Overview of the Scoring System
The evaluation of each bid is based on a 100-point scoring model, distributed across four primary criteria:
| Evaluation Criteria | Weight (%) | Maximum Score |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | 30% | 30 points |
| Quality | 30% | 30 points |
| Timeline | 20% | 20 points |
| Vendor Experience | 20% | 20 points |
| Total | 100% | 100 points |
Each submitted bid is scored independently by members of the evaluation panel using a detailed rubric, and scores are averaged to arrive at a final composite score per bidder.
1. Cost Scoring (30 points)
Goal: Evaluate financial competitiveness and value for money.
- Method: A relative scoring system is used where the lowest priced bid receives the full 30 points. Other bids are scored using the formula:
Score = (Lowest Bid / Bidder’s Price) × 30 - Additional Factors:
- Price realism: Extremely low bids may be flagged for feasibility concerns.
- Hidden costs: Bids including unexplained or conditional pricing lose points.
2. Quality Scoring (30 points)
Goal: Assess the technical strength and appropriateness of the proposed solution.
- Criteria:
- Compliance with specifications and deliverables
- Clarity and feasibility of the methodology
- Proposed innovations and added value
- Quality assurance measures
- Scoring Rubric:
- 27–30 points: Exceptional quality and innovation
- 21–26 points: Above standard, minor gaps
- 15–20 points: Meets minimum requirements
- Below 15: Significant quality concerns or gaps
3. Timeline Scoring (20 points)
Goal: Ensure the proposed schedule aligns with project needs and deadlines.
- Evaluation Points:
- Realism of proposed timelines
- Inclusion of detailed milestones
- Presence of risk mitigation and contingency planning
- Scoring Rubric:
- 18–20 points: Comprehensive timeline, well-planned contingencies
- 14–17 points: Realistic timeline with minor adjustments needed
- 10–13 points: Basic schedule, lacks detail
- Below 10: Timeline likely unfeasible or missing key deliverables
4. Vendor Experience Scoring (20 points)
Goal: Gauge the bidder’s track record and capacity to execute the project.
- Evaluation Factors:
- Number of similar projects completed
- Past engagements with SayPro or similar organizations
- Testimonials, references, and case studies
- Scoring Rubric:
- 18–20 points: Extensive, directly relevant experience
- 14–17 points: Solid experience with some relevance
- 10–13 points: Limited or tangentially relevant experience
- Below 10: Insufficient or unverified experience
Scoring Process and Normalization
- All panelists complete scoring independently based on bid review.
- Scores are then averaged for each criterion across all evaluators.
- A normalization process ensures that outlier scores (e.g., unusually high or low assessments) do not skew results unfairly.
- Final composite scores are calculated out of 100 points.
Shortlisting and Final Selection
- Bidders scoring 70 points or above are shortlisted for further clarification or negotiations.
- Those with the top three scores may be invited to present their proposals live or submit additional supporting documentation.
- Final decisions are documented and submitted for approval by the Procurement Steering Committee.
Transparency and Documentation
- All scores, justifications, and evaluation sheets are securely archived for audit purposes.
- Feedback summaries are made available to unsuccessful bidders upon request to encourage capacity building and continuous improvement.
Conclusion
By employing a robust scoring system in the January SCMR-1 evaluation cycle, SayPro reinforces its commitment to ethical procurement and organizational excellence. This process ensures that every vendor is assessed fairly and consistently, and that SayPro engages only the most qualified partners to deliver value across its strategic initiatives.
Leave a Reply