.15. Mandatory Participation Criteria 8 3.16. Local Preference Purchasing 8 3.17. Evaluation Criteria 9 3.18. Evaluation Methodology 10

4. Probity and Ethics 10 4.1. About Probity and Ethics 10 4.2. Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Declaration 10 4.3. Probity Adviser 10

5. The Evaluation Process 11 5.1. Stage 1 – Opening the Tender Box 11 5.2. Stage 2 – Mandatory Participation Criteria 11 5.3. Stage 3 – Compliance Evaluation 11 5.4. Stage 4 – Technical Worth 12 5.5. Stage 5 – Price Evaluation 12 5.6. Stage 6 – Risk Analysis 12 5.7. Stage 9 – Evaluation Recommendations 13

6. Concluding the Evaluation 14 6.1. Final Review 14 6.2. The Procurement Delegates Decision 14 6.3. Notification and Debriefing 14

Appendix 1 – Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest Declaration 15 Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment 16 Appendix 3 – Evaluation Model – Scoring Non-price (technical) Criteria 17



1. Introduction

1.1. About this Evaluation 1.1.1. The following Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP) outlines the governance and procedures for the evaluation of responses to the Request for Tender (RFT)

• TQE 18/10 - Tender for the Supply, Delivery and Installation of Cabin Furniture - Macleay Valley Coast Holiday Parks.

1.1.2. The actions of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) will be in accordance with the contents of this TEP. This document has been prepared for use by the TEC in conducting the assessment of responses to the requested in the RFT.

1.2. About This Evaluation Plan 1.2.1. The conduct of the evaluation must be consistent with the evaluation process detailed in the RFT. This evaluation plan seeks to establish this linkage and also provides:

a) a description of the staff resources, including a description of the roles and the responsibilities of the TEC;

b) protocols for handling tenders/quotations;

c) the disallowance of late tenders/quotations;

d) protocols for identifying and handling conflicts of interest;

e) protocols for safekeeping of tenders/quotations;

f) the evaluation criteria and the associated weightings to be applied;

g) evaluation methodology;

h) the nominated approver (Procurement Delegate); and

i) an indicative evaluation timetable.

1.2.2. Any departure from this evaluation plan by the TEC after it has been approved may create procurement risk which may have serious management and legal implications for Council.

1.3. Objective of the Evaluation 1.3.1. The overall objective is to evaluate tenders and identify tenders demonstrating best value for money.

1.3.2. Value for money is a comprehensive assessment that takes into account both cost represented by the assessment of price and value represented by technical assessment in the context of the risk profile presented by each Tender.

1.3.3. To identify best value for money requires the TEC to take into account all relevant risks, benefits and costs over the whole of life procurement cycle.



2. The Procurement

2.1. Purpose of the Procurement 2.1.1. The purpose of this procurement is:

• to provide for a suitable qualified company to undertake the Operation and Management of the Kempsey Airport Aviation Fuel Facility

2.2. Tenders / Quotations Received 2.2.1. In accordance with the Procurement Plan, an RFT as Request for Quotation (RFQ), will be issued for this procurement.

2.2.2. A tenderer means any person or organisation who receives the RFT and who submits a Tender/Fee Proposal in response.

2.2.3. Quotations received in response to the RFT will be assessed in accordance with this TEP.

3. The Evaluation Governance

3.1. Tender Evaluation Program 3.1.1. The following table details the planned events and their timing of the evaluation process.

Event/Stage Date

Tender closing 7 August 2018

Compliance check - Minimum Content and Format Requirements 9 August 2018

Compliance Check - Mandatory Participation Requirements 9 August 2018

Clarifications 9 August 2018

Tender Evaluation Committee meeting/s 17 August 2018

Consensus Scoring completed 17 August 2018

Completion of Evaluation Report 14 August 2018

Council Report Finalised and submitted 29 August 2018

Council Decision 18 September 2018

3.1.2. Whilst all attempts have been made to detail all evaluation events and list realistic timelines, the detail in the table above represents the planned timetable of events. The actual timetable may vary due to unforeseen circumstances.



3.2. Declared Evaluation Roles 3.2.1. Declared Evaluation Roles are:

Role Function

Chairperson of the TEC

Govern the evaluation process and manage the TEC.

TEC Member Complete the evaluation of submission received in response to the RFT.

Probity Adviser Provides probity advice as required to the TEC / process.

Procurement Delegate

The person of body who has the authority to commit Council to the whole of life cost of the contract.

Has no operational role in the evaluation process. Cannot influence the outcome of the procurement process, but is responsible for ensuring that due procurement process has been adhered to.

3.3. The Tender Evaluation Committee 3.3.1. The Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) comprises the Chairperson of the Committee and Committee members as follows:

Role Role Description Appointee Position

Chairperson of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC)

To manage the evaluation process and report to the Procurement Delegate.

Troy Baker Business Assets Officer

Evaluation Committee Member

Perform a detailed evaluation of the Tender submissions.

Brain Ross Coordinator Commercial Property & Facilities

Evaluation Committee Member

Perform a detailed evaluation of the Tender submissions.

Gayleen Burley Manager Commercial Business

Probity Adviser Advisor / observer Vicki Thomas Acting Coordinator Procurement and Fleet Management

3.3.2. Individuals nominated on the Tender Evaluation Committee may change with approval of the Procurement Delegate.

3.3.3. Committee members will possess the necessary technical/subject matter skills to effectively assess tenders.

3.3.4. Each member is to possess a sound understanding of the requirements and will maintain confidentiality, probity and will conduct a fair and unbiased process.

3.4. The Role of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) 3.4.1. The outcome of an evaluation is a recommendation of preferred tenderer(s) that Council may enter into contract negotiation with and, if required, make recommendations on the negotiation strategy that should be employed.

3.4.2. The role of the TEC will be to evaluate the tenders received and make a recommendation on the preferred tenderer(s) to the Procurement Delegate.

3.4.3. The preferred tenderer(s) must be those offering best value-for-money while taking into account all relevant risks, benefits and costs over the whole Procurement Life Cycle.



3.5. The Procurement Delegate 3.5.1. The Procurement Delegate must be a person or body (e.g. Council) who has authority to commit the Council to the nominated whole-of-life value in the Procurement Plan.

3.5.2. The nominated Procurement Delegate for this procurement process is:

Role Role Description Appointee

Procurement Delegate To review and approve the recommendations of the Tender Evaluation Committee

Stephen Mitchell

Director Corporate & Commercial

3.5.1. The Procurement Delegate must decide who the Council will enter into contract negotiations with.

3.5.2. In making this decision, the Procurement Delegate must take into consideration the Evaluation Report submitted by the Evaluation Committee.

3.5.3. A departure from the TEC’s recommendation may create procurement risk which may have serious management and legal implications for the Council. Legal advice must be sort before such a decision is taken.

3.5.4. The Procurement Delegate will not have an operational role in the evaluation of Tenders.

3.6. Weighted Evaluation Criteria 3.6.1. Evaluation criteria are used to assess the ’technical worth’ of a Tender.

3.6.2. Technical worth is expressed as a percentage; it provides a measure of effectiveness against evaluation criteria.

3.6.3. Some evaluation criteria ‘mean more’ than others; this relative importance is reflected through assigning weight to individual evaluation criteria. The sum of the weight applied to all evaluation criteria totals 70%.

3.6.4. The effectiveness is calculated as a percentage by multiplying scores assigned to each of the evaluation criteria by the nominated criteria weighting and then summing the total.

3.7. Changes to the Evaluation Plan 3.7.1. This plan will not be materially changed after the Tender closing date has passed; this will ensure there is no basis for allegations that the evaluation methodology was changed after potential contact with tenderers.

3.7.2. No change will be made to the Evaluation Model (Appendix 3) after tenders have been opened.

3.8. Commencing the Evaluation 3.8.1. The evaluation process must not commence until the TEP has been approved.

3.9. Clarification/Presentations/Interviews 3.9.1. In addition to tenders / quotations received, the TEC may in its absolute discretion:

a) invite some or all tenderers to give presentations for the purpose of demonstrating the features and capabilities of their applications and specifically how their proposed solution would address Council’s requirements; and

b) visit tenderer reference sites and conduct discussions with, and visits to, customers of a tenderer (whether or not listed as referees in the tenderer’s Tender).

3.9.2. The TEC may seek clarification from, and enter into discussion with any or all the tenderers in relation to their tender.

3.9.3. The TEC may seek additional information in respect of any aspect of a tender at any time.

3.9.4. The TEC is not under any obligation to take into account additional information provided by a tenderer in response to a request and will not do so where that would introduce unfairness into the evaluation process.

3.9.5. It is permissible for the TEC during evaluation phases to clarify any errors of form, such as technical omissions, ambiguities and anomalies, in a Tender with the tenderer. However, this should not extend to a substantial re-tailoring of the Tender.

3.9.6. It is not permissible for the TEC to negotiate during an evaluation process.



3.9.7. The Chair of the TEC will determine if further information or clarification is required from any tenderer.

3.10. Unintentional Errors of Form 3.10.1. If the TEC considers that there are unintentional errors of form in a Tender, the TEC may ask the tenderer to correct or clarify the error. However, this should not extend to a substantial re-tailoring of the Tender.

3.11. Scoring Scales 3.11.1. Each response to the Tender Response Schedule within the RFT will be scored on a scale from 0 – 100. The response will be judged definitively or as a value judgement as follows:

Score Definitive Answers Value Judgement

<60 Unsatisfactory Fails to meet the requirement.

Unimaginative/No apparent economic benefit.

60 Poor Minimal Compliance.

Moderately creative/benefits difficult to assess

70 Satisfactory Moderately satisfies the requirement.

Worthwhile concept/may realise benefits.

80 Good Partially satisfies the requirement.

Creative/enduring benefits over time.

90 Very Good Satisfies the majority of the requirement.

Highly creative/enduring high benefits.

100 Excellent Fully satisfies the requirement.

Exceptional/immediate & enduring high benefits.

3.11.2. Scores must be recorded against each response using the non-price scoresheet (Appendix 4). Where a score of less than one hundred (100) is made, a comment must be provided. Comments must detail deficiencies in the tenderer’s response. There should be a clear linkage between the score and comment. That is, a score of 0 should have an appropriate degree of substantiation as to why the tenderer fails to meet the requirement.

3.11.3. Where a Tender response fully satisfies or exceeds the requirements, or the criteria is not applicable to the Tender, a score of one hundred (100) will be awarded. A note should be made of where the Tender response exceeds stated requirements.

3.11.4. As a guide, careful consideration should be given to comments as these comments substantiate the treatment of a tender during the evaluation process. Comments provide the basis of de-briefing unsuccessful tenderers so should give sufficient detail of deficiencies.

3.12. Scoring Price 3.12.1. If a tender contains qualifications and departures, their value will be assessed and added to the Tendered Fee to determine an Assessed Fee for use in the tender evaluation.

3.12.2. To enable council to arrive a core for price to be input into the evaluation matrix, all tenderers scores will be normalised.



3.12.3. The Assessed Fee will be normalised and weighted for comparison as follows:

The lowest fee achieves the maximum score, which is equal to the weighting for price criteria (30).

The scores calculations spreadsheet (Appendix 5) provides for these calculations.

3.13. Total score The normalised non-price (technical) score and weighted price score for each tender will be added to give a total score out of 100 and identify the highest scoring tender.

3.14. Close or equal highest scoring Any tenders that have a total score within 3 points (5% of the non-price weighting) of the highest scoring tender will be considered as representing "equal" best value for money.

Where two or more tenders are considered to represent "equal" best value for money, the Panel may decide, at its own discretion, that the "equal" tender with the highest non-price score will be recommended.

3.15. Mandatory Participation Criteria 3.15.1. The following Mandatory Participation Criteria detailed in the table below are applied to this tender.

Mandatory Participation Criteria Criteria Requirements

Referees Minimum two professional referees as provided in the initial Expression of Interest

Public Liability and Professional Indemnity Insurance Evidence of coverage as per Brief

Fee for Service Lump sum fee provided

3.15.2. Any Tenders that do not fully satisfy the Mandatory Participation Requirements will be deemed non-compliant and may, at Council’s sole discretion, be excluded from further progression through the evaluation process.

3.16. Local Preference Purchasing 3.16.1. The Local Preference Purchasing Procedure was recently introduced to support local businesses and encourage local economic business activity for the benefit of the Kempsey Shire community. It has been determined to apply this procedure to this Tender. Any local Supplier that lodges a tender with Council will be granted a notional offset of the lesser of 5% or $25,000 against that Local Supplier’s submitted tender price for the purposes only of evaluating the tenders and awarding the contract.

3.16.2. Applying a notional reduction in price will increase the competitiveness of a local supplier against other suppliers. The cap on the offset is intended to limit the financial impact of this procedure. The application does not guarantee a tenderer receiving the offset will be the successful tenderer, as this is only one factor for consideration in the evaluation process.



3.16.3. For the avoidance of doubt the price paid by Council under any resulting contract will be the submitted tender price not including the offset.

3.16.4. The onus will be on the tenderer claiming to be a Local Supplier to provide the necessary supporting evidence with its tender to establish that it is a Local Supplier. Council will accept ASIC documents as proof of a principal place of business. In respect of whether a business operates in a market within the LGA, Council would expect the evidence submitted to include invoices or copies of other contracts or purchase orders which demonstrate the carrying on of a business within the LGA.

3.16.5. Decisions about a tenderer’s status as a Local Supplier will be made by the tender evaluation panel established for the relevant tender. The decision of the tender evaluation panel in that regard is final and not subject to challenge.

3.16.6. A tenderer will be a Local Supplier for the purposes of this Procedure if it is a business which:

• in the case of a business which has been operating for more than 3 months prior to lodging the relevant tender:

o has its principal place of business within the LGA or within 5 kilometres of the boundaries of the LGA and has had for the 3 months prior to the lodging of the relevant tender; and

o operates within a market within the LGA and has been doing so for the 3 months prior to the lodging of the relevant tender, or

• in the case of a new business which has not been operating for 3 months, has its principal place of business within the LGA or within 5 kilometres of the boundaries of the LGA, and has been operating or is proposing to operate within a market in the LGA.

3.16.7. In determining whether the application of the notional offset in this Procedure to a tender submitted by a Local Supplier would have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market, the Tender Evaluation Panel will need to consider:

• the competitive nature of the market for the relevant contract; this goes beyond mere consideration of the market by directing attention towards the level of competition, and the number of potential tenderers;

• the likely effect that application of the notional offset in this Procedure will have on the market, which may involve consideration of the impact of the offset on the likely tendered prices (for example, given the $25,000 cap, the notional offset may have a lesser impact in relation to tenders with a very high expected price); and

• whether Council is a significant, or even the only, purchaser of the types of goods and services to which the tender relates.

3.17. Evaluation Criteria 3.17.1. The weighting ratio for price to: non-price is 60:40

3.17.2. The price criteria are;

• The Tendered Rate

3.17.3. The non-price (technical) criteria and their sub weightings assigned to each criterion are listed in the table below.

Non-price Criteria Non-price Criteria Weighting

Demonstrated Experience 10%

Similar Services and Projects 10%

Demonstrate your capacity to supply quality furniture consistent with the Specification.

10%

Demonstrated evidence of satisfactory WHS&E management 10%



3.17.4. Total non-price (technical) weighting: 40%

3.18. Evaluation Methodology 3.18.1. Before proceeding through the Technical criteria evaluations, Tenders are first to processed and assessed for compliance against:

a) Any and all form and content requirements; and

b) Any Mandatory Participation Requirements.

3.18.2. The evaluation methodology being used in the evaluation of the tender is the Comparative Assessment and Ranking Method, or Weighted Scoring Method which uses weighting of both price and non-price (technical) criteria to determine optimal Value for Money.

3.18.3. This method requires all Tenders to be scored against the non-price (technical) evaluation criteria separately without regard or consideration of any other Tender, and without any knowledge of the pricing submission of the Tender. The total of the scores attained by each Tender during the technical assessment against each of the Technical Criteria will be the Tenders Weighted Technical Score.

3.18.4. At the completion of the technical evaluation, an evaluation of pricing submitted by each Tender will be completed. The total score of the pricing submission of each Tender will be the Tenders Weighted Commercial Score.

3.18.5. The Tenders Weighted non-price Technical Score and the Tenders Weighted Price Score are combined to determine the Tenders overall total score using (Appendix 5 - score calculations spreadsheet). The Tender with the highest combined comparative score is deemed to be the Tender that provides the optimal Value for Money outcome.

4. Probity and Ethics

4.1. About Probity and Ethics 4.1.1. Probity is the evidence of ethical behaviour in a particular process.

4.1.2. Probity is defined as “complete and confirmed integrity, uprightness and honesty”. It contributes to sound procurement processes that accord equal opportunities for all participants. A good outcome is achieved when probity is applied with common sense.

4.1.3. Procurement will be conducted with probity in mind to enable Council and tenderers to deal with each other on the basis of mutual trust and respect. Adopting an ethical, transparent approach enables business to be conducted fairly, reasonably and with integrity.

4.1.4. Ethical behaviour enables all tenderers to compete as equally as possible. In the procurement process, the rules must be clear, open, well understood and applied equally to all parties to the process.

4.2. Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Declaration 4.2.1. Any person with a Declared Evaluation Role must sign Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Declaration forms.

4.2.2. Any person providing administrative assistance to the TEC or to a TEWG will be required to sign Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Declaration forms

4.2.3. Should any TEC member become aware that they have a real or potential conflict of interest during the course of the process, they will immediately inform the Chairperson and detail the conflict in writing. The Chairperson will determine whether that panel member should continue to be involved with the process.

4.3. Probity Adviser 4.3.1. A Probity Adviser may be appointed to the process at any time during the process.



4.3.2. The Probity Adviser will provide advice to the TEC on probity matters to assist the TEC in ensuring that all Tenders are analysed fairly, uniformly and transparently.

4.3.3. The Probity Adviser is not a member of the TEC and will not participate in, but may make comment about any evaluation activity.

4.3.4. Should the Probity Adviser become aware that they have a real or potential conflict of interest during the course of the process, they will immediately inform the Chairperson and detail the conflict in writing. The Chairperson will determine whether the Probity Adviser should continue to be involved with the process.

The Probity Adviser will also be available for the tenderers to raise concerns they may have regarding fairness throughout the RFT process. If a verbal complaint is raised, it will be recorded on the Record of Verbal Complaint form and forwarded to the:

• Acting Coordinator Fleet and Procurement

4.3.5. The Probity Adviser will report to the Chairperson of the TEC; however the Probity Adviser may also approach the Delegated Authority.

4.3.6. In the event probity advice or assistance is required, it will be obtained from:

• Mr Daniel Thoroughgood

Manager Information Technology and Governance

Kempsey Shire Council

5. The Evaluation Process

5.1. Stage 1 – Opening the Tender Box 5.1.1. The opening process will be conducted in accordance with the Council’s documented procedures regarding the opening of the Tender Box

In particular:

5.1.2. No Tenders are to be opened before the Closing Time.

5.1.3. The opening of the Tender Box will be witnessed by two (2) members of the TEC. A record of Tenders received will be created.

5.1.4. Any Tender received after the closing date will be rejected unless there is an obligation to consider them under Council’s procurement guidelines. The reasons for accepting any Late Tender must be documented by the TEC in the Evaluation Report.

5.2. Stage 2 – Mandatory Participation Criteria 5.2.1. The Mandatory Participation Requirements are the minimum standards that tenderers must meet in order to participate in this procurement process.

5.2.2. Remaining Tenders will be assessed against the Mandatory Participation Requirements stated in the RFT.

5.2.3. Any tender failing to meet a Mandatory Participation Requirements specified in the RFT may not be considered further.

5.3. Stage 3 – Compliance Evaluation 5.3.1. Remaining Tenders will be evaluated to assess the compliance associated with responses to the following:

5.3.2. Conditions of Tender;

5.3.3. Draft Deed or Conditions of Contract;

5.3.4. Requirements for Tenders; and



5.3.5. The Tenderer’s Declaration.

5.3.6. Tenders representing unacceptable levels of risk may be excluded from further consideration.

5.4. Stage 4 – Technical Worth 5.4.1. Each Tender will be assessed against the Weighted non-price (technical) Evaluation Criteria.

5.4.2. A quantitative score and qualitative comment will be made against each element of the Evaluation Model.

5.4.3. Tenders will be evaluated by each TEC member independently at first. These scores will be recorded on individual score sheets. 5.4.4. When all members of the TEC have completed their individual evaluations of all Tender submissions, the Chairperson of the TEC will lead a consensus scoring process at a meeting with all TEC present. Scoring will be recorded on a consensus score sheet that is maintained by the Chairperson of the TEC.

5.4.5. The Chair of the TEC will not determine the consensus score that is assigned to each tender against each criteria; rather, they will ensure the due process and probity and equity considerations are followed as well as ensuring that the evaluation methodology and plan is applied equitably.

5.4.6. In order to maintain consistency across all tenderers, any additional items offered beyond the scope of the RFT that have been included within a Tender should not be considered when scoring. This is because giving consideration to these items effectively changes the scope of the original requirement and thus creates unfair advantage. A record of additional value offered beyond the scope of the RFT can be maintained.

5.4.7. The assessment should also include identification of any risk issues. Where a risk is identified a substantive comment should be made.

5.4.8. The TEC will undertake a gap analysis (i.e. the difference between what is offered in a tender and what is required by Council) to determine the possible materiality of any weaknesses of a Tender.

5.4.9. Any Tender demonstrating a significant gap, which would reduce the likelihood of Council achieving the stated project objective, may be excluded from further consideration.

5.4.10. If there has been a Technical Threshold set for the evaluation of the Tenders, a shortlist containing those Tenders that satisfy the Technical Threshold will be established. Tenders that are listed on the Shortlist will proceed to the Price Evaluation stage.

5.4.11. Tenders that do not satisfy the Technical threshold requirements will be excluded from further consideration.

5.5. Stage 5 – Price Evaluation 5.5.1. The TEC will consider pricing details for remaining Tenders and identify Tenders which are cost-effective.

5.5.2. Where practical, pricing details will be considered in the context of whole-of-life cost: i.e. a detailed analysis and comparison of all direct and indirect money flows which would occur upon: the acquisition, useful life, subsequent disposal.

5.5.3. The TEC will also identify any risks associated with tendered pricing.

5.5.4. Tenders which are not cost-effective may be excluded from further consideration.

5.6. Stage 6 – Risk Analysis 5.6.1. A risk analysis will be conducted by the Chairperson for remaining tenders against risk issues identified, using the risk matrix (Appendix 2).

5.6.2. The risk analysis may include such checks and actions as considered necessary in relation to a tenderer, its officers, employees, partners, associates or related entities (including consortium members and their officers or employees if applicable).

5.6.3. The risk analysis will typically include the following:

a) financial viability;

b) corporate history;

c) significant litigation (past, present or pending);

d) past performance;



e) experience,

f) qualifications and skills of resources; and

g) corporate social responsibility.

5.6.4. A risk profile of each Tender will be created taking into account the collective determination of risk magnitude for each risk issue identified.

5.6.5. Any Tender demonstrating unacceptable risk in regard to the stated project objective, may be excluded from further consideration.

5.7. Stage 9 – Evaluation Recommendations 5.7.1. The TEC will decide the ‘most advantageous Tender(s) by taking into account both cost (represented by the assessment of price) and value (represented by technical worth assessment) in the context of the risk profile presented by each tenderer.

5.7.2. A preferred tenderer, or tenderers, will be recommended and ranked on this basis.

5.7.3. The TEC will develop an Evaluation Report containing the recommendation of preferred tenderer(s).

5.7.4. The Evaluation Report should contain:

a) an executive summary of the evaluation process;

b) membership of the TEC;

c) where applicable, the expiry date of the previous contract, the name of the previous contractor, a summary of the performance review of the previous contractor, and whether a review of the nature and terms of the contract was conducted prior to the tender and the results of such a review;

d) details of the sequence of events for the Tender process;

e) details of any change to the Conditions of Tender or the advertising period, why the changes occurred and who authorised the changes;

f) full details of all Tenders received. For non-complying or alternate Tenders, a detailed analysis of the non-compliance should be included and the reasons for Council to consider this appropriate or otherwise;

g) details of the evaluation criteria, the relative weightings and the analysis of tenders against the criteria;

h) details of any post-tender contact and the reasons for or results of that contact, such as contact for the purpose of clarification and the outcome of this clarification;

i) summary of the tender considered most suitable in the circumstances, including the rationale for the conclusions or the rationale for considering none of the tenders suitable;

j) any probity issues arising during the evaluation process including the consultation with probity advisers and/or auditors and any action taken;

k) a recommendation for the acceptance of a tender including, if applicable, any conditions or requirements associated with the acceptance or proposals to vary the contract conditions as a result of the tendering process or errors in documentation, or a recommendation not to accept any of the tenders;

l) details of any high or extreme risks associated with the preferred tenderer(s); and

m) if recommending to enter into negotiations, the reasons for declining to invite fresh tenders and the reasons for determining to enter into negotiations.



6. Concluding the Evaluation

6.1. Final Review 6.1.1. The TEC will agree to a Final Evaluation Report. Any dissenting report should be an appendix to the majority report.

6.2. The Procurement Delegates Decision 6.2.1. The TEC will submit the Final Evaluation Report to the Procurement Delegate for consideration.

6.2.2. The Procurement Delegate will decide who Council enters into contract negotiations with; the decision must be consistent with the core principle Council procurement, i.e. obtaining best value for money.

6.2.3. If the Procurement Delegate agrees with the Evaluation Committee’s recommendation, the Evaluation Report should be signed by the Procurement Delegate.

6.2.4. If the Procurement Delegate does not agree with the Evaluation Committee’s recommendation, the Procurement Delegate must sign an official record detailing:

a) the reasons for the Final Evaluation Report being rejected;

b) the decision being made; and

c) the consultation taken during the decision making process.

6.2.5. The Procurement Delegate must not force an Evaluation Committee to change its Final Evaluation Report.

6.3. Notification and Debriefing 6.3.1. All tenderers will be informed in writing of the outcome of their tender after the Procurement Delegate has made a decision.

6.3.2. Unsuccessful tenderers may request in writing:

a) a statement of the reasons their tender was unsuccessful; and

b) an opportunity to be debriefed.

6.3.3. The content and/or format of any statement or debriefing is at Kempsey Shire Councils absolute discretion.



Appendix 1 – Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest Declaration

INTRODUCTION

Council procurement processes aims to ensure that the most suitable contractor is selected for each job. The processes are based on three principles: PROBITY, FAIRNESS and VALUE FOR MONEY.

In order to achieve outcomes which not only conform to these principles but most importantly can also be seen to do so, Council involves a variety of people in its procurement process. It is important that all those people behave with probity, make their decisions or recommendations fairly and ensure that Council selects its contractors and consultants on the basis of value for money.

This Declaration applies to all persons involved in performing functions for selection of a preferred tenderer or the assessment and acceptance of tenders from service providers. This includes the Project Manager, members of the Project Control Group, Key Project Team, Evaluation Committee, Tender Review Panel and any other persons involved in the tender process. Persons required to make this Declaration include employees of Council, employees of any other organisations both government and non-government, and consultants engaged for specific activities associated with assessment of the tenders.

This Declaration is complementary to, not a substitute for, other Codes of Conduct or Ethics with which you may have a responsibility to comply when performing other roles or functions.

PERSONAL INTERESTS - DECLARATION AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

The need for the utmost impartiality cannot be overemphasised. Should you have any interest, no matter how remote, in the outcome of a decision you must immediately declare that interest. The declaration should be made to the chairperson if you are a member of a committee or panel. Depending on the significance of your interest you may be required to take no further part in the tendering process concerned, to undertake a reduced role or to continue your involvement with your interest known to all others involved.

USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

During a procurement process you will usually have access to confidential, often commercially sensitive, information. You are only entitled to use that information as part of the assessment or selection process. Use of the information for other purposes may cause harm or provide improper advantage(s) in areas totally unrelated to Council procurement.

RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Information which you acquire in the course of your involvement in a procurement process must only be released to people entitled to have it in order for them to carry out their functions in the tendering process. If you are in any doubt as to whether a person is entitled to receive certain information you must first obtain permission from the Project Manager to provide the information.

DECLARATION OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT:

I, ...................................................................................................... , declare that I have read the above requirements of the Request for Tender (RFT) and the Evaluation Methodology and Probity Plan for this procurement. I agree to always behave as they direct when performing functions relating to this Council procurement process.

Signature: ................................................................................. Date: / /



Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment

Ref Description of Risk Likelihood Consequence Rating Risk Mitigation

Strategies

1 Poor Quality Goods Rare Very Low Low

• Products supplied under the Scheme are manufactured in factories with ISO 9001 certification to manufacture such Products.

2 WHS incident/injury Unlikely Very High High

• WHS Safety Management System or policies and procedures.

• Evidence of suitable trained staff

• Demonstrated knowledge of correct PPE requirements.



Appendix 3 – Evaluation Model – Scoring Non-price (technical) Criteria

Non-price criteria Fully satisfies the requirement. Exceptional/immediate & enduring high benefits.

Satisfies the majority of the requirement. Highly creative/enduring high benefits.

Partially satisfies the requirement.

Creative/enduring benefits over time.

Moderately satisfies the requirement. Worthwhile concept/may realise benefits.

Minimal Compliance. Moderately creative/benefits difficult to assess

Fails to meet the requirement. Unimaginative/No apparent economic benefit.

Score ranges 100 90 80 70 60 <60 Demonstrated Experience (10%) - understanding of

the project requirements

Provides a comprehensive description of understanding the project requirements consistent with the Specification including;

• Outlines delivery and installation timeframes

• Ability to deliver the full range of services

• Meeting the delivery and installation requirements

Provides a good level of understanding the project requirements consistent with the Specification including;

• Ability to deliver the full range of services


Provides a reasonable level of understanding the project requirements consistent with the Specification including;


Provides some level of understanding the project requirements consistent with the Specification.

Provides a limited level of understanding the project requirements consistent with the Specification.

Fails to demonstrate appropriate qualifications and the required level of experience



-Similar services and projects (10%)

Has successfully completed several similar projects during the past 3 years.

Has successfully completed several similar projects previously.

Has completed a few similar projects during the life of the company.

Has successfully completed some similar projects.

Has a limited record of related projects.

Fail to demonstrate recent experience in similar projects.

Demonstrated capacity to supply quality furniture. (10%).

Demonstrates extensive capacity to supply quality furniture complying with the specification in all required areas;

• Meets ISO 9001 certification

• Evidence of testing to AS/NS Standards

• manufactured from wood that is independently certified

• Particle Board and MDF supplied are certified by NATA

• Products are fit-for-purpose in a commercial environment.

• Has a QMS

Demonstrates a good level of capacity to supply quality furniture complying with the specification;



• Products are fit-for-purpose in a commercial environment.

• Has a QMS

Demonstrates a reasonable capacity to supply quality furniture complying with the specification;



Demonstrates some capacity to supply quality furniture complying with the specification;

Demonstrates limited capacity to supply quality furniture complying with the specification.

Fails to demonstrate capacity to supply quality furniture.



Demonstrated evidence of satisfactory WHS&E management (10%)

Identifies all likely risks and provides excellent, detailed risk management plans.

Identifies all likely risks and proposes good risk management

strategies.

Identifies most of the likely risks and proposes realistic risk management strategies

Identifies many of the likely risks but provides limited details on risk management measures

Identifies the most significant risks but provides little detail on risk management

Fails to identify the significant risks and propose management strategies

Appendix 4 – Non price (technical) criteria scoresheet

Signatures of Evaluation Committee Members:

Name Position Signature

Troy Baker Business Assets Officer

Brain Ross Coordinator Commercial Property & Facilities

Gayleen Burley Manager Commercial Business

Vicki Thomas Acting Coordinator Procurement and Fleet Management

Tenderer Tender 1 Score: Tender 2 Score: Tender 3 Score:

Demonstrated Experience (10%)

Similar services and Projects (10%)

Demonstrate your capacity to supply quality furniture. (10%).

Demonstrated evidence of satisfactory WHS&E management (10%)

Total Score



Documents

TQE 18/10 - Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan · The actions of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) will be in accordance with the contents of this TEP. This document has been