Evaluation Process Overview CPD-Health Projects Procurement and Cost Advisory Branch June 2016

Objective To provide an overview of the PQQ/ Tender Evaluation Process To ensure that all personnel are aware of their role in the process

Evaluation Process The evaluation of PQQ’s and Tenders is a crucial stage in the procurement process It is essential that those engaged in procuring goods, services or works ensure that the evaluation of its tenders is in accordance with: a)Applicable international and national rules that regulate the procurement process i.e. EC Treaty, EU Directives, UK Public Contracts Regulations 2015 b)Northern Ireland Public Procurement Policy c)Probity Standards

3 Steps of Evaluation 1.Qualification Stage – criteria for the rejection of suppliers 2.Selection Stage – Selection of the suppliers who are capable of fulfilling the requirement 3.Award stage – Awarded on the basis of lowest acceptable price or Most Economically Advantageous Tender

Qualification & Selection – Look “backwards” Qualification – Is there a reason not to deal with the supplier, e.g. Criminality, bankruptcy, professional / gross misconduct, non-payment of taxes etc. Selection – Economic / financial standing, technical and professional ability

Award – looks “forward” The evaluation is about the proposed solution. The supplier has already demonstrated that they are capable of meeting the need. Critical – Do not mix up selection and award criteria

Evaluation Panel All members of the Evaluation Panel must adhere to the principles underlying probity and act in a manner consistent with Northern Ireland Public Procurement Policy, the Principles of Public Life and the NICS Code of Ethics. Size, make up and experience of the Panel must reflect the scale and complexity of the activity to be evaluated, including the degree of specialist input consistent with the nature of the procurement. Evaluation Panel must have a minimum of three members. The Panel must have a Chair person. All Panel Members must sign a Conflict of Interest Declaration and panel members who are not public servants may be required to enter into a Confidentiality Agreement. A person with any external personal, professional or monetary interests in the tenders they are being asked to evaluate cannot remain on the Panel.

Principles of Public Life (1) SELFLESSNESS Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. INTEGRITY Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in in the performance of their official duties. OBJECTIVITY In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit. ACCOUNTABILITY Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Principles of Public Life (2) OPENNESS Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. HONESTY Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest. LEADERSHIP Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example. These principles apply to all aspects of public life.

Guiding Principles of Northern Ireland Public Procurement Policy (1) ACCOUNTABILITY: effective mechanisms must be in place in order to enable Departmental Accounting Officers and their equivalents in other public bodies to discharge their personal responsibility on issues of procurement risk and expenditure. COMPETITIVE SUPPLY: procurement should be carried out by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. CONSISTENCY: suppliers, should, all other things being equal, be able to expect the same general procurement policy across the public sector. EFFECTIVENESS: public bodies should meet the commercial, regulatory and socio- economic goals of government in a balanced manner appropriate to the procurement requirement. EFFICIENCY: procurement processes should be carried out as cost effectively as possible. FAIR-DEALING: suppliers should be treated fairly and without unfair discrimination, including protection of commercial confidentiality where required. Public bodies should not impose unnecessary burdens or constraints on suppliers or potential suppliers.

Guiding Principles of Northern Ireland Public Procurement Policy (2) INTEGRATION: in line with the statutory duties on equality of opportunity and sustainable development and the Executive’s policy on joined –up government, procurement policy should pay due regard to the Executive’s other economic, social and environmental policies, rather than cut across them. INTEGRITY: there should be no corruption or collusion with suppliers or others. INFORMED DECISION-MAKING: public bodies need to base decisions on accurate information and to monitor requirements to ensure that they are being met. LEGALITY: public bodies must conform to European Community and other legal requirements. RESPONSIVENESS: public bodies should endeavour to meet the aspirations, expectations and needs of the community served by the procurement. TRANSPARENCY: public bodies should ensure that there is openness and clarity on procurement policy and its delivery.

Role of Chairperson The role of the Chairperson is to: Ensure panel members are appointed who have the necessary knowledge, skills, competency and availability to carry out the evaluation Ensure panel members have no conflict of interest at all stages of the process and that the appropriate conflict of interest declarations/confidentiality agreements are completed Ensure all evaluation documents, including all evaluation comments, justifications, marks, and amendments are fully documented, signed off and dated by both the panel members and the Chairperson Ensure due cognisance is taken of the professional procurement advice provided by the CoPE Conduct a moderation exercise, if required Be available to support with debriefing of unsuccessful applicants/tenderers

Role of Panel Members The role of a Panel Member is to: Evaluate, in an open, proportionate and transparent manner each submission for evidence of how the submission meets the requirements of the selection/award criteria and to score the submission in accordance with the details contained in the PQQ/Tender Documents Confirm that they have no conflict of interest at all stages of the process and that they have completed the appropriate conflict of interest declaration/confidentiality agreement Ensure that they sign off and date all evaluation documents, including all evaluation comments, justifications, marks, and amendments Ensure due cognisance is taken of the professional procurement advice provided by the CoPE Contribute to a moderation exercise, if required Be available to support with debriefing of unsuccessful Applicants/tenderers

Evaluating the Submissions (1) Panel members must be competent evaluators: The Contracting Authority has a statutory duty to the tenderer to comply with the Procurement Directives and Contract Regulations which regulate the procurement process. All procurements are subject to the principles of the EC Treaty, in particular equality, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. Incompetence or failure to follow a fair process may lead to the tender process being subject to judicial proceedings resulting in the award being set aside, thereby incurring additional costs and delays. Where such an incident occurs as a result of an action which is known to be unlawful or carried out with indifference to the consequences by a member of the evaluation panel, the officer involved could be accused of misfeasance or malfeasance in public office, which is an indictable offence that can result in the officer being made personally liable for damages and costs awarded to an injured party.

Evaluating the Submissions (2) Misfeasance -A term used to describe an act that is legal but performed improperly. Malfeasance -The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

Competence and Fairness Requirements (1) 1.Appropriate Knowledge – panel members must have an understanding and ability to exercise judgement in: -regulatory environment and policy surrounding public procurement -use of electronic system where appropriate -requirements of the specification -contents of each offer -criteria and weightings for evaluation -evaluation process 2.The Process – panel members should: -ensure strict adherence by the bidders to the instructions given -communicate material changes in the evaluation process simultaneously to all tenderers before the closing date for receipt -assess bids independently of each other and assign their own individual scores (all bids should be marked by at least two evaluators)

Competence and Fairness Requirements (2) 3. The Process (contd) – panel members should: -use a common approach – based on standard mark sheet and guidance -use the evaluation criteria and weightings detailed in the documentation -Take care to preserve the equity of treatment between tenderers and to fully understand and document the reasons for all decisions leading to selection and rejection of bids and/or the award of the contract 4.Relevant Considerations – panel members should take into account: -all relevant considerations related to each offer including: - the tenderers’ responses to all other information that tenderers were required to supply - any variant bids offering economic advantage to the Client (where permitted) 5.Irrelevant Considerations – panel members should NOT take into account: -any irrelevant considerations related to each offer including: -anything outside the published selection/award criteria or information requested -anything at award stage which has been evaluated at selection/shortlisting stage

Competence and Fairness Requirements (3) 6.Conflicts of Interest – panel members should -not accept gifts or hospitality from tenderers and avoid contact with tenderers during the evaluation process. Note: All contact with tenderers during the evaluation process must be handled by CPD -Discuss any possible conflict of interest or issue of bias with the Chairperson – the Chairperson will decide on an appropriate course of action 7.Evidence of Probity – panel members must -mark according to strictly defined scoring mechanism/marking scheme -ignore any speculation or suspicion in relation to or personal knowledge of a tenderer when evaluating 8.Confidentiality – each bid should be viewed as commercially confidential information -The contents of bids should not be disclosed to any party outside the formal evaluation process 9.Commenting during the Tender Evaluation Process – panel members should not discuss any element of the tender evaluation process with work colleagues or any other party -the Chairperson of the panel (through CPD or CoPE) is the only permitted route for commenting to outside parties.

Undertaking the Evaluation The evaluation panel should meet to discuss the questions, prior to the return of the responses. Ensure that sufficient time is set aside for the evaluation. Read the documentation carefully. Evaluate in a quiet environment. Work independently from the other panel members. Do not compare tender submissions. Do not confer or share opinions with other panel members prior to the evaluation. Record a mark and comments that are linked to the scoring criteria.

Recording of Evaluation Scores -Panel members must record individual scores against relevant criteria, with substantiating notes. These notes will provide an audit trail and form the basis of any debrief. -Presentations: - Only used in exceptional circumstances - Only used to verify the marks awarded - Marks can only be adjusted downwards or remain the same - Their use must be outlined within the ITT documentation -The Chairperson conducts a moderation procedure, producing a score sheet of agreed scores and comments, in accordance with the procedure set out in the PQQ/tender documents. This is circulated to the panel for review. This will assist with feedback to unsuccessful applicants/tenderers, and identify any inconsistencies in marking or errors.

Panel Meetings -The panel may meet to discuss and agree the outcomes of the initial marking process and finalise recommendations. The Chairperson will prepare a formal record of all discussions and decisions taken at panel meetings. -The Contracting Authority ie the HSC Trust or Public Safety Body will not reconsider the judgement of the Evaluation Panel. The sole ground on which an appeal may normally be made is one of improper procedure. Only if investigation reveals a manifest irregularity in the process will the scores be examined.

Common Evaluation Mistakes Individual or panel comments that do not relate to the question asked. Introducing a new or previously hidden criteria. Debriefing comments that do not match the moderating panel comments. Giving to little / vague / non specific or generic feedback. Comments that to not match the score awarded e.g. “excellent response” awarded a score of 3.