Tender Evaluation Report

Tender Evaluation Report

An open tender was published in three dailies by the County Government. It involved the erection of 500 Kilo Volts transmission lines with a length of 200Kilometers. The contract value was 45 million Kenya Shillings. Seven bidders participated, and the opening of tenders was carried on, and they were subjected to evaluation. The bidders firm can be named F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7. The evaluation was conducted in three stages, i.e., preliminary, technical, and financial stage consecutively.

Four firms were disqualified at the preliminary stage, and the technical stage and those that made it to the next stage were F1, F4, F6 since they were the lowest bidders.

Observations.

Compliance is denoted with C, while non-compliance is NC.

Quiz a) The company selected would be firm F6 as the substantially responsive bidder. This firm has complied with most of the mandatory requirements stated in the tender document. For instance, it was the only firm amongst the three, which has all the equipment required for the erection of the transmission line.

Firm F1 being the lowest bidder, would not be the most substantially responsive bidder since they had not complied with other mandatory requirements for this tender. The main reason for their disqualification would be the lack of the necessary equipment for the project. This would mean they are hiring the equipment, which in return, the project timelines might not be achieved, and quality might be compromised.

Firm F4 would also be disqualified since they would not prove they had done previous works that would amount to the same magnitude as expected in the tender. Also, they lack equipment, which would delay the project completion and quality of work delivered.

Although F6 was the third-lowest bidder, they stand better ground to deliver the said project on time. This firm has the experience required by this tender to confirm their capabilities to deliver. The possible reason that could make them not indicate commitment is their having other active projects using similar equipment. However, they are confident they will still deliver the work as expected by the County Government.

Quiz b) the most appropriate criteria on the ‘general experience’ would be the second clause that states; Demonstrate experience in three projects of lesser distance which, when combined, will total to 200 Kilometers.

This clause is more inclusive compared to the first one in the sense that projects vary in terms of extents. It would only be a coincidence if the firm had previously handled a project with the same magnitude as indicated in the tender document. oThis confirms the ambiguity in the tender clause on ‘general experience.’ Firms handling lesser lengths in the erection of the transmission line does not entirely confirm that they are incapable of handling more, but rather the contract that was available at the moment was of lesser magnitude.

The tender document should have provided an addendum to provide an equal ground to the contractors bidding even though they have not had an exact similar size of the project but several projects with lesser lengths. Also, at the County Government level, projects are mainly not of larget extents as compared to the National Government level. Putting such into considerations would give competitors equal grounds without considering luck for those who fall in the category of performing the same size of the project.

Quiz c) pros and cons of using past performance as a criterion for tender evaluation by procurement entity.

Mostly, tender evaluations are based on the lowest bidder basis, which at times ends up with delivery issues such as cost and time overruns. Past performance is a criterion which is very significant in selecting a competent contractor for the anticipated projects. In addition to using the lowest bid as the criterion, it is advisable also to include a past performance of the contractor, which in return will assure high standards of final results of the project.

Advantages of inclusion of past performance as a criterion for tender evaluation.

Past performance is a reliable indicator. It will determine the cost of the project, the time taken to deliver the project, and, most importantly, the quality of the project delivered. This criterion shows the reputation of the contractor, which, in return, will raise the Client’s confidence level. The relationship between the Client and the contractor will also be strengthened. Consequently, the trust will grow because the contractor has a prosperous past in a similar type of project. Therefore, the Client will be assured of a successful project. Having a successful past performance is an indicator of succeeding in future performance. The future performance success can be determined by a few past indicators, which include; the time taken to complete the past project, the clients’ satisfaction, the quality, the success, and track record of the previous projects.

Disadvantages

Even though past performance is essential in rating the contractor’s competence, there are several disadvantages of including it as a criterion for tender evaluation. First is determining the evaluation accuracy; there are chances of the contractor’s past performance to be mismeasured, thus providing unfair information. Fairness in the evaluation process would therefore be a challenge. There is a need for standards to be put in place to measure the level of performance; otherwise, those involved in rating might be biased, thus providing incorrect information to the tender evaluation team.

Consistency of the rates from project to project would also be a challenge. Thus it is almost impossible to provide adequate data with the current situation by the use of past performance criteria. The uncertain and unfair basis of this criteria makes it to be at a disadvantage for the contractors being evaluated.

Quiz d) Bidders suitability for implementing the project.

1. Bidder F1 was noted to be non-responsive. They managed to get to the preliminary evaluation, and therefore he was given a chance to move to the technical evaluation. However, despite being the lowest bidder, they did not confirm the availability of the equipment for the project since they would not prove ownership and their commitment to the project.
2. Bidder F4 was found to be Non- responsive yet being the second-lowest bidder. The reason being that he could not prove his capacity to handle the 200km length of a transmission line. Also, the firm was not in a position to submit the list of equipment they have for the project. Indicating commitment of equipment was also a challenge, thus disqualified for the tender.
3. Bidder F6 was found to be responsive. The firm was among the lowest bidders, and their overall experience was as expected. They proved their capacity to deliver a project with a magnitude of 200km. They also proved ownership of equipment, which assures the Client that they will deliver the project on time and successfully.