1. Nazaneen I. Ali Sr. Procurement Specialist

2. Main characteristics of QCBS Both quality & cost aspects taken into account Allows to determine the right weight to be given to quality vs. cost: 70% <T < 90% 30% > F > 10% N = T x N(tech) + F x N(fin) If F > 30%  cost will prevail on quality Rejection of technical proposal if N(tech) < min. technical score required (generally not less than 75%) QCBS not suitable for: Complex or highly specialized assignments where ToR cannot be defined precisely & where innovation is expected OR high downstream impact OR assignment that could be carried out in different ways (  QBS) Simple assignments Small assignments 2

3. Process: Selection of consultants (QCBS) Prepare Terms of Reference (ToR) & budget Advertise: “Request for Expression of interest” Evaluate “Expressions of interest” & establish a short list Issue a “Request for Proposals” (RFP) to short listed firms Receipt of proposals & opening of “Technical Proposals” Technical Evaluation Report Public Opening of Financial Proposals Evaluation of Financial Proposals Preparation of the combined technical and financial evaluation report Negotiations of the contract Award to the selected firm. 3

4. EOI & Short List Preparation RFP Preparation Receipt of Proposals Evaluation of Tech Proposals PUBLIC OPENING- Financial Evaluation Award Recommendation NEGOTIATIONS Contract Signature Contract Closing CONSULTANTS timeline, not in scale Start process -GPN EN Contract Implementation

5. Selection of Consultants - Process Preparation of the Short List Request for Proposals Receipt and Evaluation of Proposals Negotiation and Award of Contract Required Approvals 5

6. Selection Steps Advertisement Receipt of applications Evaluation of applications/short-list preparation (6 firms) Request for Proposals Submission of proposals/opening of technical proposals Evaluation of technical proposals Opening of financial proposals and consolidated evaluation Contract award (following negotiation)

7. Short list preparation Solicitation of expressions of interest through advertisement Short List prepared of 6 candidates (firms alone or in association) which are the best qualified (on basis of their experience) Short list of 6 candidates (firms alone or in association) which are qualified (on basis of their experience)

8. Request for Proposals RFP must include: a) Letter of Invitation b) Instructions to Consultants c) Terms of Reference d) Draft contract e) Standard Forms for the proposal Standard RFP available for all selection modes

9. Information to Consultants Shall contain necessary information to prepare responsive proposals Render selection process transparent (list evaluation criteria and respective weights and minimum acceptable quality score) Expected key staff inputs (not budget since cost is one of the selection criteria) Proposed validity time (60 - 90 days)

10. Terms of Reference CONTENTS Background information Review of Previous Work Statement of Objectives Scope of Work needed Key Experts Positions and Minimal Requirements (optional) Scheduling and Relationship to other Work Data and Reports available Inputs provided by Client Expected Outputs by Consultant TOR not to be too detailed or inflexible thereby allowing consultants to propose own methodology and staffing

11. Receipt and Evaluation of Proposals Preparation time: 45 to 60 days Selection based on technical quality with price consideration Proposal submitted in two envelopes (technical proposal and price proposal) Opening of technical proposals only (price proposals kept sealed)

12. Evaluation of Proposals Evaluation of technical proposals by an evaluation committee 3-6 competent and independent members, (with no conflicts of interest)

13. Criteria for technical evaluation Relevant experience of candidate in the field of the assignment (optional 0-10 pts) Quality of the methodology proposed (20-50 pts) Qualification of key staff proposed (30-60 pts) Quality of transfer of knowledge (optional 0-10 pts) Participation by Nationals (optional 0-10 pts) Max. Possible:100 pts

14. Technical Evaluation (cont’d) Reject non-responsive proposals or those scoring below quality threshold established in RFP Evaluation report of Quality of Proposals: establishes relative ranking of proposals and explains weaknesses/strengths (Individual Marks sheets to be attached)

15. Opening of Price Proposals After completion of technical evaluation Opening of the price proposals of those candidates who passed technical evaluation

16. Evaluation of Price Proposals Verification of responsiveness to RFP Verification of conformity with Technical Proposal Computation errors to be corrected, if any Treatment of taxes and duties Price Score of 100 points max. (inverse proportion formulae)

17. Consolidated Evaluation Formula combining Technical and Financial Scores : Final Score= a* Nt+ b* Nf a: weight of Technical quality (0.8) b: weight of price (0.2)

18. Negotiation and Award of Contract Invitation of top ranked candidate to negotiate a contract Negotiation sequence Final TOR (without substantially changing original TOR) Comments made by Consultants Work Program Staffing proposed Final TOR and agreed methodology to be incorporated in “Description of Services” which becomes part of the Contract

19. Negotiation Price Negotiation usually restricted to treatment of taxes Possibly, terms of payment, price adjustment formula

20. Main Types of Contracts Lump Sum Contract Content & duration of assignment defined Payments linked to outputs Easy to administer Time-based contract Scope & length of services hard to define Services related to activities by others for which completion date may vary Hard to assess the input of consultants to reach objective of assignment Payment on agreed hourly/daily/monthly rate for staff+ reimbursable expenses (actual or agreed rate) Max. amount of contract Need close contract monitoring 20

21. EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY By committee of 3 or more specialists  SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE OF FIRMS ( 5 - 10 points)  Relevant assignment, similar size, complexity, technology, environment  METHODOLOGY (20 - 50 points)  Schedules, responsiveness to TOR, logistics, backstopping, innovativeness, level of detail  QUALIFICATION OF KEY STAFF (30 - 60 points)  Team composition, professional qualifications/experience, suitability, local knowledge, language, training, permanent staff  TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE (0 - 10 points)  EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION BY NATIONALS AMONGST KEY STAFF (0 - 10 points)

22. EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY (cont.)  Interviews for team leader/key staff may be conducted  Reject non-responsive proposals or those scoring below quality threshold established in RFP  Evaluation report of Quality of Proposals: establishes relative ranking of proposals and explains weaknesses/strengths (Relative Marks sheets to be kept until project completion and its audit)

23. EVALUATION OF COST Upon receipt of Bank’s no-objection to Quality Evaluation:  Return unopened the financial envelopes of non- responsive consultants and those scoring below threshold  Notify consultants that scored above threshold of date and time set for opening of financial envelopes (not before 2 weeks from notification)  Announce name of consultant, quality score and offeredprice and prepare minutes of public opening  Correct arithmetic errors, convert to single currency as per RFP

24. EVALUATION OF COST (cont.)  For evaluation purposes cost excludes local taxes but includes reimbursables, etc.  A direct proportional or other methodology (as established by RFP) may be followed to allocate marks for the cost element  Proposal with highest total score is selected and invited for negotiations The weight for cost is allocated depending on complexity of assignment but normally between 10 and 20 (not to exceed 30) Evaluation process to be confidential

25. TECHNICAL EVALUATION SUMMARY EVALUATION SHEET (Example)

26. EVALUATION REPORT (Example) Combined Technical Scores and Price (Summary)

27. SAMPLE BREAKDOWN OF MONTHLY RATES * (Based on Audited Statements)

28. SAMPLE SOCIAL COSTS

29. SAMPLE OVERHEAD - (Business Costs of Firm)

30. Case Study: Tied Scores The Borrower sends an evaluation report to the Bank indicating that two firms, A and B, are tied at 81 points each, following a technical and financial evaluation. The Bank insists that the evaluation be refined, using decimal points, to identify the winner. It carries out its own evaluation which includes correcting small computational errors and using two decimal points. The above is summarized in the following table: The Borrower reacts as follows: “You advised us to redo the technical evaluation of firms A and B by adding decimal points, so as to be able to reach a final decision. However, we still think that, in the case Firms A and B achieve the same final scores (81 points here), the decision should not be made by refining the scores using decimal points, which would be artificial.

31. If we make a decision using decimal points, Firm B, which is ranked second technically by a substantial margin (76.0 points versus 83.3 points for Firm A ), wins the bidding. We think, however, that Firm’s B proposal does not provide enough quality assurances. We think that Firm B’s score was overestimated due to the inexperience of the members of the evaluation committee. The difference in price proposals of both proposals is not due to a difference in the unit costs proposed by both consultants, but to differences in input (working hours). As a result Firm B is ranked number one finally. We fear that this bid could result in a poor performance and work quality and, as a result, force us to extend the contract. Considering the above, we prefer that the evaluation be carried out without using any decimal points, which will result in the firms achieving a tied score of 81 points for both firms; and we propose to select Firm A which presents the higher technical score (although more expensive but exceeding only marginally the estimated budget for this assignment). We regret to inform you that if we do not reach an agreement with this present case, the project authority intends to proceed with the cancellation of the selection process. This will have a substantial negative impact on the project which is closing soon and badly needs this information technology support.” Questions: (i) Did the Bank react correctly? (ii) Can the Bank accept the Borrower’s proposal?

32. Case Study: Proposing an Additional Element After the technical evaluation under Quality and Cost Based Selection, Firm A scored 86 points and Firm B scored 82 points on their respective proposals. In the financial proposal, Firm A requested Euro1.2 million and Firm B requested Euro1.7 million to do the proposed work. Because Firm B additionally proposed a training program in its technical proposal, the Borrower adds Euro 0.2 million to the proposal of Firm A and starts negotiations. Firm B protests to the Bank. Question: What should the Bank do?

33. Thank you