2470/Trentabank · UK public procurement notice

Lot awarding rule: The successful Tenderer will be selected based on an evaluation using the criteria set out below which align to the required headings for the proposal as set out in the Invitation to Tender: 1. Price (40% of the total score value); • Maximum score of 40 2. Quality criteria (60% of the total score value), comprising: • 20% Understanding of the proposed works; methodology and sequencing for de-livery (Quality Criteria 1) • 20% Recent experience and expertise delivering public WC projects of a similar scale (Quality Criteria 2) • 20% Experience managing projects in close proximity to members of the public (Quality Criteria 3) Weighting calculation Price 40% 40 x (Lowest Tender Price)/(Tenderer X's Price) Quality Criteria 1 20% 4 x score (see methodology below and contained in the Invitation to Tender section 2) Quality Criteria 2 20% 4 x score (see methodology below and table contained in the Invitation to Tender section 2) Quality Criteria 3 20% 4 x score (see methodology below and table contained in the Invitation to Tender section 2) Responses to the Quality Question which reflect the Quality criteria above and are included in the Form of Tender will each be marked against the following scoring methodology: 0 The Tenderer has given no response and/or if the response is not acceptable and/or does not cover the relevant criteria. 1 There are major weaknesses or gaps in the information provided. The Tenderer displays poor understanding and there are major doubts about fitness for purpose. 2 The response will in parts be incomplete or vague with little or no detail given of how the Tenderer will meet the criteria. Information provided is considered weak or inappropriate and is unclear on how this relates to our requirements or the outputs/outcomes of the project. Some concerns about understanding of the steps involved to deliver the aspects of the question posed, and/or the Tenderer's experience and capability. 3 The response has provided suitable evidence to address the majority of our requirements but will lack some clarity or detail in how the proposed solutions will be achieved. Evidence provided, while giving generic or general statements, is not specifically directed toward the requirements or the outcomes/outputs of this project. The response demonstrates an acceptable approach and clearly demonstrates how the criteria is satisfied, giving a reasonable level of confidence in the Tenderer's experience and capability. 4 The proposal has addressed, in some detail, all or the majority of our requirements. Evidence will have been provided to demonstrate conformance with the criteria in some detail. It is clear how the response relates directly to the aims of the project and is specific, rather than general, in how the desired outcomes and outputs will be achieved. The response demonstrates a good level of confidence in the Tenderer's experience and capability. 5 As well as addressing all our requirements the Tenderer demonstrates a deep understanding of the project and / or may present innovative ideas (where ap-propriate). Responses link directly to relevant project requirements, outcomes and outputs (as the case may be). A high level of confidence will be conveyed in the tenderers ability to deliver the desired outcomes and outputs. The response demonstrates little or no risk and fully captures the understanding of the steps involved to deliver the aspects of the project, giving a very high level of confidence in the Tenderer's experience and capability. Please see Invitation to Tender for full details