An important feature of a transparent and accountable competitive bid process is consistency in the development and application of bid evaluation criteria. Consistency will be best achieved and maintained where clear procedures are documented in advance, there is a thorough understanding of such procedures by the government project team and there is continuity over the term of the project in the personnel who make up the government project team and its advisors.
Prior to the commencement of the competitive bid process, the government should establish a set of high level objectives for the bid process. These objectives should be understood from the outset by all participants in the public private partnership process. Actions taken and positions adopted by the government and proponents during the course of the bid process should be consistent with those objectives.
These objectives should be translated into a set of bid evaluation criteria for inclusion in the bid documents. Bid evaluation criteria may take two forms-relative criteria against which bids will receive a ranking (e.g. high, medium, low) and pass/fail criteria.
Bid evaluation criteria should be expressed simply and clearly, and should capture all the considerations that the government intends to take into account when evaluating bids. Once communicated to proponents, the evaluation criteria should not be amended unless circumstances change so significantly as to make it absolutely necessary to do so. In this regard, the government should however retain the explicit right in the bid documents to amend the criteria where necessary. Any changes to the evaluation criteria should be communicated to proponents as early as possible in the process to allow them sufficient time to incorporate appropriate changes in their bid. In any event, the evaluation criteria must not be amended following the receipt of bids.
All proponents must be treated fairly and on an equitable basis. Accordingly, it is critical that evaluation criteria are applied consistently and transparently to all proponents and to all bids to prevent any actual or perceived discrimination. To facilitate this, the process by which bids are to be evaluated should be fully documented in advance of bids being received, with a clear allocation of responsibility between:
• the evaluation committee which is responsible for evaluating the expressions of interest and binding bids and making recommendations as to the shortlisted and preferred proponent(s)
• the project steering committee which will consider the recommendations of the evaluation committee and, if it supports them, endorse those recommendations for consideration by Cabinet
• Cabinet (or a subcommittee of Cabinet) which will make determinations having regard to the recommendations of the evaluation committee.
The hierarchy of analysis and approval is designed to ensure that decisions are scrutinised rigorously and authorised at an appropriate level within government.
The principal aim of the competitive bid process is to deliver a private sector proposal that offers best value for money in meeting the output specification. Each bid must be evaluated against the evaluation criteria and an evaluation report prepared for consideration by the steering committee and Cabinet. The evaluation report should clearly document why proponents were or were not assessed as having met the evaluation criteria.