The aspects for the value-for-money approach are implicit in virtually every evaluation under an RFP.
Describing them as part of a separate value-for-money calculation does not change their fundamental character.
The OGC list them turns to:
- The benefits in the evaluation, are all the criteria for non-financial relevant? Are they prioritized and weighted? Are measurement methodologies agreed?
- Can the suppliers/contractors deliver to appropriate quality standards?
- Do the criteria clearly reflect our current and future priorities?
These applications of criteria again would (or should) take place during the drawing-up of the evaluation criteria for any standard RFP. Revisiting them again at the time of evaluation is to some extent redundant.
Moreover, under the Canadian law of tender, it is highly doubtful evaluation criteria could properly be revised at time of contract award, even if by the time it was clear the criteria included in the RFP documents were irrelevant and required an evaluation in relation to criteria not capable of any kind of meaningful comparative assessment.
The OGC list then turns to cost in the evaluation:
- Have we separated out the financial aspects in the evaluation from the non-financial aspects?
- Have we agreed on the methodology for bringing the financial and non-financial aspects back together prior to award decisions?
- Have we considered of all the costs associated with the bids, such as staff training, accommodation and full lifetime cost?
- Have the costs of transition been recognized and estimated?
- Have we made intelligent use of benchmarking techniques to ensure the bids and future service delivery represents value for money?
- Have we agreed on contractual procedures to maintain value for money when major changes occur in the future, e.g., legislative, functional, etc.?
Only parts of this list relate to full-life costing.
The last two criteria apply primarily with respect to so-called P3 of AFP contracts, and in general are not relevant (or, at best, are only marginally relevant) to most other types of contracting.
The OGC criteria conclude with a discussion of revisiting the assumption in the business case through the procurement process.
- Meeting business need – Does the bid cover everything that is currently required in the areas of quality and service?
- Most appropriate option – Have all appropriate options been considered before narrowing down the choices for the way forward?
- Achievability – Does the supplier fully understand the implications of implementing the service? Can the supplier support this understanding with appropriate plans for risk management and quality improvement? Do we fully understand the implications?
- Affordability – Have we checked that all relevant costs are included; any likelihood of significant costs changes over the life of the contract; any proposed changes in pricing structure over the life of the contract? Are funds available?
- Realism – Can the supplier provide and maintain quality service for the quoted price? Do we believe the supplier can make an appropriate return?
- Risk – Do the risks rest with those parties best able to control them?
It will be noted these criteria are not of a kind that can be dealt with appropriately at the time of evaluating bids.
Rather, they reflect concerns that must guide the staff charged with carrying out the procurement from its inception until its conclusion.
It follows that if the municipality wishes to contest a broader range of total cost-related concerns than the sticker price alone, the preferable course is to reserve an express right to do so – although it is at least arguable that prudent purchaser concerns are inherent in the general reserved right to reject any bid received in a tender, even if it carries the lowest price.
Value-for-money criteria represent a broader range of concerns, including non-financial concerns.
Stephen Bauld is a government procurement expert and can be reached at [email protected]. Some of his columns may contain excerpts from The Municipal Procurement Handbook published by Butterworths.
