You are on page 1of 25

-

ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

RDAPF 6

Evaluation Guide (Consultancy)

ZAMBIA

Revised April 2014


Table of Contents
1. Preamble ........................................................................................................................... 3
2. Methods for Selection of Consultants ........................................................................... 3
A. Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) ........................................................................ 3
i. The Steps of the Selection Process ................................................................................. 3
ii. Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................... 4
B. Quality-Based Selection (QBS) .......................................................................................... 5
C. Selection under a Fixed Budget (FBS) ............................................................................... 6
D. Least-Cost Selection (LCS) ................................................................................................ 6
E. Selection Based on the Consultants’ Qualifications (CQS)............................................... 7
3. Selection Procedures ....................................................................................................... 8
A. Overview of Selection Procedures ..................................................................................... 8
i. Receipt of Proposals ........................................................................................................ 8
ii. Opening of Technical Proposals ..................................................................................... 8
B. Evaluation of Technical Proposals .................................................................................... 8

iii. Establishment and Organization of Evaluation Committee ......................................... 8


iv. Involvement of Observer and/or Independent Consultant ............................................... 9
v. Submission of Proposals ................................................................................................. 9
C. Review and Approval of Results of Technical Evaluation .............................................. 11
D. Evaluation of Financial Proposals ................................................................................... 12
vi. Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................ 12
vii. Public Opening of Financial Proposals..................................................................... 12
viii. Evaluation of Financial Proposals and Determination of Financial Score ............... 12
Sample Formula (normally used) ........................................................................................ 13
E. Determination of Combined Scores and Ranking of Proposals ..................................... 13
Sample Formula (normally used) ........................................................................................ 13
F. Review and Approval of Final Results of the Combined Evaluation ............................. 13
G. Negotiations...................................................................................................................... 13
4. Evaluation of Technical Proposals............................................................................... 14
A. Specific Experience of the Consultant......................................................................... 15
ix. Setting the Grades ..................................................................................................... 15
x. Defining the Grades ...................................................................................................... 15

*1
B. Adequacy/Quality of Proposed Methodology & Work Plan .................................... 16
i. Setting the Grades ......................................................................................................... 16
ii. Defining the Grades ...................................................................................................... 16
C. Qualifications and Competence of Key Staff ............................................................. 18
i. Setting the Grades ......................................................................................................... 18
ii. Defining the Grades ...................................................................................................... 18
5. Completion of Evaluation of Technical Proposals .................................................... 21
6. Negotiations ................................................................................................................... 23
A. Outline of Negotiation Procedures .............................................................................. 23
B. Items Subject to Negotiation ........................................................................................ 23
i. Technical Negotiations .................................................................................................. 23
ii. Financial Negotiations .................................................................................................. 24

*2
1. Preamble

This Guide has been prepared to provide Evaluation Committees with a clear
understanding of the evaluation methods and procedures for the procurement of
consultants under the various methods applicable. However, it is only applicable
consistently with the Public Procurement Act of 2008 and the Public Procurement
Regulations of 2011, along with whichever other legal instruments impact on public
procurement at the time being in Zambia.
The required procedures for the evaluation and selection of consultants are set out in Part
3 and 4 of this Guide. Note that in case an individual consultant or a non-governmental
organization, etc. is procured, some procedures defined in this Guide are not applicable.

2. Methods for Selection of Consultants

A. Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS)


Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) is the default method of selecting consultants
to be engaged by Road Development Agency (RDA) through competition between firms.
Selection is based on comparison of the technical quality of the consultants’ proposal
combined with the cost of the services to be provided.

The relative weights given to the technical quality and cost of each proposal are pre-
determined for each case depending on the nature of the assignment.

The procedures and guidelines below are based on the standard QCBS process of
selection although other selection methods are available for use in appropriate
circumstances. Procedures for other selection methods such as Least-Cost Selection
(LCS), Quality-Based Selection (QBS), Selection under a Fixed Budget (FBS) and
Selection Based on the Consultants’ Qualifications (CQS) are also provided herein.

i. The Steps of the Selection Process


The procurement of consultancy services will normally include the following steps:
i. Preparation of the Terms of Reference (TOR).
ii. Establish a cost estimate and confirmation of available funds.
iii. Advertising for expressions of interest (if appropriate) or preparation of the
shortlist of consultants from existing pre-qualified firms.

*3
iv. Preparation and issue of the Request for Proposals (RFP), including:
a. Letter of Invitation (LOI);
b. Information to Consultants (ITC);
c. Draft contract.
v. Receipt for proposals (may be advertised directly without shortlisting).
vi. Evaluation of technical proposals.
vii. Opening of financial proposals as stipulated in paragraph 18.1.2 of the RDA
Procurement Procedures Manual.
viii. Evaluation of financial proposals.
ix. Final evaluation according to the criteria stated in the RFP.
x. Negotiations and award of the contract to the selected firm.
ii. Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference (TOR) must define clearly the objectives and scope of the
assignment and provide background information (including a list of existing relevant
studies and basic data) to enable the consultant to prepare a proposal.

Specifically the ToR should:


i. Describe the background to the assignment;
ii. State the objectives of the assignment including:
a. The scope of the services;
b. The duration of the assignment;
c. A detailed list of the consultants' duties and responsibilities; and
d. Where applicable, the required inputs in terms of man-days, weeks,
months and/or years.
iii. Detail the required outputs, e.g. reports, recommendations, draft laws, etc.
which the consultants will be required to produce (also referred to as
'deliverables');
iv. Set the time periods for the deliverables;
v. Not be over-detailed or inflexible, so that competing consultants may propose
their own methodology and staffing;
vi. List any services and surveys necessary to carry out the assignment;
vii. Include details of the services, facilities and counterpart staff to be provided
by RDA; and

*4
viii. Specify requirements when transfer of knowledge or training is an objective,
to allow bidders to estimate the required resources.

B. Quality-Based Selection (QBS)


QBS is appropriate for the following types of assignments:

i. complex or highly specialized assignments for which it is difficult to define


precise TOR and the required input from the service providers;
ii. complex or highly specialized assignments for which RDA expects the service
providers to demonstrate innovation in their proposals;
iii. assignments that have a high downstream impact and in which the objective is
to have the best experts available within budgetary constraints; and
iv. assignments that can be carried out in substantially different ways, such that
technical proposals may not be comparable, but benefits to RDA can be
assessed.

 Procedure:

In QBS, the RFP may request submission of a technical proposal only (without the
financial proposal), or request submission of both technical and financial proposals at the
same time, but in separate envelopes (two-envelope system). The RFP shall provide either
the estimated budget or the estimated time for key experts, specifying that this
information is given as an indication only and that service providers shall be free to
propose their own estimated budget or estimated time for key experts.

If technical proposals alone were invited, after evaluating the technical proposals using
the same methodology as in QCBS, RDA shall ask the service provider with the highest
ranked technical proposal to submit a detailed financial proposal. The procuring entity
and the service provider shall then negotiate the financial proposal and the contract.1 All
other aspects of the selection process shall be identical to those of QCBS. If service
providers were requested to provide financial proposals initially together with the
technical proposals, safeguards shall be built in accordance with paragraph 18.1.2 of the
RDA Procurement Procedures Manual, to ensure that the financial proposal of only the
selected firm is opened and the rest returned unopened, only after the negotiations are
successfully concluded with the highest ranked, as applicable.

1
Financial negotiations under QBS include negotiations of all Consultant’s remuneration and other expenses.
*5
C. Selection under a Fixed Budget (FBS)
This method is appropriate only when the assignment is simple and can be precisely
defined and when the budget is fixed. The RFP shall indicate the available budget and
request the consultants to provide their best technical and financial proposals in separate
envelopes, within the budget. The TOR should be particularly well-prepared to make sure
that the budget is sufficient for the consultants to perform the expected tasks. The RFP
shall clearly indicate whether the budget includes taxes or levies payable in Zambia, and

the price of any inputs provided by RDA. The evaluation of all technical proposals shall
be carried out first as in the QCBS method. Then the financial proposals shall be opened
as stipulated in paragraph 18.1.2 of the RDA Procurement Procedures Manual. Proposals
that exceed the indicated budget shall be rejected. The consultant who has submitted the
highest ranked technical proposal among the rest shall then be selected and invited to
negotiate a contract. In case of unsuccessful negotiations leading to negotiations with the
next highest ranked consultant, the financial proposals of other firms shall only be
returned after the negotiations are successfully concluded and a contract is signed.

D. Least-Cost Selection (LCS)


This method is generally appropriate for selecting consultants for assignments of a
standard or routine nature (audits, engineering design of non-complex works, supervision
of repetitive engineering works, and so forth) where well-established practices and
standards exist. Under this method, a “minimum” qualifying mark for the “quality” is
established. Proposals, to be submitted in two envelopes are invited, from either a short
list or directly through a specific procurement publication. Technical proposals are
opened first and evaluated. Those securing less than the minimum qualifying mark stated
in the RFP are rejected, and the financial proposals of the rest shall be opened as
stipulated in paragraph 18.1.2 of the RDA Procurement Procedures Manual.

The firm with the lowest price shall then be selected and invited to negotiate a contract. In
case of unsuccessful negotiations leading to negotiations with the next lowest priced firm,
the financial proposals of other firms shall only be returned after the negotiations are
successfully concluded and a contract is signed. Under this method, the minimum
qualifying mark shall be established, understanding that all proposals above the minimum
mark will compete only on price.

*6
E. Selection Based on the Consultants’ Qualifications (CQS)

This method may be used for very small assignments, disaster or emergency situations
declared by Government of the Republic of Zambia and/or recognized by the Disaster
Management and Mitigation Unit for which the need for issuing an RFP, and preparing and
evaluating competitive proposals is not justified. The use of this method shall be in accordance
with Regulation 105 of the Public Procurement Regulations, 2011.

In such cases, RDA shall prepare the TOR and obtain expressions of interest that include
information on experience and qualifications from as many individuals as possible, and shortlist
at least three qualified individuals with relevant specific experience for the assignment. Individual
consultants may be employed where:

i. teams of personnel are not required;


ii. no additional professional support is required; and
iii. experience and qualifications of the individual are the paramount requirement.

Permanent staff or associates of a consulting firm may also be available as individual


consultants, while care must be taken to ensure compliance with Regulation 105 of the
Public Procurement Regulations, 2011.

*7
3. Selection Procedures
A. Overview of Selection Procedures
A flow chart of the QCBS selection process is presented in the figure below.

PC PC
Approval? Approval?

Finacial
Preliminary Evaluation
Examination • Specific Experience • Combine Scores
• Invitation/RFP • Approach/Methodology • Review Congruency • Ranking of Consultants
• Signatory
• Receipt of Proposals • Workplan/Duration • Adjustments • Recomendations
• Eligibility
• Staffing/Training • Corrections
Bidding • Validity Combined
Technical Evaluation
Evaluation

TECHNICAL FINANCIAL
STAGES STAGES

i. Receipt of Proposals
The technical and financial proposals shall be submitted in separate sealed envelopes at the
same time, unless CQS is used. The financial proposals shall remain sealed until evaluation
of the technical proposals is completed unless service providers were invited to submit
combined proposals.
ii. Opening of Technical Proposals
The technical proposals shall be opened immediately after the deadline for their submission.
Any proposal received by RDA after the deadline for submission shall be returned unopened.

B. Evaluation of Technical Proposals

iii. Establishment and Organization of Evaluation Committee


The establishment of an Evaluation Committee is crucial in ensuring a fair and objective
evaluation of the technical and financial proposals. As each member of the Evaluation
Committee is required to be familiar with the TOR and the evaluation criteria, it is
recommended that the Evaluation Committee is established prior to deadline for submission.
The evaluation of proposals must be based on the professional judgment of competent and
impartial evaluators. Although all the members of the Evaluation Committee need not be
experts in specific fields covered by the project, individuals who do not have any knowledge
of the areas related to the project should not be appointed. It is necessary that the some
members of the Evaluation Committee should have experience in the evaluation of proposals.
Members of the Evaluation Committee are required to maintain the highest standards of
integrity when carrying out the evaluation and should not have any communication with
shortlisted consultants from the date of their appointment to the date on which the contract is
awarded, except in cases of official clarification related to the proposal.

*8
iv. Involvement of Observer and/or Independent Consultant
To ensure transparency of the evaluation process, an independent observer may participate in
meetings of the Evaluation Committee. If RDA lacks the expertise to carry out the
evaluation, it may sometimes hire independent expert consultants to assist the Evaluation
Committee. In such a case, the user department may suggest the necessity of involvement of
an observer and/or independent consultants before the Evaluation Committee is appointed.

v. Submission of Proposals
Where Consultants shall be required to submit technical and financial proposals in
separate sealed envelopes at the same time, the financial proposals shall remain sealed until
evaluation of the technical proposals is completed. When QBS is applied, only the highest-
ranked consultant shall be requested to submit a financial proposal for contract negotiation.
The Evaluation Committee must commence the review of the technical proposals in the
presence of all its members. The Evaluation Committee shall first review each proposal to
confirm whether the required documents comprising the Proposal have been provided and
whether each proposal is prepared in accordance with the Instructions to Consultants
contained in the RFP (preliminary examination).

i. Technical Proposals received by the RDA in response to the LOI shall be evaluated in
accordance with the criteria stipulated in the RFP.
Such criteria shall normally include:
a. The consultant's general experience and record in the field covered by the TORs;
b. The adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan; and
c. The experience and records of the staff members to be assigned to the work.

The relative importance of the three above-mentioned factors will vary with the type of
consulting services to be performed, but in the overall rating of the proposals most
weight shall normally be given either to the qualifications of the staff members to be
assigned to the project or to approach and methodology, rather than to the fame or
reputation of the consultant. The approach and methodology shall be highly weighted
when using the QBS method, otherwise the staffing takes precedence.

*9
ii. After commencement of the technical evaluation process, the evaluation should be
carried out independently by each member of the Evaluation Committee in accordance
with the criteria specified in the RFP, and then the Evaluation Committee should meet to
review all the evaluation results. In cases where the scores given by each member for
each proposal are different, the Evaluation Committee should examine the differences
and some members may revise their scores. The Evaluation Committee should then
calculate the average of the scores allocated by all members under each of the criteria
and establish the ranking of the technical proposals. The above process should be
meticulously recorded.

iii. To assess the qualifications of the staff members to be assigned to the project, their
curricula vitae shall be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
a. General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of positions held, length of
service with the concerned firm, etc.);
b. Suitability for the assignment/project (experience of performing the similar duties which
will be assigned to them during the assignment/project); and
c. Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country in which the work is to
be performed or experience in similar environments.

iv. Additional criteria may be applied depending on the nature of the assignment. In
such cases, additional criteria may include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Suitability of Knowledge Transfer


Suitability of the transfer of knowledge (training) programs.

b. Support Facilities and Organization


Support facilities and organization of the consultants, including support resources at
Head office, such as specialised technical assistance or materials testing equipment.

c. Local Participation
Participation by Zambian nationals among proposed key staff in terms of percentage.

d. Proposal Presentation
The intellectual and technical soundness of the technical proposal, its organization and
completeness making it easy to assess.

The weight distribution of additional criteria should be determined by taking into


account their relative importance to the assignment, while each additional criterion
should normally not exceed 10 points out of 100 points.
*10
v. In its evaluation of technical proposals, RDA shall use numerical ratings and prepare an
evaluation report including a summary evaluation sheet as soon as possible. The
evaluation report shall normally give detailed information on the following items,
supplementing the summary evaluation sheet:
a. Composition of the Evaluation Committee responsible for the evaluation of proposals
and any auxiliary orders which govern its functions;
b. the minutes of the opening of technical proposals;
c. the results of the preliminary examination, with reasons why any proposals were
rejected;
d. the technical scores awarded by each evaluator for each proposal;
e. a summary of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal;
f. an analysis of any significant discrepancies or inconsistencies in scoring and an
explanation of any adjustments made to the scores;
g. the total technical score for each proposal;
h. a list of the proposals which reached the minimum technical qualifying mark and a
recommendation to open the financial proposals of the bidders; and
i. a recommendation to reject all proposals which did not reach the minimum technical
qualifying mark.

vi. A proposal shall be rejected at this stage if the technical proposal fails to achieve the
minimum technical score or is considered non-responsive to the invitation requirements
(preliminary examination).

C. Review and Approval of Results of Technical Evaluation


The results of evaluation of the technical proposals and its recommendations shall be
reviewed and approved by the Procurement Committee and/or other relevant approvals
authority. In the case of QCBS, the review and approval shall be given before opening of the
financial proposals. In the case of QBS, the review and approval shall be given before
opening the financial proposal of the highest-ranked consultant, and initiating any pre-
contract negotiations.

*11
D. Evaluation of Financial Proposals
The evaluation procedures relating to financial proposals are applicable only to QCBS. Under
QBS, after evaluation of the technical proposals has been completed, the highest-ranked
consultant is invited for contract negotiations.
vi. Cost Estimate
The cost estimate for consulting services shall be made by adding the remuneration for
consultant staff and the direct expenses incurred by them during the execution of their
assignment. Those figures are built up by computing the staff time (expert per unit of time,
[hour, day, week or month]), required to carry out the services and an estimate of each related
cost component. Since this estimate is derived from the information contained in the TORs,
the more exhaustive and detailed the TORs are, the more precise the estimate will be. A
mismatch between the cost estimate and the TORs may generate problems during the
execution of consulting services and the implementation of a project. The adequacy of the
cost estimate should be agreed between RDA and relevant approvals authority by fully taking
into account the constituents of the project and the contents of the TORs.

In general, a cost estimate includes items relating to the following:


a. Consultant staff remuneration
b. Mobilization, demobilization, travel and transport
c. Per diem charge and cost of accommodation
d. Communications
e. Office rent, supplies, operation and maintenance
f. Surveys and training programs
g. Report printing
h. Contingencies, etc.

vii. Public Opening of Financial Proposals


The consultants that have secured the minimum qualifying technical score will be advised of
the location, date, and time for opening of the financial proposals. The financial proposals
shall be opened publicly in the presence of the consultants’ representatives who choose to
attend. The name of the consultants, the technical scores, and the proposed prices shall be
announced and recorded by RDA.

viii. Evaluation of Financial Proposals and Determination of Financial Score


In determining the financial score, RDA shall review the congruency of the technical and
financial proposals, make adjustments as appropriate, and correct arithmetical or
computational errors. The lowest evaluated financial proposal will receive the maximum
*12
score of 100 points. The score for each other financial proposal is inversely proportional to its
evaluated total price, using the formula provided in the RFP.

Sample Formula (normally used)


Sf = 100 x Fm/F, in which “Sf” is the financial score, “Fm” is the lowest price, and
“F” the price of the proposal under consideration.
E. Determination of Combined Scores and Ranking of Proposals
The combined scores shall be obtained by applying the prescribed weighting and adding the
technical and financial scores; this will determine the overall ranking of the consultants’
proposals. The weight for the “cost” shall be chosen, taking into account the complexity of
the assignment and the relative importance of quality. It shall normally be 20%, but may be
varied and shall be as prescribed in the RFP. The weight for quality and cost, and the
methodology to calculate the total score shall also be as expressed in the RFP.

Sample Formula (normally used)


S = St x T% + Sf x P% where, proposals are finally ranked (S = final score) according to
their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf) scores using the weights (T = the weight
given to the Technical Proposal; P = the weight given to the Financial Proposal; T + P = 1).

If financial proposals contain unreasonably low prices, RDA should ask the consultant
concerned for clarification of such an offer and should receive answers from the consultant to
ensure appropriate execution during the contract implementation stage, before concluding the
combined evaluation.
F. Review and Approval of Final Results of the Combined Evaluation
The final results of evaluation of proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the
Procurement Committee or other relevant approvals authority before initiating contract
negotiations with the highest-ranked consultant.
G. Negotiations
RDA shall invite the highest-ranked consultant to enter into negotiations on the final
provisions of both the TORs of the assignment and conditions of contract between the parties.
When QCBS is applied, the negotiations will commence only after review and approval of
the final results of the combined evaluation of the proposals, and, in the case of QBS,
negotiations will commence after review and approval of the technical evaluation.
For further guidance on the scope and procedures for negotiations, refer to Regulations 75
and 76 of the Public Procurement Regulations of 2011.

*13
4. Evaluation of Technical Proposals

Table 4.1 below shows the general examples for the range of points allocated to the criteria
on a scale of 1 to 100. The actual weight may be adjusted to the characteristics of the
specific project. The points allocated to each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion should be
specified in the RFP and no deviation shall be allowed.
Table 4.1: Point Distribution of Evaluation Criteria for Technical Proposals
Evaluation Criteria Points (weights)

(a) Specific experience of the consultants 10 to 20


(b) Adequacy/quality of proposed methodology/work plan 20 to 50
(c) Qualifications and competence of key staff 30 to 60
(d) Suitability of knowledge transfer – optional Normally not exceed 10
(e) Support facilities and organization – optional Normally not exceed 10
(f) Local participation – optional Normally not exceed 10
(g) Proposal presentation – optional Normally not exceed 10
Total 100

The evaluation criteria other than (c), i.e., (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) may also be divided into
sub-criteria, but such division should be limited only to the essential factors. The use of
excessively detailed lists of sub-criteria may render the evaluation more of a mechanical
exercise than a professional assessment of the proposals. It is recommended that the number
of sub-criteria be kept to a minimum if need be (typically no more than three for each
criterion) and that no fewer than three points be allocated to each sub-criterion.

Table 4.2: Evaluation Criteria and Sample Sub-criteria for Technical Proposals
Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Sub-criteria (select a maximum of three)
a. Specific experience of the i. Experience in projects of comparable size, complexity and technical
Consultant specialisation
ii. Experience in developing countries under comparable conditions
iii. Experience in Road Sector projects in Zambia
b. Adequacy/quality of proposed i. Technical approach and methodology
methodology and work plan ii. Work plan
iii. Organization and staffing
c. Qualifications and competence i. General qualifications
of Key Staff ii. Adequacy for the Assignment
iii. Relevant experience in the region
d. Suitability of knowledge transfer i. Relevance of program
(optional) ii. Training approach and methodology
iii. Qualifications of experts and trainers
e. Support facilities and i. Relevance of support facilities and organization
organization (optional) ii. Support approach and methodology
iii. Qualifications of support specialists
f. Local Participation (optional) i. Proportion of Zambian citizens amongst key staff
ii. Proportion of individuals resident in Zambia
g. Proposal presentation (optional) i. Intellectual and technical soundness
ii. Organization and completeness

NOTE
The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria shall be treated as defined in the RFP and cannot be changed.
*14
A. Specific Experience of the Consultant
The relative importance of the criterion on consultant’s general experience and record in the
field covered by the TOR will vary according to the type of consulting services to be
performed. In general, points allocated to the criterion should be 20 points at a maximum.
ix. Setting the Grades
Since all consultants are on the Short List based on their experience, they are not normally
rated at less than "Average", that is not less than 60%. The recommended grades and
percentage rating for the consultant’s general experience and record in the field covered by
the TOR are shown in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 Recommended Grades and Percentage of Rating

Grade Percentage Rating2

Excellent 95-100%
Good 80-90%
Average 60-75%
Below Average 30-50%
Poor 0-20%

x. Defining the Grades


Sample definitions of each grade are given below.3

Excellent: The consultant has outstanding experience in respect of:


(i) projects of a similar nature with the complexity and technical specialty of the
assignment,
(ii) projects of a comparable in size (e.g. volume of man-months, volume of contract
amount, etc.), and
(iii) projects in a region or a country with physical and institutional conditions similar to
those of the project location in Zambia.

Good: The consultant has experience in respect to all three aspects mentioned above, but
experience in one aspect could be considered insufficient.

Average: The consultant has experience in respect to all three aspects mentioned above,
but experience in two or more aspects could be considered insufficient.

2
Based on the ratings as guided herein, the Evaluation Committee must discuss and agree the aspects to be considered in relation to the grading,
prior to commencement of the independent evaluation of the proposals.
3
Sample definitions are examples and introduced for reference purpose only. Whenever possible, each the Evaluation Committee must discuss and
agree the aspects to be considered in relation to the definitions, prior to commencement of the independent evaluation of the proposals.

*15
Below Average: The consultant has experience in respect to only two aspects mentioned
above, with no experience in one of the aspects.
Poor: The consultant has experience in respect to only one aspect mentioned above, with
no experience in two of the aspects.

B. Adequacy/Quality of Proposed Methodology & Work Plan


The criterion on adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan should be
evaluated carefully as it is the key factors for evaluating the proposals.

i. Setting the Grades


The recommended grades and percentage rating for the adequacy of the proposed approach,
methodology and work plan are shown in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4 Recommended Grades and Percentage of Rating

Grade Percentage Rating4

Excellent 95-100%
Good 80-90%
Average 60-75%
Below Average 30-50%
Poor 0-20%

ii. Defining the Grades


As mentioned in Table 4.2, sub-criteria for evaluating this component of the proposal should
usually include the following and are defined as follows: 5
(i) Technical approach and methodology

Excellent: The consultant properly understands the current situation, draws attention to
all main issues related to the assignment and raises other important issues that have not
been considered in the TOR. The proposal details ways to solve all issues by using
advanced and innovative approach and methodology.

Good: The consultant properly understands the current situation and the main issues
related to the assignment. The approach and methodology to solve the issues are
discussed in detail.

4
Based on the ratings as guided herein, the Evaluation Committee must discuss and agree the aspects to be considered in relation to the grading,
prior to commencement of the independent evaluation of the proposals.
5
These definitions are not included as examples for reference purpose only and should be applied with minimum discussion, if any.

*16
Average: The consultant understands the requirement indicated in the TOR. The approach
and methodology to solve the issues are consistent. However, the approach and
methodology are standard and not discussed in detail or not specifically tailored to the
assignment.

Below Average: The consultant does not have a proper understanding of the TOR and the
issues are not appropriately discussed. The approach and methodology do not have
consistency and are inappropriately presented.

Poor: The consultant misunderstands the requirement indicated in the TOR and
important aspects of the scope of consulting services. Approach and methodology do not
comply with the requirement in the TOR.

(ii) Work plan

Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under “Good”, the proposal includes
an impressive presentation of the work plan for efficient execution of the assignment. The
proposed work plan is consistent with the approach and methodology.

Good: The work plan responds well to the TOR. The timing and duration of all activities
are appropriate and consistent with the assignment output, and the interrelation between
various activities is realistic and consistent with the proposed approach and methodology.

Average: The work plan responds to the TOR and all required activities are indicated in
the activity schedule, but they are not detailed.

Below Average: Some activities required in the TOR are omitted in the work plan or the
timing and duration of activities are not appropriate. There are minor inconsistencies
between timing, assignment output, and proposed approach and methodology.

Poor: There are major inconsistencies between the requirements in the TOR and the
proposed work plan.

(iii) Organization and staffing

Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under “Good”, the proposal includes
an impressive presentation of a well thought out organization and staffing plan. The
proposed team is well integrated and has good support organization.

Good: The organization chart and staffing schedule is complete and detailed, and the
technical level and composition of the staffing arrangements are very well balanced. The
definition of duties and responsibilities are very clear. The staffing schedule is consistent
with the work plan and the timing and duration of each staff’s assignment are adequate.

*17
Average: The proposed organization and staffing arrangement is complete and detailed
enough to meet all the requirements of the TOR.

Below Average: The proposed organization and staffing arrangement is not detailed and
the assignment schedule of each staff is not adequate. For instance, there are
inconsistencies between the staffing schedule and the required output. Organization and
staffing arrangement not tailored to the proposed approach, methodology and work plan.

Poor: The organization and staffing arrangement is not responsive to the requirement of
the TOR at all. It is assumed that the required output cannot be appropriately prepared
within the period of the assignment.

C. Qualifications and Competence of Key Staff

The criterion on adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan should be
evaluated carefully as it is the key factors for evaluating the proposals.
i. Setting the Grades
The recommended grades and percentage rating for the experience and records of the key
staff members to be assigned to the work are shown in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 Recommended Grades and Percentage Rating (Qualifications/Competence)

Grade Percentage rating


Excellent 100%
Good 90%
Average 70%
Below Average 40%
Poor 0%

ii. Defining the Grades


As shown in Table 4.2, sub-criteria for evaluating this component of the proposal shall
include the following:
(i) General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of position held,
length of service with the firm, etc.);
(ii) Suitability for the project (experiences of performing the duties which will be
assigned to them in the project);
(iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country
Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country in which the work is to
be performed or experience in similar environments.

*18
Sample definitions of each grade are enumerated below:6

(i) General qualifications

Excellent: The proposed expert has 20 years or more of professional experience and an
educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment.

Good: The proposed expert has 15 years or more of professional experience and an
educational background or professional qualification in the field of assignment.

Average: The proposed expert has 10 years or more of professional experience and
educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment.

Below Average: The proposed expert has less than 10 years of professional experience
but has an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of
assignment.

Poor: The proposed expert has less than 3 years of professional experience and does not
have an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment.

(ii) Suitability for the project

Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under “Good”, the majority of the
proposed expert's experience on previous assignments in the past 10 years has been in
positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment.

Good: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the
assignment in more than 3 projects of a similar nature in the past 10 years.

Average: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the
assignment in 2 projects of a similar nature in the past 10 years.

Below Average: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for
the assignment in at least 1 project of a similar nature in the past 10 years.

Poor: The proposed expert does not have any experience in holding positions similar to
the one proposed for the assignment in the past 10 years.

(iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the region/province.

Excellent: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the
assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental
organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for more than 3 years in total.

6 Sample definitions are examples and introduced for reference purpose only.
*19
Good: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the
assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and
governmental organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for 2 years or more but less
than 3 years in total.
Average: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the
assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental
organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for 1 year or more but less than 2 years in total.
Below Average: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the
assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental
organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for less than 1 year in total.
Poor: The proposed expert does not have any experience working in the region/province
for the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and
governmental organizations similar to the ones of the country of the assignment.7

7 Optional Evaluation Criteria may be treated in a similar manner prior to commencement of evaluation.
*20
5. Completion of Evaluation of Technical Proposals
The evaluation results of technical proposals are detailed in an evaluation report including a
summary technical evaluation sheet and evaluation sheets for staff members of each
consultant. After the technical quality is evaluated, consultants whose technical proposals
did not meet the minimum qualifying score, or were considered non-responsive to the
invitation requirements, will not be considered further.
Table 5.1 Summary Technical Evaluation Sheet
Consultant XXX YYY ZZZ
Evaluation Criteria Points Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
(P) (R)% (P x R) (R)% (P x R) (R)% (P x R)
-I Consultant's general
experience and record in the 20 14.40 19.20 18.80
field covered by the TOR
(i) Experience in projects of 8 70 5.6 90 7.2 100 8.0
comparable size,
complexity and technical
specialisation
(ii) Experience in developing 8 90 7.2 100 8.0 90 7.2
countries under
comparable conditions
(iii) Experience in Road 4 40 1.6 100 4.0 90 3.6
Sector projects
II Adequacy of the proposed
approach, methodology and 30 19.20 25.80 23.40
work plan
(i) Technical Approach and 12 70 8.4 90 10.8 70 8.4
methodology
(ii) Work plan 12 70 8.4 90 10.8 90 10.8
(iii) Organization and staffing 6 40 2.4 70 4.2 70 4.2
III Experience and records of
the staff members to be 50 35.30 43.48 39.52
assigned to the work
International
(i) Team leader 15 11.10 13.80 12.90
(ii) Road engineer 7 6.02 7.00 6.30
(iii) Transport economist 5 3.20 4.10 3.50
(iv) Environmental specialist 5 3.50 4.10 3.70
Local
(i) Road engineer 6 4.44 5.52 4.80
(ii) Transport economist 4 2.96 2.96 3.12
(iii) Environmental specialist 4 2.24 2.96 2.96
(iv) Social specialist 4 1.84 3.04 2.24
Total 100 68.90 88.48 81.72

Y The rating and score of each member of staff based on the three sub-criteria are shown in the
technical evaluation sheet for staff members, and the relevant scores are transferred to the
summary technical evaluation sheet.
Y The minimum technical score is 70 point, in this example.

NOTE
Consultant XXX, which failed to achieve the minimum technical score, is rejected at the stage of evaluation
of the technical proposals.

*21
Evaluation sheets for staff members are prepared for each consultant to show the evaluation
results based on the three sub-criteria on qualifications and competence of staff. The score
of each expert in the evaluation sheet for staff members of each consultant is transferred to
the summary technical evaluation sheet.
An example of a completed evaluation sheet for staff members of Consultant YYY is shown
in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2 Evaluation Sheet for Staff Members

Consultant YYY

Familiarity with the


Sub-criteria General qualifications Suitability for the project language and the Sub-
(20%) (60%) conditions of the country Total
(20%)
Total Points Rating Score Points Rating Score Points Rating Score
Position
Points (P) (R)% (P x R) (P) (R)% (P x R) (P) (R)% (P x R)
International
(i) Team leader 15 3.0 100 3.00 9.0 90 8.10 3.0 90 2.70 13.80
(ii) Road 7 1.4 100 1.40 4.2 100 4.20 1.4 100 1.40 7.00
engineer
(iii) Transport 5 1.0 70 0.70 3.0 90 2.70 1.0 70 0.70 4.10
economist
(iv) Environment 5 1.0 70 0.70 3.0 90 2.70 1.0 70 0.70 4.10
specialist
Local
(i) Road 6 1.2 90 1.08 3.6 90 3.24 1.2 100 1.20 5.52
engineer
(ii) Transport 4 0.8 70 0.56 2.4 70 1.68 0.8 90 0.72 2.96
economist
(iii) Environment 4 0.8 70 0.56 2.4 70 1.68 0.8 90 0.72 2.96
specialist
(iv) Social 4 0.8 70 0.56 2.4 70 1.68 0.8 100 0.80 3.04
specialist
Sub-Total 50 8.56 25.98 8.94 43.48

NOTE
Once the final combined scores for each proposal have been calculated, they can be ranked
from highest to lowest. In the event two or more proposals have the same scores in the final
ranking of proposals, the proposal with the highest technical score will be ranked higher and
the next highest technical score will be ranked lower. After the final ranking, the highest-
ranked consultant will be invited for contract negotiations.

*22
6. Negotiations
A. Outline of Negotiation Procedures

RDA shall invite the highest-ranked consultant to enter into negotiations on the conditions
of a contract between them, in the case of QCBS, after the relevant approvals authority’s
review and approval of the final results and recommendations, and, in the case of QBS, after
the relevant approvals authority’s review and approval of the technical evaluation report.
When QBS is applied, discussions concerning costs and other financial matters shall be
conducted only with a consultant who has been selected to be invited to enter into contract
negotiations. In the event that the financial proposal of the consultant was not submitted
together with the technical proposal, RDA notifies the consultant with the highest technical
score and requests that the consultant submit its financial proposal.
When QCBS is applied, RDA notifies the consultant whose proposal has obtained the
highest total score and invites the selected consultant for negotiations. Negotiations may be
carried out in phases, when decisions are needed from other authorities. RDA should
prepare minutes of the negotiations and include these as part of all contracts.
If RDA and the highest-ranked consultant are unable to reach agreement on a contract
within a reasonable time, RDA may terminate the negotiations with the highest-ranked
consultant and invite the consultant who ranked second in the evaluation to enter into
negotiations after obtaining the relevant approvals authority’s approval. This procedure
shall be followed until RDA reaches agreement with a consultant.

B. Items Subject to Negotiation

i. Technical Negotiations

The technical negotiations will neither substantially alter the Terms of Reference included
in the RFP, nor the technical proposals submitted by the consultant.
Negotiations may include clarifications of the following:
• Scope of work
• Technical approach and methodology
• Work plan and schedule
• Organization and personnel
• Deliverables
• Counterpart staff and facilities
• Contract special conditions

*23
While there should be some flexibility in work plans, staff assignment and major work
inputs which have been previously agreed on as appropriate for the assignment, these shall
not be materially modified to meet budget constraints. RDA and the consultants will finalize
the Terms of Reference, personnel schedule, work schedule, logistics and reporting
requirements. These documents will then be incorporated in the contract as “Description of
Services.” Special attention will be paid to clearly defining the inputs and facilities required
from RDA to ensure satisfactory implementation of the assignment.

During contract negotiations, the consultant shall assure RDA that the staff will be actually
available. RDA will not consider substitutions during contract negotiations unless both
parties agree that undue delay in the selection process makes such substitution unavoidable
or for reasons such as death or medical incapacity. Any proposed substitute shall have
equivalent or better qualifications and experience than the original candidate.

ii. Financial Negotiations


The financial negotiations shall be reasonable in order to keep consistency between the
quality and the price of the services. The financial negotiations will include a clarification
(if any) of the consultant’s tax liability and obligations in Zambia, and the manner in which
it will be reflected in the contract. In cases where local taxes to be paid by the consultant are
excluded in the financial proposal, they will not be evaluated, but they will be discussed at
contract negotiations, and applicable amounts will be included in the Contract.
When QCBS is applied, proposed unit rates for remuneration shall not be altered since they
have been factors in the selection process. The financial negotiations will, as necessary,
fine-tune duration of the expert’s inputs and quantities of items of reimbursable expenses
that may be increased or decreased from the relevant amounts shown or agreed otherwise in
the financial proposal, but without significant alterations.

When the QBS method is used, the financial negotiations will include a detailed review of
all the consultant’s proposed costs including a review of all documentation provided by the
consultant in support of proposed costs. In particular, the consultants shall provide full
details of the remuneration of all nominated experts. However, unless there are exceptional
reasons, the financial negotiations will not involve the remuneration rates for experts.

*24

You might also like