THE WORLD BANK. Selection & Employment of Consultants in Bank Financed Projects

Transcription

1 THE WORLD BANK Selection & Employment of Consultants in Bank Financed Projects 1

2 What is a Consultant? An organization or individual providing consulting services to Borrower Consultants provide intellectual and advisory services Consultants sell the time of experts to add value. Adding value includes impartial advice, technology transfer, training. 2

3 TYPES OF CONSULTANTS PRIVATE SECTOR Individual Partnership Limited Liability (Corporation) Joint Venture PUBLIC SECTOR Government Owned Government Subsidized 3

4 TYPES OF CONSULTANTS OTHER Universities Research Institutes UN Agencies Non-Government Organizations Divisions of Manufacturers / Contractors 4

5 Categories of consultants FIRMS When there is a need for more than one individual to carry out the assignment INDIVIDUALS Teams are not required No outside support needed Individual experience and qualifications are paramount 5

6 TYPES OF CONS. SERVICES PRE INVESTMENT Sector Studies Feasibility Studies PROJECT PREPARATION Detailed Studies Design and Specifications / TORs Preparation of Bidding Documents 6

7 TYPES OF CONS. SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION Procurement Project Management Construction Supervision and Inspection Information Systems Accounting And Auditing TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Advisory Services, Studies, Training Institution & Management Analysis Capacity Building 7

8 Differences Between Procuring Goods and Works and Selecting Consultants Goods, Works, & Technical Services Product Based Consulting Services Knowledge Based Open competition Restricted competition Public opening of Bids Price is major evaluation factor Non-public opening of technical proposals Quality is major evaluation factor 8

9 Differences Between Procuring Goods and Works and Selecting Consultants (continued) Goods, Works, & Technical Services Detailed Specifications Consulting Services Terms of Reference Single-envelope procedure No negotiations Two-envelope procedure Negotiations usual 9

10 Differences Between Procuring Goods and Works and Selecting Consultants (continued) Goods, Works, & Technical Services Public Tender Opening Tender and Performance Securities Consulting Services Technical proposal opening not public Financial proposal opening public No Securities 10

11 Objectives PRINCIPAL CONSIDERATIONS High quality of advice and services Economy and efficiency Open competition (all countries, eligibility) Participation of national consultants Transparency QCBS / OTHER METHODS IN LEGAL AGREEM. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO BE AVOIDED Follow-on assignments, between assignments, etc. Competing clients 11

12 Objectives (contd.) Borrower is responsible for selecting, evaluating, awarding and supervising the consultant financed by Bank-administered grants, credits, and loans Selection is governed by the grant, credit or loan agreement Performance is governed by contract between Borrower/Client and Consultant 12

13 Role of the World Bank PRIOR REVIEW AND NO OBJECTION: Terms of Reference Budget Selection Process Letter of Invitation Evaluation Criteria Draft Contract Shortlist (or Preparation thereof) 13

14 Role of the World Bank (Contd.) PRIOR REVIEW Technical Evaluation Report *Final Evaluation Report (+Financial) to be submitted to Bank for information only. Not subject to prior review. Draft Final Contract EVALUATE PERFORMANCE OF CONSULTANTS 14

15 CONFLICT OF INTEREST (Para. 1.9) CONSULTANTS SHALL PROVIDE THEIR ADVICE HOLDING THE CLIENTS INTEREST PARAMOUNT AND AVOID CONFLICTS WITH OTHER ASSIGNMENTS/INTERESTS. THEREFORE, CONSULTANTS SHALL NOT BE HIRED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: Conflict Between Consultants Activities and Procurement of Goods, Works Or Services Conflict Among Consulting Assignments Relationship With Borrower s Staff 15

16 UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE (Para 1.10) Fairness and Transparency Are Paramount Objectives Competitive Advantage cannot Derive from Having Provided Consulting Services related to the same Project 16

17 ELIGIBILITY (Para. 1.11) CONSULTANTS FROM ALL COUNTRIES EXCEPT: Primary Boycott According to Borrower s Country Regulations UN Security Council Resolution (Chapter VII) GOVERNMENT-OWNED ENTERPRISES ARE ELIGIBLE IF THEY ARE: Financially and Legally Autonomous Operate Under Commercial Law Not Dependent Agencies of The Borrower 17

18 ELIGIBILITY (Para 1.11 cont.) GOVERNMENT-OWNED UNIVERSITIES (AND THEIR PROFESSORS) ARE ELIGIBLE IF THE SERVICES PROVIDED ARE OF UNIQUE AND EXCEPTIONAL NATURE AND CRITICAL FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION GOVERNEMENT STAFF AND CIVIL SERVANTS MAY BE HIRED IF: They are on Leave of Absence without Pay Their Employment does not give rise to any Conflict Of Interest If they are not being hired by the Agency they are working for immediately before going on leave 18

19 SELECTION PROCESS PREPARE TERMS OF REFERENCE ESTIMATE COST (BUDGET) ADVERTISE FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST PREPARE SHORTLIST DETERMINE/CONFIRM SELECTION PROCEDURE PREPARE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, INCLUDING : 19

20 SELECITON PROCESS (contd.) Letter of Invitation (LOI) Evaluation criteria Proposed contract BANK NO OBJECTION RFP & SHORTLIST (IF PRIOR REVIEW) ISSUE RFP TO SHORTLISTED CONSULTANTS RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS OPENING OF TECHNCIAL PROPOSALS 20

21 SELECTION PROCESS (contd.) EVALUATE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS OBTAIN BANK S NO OBJECTION IF REQUIRED (PRIOR REVIEW) INFORM FIRMS OF TECHNICAL RESULTS OPEN (PUBLIC) AND EVALUATE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS OF QUALIFYING FIRMS NEGOTIATE AND PREPARE DRAFT CONTRACT (INITIALED BY PARTIES) OBTAIN BANK S NO OBJECTION TO NEGOTIATED CONTRACT (IF SUBJECT TO PROR REVIEW) AWARD CONTRACT NOTIFY FIRMS & PUBLISH RESULTS 21

22 Terms of Reference DEFINITION: Description of the Services CONTENT: Project Background Objectives of the Assignment Scope of Services Scheduling Client s Inputs Consultant s Outputs/Deliverables Transfer of Knowledge 22

23 Terms of Reference: The Four C s Provide a description of the requirement in sufficient details to promote competition and allow bidders to provide a realistic price Features: Clear Concise Complete Collateral products and services are described 23

24 Best Practices Use clear and precise language Use action verbs Avoid repetitions Avoid words such as either, and/or etc. Define all abbreviations and acronyms Avoid ambiguous terms Specify what should be done, not how it should be done Arrange tasks logically Define specific and objective acceptance criteria 24

25 Types of Contracts Lump-Sum Contracts Time-Based Contracts Success-Fee Contracts Indefinite-Delivery Contracts Percentage Contracts 25

26 Types of Contracts LUMP-SUM Simple planning and feasibility studies, environmental studies, etc. contents, duration, and output clearly defined. payments linked to outputs only. TIME-BASED Planning, feasibility studies, detailed engineering, supervision, technical assistance. payments linked to inputs, agreed staff rates and reimbursable items. 26

27 Types of Contracts (contd.) WORLD BANK HAS ISSUED STANDARD FORMS OF CONTRACT FOR THESE TWO TYPES OF CONTRACTS SUCCESS FEE CONTRACTS Consultants (banks or financial firms) for privatization operations; prepares companies for sale or mergers of firms; retainer and success fee (as a percentage of sale price of the assets) 27

28 Types of Contracts (contd.) PERCENTAGE CONTRACTS Architectural services, and procurement and inspection agents. similar to lump-sum contracts, no matching of inputs to payments, open-ended, not recommended except if based on percentage of fixed target cost INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACTS Specialized services on call, to retain advisers for implementation of complex projects (dam panel, adjudicators, procurement advice, technical troubleshooting); agreed unit rates for experts with payments based on time actually used 28

29 ADVERTISING FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST (EOIs) Brings fairness and transparency to the selection process Sounds the market (i.e. the level of competition) for the assignment) Borrower selection para. 2.5: GPN: includes a list of consulting assignments Standard advertising mandatory for all assignments (except SSS) in the national gazette or a national newspaper or an electronic portal of free access In addition, advertising in UNDB and DG market on-line is mandatory for contracts above $200,000 Optional: advertising in an international newspaper or a technical magazine Optional: Trade Representatives & Professional Associations Can also send REOI directly to others 29

30 REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST (REOI) by Borrowers The REOI should be brief (1 page; see template) The Borrower must provide the minimum information necessary for the consultant to make an informed decision to compete (or not) (i) brief description of services, (ii) the size of the assignment (e.g. number of staff months); (iii) tentative time table; (iv) other practical information The Borrower must request minimum information needed from the consultants to identify qualified firms: (i) experience (general, regional, specific). (ii) staff qualification. 30

31 PREPARATION and SUBMISSION by CONSULTANT Preparation time 14 days from date of posting on UNDB on line, dgmarket and national newspapers (Coordinate appearance of notice onundb online and dgmarket) EOI should be brief: 6-10 pages Electronic submission is recommended Consultants must indicate nature of associations, if any (JV/sub-consultants) 31

32 REVIEW of EOIs by Borrower Qualitative (not quantitative review). Review is for firm Key staff to be used for the actual assignment will be proposed by shortlisted firms later-on Sub consultants qualifications are not considered (the firm has the latitude to change the subconsultant during proposal preparation) JV between a qualified and marginally qualified firm(s) to be avoided All firms on the short list should be fully qualified Borrower prepares a report: (i) short para. on review process, (ii) strengths and weaknesses of each firm; (iii) the list of qualified, unqualified firms; (iv) nature of Associations Can consider EOI requests received after the deadline 32

33 SHORT LIST para 2.6, 2.7,2.8 6 firms Wide geographic spread, no more than 2 from any one country, at least one firm from a developing country (if qualified) Standby Screened for eligibility and conflict of interest Same category, similar capacity, and business objectives May comprise national firms only Shortlists are not confidential Shall be provided to other firms expressing interest or to any other firm that so requests 33

34 BANK REVIEW OF SHORT LIST Establishment of a short list is the prerogative of the Borrower and should not be justified to the unsuccessful consultant Bank provides its no objection to the RFP that includes the short list (App.1, 2a) Bank can advise on short/long list under certain circumstances (para.1.15) 34

35 Request for Proposals STANDARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (MANDATORY) Letter of Invitation Information to Consultants Technical proposal standard form Financial proposal standard form Terms of Reference Standard Form of Contract General & Special Conditions of Contract (time-based or lump sum contracts) 35

36 Request for Proposal (contd.) RFP SHOULD INDICATE ESTIMATED STAFF MONTHS OR BUDGET PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE? AFTER BANK S NO OBJECTION, ANY CHANGES REQUIRE BANK S CONCURRENCE FOLLOW-UP TO SEE IF ALL SHORTLISTED CONSULTANTS WILL SUBMIT PROPOSALS. IF NOT REPLACE WITH OTHERS ON STAND-BY. 36

37 Rules of the Game What the Procuring Entity must include in the RFP: The Evaluation Criteria and distribution of weights to measure quality Minimum Pass Mark for Quality The source and date of the exchange rate The methodology for measuring cost The proposed weightings for quality and cost 37

38 Receipt of Proposals TIME ALLOWED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS -- 4 TO 12 WEEKS DEPENDING ON ASSIGNMENT -- GENERALLY 6 WEEKS CLARIFICATIONS REQUESTED BY FIRMS SHOULD BE PROVIDED DURING PRE-PROPOSAL STAGE AND SENT TO ALL THOSE SHORTLISTED DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION STRICTLY OBSERVED 38

39 Receipt of Proposals (contd.) LATE PROPOSALS TO BE RETURNED UNOPENED TWO ENVELOPE PROCEDURE USED -- TECHNICAL AND PRICE PROPOSALS IN SEPARATE SEALED ENVELOPES ONLY TECHNICAL PROPOSALS ARE OPENED FIRST BY COMMITTEE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SUBMISSION TIME PRICE ENVELOPES REMAIN SEALED AND DEPOSITED WITH AN INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY OR REPUTABLE PUBLIC AUDITOR UNTIL TECHNICAL EVALUATION IS COMPLETED AND BANK S NO-OBJECTION TO OPEN PRICE PROPOSAL OBTAINED 39

40 Quality of the Services Design of Evaluation Systems Link the proposed scoring system to: Nature of the assignment Terms of Reference Evaluate only what is in the assignment Do not evaluate what is not in the assignment e.g. Do not allocate points for training if there is no requirement for training in TOR 40

41 Quality of the Services Design of Evaluation Systems (contd.) Evaluation system should ensure that, to the extent possible, scores will be consistent between evaluators Client should make sure that all the evaluators understand the TOR in the same way (may form part of Client training) If they do not, consistent scoring will be difficult to achieve RFP should ensure that all consultants understand the TOR in the same way 41

42 Quality of the Services Evaluation Committee Evaluation committee made of few members e.g. three to five Technically qualified evaluators, capable of carrying out an independent evaluation Not politicians, not generalists Borrower s procurement specialist should prepare evaluation forms before committee starts work and explain scoring system to evaluators Evaluators must make judgments about the workability of different technical solutions offered by firms in their technical proposals 42

43 Quality of the Services Evaluation Committee (contd.) There is intended to be an element of expert technical judgment in the evaluation process Technical evaluation is, by nature, subjective Large evaluation committees reduce the evaluation to a mechanical exercise Each evaluator should work alone If they produce wildly differing scores for the same criterion for the same firm, they may meet and consult before finalizing evaluation Make sure they understand TOR and proposals on same basis 43

44 Quality of the Services Evaluation of Proposals May amend technical scores, if necessary, before finalizing Technical quality of the proposals should always be the main evaluation criterion Cost of the services (financial proposal) should always be a minor criterion Normally 80 points for quality and 20 points for price For complex assignments, price may not be used in evaluation at all 44

45 Quality of the Services Evaluation of Proposals (contd.) Price should be used judiciously as an evaluation criterion because of the paramount importance of the need to ensure high-quality services (para. 2.1) Cheap consulting services are seldom highquality consulting services! Evaluation of quality is based on a merit point system Points allocated to predetermined evaluation criteria (para 2.15) 45

46 Quality of the Services Evaluation of Proposals (contd.) Standard evaluation criteria: Relevant experience of the firm Methodology (including work plan) Proposed key staff Occasionally: Training Participation of nationals in key staff positions (para. 2.15) 46

47 Quality of the Services Evaluation of Proposals (contd.) Proposed key staff and methodology should be allocated most points because quality in the performance of consulting services is determined primarily by: Who does the work; and How they do it Too many evaluation criteria and/or too many evaluators reduce the quality of the technical evaluation (para 2.16) because they result in a detailed quantitative assessment that provides a false impression of precision that is inconsistent with the element of technical judgement 47

48 Technical Evaluation Specific experience 0-10 % Methodology % Key staff % Optional: Transfer of knowledge 0-10 % Participation by nationals 0-10 % Total 100 % 48

49 Technical Evaluation (contd.) GENERAL AND SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE OF FIRM (0-10%) Relevant assignments Similar size Complexity Technology Environment 49

50 Technical Evaluation (contd.) METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH (20-50%) Schedules Responsiveness to TOR Logistics Skills transfer Backstopping Innovativeness 50

51 Technical Evaluation (contd.) QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY STAFF (30-60 %) Team composition Professional qualifications Suitability Local knowledge Language Training experience Permanent staff 51

52 Technical Evaluation (contd.) TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE (0-10%) If transfer of knowledge is the main objective of the assignment, it can be given higher weight If transfer of knowledge (training) is a factor in evaluation, TOR should clearly specify the requirements (topics, number of trainees, training methods, basis for evaluation, etc.) 52

53 Technical Evaluation (contd.) PARTICIPATION OF NATIONALS (0-10%) Only key staff to be evaluated based on staff-months of nationals compared with total staff-months among key staff presented by foreign and national firms Weight to be given proportionately to ratio of (total local key staff-months) / (total key staff months in consultants proposals) x (maximum points for this category per RFP) 53

54 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SUMMARY EVALUATION SHEET (Example) FIRM I FIRM II FIRM III ITEM WT POINTS RATING POINTS RATING POINTS RATING a b* a X b c* a X c d* a X d 1. EXPERIENCE METHODOLOGY KEY STAFF TEAM LEADER ECONOMIST ENGINEER FINANCIAL ANALYST MANAGEMENT EXP SKILLS TRANSFER TOTAL * OUT OF

55 FINAL EVALUATION (EXAMPLE) FIRM TECHNICAL X90% PRICE PRICE X10% TOTAL EVAL. (A) (US$M) POINTS* (B) SCORE POINTS (A+B) A B IF.70 (10.00) (91.00) C D * LPX100/FP WHERE FP = FIRM PRICE AND LP = LOWEST PRICE 55

56 SAMPLE BREAKDOWN OF MONTHLY RATES* (BASED ON AUDITED STATEMENTS) NAME POSITION BASIC SOCIAL OVERHEAD SUB- FEE ALLOW- TOTAL MULTI- SALARY CHARGES TOTAL ANCE FEE PLIER ** * IN LOCAL OR FOREIGN CURRENCY UNITS ** MULTIPLIER = TOTAL FEE/BASIC SALARY 56

57 SAMPLE OVERHEAD (BUSINESS COSTS OF FIRM) PERCENTAGE OF SALARY OFFICE RENT/AMORTIZATION 16 OFFICE UTILITIES 8 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES * 16 NON-BILLABLE SALARIES * 15 PRINTING & REPRODUCTION 4 COMPUTER COSTS 8 TRANSPORT 6 TOTAL DONATIONS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 17 DEPRECIATION 7 AUDITING 2 INSURANCE 7 COMMUNICATIONS 12 INTEREST 3 TAXES 2 *Includes social PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT 4 charges 57

58 SAMPLE SOCIAL COSTS PERCENTAGE OF SALARY VACATIONS (15 DAYS) 6.6 SICK LEAVE (10 DAYS) 4.4 MATERNITY LEAVE 3.0 SOCIAL SECURITY 20.0 PENSION PLAN 15.0 INSURANCE MEDICAL 4.3 ACCIDENT 2.0 LIFE 2.9 * NOT INCLUDED NON-BILLABLE TIME THIRTEENTH MONTH TOTAL

59 Evaluation of Proposals Technical (contd.) DETERMINE COMBINED SCORE OF ALL EVALUATORS REPORT ON QUALITY SEEK BANK S NO-OBJECTION INFORM FIRMS OF TECHNICAL SCORES NOTIFY THOSE WHO FAILED TO SCORE THE MINIMUM MARKS THAT THEIR PRICE PROPOSALS WILL BE RETURNED UNOPENED AFTER SELECTION IS COMPLETED NOTIFY ALL THOSE WHO SUBMITTED PROPOSALS THE TECHNICAL SCORES ASSIGNED TO EACH CONSULTANT 59

60 Evaluation of Proposals Technical-(Contd) NOTIFY THOSE THAT FAIL TO OBTAIN THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL SCORE OR WERE REJECTED AS NON-RESPONSIVE TO THE RFP THAT THEIR FINANCIAL PROPOSALS WILL BE RETURNED UNOPENED AFTER SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT SIMULTANEOUSLY NOTIFY THOSE THAT PASS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL SCORE ABOUT DATE AND TIME OF OPENING OF FINANCIAL PROPOSALS (ALLOW 2 WEEKS) PUBLIC OPENING OF FINANCIAL PROPOSALS READ ALLOWED NAMES, TECHNICAL SCORES, AND PRICES PREPARE MINUTES OF PUBLIC OPENING AND SEND COPY TO BANK 60

61 Financial Evaluation (contd.) ARITHMETICAL CORRECTION CURRENCY CONVERSION TO SINGLE CURRENCY EXCLUDE LOCAL TAXES, IF APPLICABLE, BUT INCLUDE REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES LOWEST PRICE SCORES 100%, OTHERS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR PRICES COMBINE TECH. AND FIN. EVALUATION (NORMALLY 20 % WEIGHT TO PRICE) 61

62 Selection Methods for Firms Quality- and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) Quality-Based Selection (QBS) Selection under a Fixed Budget (SFB) Least-Cost Selection (LCS) Selection Based on the Consultant s Qualifications (CQS) Single-Source Selection (SSS) Commercial Practices 62

63 Selection Methods for Individual Consultants Advertising Requirements for Selection Methods : SELECTION METHODS FOR FIRMS With Exception of SSS; Advertising Requirements are the same! IC SELECTION IN SECTION V OF GUIDELINES Comparison of at least 3 CVs Sole Source for Individual if justified 63

64 Competitive Selection COMPETITION ON QUALITY (e.g. QBS, CQS) technical evaluation only negotiations on price PRICE MAY BE A FACTOR (QCBS, FIXED BUDGET, LEAST COST) technical evaluation first price as a factor second negotiations limited to inputs (from consultants and client) 64

65 Quality-and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) MOST COMMON METHOD, USED FOR: Feasibility studies of known scope Detailed design and bid document preparation Supervision of construction work Large technical assistance and institutional development tasks Procurement and inspection services PREFERRED METHOD, SIMILAR TO ICB FOR GOODS AND WORKS. 65

66 QCBS Selection (contd.) TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PROPOSALS IN SEPARATE ENVELOPES. FINANCIAL PROPOSALS SHALL REMAIN SEALED WITH INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY TECHNICAL EVALUATION (QUALITY) FIRST (BANK NO OBJECTION IF PRIOR REVIEW) PUBLIC OPENING OF FINANCIAL PROPOSALS COMBINED EVALUATION BASED ON WEIGHTED FORMULA 66

67 Quality Based Selection (QBS) Complex or Highly Specialized Difficult to define precise TOR and Consultants inputs Calls for Innovation from Consultants e.g. Country Economic or Sector Studies, Multisectoral Feasibility Studies, Urban Master Plan, Financial Sector Reforms Assignments with High Downstream Impact Objective is to have the best Experts e.g. Feasibility and structural engineering design of major infrastructure as large dams, policy studies of national significance. Assignments that can be carried out in substantially different ways. Non Comparable proposals E.g. Management advice, sector and policy studies 67

68 Quality Based Selection QBS (contd.) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ONLY OR BOTH IN SEPARATE ENVELOPES may adopt two-envelope system (technical & price proposals in separate sealed covers as per QCBS); evaluate technical proposals first and open the financial proposal of only the highest ranked and negotiate SPECIFY MINIMUM TECHNICAL SCORE REQUIRED TO QUALIFY TECHNICAL EVALUATION (QUALITY) FINANCIAL EVALUATION ONLY OF FIRM WITH HIGHEST TECHNICAL SCORE 68

69 Quality Based Selection QBS (contd.) USE BANK S STANDARD RFP PROVIDE ESTIMATED STAFF MONTH INPUTS OR THE BUDGET BANK S PRIOR REVIEW AND CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR RFP, TECHNICAL EVALUATION BEFORE FINANCIAL OPENING, FINAL SELECTION AFTER NEGOTIATIONS, AND DRAFT CONTRACT BEFORE SIGNING 69

70 Fixed Budget Selection (FBS) FOR SIMPLE ASSIGNMENT, CAN BE DEFINED and BUDGET IS FIXED FINANCIAL PROPOSALS TO BE WITHIN SPECIFIED FIXED BUDGET TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PROPOSALS IN TWO SEPARATE ENVELOPES TECHNICAL EVALUATION (QUALITY) FIRST PUBLIC OPENING OF FINANCIAL PROPOSALS 70

71 Fixed Budget Selection FBS (contd.) REJECTION OF PROPOSALS EXCEEDING FIXED BUDGET RFP INDICATES BUDGET TWO-ENVELOPE PROCEDURE IS ADOPTED PROPOSAL RECEIPT, OPENING AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION AS PER QCBS 71

72 Fixed Budget Selection FBS (contd.) OPEN FINANCIAL PROPOSALS OF FIRMS THAT QUALIFIED IN TECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW THAT EACH PROPOSAL CONTAINS ALL COST ELEMENTS STATED IN RFP; IF NOT MAKE APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS ANY PROPOSALS THAT EXCEED THE BUDGET ARE REJECTED 72

73 Fixed Budget Selection FBS (contd.) FIRM SCORING THE HIGHEST TECHNICAL POINTS IS SELECTED FOR NEGOTIATION BANK S PRIOR REVIEW AND CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR RFP, TECHNICAL EVALUATION BEFORE FINANCIAL OPENING, FINAL SELECTION BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS, AND DRAFT CONTRACT BEFORE SIGNING 73

74 Least Cost Selection (LCS) STANDARD AND ROUTINE ASSIGNMENTS ITELECTUAL COMPONENT IS MINOR e.g. Audits, Engineering design of non complex works. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PROPOSALS IN TWO SEPARATE ENVELOPES TECHNICAL PROPOSALS MUST ACHIEVE SPECIFIC MINIMUM SCORE OR THEY ARE REJECTED MINIMUM SCORE SHOULD BE HIGH! FINANCIAL PROPOSALS OF SUCCESSFUL FIRMS OPENED IN PUBLIC 74

75 Least Cost Selection LCS (contd.) RFP INDICATES ESTIMATED STAFF MONTHS TWO ENVELOPE PROCEDURE IS ADOPTED PROPOSAL RECEIPT, OPENING, AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION AS PER QCBS OPENING OF FINANCIAL PROPOSALS ABOVE A MINIMUM TECHNICAL SCORE 75

76 Least Cost Selection LCS (contd.) AWARD TO THE LOWEST EVALUATED PRICE PROPOSAL (FOR PROR REVIEW CONTRACTS) BANK S PRIOR REVIEW AND CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR RFP, TECHNICAL EVALUATION BEFORE FINANCIAL OPENING, FINAL SELECTION BEFORE NEGOTIATION AND DRAFT CONTRACT BEFORE SIGNING 76

77 Consultants Qualifications Selection (CQS) USED FOR SMALL ASSIGNMENTS (<$300,000) Brief evaluation studies Reviews and assessments Review panel membership Legal advice SHORTLIST of FIRMS RATED AND RANKED ACCORDING TO QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 77

78 Consultants Qualifications Selection CQS (contd.) SELECTED FIRM SUBMITS TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PROPOSAL FOR NEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST EVALUATION OF EACH FIRM S EXPERIENCE AND COMPETENCE SELECTION OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE FIRM SELECTED FIRM TO SUBMIT TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PROPOSAL 78

79 Single Source Selection EXCEPTIONAL METHOD USED ONLY IF CLEAR ADVANTAGE, SINGLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED Natural continuation of previous work (initial RFP should address that and be factored in selected) -- same staff at same terms and conditions When rapid selection in emergency is essential Assignment very small (<$100,000) Only one firm qualified and experienced 79

80 Single Source Selection (contd.) CONTINUATION, ONLY IF: original assignment was competitively won downstream assignment is not substantially larger in value USE ONLY IF SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN CR/GR AGREEMENT BANK S PRIOR NO-OBJECTION REQUIRED FOR TOR, SELECTION AND DRAFT CONTRACT BEFORE SIGNING 80

81 Individual Consultants SELECTION Less formal than hiring firms : No shortlisting needed Advertisement References Direct approach BANK REVIEW terms of reference qualifications of consultant conditions of employment Remuneration, Simple contract, work environment 81

82 Negotiations TECHNICAL NEGOTIATIONS Methodology and staffing Final TOR Staffing schedule Client inputs Consultant outputs Activity schedule Skills transfer 82

83 Negotiations (contd.) FINANCIAL NEGOTIATIONS Staff month rates (price not an evaluation factor) Reimbursable costs (foreign & local) Surveys, equipment Payment schedules Transportation Housing and offices 83

84 Important Contract Provisions CURRENCY PAYMENT PROVISIONS NO BID & PERFORMANCE SECURITIES! BORROWER S CONTRIBUTIONS CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRICE ADJUSTMENT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY STAFF SUBSTITUTION APPLICABLE LAW DISPUTE RESOLUTION 84

85 Publication of Contract Award As Per Consultant Guidelines Appendix 1 Mandatory publish in UNDB online and National Press. Use Sample Bank Template. PUBLISH : Names of all consultants who submitted proposals. Technical points assigned to each consultant. Evaluated prices of each consultant. Final point ranking of consultants. Name of winning consultant and price, duration, and summary scope of contract 85

86 Quality of the Services Performance of Consultants Quality (if achieved) during their performance of the services Quality in performance is even more important than the description of quality of the consultants proposal A firm s technical proposal is an attempt by the consultants to define the quality of his services in advance. The need for this stems from the difficulty of defining quality in advance i.e. the difficulty of writing the TOR 86

87 Quality of the Services Performance of Consultants (contd.) Therefore client needs to supervise performance of consultant closely. Consultants to the client and not to the World Bank! Assessment of the performance of a consultant is complicated and subjective During supervision missions, TTL and Procurement specialist will check on the client s satisfaction with the performance of the consultants. Any assistances of poor performance by consultants will be recorded by the TTL in the mission aide-memoire 87

88 Quality of the Services Performance of Consultants (contd.) If poor performance by consultants is not recorded and notified to the consultant in a timely manner by the Client, it can be difficult later for the client to terminate the contract or for the Bank to insist that a consultant should be excluded from a shortlist for another assignment. Performance of a specific individual in a team varies according to clients, assignments. Importance of interpersonal relations in consulting. 88

89 Quality of the Services Performance of Consultants (contd.) Need for good faith. Firm but not overbearing. Obligations of the Parties are spelt out in the Contract. Provide timely feedback on draft reports. Monitor work plans and deliverables. Time sheets for time based contracts. 89

90 Common Issues BANK POLICY & PROCEDURES VRS. NATIONAL LAWS ADVERTISING EOI SHORT LIST Avoid merit point system. Association: Joint Venture or Sub consultancy? If JV, all firms have to be capable and therefore assessed. SELECTION PROCEDURE (especially CQS) USE OF APPROPRIATE FORM OF CONTRACT CONFLICT OF INTEREST ELIGIBILITY SOEs SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION 90

91 Common Issues (contd.) COMPOSITION OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE MECHANICAL EVALUATION CONFIDENTIALITY DURING EVALUATION DELAYS, MULTIPLE APPROVALS REPEATED EXTENSIONS (SOLE SOURCE) POOR SUPERVISION LANGUAGE 91

92 WORLD BANK Evaluation Practices for Technical Proposals Consultants Contracts Rating System 92

93 Objective To provide guidance to Committee Members on Rating System for Evaluation of Technical Proposals in Consultancy Contracts 93

94 Evaluation of Technical Proposal Technical proposal an intellectual product Evaluation of technical proposal: Not a purely mathematical exercise, but professional judgment of competent evaluators Judgment not to be exercised in an arbitrary manner Suitable rating system needed 94

95 What is the Rating System? 95

96 Evaluation Committee Three to five qualified members Exercise highest ethical standard Committee to consist of individuals of comparable hierarchical level Members to confirm that they: (i) have no conflict of interest; (ii) understand the rating and scoring system; (iii) have been provided with evaluation work-sheet; and (iv) agree on how to evaluate proposals 96

97 Evaluation Committee Committee to carry out independent evaluation Members not to communicate with firms Members to reconcile scores in case of large differences before the report is sent as recommendation Signing of Declaration of Impartiality by each member is recommended 97

98 Advantages of Rating System Shared definition of grades Evaluation easier (helpful for less experienced evaluators) Binds members to justify grades Adds transparency and fairness to evaluation process 98

99 1 st General Criteria 99

100 Sole Rating Scale for Specific Experience of Firms (0-10 points) Satisfactory (70%): relevant experience Good (90%): extensive experience Very Good (100%): state-of-the-art, world class Poor (40%) is to be used rarely 100

101 2 nd General Criteria 101

102 Methodology and Work Plan in Responding to TOR (20-50 points) Poor (40%) Satisfactory (70%) Good (90%) Very Good (100%) Divided into three sub-criteria: (i) Technical approach and methodology; (ii)work Plan; and (iii) Organization and Staffing 102

103 1 st Sub-criteria-Technical Approach and Methodology Poor(40%): inappropriate standard, not tailored Satisfactory(70%): standard, not tailored Good(90%): full details, methodology tailored Very Good(100%): in addition, innovative, outstanding knowledge of new solutions 103

104 2 nd Sub-criteria-Work Plan - Rating Poor(40%): omits important task, timing of activities inconsistent Satisfactory(70%): all key activities included but not detailed Good(90%): work plan fits TOR, interrelation between activities realistic Very Good(100%): in addition, good optimization of resources 104

105 3 rd Sub-Criteria-Organization and Staffing - Rating Poor(40%): organization chart sketchy, staffing schedule inconsistent with timing of the output Satisfactory(70%): organization chart complete, detailed definition of duties and responsibilities Good(90%): in addition, precise matching of staff skill, not too-many short term expert Very Good(100%): In addition, members have worked earlier as a team, optimized resources 105

106 3 rd General Criteria 106

107 Qualification and Competence of Proposed Key Staff (30-60 points) Key professional staff: Points for qualification and competence to be divided; for example out of 55 points, Team Leader may be given 15 Points and 10 points each for four key experts. Each key staff to be judged on three Subcriteria: (i) General qualification. (ii) Adequacy for the assignment. (iii) Experience in the region and language. 107

108 1 st Sub- Criteria-General Qualification (20-30%) Poor (40%): less experience than specified or less than 10 years of relevant experience Satisfactory (70%): 10 years or more of experience with relevant academic education and training Good (90%): More than 15 years substantial part on similar assignment, steady increase in responsibility in the past Very Good (100%): More than 20 years of specialist experience, fully up to date in concerned discipline, and other attributes Good 108

109 2 nd Sub-Criteria-Adequacy for Assignment (50-60%) Poor (40%): expert occasionally worked in similar position, junior professional Satisfactory (70%): experience fits the assigned position, completed at least one project of similar nature Good (90%): in addition, held several similar positions in similar assignments Very Good (100%): in addition, qualification and experience exceeds substantially the requirement 109

110 3 rd Sub-criteria-Experience in Region and Language(10-20%) Poor (40%)- never or occasionally worked in similar countries and language skills insufficient Satisfactory (70%)- Worked in similar cultural, administrative environment and has knowledge of one official language of the Bank Good (90%)- In addition, worked recently in the region, is fluent in more than one official language of the Bank Very Good(100%)- In addition, has detailed and direct knowledge of country through years of professional work 110

111 4 th General Criteria 111

112 Sole Criteria - Transfer of Knowledge Poor (40%) Satisfactory (70%) Good (90%) Very Good (100%) Training (0-10 points) Should be developed on similar lines as in previous criteria/sub-criteria. A good training methodology is specifically tailored to the objective of the program and discussed exhaustively. 112

113 5 th General Criteria 113

114 Sole Criteria - Local Participation ( 0-10 points) As reflected as nationals among key staff presented by foreign and national firms Points to be allocated as a percentage of share of national key staff man-month Firm presenting the maximum man-month of national key staff shall score full points, others shall score in proportion Scores given by different evaluators for the same proposal should not vary Total score of a proposal = Total staff months provided by Nationals as key staff/total staff months of all key staff x10 114

115 115