Analyze the technical feasibility and financial competitiveness of each bid
📌 Objective:
To ensure that each submitted bid is rigorously evaluated for both technical feasibility (ability to deliver according to SayPro’s requirements) and financial competitiveness (offering value for money). This dual evaluation forms the foundation for fair, objective, and cost-effective procurement decisions.
This evaluation directly feeds into the SayPro Monthly SCMR-1 Report and supports the Award Decision Memo.
🔍 Part 1: Technical Evaluation
🎯 Purpose:
To assess the bidder’s capacity, qualifications, approach, and overall alignment with the technical requirements defined in the tender or RFP.
📝 Key Evaluation Areas:
- Compliance with Technical Specifications:
- Assess if the bid responds accurately to the scope of work and specifications
- Identify deviations, if any, and assess their impact on performance
- Bidder’s Experience and Track Record:
- Number of similar projects executed (locally/internationally)
- Client references and case studies
- Industry certifications, where applicable
- Technical Methodology and Work Plan:
- Quality and realism of the proposed implementation strategy
- Project timelines, deliverables, and milestones
- Risk mitigation strategies
- Staffing and Expertise:
- Qualifications and experience of key personnel
- Team structure and management capacity
- Quality Assurance:
- Internal controls, quality monitoring mechanisms
- Proposed standards or frameworks (e.g., ISO)
- Innovation or Value Additions (optional):
- Technological innovation, sustainability efforts, or efficiency enhancements
📊 Scoring Process:
- Each technical criterion is assigned a weighting (e.g., 40%, 25%, etc.)
- Panel members score independently, then scores are averaged and discussed
- Example scoring range: 0–5 or 0–100
- Minimum Threshold: Only bidders scoring above a minimum technical threshold (e.g., 70%) proceed to financial evaluation
Sample Technical Score Matrix:
| Criteria | Weight (%) | Score (Bidder A) | Score (Bidder B) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Compliance | 30 | 25 | 18 |
| Experience & References | 20 | 18 | 12 |
| Methodology & Delivery Approach | 30 | 24 | 20 |
| Key Staff & Team Qualifications | 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Value Addition | 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Total Score (out of 100) | 100 | 83 | 64 |
💰 Part 2: Financial Evaluation
🎯 Purpose:
To determine the most cost-effective bid among the technically qualified submissions while ensuring the pricing is realistic, clear, and within budget.
📝 Key Evaluation Areas:
- Total Bid Price:
- Compare total cost (including all taxes, duties, fees, and applicable charges)
- Cost Breakdown and Pricing Structure:
- Assess the clarity and logic of the breakdown (e.g., labor, materials, transport, admin)
- Detect potential underquoting or cost padding
- Consistency with Technical Proposal:
- Ensure that pricing matches what’s proposed technically (e.g., number of personnel, equipment)
- Budget Alignment:
- Check if bid falls within the internal budget estimate
- Financial Health of Bidder (optional):
- Review audited financials or bank letters to assess financial capacity to deliver
📊 Scoring Process:
- Typically based on price competitiveness
- Formula may vary depending on the evaluation model used (e.g., lowest price or most economically advantageous tender – MEAT)
- In a weighted evaluation, financial scores are proportionally adjusted based on the lowest compliant bid
Example: Weighted Price Scoring (out of 100)
| Bidder | Price Quoted | Score (out of 100) |
|---|---|---|
| Bidder A | R950,000 | 90 |
| Bidder B | R1,100,000 | 78 |
| Bidder C | R890,000 | 95 |
📌 Final Score Calculation (Combined Technical + Financial)
In many SayPro evaluations, a weighted scoring model is used:
- Technical Weight: 80%
- Financial Weight: 20%
Final Score Example:
| Bidder | Technical Score (x0.8) | Financial Score (x0.2) | Total Final Score | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 83 x 0.8 = 66.4 | 90 x 0.2 = 18.0 | 84.4 | 1 |
| B | 64 x 0.8 = 51.2 | 78 x 0.2 = 15.6 | 66.8 | 2 |
| C | 70 x 0.8 = 56.0 | 95 x 0.2 = 19.0 | 75.0 | 3 |
The bidder with the highest final score is typically recommended for award, unless special considerations apply (e.g., risk concerns, legal issues, or conditionalities).
📎 Inclusion in SayPro Monthly January SCMR-1: SayPro Monthly Bid Evaluation
- For each tender evaluated, attach the full Technical and Financial Evaluation Summary
- Ensure that:
- Technical and financial scores are clearly recorded
- All scoring matrices are signed by panel members
- Combined scores match the final recommendation in the Award Decision Memo
- Evaluation outcomes are traceable in the Bid Rejection Report (for unsuccessful bidders)
🗓️ Timelines:
- Technical and Financial Evaluation must be completed within 7–10 working days after the bid closing date.
- Final results must be submitted and referenced in the SCMR-1 Report by February 5, 2025, for the January cycle
Leave a Reply