GAMBIA PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY

STANDARD BID EVALUATION FORMS

For

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

HOW TO USE THESE FORMS................................................................................................3

SECTION I. BID EVALUATION STANDARD FORMS......................................................4

Standard Cover Letter..................................................................................................................4

Letter of Transmittal....................................................................................................................4

Technical Evaluation Report - Text.............................................................................................5

Form I A: Evaluation Summary...................................................................................................9

Form I B: Individual Evaluations - Comparisons......................................................................10

Form I C: GPPA Form 014 – Record of Tenders Not Accepted [GPPR 70(2)].......................10

SECTION II. FINANCIAL EVALUATION REPORT — AWARD

RECOMMENDATION — TEXT............................................................................................11

Form II A. Adjustments — Currency Conversion — Evaluated Prices....................................13

Form II B. OCBS Combined Technical / Financial Evaluation — Award Recommendation /

GPPA Form 021- Summary Report of Evaluation and Comparison of Proposals

[GPPR 94(2]…………..............................................................................................13

Form II C. Fixed-Budget and Least Cost Selection — Award Recommendation: GPPA Form

021- Summary Report of Evaluation and Comparison of Proposals [GPPR 94(2] 14

Annexes.......................................................................................................................................15

Annex (i). Individual Evaluations / GPPA Form 020- Record of Evaluation of Each Proposal

[GPPR 94(2]..........................................................................................................15

Annex (ii) Individual Evaluations — Key Personnel...............................................................16

2
HOW TO USE THESE FORMS

This guide has been prepared by the Gambia Public Procurement Authority to provide users
with a clear understanding of the evaluation methods and procedures for procurement of
consultants in public procurement. The evaluation forms and guide contained in this document
provides step-by-step procedures for the evaluation of proposals from consultancy firms or
individual consultants following a shortlisting through advertised Expression of Interest or from
the data base of the procuring entity. This Guide refers to selection of consultants. In all
instances, the preparation of proposals and evaluation procedures described in the Instructions
to Consultants (ITC) and other sections of the Request for Proposals (RFP) documents should
be followed. In case of ambiguities or discrepancies between this Guide and the RFP document,
the provisions contained in the latter will prevail.

Those using this guide should appreciate that evaluations and resulting reports need not
necessarily be lengthy. Evaluation of Proposals for small assignments may be in a simpler
format. The forms should invariably accompany the evaluation report, but they may be
adapted to suit specific requirements of the Request for Proposals documents. The report
should include a number of attachments to explain details of the evaluation of proposals or to
show specific controversial wording or numbers in a proposal. Cross-referencing should be
used extensively, as well as references to pertinent clauses in the Request for Proposals
documents.

GPPA Forms 014-Record of Tenders Not Accepted, 020-Record of Evaluation of Each

Proposal and 021-Summary Report of Evaluation and Comparison of Proposals have been
incorporated in this guide and do not have to be filed separately.

3
SECTION I. BID EVALUATION STANDARD FORMS

Standard Cover Letter

Bid Evaluation Report

and

Recommendation for Award of Contract

Procuring Organization:

RFP Ref. No. :

Subject of Consulting Services:

Date of Submission:

Letter of Transmittal

The bid evaluation report should be accompanied by a Letter of Transmittal from the Procuring

Organization to GPPA. The letter should highlight conclusions and offer any additional

information that would help to expedite review by GPPA. In addition, any unresolved or

potentially contentious issues should be highlighted. The letter should be sent to the Director-

General GPPA.

4
Technical Evaluation Report - Text1

1. Background
In about a quarter of a page, provide a brief description, context, scope, and objectives of
the services. .
2. The Selection Process (Prior to Technical Evaluation)
In about one page:
(a) Briefly describe the selection process, from advertising expressions of interest (if
required) / Request for Proposals (RFP), the establishment of the shortlist, withdrawals
of firms before proposal submissions etc;
(b) Describe major events that may have affected the timing (delays, complaints from
consultants, Request for Proposals (RFP), extension of proposal submission date and so
on);

3. Technical Evaluation
In about two pages:-
(a) Describe briefly the meetings and actions taken by the evaluation committee:
formation of a technical evaluation team, outside assistance, evaluation guidelines,
justification of sub-criteria and associated weightings as indicated in the Standard
Request for Proposals; and compliance of evaluation with RFP.

(b) Present results of the technical evaluation: scores and the award recommendation.

(c) Highlight strengths and weaknesses of each proposal (most important part of the
report).
(i) Strengths: Experience in very similar projects in the country; quality of the
methodology, proving a clear understanding of the scope of the assignment;
strengths of the local partner; and experience of proposed staff in similar
assignments.
(ii) Weaknesses: Of a particular component of the proposal; of a lack of
experience in the country; of a low level of participation by the local partner;
of a lack of practical experience (experience in studies rather than in
implementation); of staff experience compared to the firm’s experience; of a
key staffer (e.g., the team leader); of a lack of responsiveness; and of
disqualifications (conflict of interest).
(d) Comment on individual evaluators’ scores (discrepancies).
(e) Items requiring further negotiations
4. Technical Evaluation – Basic Data

1
Section I applies to Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS), Quality Based Selection (QBS), Fixed Budget Selection (FBS),
and Least Cost Selection (LCS). Provide appropriate information in the case of Single-Source Selection (SS).

5
4.1 Type of assignment (pre- investment,
preparation, implementation etc) _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________

6
4.2 Method of Selection: [check as appropriate] QCBS QBS FBS LCS other (specify)
4.3 Contract: [check as appropriate]  Time-Based

 Lump-Sum

GPPA Complex Lump-Sum

Other (describe): ______________________________
_______________________________________________

4.4 Request for Expression of Interest

Publication in National Newspaper(s)
(i) Name _______________________________________________
(ii) Date ______________________________________________
(iii) Any other e.g. www ______________________________________________
(iv) Number of responses ______________________________________________

4.5 Shortlist
1. _______________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________
4. _______________________________________________
5. _______________________________________________
6. _______________________________________________

4.6 Request for Proposal:

(i) Submission to GPPA for Approval, if Date: ________________________________________
Applicable
(ii) GPPA Approval Date: ________________________________________
(iii) Issuance to Consultants Date: ________________________________________

4.7 Amendments and clarifications to the RFP

(describe)

4.8 Pre-proposal conference held  Yes  No

7
 Minutes issued  Yes  No
[Check as appropriate]

4.9 Proposal Submission

(i) Two or One Envelope Two envelopes (technical and financial proposals
[Check as appropriate] One envelope (technical)
(ii) Original Submissions Date ________________________ Time _______________

(iii) Extension(s) Date ________________________ Time _______________

4.1 Opening of Technical Proposals Date ________________________ Time _______________

0

4.1 Number of proposals received

1

4.1 Evaluation committee1:

2 (Members’ names and titles) 1. __________________________________________
2. __________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________
4. ___________________________________________
5. ___________________________________________

4.1 Proposal validity period (days):

3

(i) original expiration Date Date _________________________ Time ______________

(ii) extension(s), if any Date _________________________ Time ______________

4.1 Evaluation Criteria/sub-criteria2

4

Experience
(a) Individual
(b) Firm
(i) _________________ Weight ______________

(ii) _________________ Weight ______________

1
It is important that evaluators be qualified
2
Maximum of three sub-criteria per criterion recommended

8
 (a) Methodology

(i) _________________ Weight ______________

(ii) _________________ Weight ______________

(b) Key Staff

(i) Individual(s)

(A) _________________ Weight ______________

(B) _________________ Weight ______________

(C) _________________ Weight ______________

(ii) Others (if Applicable)

(A) _________________ Weight ______________

(B) _________________ Weight ______________

(C) _________________ Weight ______________

(c) Training (Optional)

(i) _________________ Weight ______________

(ii) _________________ Weight ______________

(d) Local Input (Optional)

(i) _________________ Weigh_______________

(ii) _________________ Weigh________________

(e) Understanding the TOR

(i) ___________________ Weigh________________

(ii) __________________ Weigh________________

4.1 Technical Scores by Consultants

5 Minimum Qualifying Score ________________________

9
 Consultants’ Name Technical Score
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

4.1 Evaluation Notice

6 (a) Issue to the Consultant Date __________________________________________

5. Technical Score
Provide tables of Technical Score and Ranking as well as individual markings, date of
notification of technical score to participants and attach Table 1and 2 as given below:

Form I A: Evaluation Summary

Technical Scoring / Ranking

Consultants’ [Insert name of [Insert name of [Insert name of [Insert name of
names Consultant 1] Consultant 2] Consultant 3] Consultant 4], etc
Criteria Scores Scores Scores Scores
Experience
Methodology
Proposed staff
Understanding
the TOR
Total score
Rank

a. Proposals scoring below the minimum qualifying score of [number] points have been
rejected

10
 Form I B: Individual Evaluations - Comparisons

Option 1:
Criteria Max Score Individual Evaluators Marks
[Consultant 1] [Consultant 2] [Consultant 3] [Consultant 4]
Experience E1 –
E2 –
E3 –
E4 –
Av –
Methodology
Key staff
Training
Understanding the
TOR
Total 100
Ranking

Keys: (E1, E2, E3 ……… )- Scores of individual evaluators, AV-Average evaluator scores

Form I C: GPPA Form 014 – Record of Tenders Not Accepted [GPPR 79(2)]

The following proposals scored below the minimum qualifying score of [number] points have
and have not been accepted to proceed to subsequent stages of the evaluation.

No. [Insert Name of Consultant0 Technical Score

1.
2.
3.
Etc.

11
SECTION II. FINANCIAL EVALUATION REPORT — AWARD
RECOMMENDATION — TEXT1

6 General Information

[Text here should include but not limited to:

(a) any issues faced during the evaluation, such as difficulty in obtaining the exchange
rates to convert the prices into the common currency used for evaluation purposes;
(b) adjustments made to the prices of the proposal(s) (mainly to ensure consistency with
the technical proposal) and determination of the evaluated price (does not apply to
Quality-Based (Quality-Based) and Single-Source Selection (Single- Source));
(c) tax-related problems;
(d) award recommendation; and
(e) Any other important information.

Taxes are not taken into account in the financial evaluation whereas reimbursables are [GPPR
100]
6.1 Basic Data

a. Public Opening of financial Proposals Date _________________________ Time ______

Names and proposal prices (mark

Consultants that attended public opening) 1. _________________________________
2. _________________________________
3. _________________________________
4. _________________________________
5. _________________________________
6. _________________________________

b. Evaluation Committee:
Members’ names and titles (if not the 1. _________________________________
same as in the technical evaluation - 2. _________________________________
Quality-Based, Single- Source)
3. _________________________________
4. _________________________________
5. _________________________________
6. _________________________________

1
Applies to QCBS, Fixed-Budget, and Least-Cost. For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source
provide relevant information as indicated

12
c. Methodology (formula):
Weight inversely proportional to cost: _________
for evaluation of cost (QCBS only; cross
as appropriate)
Other: _______________________________
d. QCBS& QBS
(i) Technical, financial and final scores
(Quality-Based: technical scores Consultant’s Technical Financial Final Score
only) Name Score Score

(ii) Award Recommendation __________________________________________

Fixed Budget and Least-Cost

e.

(i) Technical, financial and final scores

(Quality-Based: technical scores only Consultant’s Technical Financial Final Score
Name Score Score

(ii) Award Recommendation __________________________________________

(iii) Fixed-Budget: best technical proposal Name: _________________________________

within the budget (evaluated price

(iv) Least-Cost: lowest evaluated price

proposal above minimum qualifying Name: _________________________________
score

13
 Form II A. Adjustments — Currency Conversion — Evaluated Prices1

Consultants’ Proposals’ pricesa Adjustmentsb Evaluated Conversion to currency of Financial

Names price(s) evaluationc scoresd
Currency Amounts Exchange Proposals’
(1) (2) (3) = (1) + (2 rate(s)e (4) prices (6)
(5) = (3)(4)

a. Comments, if any (e.g., exchange rates); three foreign currencies maximum, plus local currency.
b. Arithmetical errors and omissions of items included in the technical proposals. Adjustments may be
positive or negative.
c. As per RFP.
d. 100 points to the lowest evaluated proposal; other scores to be determined in accordance with provisions of
RFP.
e. Value of one currency unit in the common currency used for evaluation purposes, normally the local
currency (e.g., US$1 = ____ GMD). Indicate source as per RFP.

Form II B. OCBS Combined Technical / Financial Evaluation — Award

Recommendation / GPPA Form 021- Summary Report of Evaluation and
Comparison of Proposals [GPPR 102(2]

Technical Financial Combined

Consultant’s Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
names Technical Weighted Financial Weighted Scores S(t)
Scoresa S(t) scores S(t) Technical Scoresc S(f) Scoresc S(f) T+
xTb Rank
x Fd
S(f) F Rank

Award To highest combined technical/financial ore.

recommendation Consultant’s name:

a. See Form IIB.

b. T = As per RFP.
c. See Form IVB.
1
For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source, fill out only up to column 3

14
 d. F = as per RFP

Form II C. Fixed-Budget and Least Cost Selection — Award Recommendation1: GPPA

Form 021- Summary Report of Evaluation and Comparison of Proposals
[GPPR 102(2]

Consultants’ names Fixed-Budget Selection Least-Cost Selection

Technical scoresa Evaluated pricesb Technical scores Evaluated prices

Award Recommendation To best technical score with evaluated price To lowest evaluated price above minimum
within budget. qualifying score.
Consultant’s name: ___________ Consultant’s name: _________
____________________________ __________________________

a. See Form I B.
b. See Form II A.

7. Conclusion

The Evaluation Committee will conclude after preparing an Executive Summary Report and
giving its appreciation as to the extent the proposals received have met the requirements as
specified in the RFP. The Evaluation Committee may highlight on weaknesses in the RFP and
the reasons for disparities between the procurement estimates and the financial proposals
received, whether applicable.

Signed

Name Signature Date

Chairperson ____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

Member ____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

Member ____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

Secretary ____________________________ _____________________ ___________________

1
Fill in appropriate part of form

15
 Annexes

Annex (i). Individual Evaluations / GPPA Form 020- Record of Evaluation of Each
Proposal [GPPR 102(2]

Consultant’s name:

Evaluators
Criteria/Sub-Criteria Maximum 1 2 3 4 5 Average
Scores Scores
Experience
-
-
-

Methodology
-
-
-

Key Staff
-
-
-

Transfer of Knowledge (Traininga)

-
-
-

Participation by Nationalsa

-
-
-
Understanding the TOR
Total 100
a. If specified in theRFP
1 Evaluator’s Name: __________________________ Signature: ___________________ Date: _________
2 Evaluator’s Name: __________________________ Signature: ___________________ Date: _________
3 Evaluator’s Name: __________________________ Signature: ___________________ Date: _________
4 Evaluator’s Name: __________________________ Signature: ___________________ Date: _________
5 Evaluator’s Name: __________________________ Signature: ___________________ Date: _________

16
Annex (ii) Individual Evaluations — Key Personnel

Key Staff Maximum General Adequacy Experience Total Scores

Names’a Scores Qualification for the in Region Marks
Assignment
t
( )b ( )b ( )b (100)

Total

a. Sometimes evaluations are made by groups instead of individuals. Each group (e.g.
Financial group) has a weight. The group score is obtained by the weighted scores of the
members of the group. For example, the score of a group of three individuals scoring a, b,
and c would be ax + by + cz with x, y, and z representing the respective weights of the
members (x + y + z = 1) in this group.
b. Maximum marks as per RFP

Name of Evaluator: _____________________ Signature: __________________ Date: ________

17