ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Transcription

1 - ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY RDAPF 6 Evaluation Guide (Consultancy) ZAMBIA Revised April 2014

2 Table of Contents 1. Preamble Methods for Selection of Consultants... 3 A. Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS)... 3 i. The Steps of the Selection Process... 3 ii. Terms of Reference... 4 B. Quality-Based Selection (QBS)... 5 C. Selection under a Fixed Budget (FBS)... 6 D. Least-Cost Selection (LCS)... 6 E. Selection Based on the Consultants Qualifications (CQS) Selection Procedures... 8 A. Overview of Selection Procedures... 8 i. Receipt of Proposals... 8 ii. Opening of Technical Proposals... 8 B. Evaluation of Technical Proposals... 8 iii. Establishment and Organization of Evaluation Committee... 8 iv. Involvement of Observer and/or Independent Consultant... 9 v. Submission of Proposals... 9 C. Review and Approval of Results of Technical Evaluation D. Evaluation of Financial Proposals vi. Cost Estimate vii. Public Opening of Financial Proposals viii. Evaluation of Financial Proposals and Determination of Financial Score Sample Formula (normally used) E. Determination of Combined Scores and Ranking of Proposals Sample Formula (normally used) F. Review and Approval of Final Results of the Combined Evaluation G. Negotiations Evaluation of Technical Proposals A. Specific Experience of the Consultant ix. Setting the Grades x. Defining the Grades *1

3 B. Adequacy/Quality of Proposed Methodology & Work Plan i. Setting the Grades ii. Defining the Grades C. Qualifications and Competence of Key Staff i. Setting the Grades ii. Defining the Grades Completion of Evaluation of Technical Proposals Negotiations A. Outline of Negotiation Procedures B. Items Subject to Negotiation i. Technical Negotiations ii. Financial Negotiations *2

4 1. Preamble This Guide has been prepared to provide Evaluation Committees with a clear understanding of the evaluation methods and procedures for the procurement of consultants under the various methods applicable. However, it is only applicable consistently with the Public Procurement Act of 2008 and the Public Procurement Regulations of 2011, along with whichever other legal instruments impact on public procurement at the time being in Zambia. The required procedures for the evaluation and selection of consultants are set out in Part 3 and 4 of this Guide. Note that in case an individual consultant or a non-governmental organization, etc. is procured, some procedures defined in this Guide are not applicable. 2. Methods for Selection of Consultants A. Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) is the default method of selecting consultants to be engaged by Road Development Agency (RDA) through competition between firms. Selection is based on comparison of the technical quality of the consultants proposal combined with the cost of the services to be provided. The relative weights given to the technical quality and cost of each proposal are predetermined for each case depending on the nature of the assignment. The procedures and guidelines below are based on the standard QCBS process of selection although other selection methods are available for use in appropriate circumstances. Procedures for other selection methods such as Least-Cost Selection (LCS), Quality-Based Selection (QBS), Selection under a Fixed Budget (FBS) and Selection Based on the Consultants Qualifications (CQS) are also provided herein. i. The Steps of the Selection Process The procurement of consultancy services will normally include the following steps: i. Preparation of the Terms of Reference (TOR). ii. Establish a cost estimate and confirmation of available funds. iii. Advertising for expressions of interest (if appropriate) or preparation of the shortlist of consultants from existing pre-qualified firms. *3

5 iv. Preparation and issue of the Request for Proposals (RFP), including: a. Letter of Invitation (LOI); b. Information to Consultants (ITC); c. Draft contract. v. Receipt for proposals (may be advertised directly without shortlisting). vi. Evaluation of technical proposals. vii. Opening of financial proposals as stipulated in paragraph of the RDA Procurement Procedures Manual. viii. Evaluation of financial proposals. ix. Final evaluation according to the criteria stated in the RFP. x. Negotiations and award of the contract to the selected firm. ii. Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference (TOR) must define clearly the objectives and scope of the assignment and provide background information (including a list of existing relevant studies and basic data) to enable the consultant to prepare a proposal. Specifically the ToR should: i. Describe the background to the assignment; ii. State the objectives of the assignment including: a. The scope of the services; b. The duration of the assignment; c. A detailed list of the consultants' duties and responsibilities; and d. Where applicable, the required inputs in terms of man-days, weeks, months and/or years. iii. Detail the required outputs, e.g. reports, recommendations, draft laws, etc. which the consultants will be required to produce (also referred to as 'deliverables'); iv. Set the time periods for the deliverables; v. Not be over-detailed or inflexible, so that competing consultants may propose their own methodology and staffing; vi. List any services and surveys necessary to carry out the assignment; vii. Include details of the services, facilities and counterpart staff to be provided by RDA; and *4

6 viii. Specify requirements when transfer of knowledge or training is an objective, to allow bidders to estimate the required resources. B. Quality-Based Selection (QBS) QBS is appropriate for the following types of assignments: i. complex or highly specialized assignments for which it is difficult to define precise TOR and the required input from the service providers; ii. complex or highly specialized assignments for which RDA expects the service providers to demonstrate innovation in their proposals; iii. assignments that have a high downstream impact and in which the objective is to have the best experts available within budgetary constraints; and iv. assignments that can be carried out in substantially different ways, such that technical proposals may not be comparable, but benefits to RDA can be assessed. Procedure: In QBS, the RFP may request submission of a technical proposal only (without the financial proposal), or request submission of both technical and financial proposals at the same time, but in separate envelopes (two-envelope system). The RFP shall provide either the estimated budget or the estimated time for key experts, specifying that this information is given as an indication only and that service providers shall be free to propose their own estimated budget or estimated time for key experts. If technical proposals alone were invited, after evaluating the technical proposals using the same methodology as in QCBS, RDA shall ask the service provider with the highest ranked technical proposal to submit a detailed financial proposal. The procuring entity and the service provider shall then negotiate the financial proposal and the contract. 1 All other aspects of the selection process shall be identical to those of QCBS. If service providers were requested to provide financial proposals initially together with the technical proposals, safeguards shall be built in accordance with paragraph of the RDA Procurement Procedures Manual, to ensure that the financial proposal of only the selected firm is opened and the rest returned unopened, only after the negotiations are successfully concluded with the highest ranked, as applicable. 1 Financial negotiations under QBS include negotiations of all Consultant s remuneration and other expenses. *5

7 C. Selection under a Fixed Budget (FBS) This method is appropriate only when the assignment is simple and can be precisely defined and when the budget is fixed. The RFP shall indicate the available budget and request the consultants to provide their best technical and financial proposals in separate envelopes, within the budget. The TOR should be particularly well-prepared to make sure that the budget is sufficient for the consultants to perform the expected tasks. The RFP shall clearly indicate whether the budget includes taxes or levies payable in Zambia, and the price of any inputs provided by RDA. The evaluation of all technical proposals shall be carried out first as in the QCBS method. Then the financial proposals shall be opened as stipulated in paragraph of the RDA Procurement Procedures Manual. Proposals that exceed the indicated budget shall be rejected. The consultant who has submitted the highest ranked technical proposal among the rest shall then be selected and invited to negotiate a contract. In case of unsuccessful negotiations leading to negotiations with the next highest ranked consultant, the financial proposals of other firms shall only be returned after the negotiations are successfully concluded and a contract is signed. D. Least-Cost Selection (LCS) This method is generally appropriate for selecting consultants for assignments of a standard or routine nature (audits, engineering design of non-complex works, supervision of repetitive engineering works, and so forth) where well-established practices and standards exist. Under this method, a minimum qualifying mark for the quality is established. Proposals, to be submitted in two envelopes are invited, from either a short list or directly through a specific procurement publication. Technical proposals are opened first and evaluated. Those securing less than the minimum qualifying mark stated in the RFP are rejected, and the financial proposals of the rest shall be opened as stipulated in paragraph of the RDA Procurement Procedures Manual. The firm with the lowest price shall then be selected and invited to negotiate a contract. In case of unsuccessful negotiations leading to negotiations with the next lowest priced firm, the financial proposals of other firms shall only be returned after the negotiations are successfully concluded and a contract is signed. Under this method, the minimum qualifying mark shall be established, understanding that all proposals above the minimum mark will compete only on price. *6

8 E. Selection Based on the Consultants Qualifications (CQS) This method may be used for very small assignments, disaster or emergency situations declared by Government of the Republic of Zambia and/or recognized by the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit for which the need for issuing an RFP, and preparing and evaluating competitive proposals is not justified. The use of this method shall be in accordance with Regulation 105 of the Public Procurement Regulations, In such cases, RDA shall prepare the TOR and obtain expressions of interest that include information on experience and qualifications from as many individuals as possible, and shortlist at least three qualified individuals with relevant specific experience for the assignment. Individual consultants may be employed where: i. teams of personnel are not required; ii. no additional professional support is required; and iii. experience and qualifications of the individual are the paramount requirement. Permanent staff or associates of a consulting firm may also be available as individual consultants, while care must be taken to ensure compliance with Regulation 105 of the Public Procurement Regulations, *7

9 3. Selection Procedures A. Overview of Selection Procedures A flow chart of the QCBS selection process is presented in the figure below. PC Approval? PC Approval? Invitation/RFP Receipt of Proposals Bidding Preliminary Examination Signatory Eligibility Validity Specific Experience Approach/Methodology Workplan/Duration Staffing/Training Technical Evaluation Finacial Evaluation Review Congruency Adjustments Corrections Combine Scores Ranking of Consultants Recomendations Combined Evaluation TECHNICAL STAGES FINANCIAL STAGES i. Receipt of Proposals The technical and financial proposals shall be submitted in separate sealed envelopes at the same time, unless CQS is used. The financial proposals shall remain sealed until evaluation of the technical proposals is completed unless service providers were invited to submit combined proposals. ii. Opening of Technical Proposals The technical proposals shall be opened immediately after the deadline for their submission. Any proposal received by RDA after the deadline for submission shall be returned unopened. B. Evaluation of Technical Proposals iii. Establishment and Organization of Evaluation Committee The establishment of an Evaluation Committee is crucial in ensuring a fair and objective evaluation of the technical and financial proposals. As each member of the Evaluation Committee is required to be familiar with the TOR and the evaluation criteria, it is recommended that the Evaluation Committee is established prior to deadline for submission. The evaluation of proposals must be based on the professional judgment of competent and impartial evaluators. Although all the members of the Evaluation Committee need not be experts in specific fields covered by the project, individuals who do not have any knowledge of the areas related to the project should not be appointed. It is necessary that the some members of the Evaluation Committee should have experience in the evaluation of proposals. Members of the Evaluation Committee are required to maintain the highest standards of integrity when carrying out the evaluation and should not have any communication with shortlisted consultants from the date of their appointment to the date on which the contract is awarded, except in cases of official clarification related to the proposal. *8

10 iv. Involvement of Observer and/or Independent Consultant To ensure transparency of the evaluation process, an independent observer may participate in meetings of the Evaluation Committee. If RDA lacks the expertise to carry out the evaluation, it may sometimes hire independent expert consultants to assist the Evaluation Committee. In such a case, the user department may suggest the necessity of involvement of an observer and/or independent consultants before the Evaluation Committee is appointed. v. Submission of Proposals Where Consultants shall be required to submit technical and financial proposals in separate sealed envelopes at the same time, the financial proposals shall remain sealed until evaluation of the technical proposals is completed. When QBS is applied, only the highestranked consultant shall be requested to submit a financial proposal for contract negotiation. The Evaluation Committee must commence the review of the technical proposals in the presence of all its members. The Evaluation Committee shall first review each proposal to confirm whether the required documents comprising the Proposal have been provided and whether each proposal is prepared in accordance with the Instructions to Consultants contained in the RFP (preliminary examination). i. Technical Proposals received by the RDA in response to the LOI shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stipulated in the RFP. Such criteria shall normally include: a. The consultant's general experience and record in the field covered by the TORs; b. The adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan; and c. The experience and records of the staff members to be assigned to the work. The relative importance of the three above-mentioned factors will vary with the type of consulting services to be performed, but in the overall rating of the proposals most weight shall normally be given either to the qualifications of the staff members to be assigned to the project or to approach and methodology, rather than to the fame or reputation of the consultant. The approach and methodology shall be highly weighted when using the QBS method, otherwise the staffing takes precedence. *9

11 ii. After commencement of the technical evaluation process, the evaluation should be carried out independently by each member of the Evaluation Committee in accordance with the criteria specified in the RFP, and then the Evaluation Committee should meet to review all the evaluation results. In cases where the scores given by each member for each proposal are different, the Evaluation Committee should examine the differences and some members may revise their scores. The Evaluation Committee should then calculate the average of the scores allocated by all members under each of the criteria and establish the ranking of the technical proposals. The above process should be meticulously recorded. iii. To assess the qualifications of the staff members to be assigned to the project, their curricula vitae shall be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: a. General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of positions held, length of service with the concerned firm, etc.); b. Suitability for the assignment/project (experience of performing the similar duties which will be assigned to them during the assignment/project); and c. Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country in which the work is to be performed or experience in similar environments. iv. Additional criteria may be applied depending on the nature of the assignment. In such cases, additional criteria may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Suitability of Knowledge Transfer Suitability of the transfer of knowledge (training) programs. b. Support Facilities and Organization Support facilities and organization of the consultants, including support resources at Head office, such as specialised technical assistance or materials testing equipment. c. Local Participation Participation by Zambian nationals among proposed key staff in terms of percentage. d. Proposal Presentation The intellectual and technical soundness of the technical proposal, its organization and completeness making it easy to assess. The weight distribution of additional criteria should be determined by taking into account their relative importance to the assignment, while each additional criterion should normally not exceed 10 points out of 100 points. *10

12 v. In its evaluation of technical proposals, RDA shall use numerical ratings and prepare an evaluation report including a summary evaluation sheet as soon as possible. The evaluation report shall normally give detailed information on the following items, supplementing the summary evaluation sheet: a. Composition of the Evaluation Committee responsible for the evaluation of proposals and any auxiliary orders which govern its functions; b. the minutes of the opening of technical proposals; c. the results of the preliminary examination, with reasons why any proposals were rejected; d. the technical scores awarded by each evaluator for each proposal; e. a summary of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal; f. an analysis of any significant discrepancies or inconsistencies in scoring and an explanation of any adjustments made to the scores; g. the total technical score for each proposal; h. a list of the proposals which reached the minimum technical qualifying mark and a recommendation to open the financial proposals of the bidders; and i. a recommendation to reject all proposals which did not reach the minimum technical qualifying mark. vi. A proposal shall be rejected at this stage if the technical proposal fails to achieve the minimum technical score or is considered non-responsive to the invitation requirements (preliminary examination). C. Review and Approval of Results of Technical Evaluation The results of evaluation of the technical proposals and its recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the Procurement Committee and/or other relevant approvals authority. In the case of QCBS, the review and approval shall be given before opening of the financial proposals. In the case of QBS, the review and approval shall be given before opening the financial proposal of the highest-ranked consultant, and initiating any precontract negotiations. *11

13 D. Evaluation of Financial Proposals The evaluation procedures relating to financial proposals are applicable only to QCBS. Under QBS, after evaluation of the technical proposals has been completed, the highest-ranked consultant is invited for contract negotiations. vi. Cost Estimate The cost estimate for consulting services shall be made by adding the remuneration for consultant staff and the direct expenses incurred by them during the execution of their assignment. Those figures are built up by computing the staff time (expert per unit of time, [hour, day, week or month]), required to carry out the services and an estimate of each related cost component. Since this estimate is derived from the information contained in the TORs, the more exhaustive and detailed the TORs are, the more precise the estimate will be. A mismatch between the cost estimate and the TORs may generate problems during the execution of consulting services and the implementation of a project. The adequacy of the cost estimate should be agreed between RDA and relevant approvals authority by fully taking into account the constituents of the project and the contents of the TORs. In general, a cost estimate includes items relating to the following: a. Consultant staff remuneration b. Mobilization, demobilization, travel and transport c. Per diem charge and cost of accommodation d. Communications e. Office rent, supplies, operation and maintenance f. Surveys and training programs g. Report printing h. Contingencies, etc. vii. Public Opening of Financial Proposals The consultants that have secured the minimum qualifying technical score will be advised of the location, date, and time for opening of the financial proposals. The financial proposals shall be opened publicly in the presence of the consultants representatives who choose to attend. The name of the consultants, the technical scores, and the proposed prices shall be announced and recorded by RDA. viii. Evaluation of Financial Proposals and Determination of Financial Score In determining the financial score, RDA shall review the congruency of the technical and financial proposals, make adjustments as appropriate, and correct arithmetical or computational errors. The lowest evaluated financial proposal will receive the maximum *12

14 score of 100 points. The score for each other financial proposal is inversely proportional to its evaluated total price, using the formula provided in the RFP. Sample Formula (normally used) Sf = 100 x Fm/F, in which Sf is the financial score, Fm is the lowest price, and F the price of the proposal under consideration. E. Determination of Combined Scores and Ranking of Proposals The combined scores shall be obtained by applying the prescribed weighting and adding the technical and financial scores; this will determine the overall ranking of the consultants proposals. The weight for the cost shall be chosen, taking into account the complexity of the assignment and the relative importance of quality. It shall normally be 20%, but may be varied and shall be as prescribed in the RFP. The weight for quality and cost, and the methodology to calculate the total score shall also be as expressed in the RFP. Sample Formula (normally used) S = St x T% + Sf x P% where, proposals are finally ranked (S = final score) according to their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf) scores using the weights (T = the weight given to the Technical Proposal; P = the weight given to the Financial Proposal; T + P = 1). If financial proposals contain unreasonably low prices, RDA should ask the consultant concerned for clarification of such an offer and should receive answers from the consultant to ensure appropriate execution during the contract implementation stage, before concluding the combined evaluation. F. Review and Approval of Final Results of the Combined Evaluation The final results of evaluation of proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the Procurement Committee or other relevant approvals authority before initiating contract negotiations with the highest-ranked consultant. G. Negotiations RDA shall invite the highest-ranked consultant to enter into negotiations on the final provisions of both the TORs of the assignment and conditions of contract between the parties. When QCBS is applied, the negotiations will commence only after review and approval of the final results of the combined evaluation of the proposals, and, in the case of QBS, negotiations will commence after review and approval of the technical evaluation. For further guidance on the scope and procedures for negotiations, refer to Regulations 75 and 76 of the Public Procurement Regulations of *13

15 4. Evaluation of Technical Proposals Table 4.1 below shows the general examples for the range of points allocated to the criteria on a scale of 1 to 100. The actual weight may be adjusted to the characteristics of the specific project. The points allocated to each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion should be specified in the RFP and no deviation shall be allowed. Table 4.1: Point Distribution of Evaluation Criteria for Technical Proposals Evaluation Criteria Points (weights) (a) Specific experience of the consultants 10 to 20 (b) Adequacy/quality of proposed methodology/work plan 20 to 50 (c) Qualifications and competence of key staff 30 to 60 (d) Suitability of knowledge transfer optional Normally not exceed 10 (e) Support facilities and organization optional Normally not exceed 10 (f) (g) Local participation optional Proposal presentation optional Normally not exceed 10 Normally not exceed 10 Total 100 The evaluation criteria other than (c), i.e., (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) may also be divided into sub-criteria, but such division should be limited only to the essential factors. The use of excessively detailed lists of sub-criteria may render the evaluation more of a mechanical exercise than a professional assessment of the proposals. It is recommended that the number of sub-criteria be kept to a minimum if need be (typically no more than three for each criterion) and that no fewer than three points be allocated to each sub-criterion. Table 4.2: Evaluation Criteria and Sample Sub-criteria for Technical Proposals Evaluation Criteria a. Specific experience of the Consultant b. Adequacy/quality of proposed methodology and work plan c. Qualifications and competence of Key Staff d. Suitability of knowledge transfer (optional) e. Support facilities and organization (optional) Evaluation Sub-criteria (select a maximum of three) i. Experience in projects of comparable size, complexity and technical specialisation ii. Experience in developing countries under comparable conditions iii. Experience in Road Sector projects in Zambia i. Technical approach and methodology ii. Work plan iii. Organization and staffing i. General qualifications ii. Adequacy for the Assignment iii. Relevant experience in the region i. Relevance of program ii. Training approach and methodology iii. Qualifications of experts and trainers i. Relevance of support facilities and organization ii. Support approach and methodology iii. Qualifications of support specialists f. Local Participation (optional) i. Proportion of Zambian citizens amongst key staff ii. Proportion of individuals resident in Zambia g. Proposal presentation (optional) i. Intellectual and technical soundness ii. Organization and completeness NOTE The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria shall be treated as defined in the RFP and cannot be changed. *14

16 A. Specific Experience of the Consultant The relative importance of the criterion on consultant s general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR will vary according to the type of consulting services to be performed. In general, points allocated to the criterion should be 20 points at a maximum. ix. Setting the Grades Since all consultants are on the Short List based on their experience, they are not normally rated at less than "Average", that is not less than 60%. The recommended grades and percentage rating for the consultant s general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR are shown in Table 4.3 below. Table 4.3 Recommended Grades and Percentage of Rating Grade Percentage Rating 2 Excellent % Good 80-90% Average 60-75% Below Average 30-50% Poor 0-20% x. Defining the Grades Sample definitions of each grade are given below. 3 Excellent: The consultant has outstanding experience in respect of: (i) projects of a similar nature with the complexity and technical specialty of the assignment, (ii) projects of a comparable in size (e.g. volume of man-months, volume of contract amount, etc.), and (iii) projects in a region or a country with physical and institutional conditions similar to those of the project location in Zambia. Good: The consultant has experience in respect to all three aspects mentioned above, but experience in one aspect could be considered insufficient. Average: The consultant has experience in respect to all three aspects mentioned above, but experience in two or more aspects could be considered insufficient. 2 Based on the ratings as guided herein, the Evaluation Committee must discuss and agree the aspects to be considered in relation to the grading, prior to commencement of the independent evaluation of the proposals. 3 Sample definitions are examples and introduced for reference purpose only. Whenever possible, each the Evaluation Committee must discuss and agree the aspects to be considered in relation to the definitions, prior to commencement of the independent evaluation of the proposals. *15

17 Below Average: The consultant has experience in respect to only two aspects mentioned above, with no experience in one of the aspects. Poor: The consultant has experience in respect to only one aspect mentioned above, with no experience in two of the aspects. B. Adequacy/Quality of Proposed Methodology & Work Plan The criterion on adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan should be evaluated carefully as it is the key factors for evaluating the proposals. i. Setting the Grades The recommended grades and percentage rating for the adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan are shown in Table 4.4 below. Table 4.4 Recommended Grades and Percentage of Rating Grade Percentage Rating 4 Excellent % Good 80-90% Average 60-75% Below Average 30-50% Poor 0-20% ii. Defining the Grades As mentioned in Table 4.2, sub-criteria for evaluating this component of the proposal should usually include the following and are defined as follows: 5 (i) Technical approach and methodology Excellent: The consultant properly understands the current situation, draws attention to all main issues related to the assignment and raises other important issues that have not been considered in the TOR. The proposal details ways to solve all issues by using advanced and innovative approach and methodology. Good: The consultant properly understands the current situation and the main issues related to the assignment. The approach and methodology to solve the issues are discussed in detail. 4 Based on the ratings as guided herein, the Evaluation Committee must discuss and agree the aspects to be considered in relation to the grading, prior to commencement of the independent evaluation of the proposals. 5 These definitions are not included as examples for reference purpose only and should be applied with minimum discussion, if any. *16

18 Average: The consultant understands the requirement indicated in the TOR. The approach and methodology to solve the issues are consistent. However, the approach and methodology are standard and not discussed in detail or not specifically tailored to the assignment. Below Average: The consultant does not have a proper understanding of the TOR and the issues are not appropriately discussed. The approach and methodology do not have consistency and are inappropriately presented. Poor: The consultant misunderstands the requirement indicated in the TOR and important aspects of the scope of consulting services. Approach and methodology do not comply with the requirement in the TOR. (ii) Work plan Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under Good, the proposal includes an impressive presentation of the work plan for efficient execution of the assignment. The proposed work plan is consistent with the approach and methodology. Good: The work plan responds well to the TOR. The timing and duration of all activities are appropriate and consistent with the assignment output, and the interrelation between various activities is realistic and consistent with the proposed approach and methodology. Average: The work plan responds to the TOR and all required activities are indicated in the activity schedule, but they are not detailed. Below Average: Some activities required in the TOR are omitted in the work plan or the timing and duration of activities are not appropriate. There are minor inconsistencies between timing, assignment output, and proposed approach and methodology. Poor: There are major inconsistencies between the requirements in the TOR and the proposed work plan. (iii) Organization and staffing Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under Good, the proposal includes an impressive presentation of a well thought out organization and staffing plan. The proposed team is well integrated and has good support organization. Good: The organization chart and staffing schedule is complete and detailed, and the technical level and composition of the staffing arrangements are very well balanced. The definition of duties and responsibilities are very clear. The staffing schedule is consistent with the work plan and the timing and duration of each staff s assignment are adequate. *17

19 Average: The proposed organization and staffing arrangement is complete and detailed enough to meet all the requirements of the TOR. Below Average: The proposed organization and staffing arrangement is not detailed and the assignment schedule of each staff is not adequate. For instance, there are inconsistencies between the staffing schedule and the required output. Organization and staffing arrangement not tailored to the proposed approach, methodology and work plan. Poor: The organization and staffing arrangement is not responsive to the requirement of the TOR at all. It is assumed that the required output cannot be appropriately prepared within the period of the assignment. C. Qualifications and Competence of Key Staff The criterion on adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan should be evaluated carefully as it is the key factors for evaluating the proposals. i. Setting the Grades The recommended grades and percentage rating for the experience and records of the key staff members to be assigned to the work are shown in Table 4.5 below. Table 4.5 Recommended Grades and Percentage Rating (Qualifications/Competence) Grade Percentage rating Excellent 100% Good 90% Average 70% Below Average 40% Poor 0% ii. Defining the Grades As shown in Table 4.2, sub-criteria for evaluating this component of the proposal shall include the following: (i) General qualifications (education, length of experience, types of position held, length of service with the firm, etc.); (ii) Suitability for the project (experiences of performing the duties which will be assigned to them in the project); (iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country in which the work is to be performed or experience in similar environments. *18

20 Sample definitions of each grade are enumerated below: 6 (i) General qualifications Excellent: The proposed expert has 20 years or more of professional experience and an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. Good: The proposed expert has 15 years or more of professional experience and an educational background or professional qualification in the field of assignment. Average: The proposed expert has 10 years or more of professional experience and educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. Below Average: The proposed expert has less than 10 years of professional experience but has an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. Poor: The proposed expert has less than 3 years of professional experience and does not have an educational background or a professional qualification in the field of assignment. (ii) Suitability for the project Excellent: In addition to the requirements stated below under Good, the majority of the proposed expert's experience on previous assignments in the past 10 years has been in positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment. Good: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in more than 3 projects of a similar nature in the past 10 years. Average: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in 2 projects of a similar nature in the past 10 years. Below Average: The proposed expert has held positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in at least 1 project of a similar nature in the past 10 years. Poor: The proposed expert does not have any experience in holding positions similar to the one proposed for the assignment in the past 10 years. (iii) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the region/province. Excellent: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for more than 3 years in total. 6 Sample definitions are examples and introduced for reference purpose only. *19

21 Good: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for 2 years or more but less than 3 years in total. Average: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for 1 year or more but less than 2 years in total. Below Average: The proposed expert has experience working in the region/province of the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of Zambia for less than 1 year in total. Poor: The proposed expert does not have any experience working in the region/province for the assignment or the surrounding countries with cultural, administrative, and governmental organizations similar to the ones of the country of the assignment. 7 7 Optional Evaluation Criteria may be treated in a similar manner prior to commencement of evaluation. *20

22 5. Completion of Evaluation of Technical Proposals The evaluation results of technical proposals are detailed in an evaluation report including a summary technical evaluation sheet and evaluation sheets for staff members of each consultant. After the technical quality is evaluated, consultants whose technical proposals did not meet the minimum qualifying score, or were considered non-responsive to the invitation requirements, will not be considered further. Table 5.1 Summary Technical Evaluation Sheet Consultant XXX YYY ZZZ Evaluation Criteria -I Consultant's general experience and record in the field covered by the TOR (i) Experience in projects of comparable size, complexity and technical (ii) specialisation Experience in developing countries under comparable conditions (iii) Experience in Road Sector projects II Adequacy of the proposed approach, methodology and work plan (i) Technical Approach and methodology III Points (P) Rating (R)% Score (P x R) Rating (R)% Score (P x R) Rating (R)% Score (P x R) (ii) Work plan (iii) Organization and staffing Experience and records of the staff members to be assigned to the work International (i) Team leader (ii) Road engineer (iii) Transport economist (iv) Environmental specialist Local (i) Road engineer (ii) Transport economist (iii) Environmental specialist (iv) Social specialist Total Y The rating and score of each member of staff based on the three sub-criteria are shown in the technical evaluation sheet for staff members, and the relevant scores are transferred to the summary technical evaluation sheet. Y The minimum technical score is 70 point, in this example. NOTE Consultant XXX, which failed to achieve the minimum technical score, is rejected at the stage of evaluation of the technical proposals. *21

23 Evaluation sheets for staff members are prepared for each consultant to show the evaluation results based on the three sub-criteria on qualifications and competence of staff. The score of each expert in the evaluation sheet for staff members of each consultant is transferred to the summary technical evaluation sheet. An example of a completed evaluation sheet for staff members of Consultant YYY is shown in Table 5.2 below. Table 5.2 Evaluation Sheet for Staff Members Consultant YYY Sub-criteria Position International Total Points General qualifications (20%) Points (P) Rating (R)% Score (P x R) Suitability for the project (60%) Points (P) Rating (R)% Score (P x R) Familiarity with the language and the conditions of the country (20%) Points (P) Rating (R)% Score (P x R) (i) Team leader (ii) Road engineer (iii) Transport economist (iv) Environment specialist Local (i) Road engineer (ii) Transport economist (iii) Environment specialist (iv) Social specialist Sub- Total Sub-Total NOTE Once the final combined scores for each proposal have been calculated, they can be ranked from highest to lowest. In the event two or more proposals have the same scores in the final ranking of proposals, the proposal with the highest technical score will be ranked higher and the next highest technical score will be ranked lower. After the final ranking, the highestranked consultant will be invited for contract negotiations. *22

24 6. Negotiations A. Outline of Negotiation Procedures RDA shall invite the highest-ranked consultant to enter into negotiations on the conditions of a contract between them, in the case of QCBS, after the relevant approvals authority s review and approval of the final results and recommendations, and, in the case of QBS, after the relevant approvals authority s review and approval of the technical evaluation report. When QBS is applied, discussions concerning costs and other financial matters shall be conducted only with a consultant who has been selected to be invited to enter into contract negotiations. In the event that the financial proposal of the consultant was not submitted together with the technical proposal, RDA notifies the consultant with the highest technical score and requests that the consultant submit its financial proposal. When QCBS is applied, RDA notifies the consultant whose proposal has obtained the highest total score and invites the selected consultant for negotiations. Negotiations may be carried out in phases, when decisions are needed from other authorities. RDA should prepare minutes of the negotiations and include these as part of all contracts. If RDA and the highest-ranked consultant are unable to reach agreement on a contract within a reasonable time, RDA may terminate the negotiations with the highest-ranked consultant and invite the consultant who ranked second in the evaluation to enter into negotiations after obtaining the relevant approvals authority s approval. This procedure shall be followed until RDA reaches agreement with a consultant. B. Items Subject to Negotiation i. Technical Negotiations The technical negotiations will neither substantially alter the Terms of Reference included in the RFP, nor the technical proposals submitted by the consultant. Negotiations may include clarifications of the following: Scope of work Technical approach and methodology Work plan and schedule Organization and personnel Deliverables Counterpart staff and facilities Contract special conditions *23

25 While there should be some flexibility in work plans, staff assignment and major work inputs which have been previously agreed on as appropriate for the assignment, these shall not be materially modified to meet budget constraints. RDA and the consultants will finalize the Terms of Reference, personnel schedule, work schedule, logistics and reporting requirements. These documents will then be incorporated in the contract as Description of Services. Special attention will be paid to clearly defining the inputs and facilities required from RDA to ensure satisfactory implementation of the assignment. During contract negotiations, the consultant shall assure RDA that the staff will be actually available. RDA will not consider substitutions during contract negotiations unless both parties agree that undue delay in the selection process makes such substitution unavoidable or for reasons such as death or medical incapacity. Any proposed substitute shall have equivalent or better qualifications and experience than the original candidate. ii. Financial Negotiations The financial negotiations shall be reasonable in order to keep consistency between the quality and the price of the services. The financial negotiations will include a clarification (if any) of the consultant s tax liability and obligations in Zambia, and the manner in which it will be reflected in the contract. In cases where local taxes to be paid by the consultant are excluded in the financial proposal, they will not be evaluated, but they will be discussed at contract negotiations, and applicable amounts will be included in the Contract. When QCBS is applied, proposed unit rates for remuneration shall not be altered since they have been factors in the selection process. The financial negotiations will, as necessary, fine-tune duration of the expert s inputs and quantities of items of reimbursable expenses that may be increased or decreased from the relevant amounts shown or agreed otherwise in the financial proposal, but without significant alterations. When the QBS method is used, the financial negotiations will include a detailed review of all the consultant s proposed costs including a review of all documentation provided by the consultant in support of proposed costs. In particular, the consultants shall provide full details of the remuneration of all nominated experts. However, unless there are exceptional reasons, the financial negotiations will not involve the remuneration rates for experts. *24