The scoring methodology, weightings and contract award criteria must be clearly defined in the procurement documents to ensure transparency of the process and a common understanding by all bidders of how tender responses will be evaluated and scored. They must be proportionate to the works, supplies or services that are the subject-matter of the contract.
Criteria must allow objective comparison of tenders and not discriminate against or favour potential contractors. There must be a clear methodology to evaluate responses, and the evaluation panel should be provided with appropriate guidance in advance on how to evaluate and score tender responses.
An outcome / performance-based specification can be more challenging for evaluators. An ideal response should be understood, based on intended outcomes agreed by relevant stakeholders including within a user intelligence group, where relevant.
As well as being involved in developing relevant requirements for a procurement, for example, the approach to environmental management or biosecurity, subject matter experts can provide valuable input when evaluating tender responses for such criteria.
Contract award criteria must be clearly defined in the procurement documents to ensure transparency of the process and a common understanding by all bidders of how tender responses will be scored. Criteria must be proportionate to the requirement.
Where a service involves any of the following, it is likely to be appropriate to ask tenderers how they will minimise negative impacts through biosecurity and, where possible, enhance biodiversity:
However, if a service has little interaction with ecosystems and the proportion of your contract to their overall activity is limited, a focus on biosecurity may not be proportionate or relevant.
Regulation 19(4) of PC(S)R 2015 places a legal obligation on a public body to include relevant clauses in their contracts to ensure those they contract with comply with environmental, social and employment law obligations.
Regulation 57(2) of PC(S)R 2015 allows a public body to reject bids that do not comply with applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social, and employment law established by national law, collective agreements or by the international environmental, social, and labour laws.
Regulation 69(5) of PC(S)R 2015 places a legal obligation on a public body to reject bids that have been found to be abnormally low because they do not comply with applicable obligations in environmental, social, or employment law.
Where a bid appears to be abnormally low, a public body must require the bidder to explain its pricing. This can include an explanation of how the bid will maintain compliance with relevant environmental, social and employment laws. The bid must be rejected if it is established that it is abnormally low because it does not comply with relevant environmental, social and employment law including collective agreements (regulation 69(5) of the PC(S)R 2015).
Following contract award, it is appropriate to discuss your biosecurity ambitions, the supplier’s response, practical implementation, and the inclusion of relevant key performance Indicators (KPIs) in the contract that demonstrate delivery of intended outcomes. These should be monitored as part of contract and supplier management.
See the Annex for examples.
