This article is taken from March's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
A couple of months ago Anja Beriro wrote an article looking at some European procurement cases, one of which focused on award criteria, what are usually called evaluation criteria in the UK. Over the last six months or so we have advised on a number of procurements under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR) where evaluation criteria have been a key area of advice, at all stages of the procurement. Here are some of the key messages:
Don’t confuse your evaluation criteria with your specification
Your specification sets out what you require the contractor to provide during the term of the contract. This can be set out in a number of ways: a narrative document, a list of requirements, a table of responsibilities. However it is set out, the key point is that it is something that can be attached to the contract and that is on the contracting authority’s terms. Clearly in some types of procurement, such as competitive dialogue, some details of the specification may evolve during the dialogue sessions but there should always be a core set of requirements that are the minimum that the contracting authority will accept. The evaluation criteria are how the contracting authority will assess which bidder provides the best response to the requirements. In a very basic procurement it may be enough to ask bidders to confirm that they are able to deliver the specification. However, mostly, the contracting authority will wish to understand the methodologies and technologies that the bidders will utilise. For example, part of specification for printers may be to reduce the overall spend on printing over a five year period. Bidders could be asked as part of the evaluation criteria to describe the methods they would use to reduce printing and to show how this would be evidenced. Evaluation criteria may well reference parts of the specification so that bidders are able to better understand how the contracting authority expects the bidder to respond.
Don’t expect bidders to be mind readers
This is another way of saying ‘don’t use undisclosed sub-criteria’. Particularly in higher value or more complex procurements a one line evaluation criterion is usually not enough and when probed the contracting authority can usually give various examples of what they would expect to see in the responses to that question. There is sometimes a fine line to be drawn between being clear about what the contracting authority wants and ‘coaching’ the answers out of bidders. However, if a contracting authority can say that it would only give a particular score if bidders cover certain topics or issues then it is much better to say this to bidders so that they understand how they can achieve a ‘good’ or an ‘excellent’. What the contracting authority doesn’t need to do is tell the bidders the detail of how that topic should be addressed. Another way to test this is to ask whether all bidders would interpret the question in the same way. If it appears that the bidders would be able to make different interpretations of the criterion then it would wise to add more detail around what the contracting authority is expecting.
It’s never too late to turn the clock back – well almost never!
This is particularly important to remember when evaluating tender responses. Firstly, for any good evaluation you need time, rushing an evaluation process is where things start to go wrong as mistakes in numbers are not picked up or the detail in a response may not be fully recognised. Secondly, proper moderation is key to picking up any potential errors before the scores are released to bidders. By getting someone involved in the procurement but not in the initial evaluation to robustly challenge the original evaluators’ scores and reasoning allows the contracting authority to be confident that the criteria (and sub-criteria where applicable) have been correctly interpreted and applied. It’s also worth checking that the right scoring methodology has been used, for example, did the documents say that ‘half’ points could be given or only whole numbers? Make sure the scores given match what the tender documents say. If it gets to a point where the scores have been shared with the bidders and an error comes to light then there are three options: continue on the basis that the error is minor or the bidder is unlikely to challenge; abandon the process and start again; or, go back and rescore all the tender responses either entirely or a particular question. The third option is often overlooked or seen as too complicated. However, particularly if time is tight (it usually is!) and it is possible to get someone uninvolved in the original evaluation to undertake the process, then this is a relatively easy way to give a disgruntled bidder confidence that the evaluation has been done properly. Clearly it’s not without its risks but if the other option is to restart the whole process then it should be considered carefully.
Check, check and check again
Finally, this is something that seems too simple to have to highlight, but in the heat of the moment it’s easy to misread figures or put in the wrong version of some feedback. Get a second pair of eyes on the standstill letter, to check the easy stuff like whether the end date of standstill is correct, and also to cross-check the scores and make sure that they add up to the right number! In particular, if you are giving bidders both weighted and unweighted scores make sure that these make sense. If you have done a proper moderation then it shouldn’t be necessary to ask someone to sense check the more detailed feedback.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article or have any other questions relating to a procurement that you are or are planning to run then please get in touch.
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
What impact will the Procurement Act 2023 have on resolving contractual disputes?
Legal Update - PFI expiry
A first of many? PFI company seeks Restructuring Plan
Published Article
The Post Office Horizon IT Scandal: How should organisations react when IT systems go wrong?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson appoints Jan Cumming as legal director to Government practice
Online Event - Procurement Act
Procurement reform webinar - are you ready?
Legal Update - PFI expiry
PFI handback: ‘Handback Condition’ limitations, disputes and solutions
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Provider Selection Regime - how will it work in practice?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
PPN 01/24: Carbon reduction contract schedule
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Landmark judgment in OCS Group UK Limited v Community Health Partnerships Limited
Press Release
Browne Jacobson to advise East London Waste Authority on major waste programme
Legal Update
Braceurself Ltd v NHS England 2024: Court of Appeal procurement case decision
Legal Update
UK falls to lowest position for corruption – so what’s going wrong?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
The evolution of sub-contracting under the Procurement Act 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement reform: Making poor performance a thing of the past
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Act: the even lighter touch regime
On-Demand
Provider Selection Regime – change is coming, what does it mean for you?
Published Article
Infrastructure and social value in public contracts – making it concrete
On-Demand - Procurement Act
Procurement Reform - Change is coming, are you ready?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill: Competitive flexible procedure, how will this work in practice?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill - Are they still playing ping-pong?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Act 2023: Getting Ready for Reform - the countdown is on!
Legal Update
PPN 08/23: using standard contracts
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advising the Welsh Government on the delivery of significant number of renewable energy projects
Legal Update
Guidance on contract changes: James Waste Management LLP v Essex County Council
Legal Update
Case summary: the importance of bringing a procurement claim within the appropriate time limits
Legal Update - Procurement Act
New obligations for Welsh public bodies on social partnership and socially responsible procurement
Legal Update
Challenging procurement decisions by way of Judicial Review - the key principles
Legal Update
Australia and New Zealand Free Trade Agreement drives changes to the Public Procurement rules
Published Article
Amendments to Procurement Bill: Navigating sanctions and supplier bans and impact on the construction sector
On-Demand
'Getting ready to reform – preparing for the new Procurement Bill' webinar
Legal Update
Changes to the Standard Selection Questionnaire effective from 1 April 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Automatic suspension and procurement law
Press Release
Browne Jacobson collaborates with The GLAA and University of Nottingham to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - February 2023
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill debarment regime and ECHR issues
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Guide - Procurement Act
Public procurement: key facts and compliance considerations
Published Article
Reaching cloud nine? Public procurement for cloud-based services
Opinion - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill - what’s new in 2022?
Legal Update
CCGs’ conduct “sufficiently serious” for award of damages in High Court procurement case
This case provides a reminder to contracting authorities that whilst the bar for an award of damages in procurement cases is high, following the Supreme Court ruling in Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2017] 1 WLR 1373, it is not insurmountable when a contracting authority has acted with disregard to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCRs). There is also further guidance as to the use of frameworks