DETAILED EVALUATION

21.  The detailed evaluation involves:

•  Evaluating and scoring bidder responses to a series of structured questions according to pre-defined criteria. Each question is weighted, and the weighted scores feed through into an overall quantitative assessment of:

-  technical capability (in terms of experience, working practices and structure) and

-  capacity (in terms of expertise and availability)

•  Forming a general view based on the overall impression made by the bid, which also feeds through into the overall quantitative assessment (the "General Evaluation"). The General Evaluation category could be further analysed by the development of additional PQQ questions that focus on areas such as Project Management and Delivery for the project (refer A5). NHS Boards could also include any bespoke PQQ questions in relation to their procurements and score them in this section.

•  Assessing the financial strength and economic standing of the Candidate as a whole and its individual members

22.  The PQQ is divided into sections which address:

•  the background of the bidding consortium (Section A)

•  its building contractor(s) (Section B),

•  FM provider(s) (Section C) and

•  advisers (Section D onwards).

23.  For the most, sections of the PQQ can be completed in isolation by its Relevant Organisations. The exception is Section A, containing questions on financial standing, which apply to all Relevant Organisations in the consortium.

24.  Annex 2 sets out the weightings allocated in individual questions. These may be varied by +/- 2 points per question. The specific and general scores can be integrated as per the table below, which assumes that standard weights are applied to each question.

25. In applying the scoring system the following should be borne in mind:

•  For the most part, Candidates (i.e. consortia) consist of members who deliver particular aspects of the PFI project (a construction contractor, and FM contractor and so on). The same company may provide both construction and FM (particularly hard FM). In this case, each element of the company should be scored separately in the PQQ so that its relative strengths can be evaluated in more detail;

•  Often, consortia or large contractors will employ in-house legal or financial teams. These can be evaluated separately in terms of their experience in the relevant section of the PQQ;

•  Often, within consortia, several members may contribute towards one role. This is commonly the case with FM services. Within each section, each consortium member should be evaluated separately. On aggregation the total marks for that PQQ section should be weighted to reflect the significance of each contributing member i.e. according to capital value for construction companies, or by annual service value for FM companies;

•  questions marked as non-relevant should be excluded from the evaluation and the remaining answers within the relevant PQQ section should be re-weighted;

•  The general evaluation marks can be reallocated to specific scored questions as appropriate.

26.  Certain questions in the PQQ have been allocated scores. These are set out in more detail at Annex 2. In essence, the NHS Board is evaluating the response to these questions according to how well they fit with the NHS Boards' needs for the scheme. Any evaluation needs to incorporate both the amount of evidence provided (e.g. number of previous schemes) and the quality and relevance of that information. A simple scoring system might be:

27. It is a matter for the NHS Board and its advisers to set detailed expectations against which the substance of responses can be compared for each question. This local tailoring will help ensure that NHS Boards get what they want. However, some questions require further guidance to assist in their interpretation as set out below:

•  Conflicts (A12) - the significance of conflicts of interest should be considered in the light of a consortium's other responses. On occasion, a conflict may be such that it may be sufficient to exclude the consortium. In this instance, NHS Boards should ensure that they have obtained the views of their legal advisers;

•  Financial capacity (A15) - there are a variety of accounting ratios and other analyses which can be performed on the data which the PQQ requests. NHS Boards would be expected to utilise the expertise of their financial advisers in this area. These elements are not part of the quantitative scoring, rather they are graded and considered alongside the scored areas. Refer the scoring mechanism at Page 2 Annex 2;

•  Employment (B20 - B23; C20 - C28) - several sections of the PQQ request analyses of total staff, staff engaged on PFI, grade mix and so forth. NHS Boards should form a clear idea of what they feel is necessary for their scheme. Companies should be able to demonstrate their commitment to healthcare PFI by having sufficient manpower and expertise.  There is no absolute measure for this, but clearly depending on the size and complexity of the scheme, significant company resources and expertise could be tied up. At PQQ NHS Boards must satisfy themselves that bidders are in a position to provide that commitment;

•  Funding (A16 - A19) - these questions are intended to probe the bidder's commitment to securing best value in funding terms. Maximum marks should be awarded where the bidder is committed to holding a funding competition. Less marks should be awarded if there is a clear process for the selection of a funding partner or partners. Fewer marks should be awarded to bidders that are tied to particular lenders, with no competition. The least marks would be awarded where a bidder had no lender signed up and no commitment to holding a funding competition;

•  Litigation (A10, B10 and C10) - the model PQQ probes the possible impact of litigation against bidders' capacity to deliver. The questions are aimed at the consortium generally and Relevant Organisations, individually. This approach is deliberate. A recently set up consortium may have no outstanding litigation, but its members may have. Equally, a consortium with outstanding litigation may have removed members with significant litigation records. Whilst information is required at both levels, NHS Boards should take care not to double count litigation i.e. the same case disclosed at both the consortium and member levels should only be counted once;

•  References (A11, B11 and C11) - the model PQQ asks for the names of client references to be supplied at consortium and Relevant Member levels. Depending on the level of integration and the length of time that the consortium has been constituted, references may be duplicated between sections. NHS Boards should score each reference provided in the section of the PQQ for which it is provided. This does not represent double counting as it is perfectly possible that the same reference may not give uniform views about all aspects of a consortium's deliverables.