To optimize the benefit that flows from assessing or evaluating bids on broader criteria than price or cost alone, the method of assessment (the scoring criteria) must be explicit and understood by suppliers and staff.
To deter tampering or favouritism, the method of scoring must be reasonably objective. In the interest of fairness, suppliers are entitled to know both their performance will be assessed and also the basis on which they will be assessed.
It should be made clear to them, ideally even before an order is placed, that the assessment of performance will influence future dealings. Both suppliers and ordering departments within a municipality need to understand, or be brought to understand, that supplier performance significantly affects total costs.
On the other hand, the goal of explicit criteria must be balanced against the need for flexibility. Evaluation criteria has a tendency to dictate a solution. For instance, if “size of tires” is one such criteria, then tracked vehicles are at a significant disadvantage. Even if not explicitly excluded.
Generally, where an RFP is used the goods and services are of a kind that must be assessed in their totality as well as by reference to their specific features. The key issue is to what extent each product offering provides a solution to the problem the procurement exercise is intended to address. As should be fairly clear, the balance between criteria that are explicit and at the same time flexible is one that is difficult to draw.
Considerable thought should go into the development of an appropriate method of assessing supplier proposals. Since municipalities purchase a wide range of goods and services, it is readily possible a number of different methods of assessment may need to be employed where the attributes of the construction, good or service that is being procured are distinctly different from other purchases.
The proposal evaluation process differs from one municipality to another. Funding organizations such as provincial or federal government ministries often have their own specific requirements that must be followed when they provide financial support to a project. However, the general terms of the rule in question are fairly similar.
Whether one is using federal, provincial or municipal evaluation methods, the RFP evaluation process is often controversial. The following views clearly evidence the frustration suppliers sometimes express in relation to the process.
Increasingly, design-build and even other types of contracts are being awarded on the basis of best value, a clearly subjective criterion that invites disputes. Contractors with no design-build experience are virtually excluded from the market.
In some states, contractors not excluded are asked to identify the litigation history and any instances of liquidated damages being assessed over the last 10 years.
Some states also ask contractors to identify the volume of changes or claims on projects they have constructed. It doesn’t seem to matter whether the contractor was successful in liquidation, whether liquidated damages were assessed as a defense to a valid contractor claim or what caused the changes.
The requested information contributes to the perception of a subjective evaluation process. I had the opportunity during the protest of the award to review the evaluation by each of the five evaluators. Two clearly favoured one of the two competitors, giving that firm higher marks in virtually every category. Another two favoured the other competitor. The fifth must have felt like the swing vote of a supreme court justice. Could the evaluators really have seen the proposals so differently?
Without knowing the specific facts of the case that is being described it is difficult to say whether these circumstances are fair. What is clear is the complaints voiced are overstated to the point of becoming unrealistic.
The revival of design-build contracting in the public sector has arisen in large part due to government dissatisfaction over endless arguments between builders and design firms as to responsibility for cost overruns.
