6.1 This chapter details how responses during the dialogue period and to the IFT should be compared and evaluated leading up to the selection of the preferred bidder. Evaluating the available options is extremely important and must be carried out with care and objectivity.
6.2 The evaluation framework and criteria used during the procurement process should be consistent at every stage. The details of evaluation at each stage of the the dialogue process and IFT should always be explained to participants in the documentation that is issued at that stage. It must be consistent with the evaluation criteria indicated within the OJEU and pre-qualification documentation.
6.3 Proposals which are submitted in the course of the dialogue need not cover "all matters necessary for the performance of the contract" as this is only a requirement at the Final Tender stage. The evaluation of such proposal must nevertheless be based upon the award criteria specified in the OJEU notice or "descriptive documents."
6.4 Clearly, if not all elements are considered when evaluating proposals in the course of the dialogue then not all elements of the award criteria will be relevant. For example, the first stage of the dialogue may not consider price although price will inevitably be one award criterion, to be applied at a later stage.
6.5 The award criteria themselves and their relative importance should not change in the course of the process - as this would be contrary to the principles of equal treatment and transparency. There should however, be sufficient scope within the weightings attached to the criteria to take account of the flexible nature of the dialogue phase and the fact that not all elements of the contract may be considered when reducing the number of participants and/or solutions in the course of the dialogue. It may therefore be preferable to express the weighting attributable to award criteria as a range (as is permitted by the Directive) to cover any variance in weightings applicable at the successive stages of the dialogue and the Final Tender processes.
6.6 In addition, and to observe principles of transparency and equality, it should be clear to participants at each stage of the process (whether during the dialogue or subsequently) the criteria which will be applied when evaluating proposals and the applicable weighting for that particular stage.
6.7 Key points to note include:
• evaluation criteria must relate to the merits of the submissions and Final Bids received and not to the economic and financial standing or technical capacity of the bidder. These issues should have been dealt with at the prequalification stage. However, account may be taken of a significant change in a bidder's financial, economic and/or technical status;
• evaluation criteria must be impartial and auditable;
• commissioning health bodies should interview consortia as part of the evaluation process.