OJEU Best Practice Guidance Note Our experience and improvement ideas 1.11
A tender checklist will ensure tenderers are clear of the requirements of a ‘compliant’ tender at each stage and reduce the need for clarifications.
1.12 Keep the PQQ short and simple. It will save the tenderers time but more importantly, save you time in assessing. 1.13
Consider the use of lots, to group services (frequently procured together), geographical location or scheme size/value. This will ensure that you can pinpoint the tenderers interested in and available to provide within certain project parameters when the need for a tender arises and will likely increase the number and quality of responses received.
1.14
Within the tender documents, outline the processes that will be used for allocating/appointing projects under the framework by direct award and mini competition. This will ensure tenderers are aware from the outset that they are not guaranteed any work if appointed under the framework and avoid queries/challenges or confusion later. You should still retain the ability to direct appoint where it is appropriate.
1.15
When allocating scores against the price/quality weighting – if the lowest priced tenderer is awarded 100% of the marks available for price, the tender deemed to be of the highest quality should also be awarded 100% of the quality marks available, with all other submissions marked in proportion. Alternatively, assess the pricing as quality e.g. marks out of x for each band/project type.
1.16
Expect more submissions than you think (50 – 60 seem to be the average at present) and allow yourself enough time to mark them. Publishing an ITT date 2 weeks after the return of the PQQ, will probably lead to this date being delayed. If dates do change, make sure to inform the tenderers as soon as possible to avoid them chasing you for updates.
1.17
From a step back, you could take a completely different approach (one currently being used by another G15 member). Stage 1 (PQQ) is based solely on company information – financials, clients, project types, locations and sizes. You then select who deserves a place on your framework (making sure you have control of this where appropriate). Then “most” projects are through a mini competition which provides a focused response on the approach to deliver a specific project, management of the risks and requests a project specific resource plan.
2.
Quality
2.1
Be detailed in what you are requesting (word limits, page limits, return format), but not too restrictive. Not allowing appendices may result in a reduction in the quality of the responses returned.
2.2
Be careful not to overcomplicate a question by including too many sub-questions and allocating page restrictions that are unrealistic.
2.3
Stipulate that responses, if permitted to be completed in the tenderers own in-house format or layout, should mirror the order of the PQQ/ITT document for your ease of reference when reviewing and evaluation.
www.jrp.co.uk
3
jrp@jrp.co.uk
