Evaluating supplier offers in property procurement

Learn how to evaluate offers and identify a preferred supplier.

Level of compliance Main audience Other

Required

  • Project Managers
  • Property Managers
  • Principals and Tumuaki
  • Boards
  • Proprietors

Schools must follow the exact evaluation process that was confirmed in their Procurement Plan and RFx document. The process will involve the actions explained on this page.

Assemble the evaluation team

Assemble the panel of evaluators. These people were identified when planning the procurement.

See more on Roles in property procurement.

Invite everyone who is involved in the buying process, including the evaluation team, to revise their conflict of interest declaration once it is known which suppliers have submitted an offer.

See Conflict of interest in property procurement

Conduct initial quality checks

The procurement officer and evaluation team’s chairperson should conduct initial quality checks on all offers received.

For each offer, verify that:

  • the declarations to be made by the supplier in their response to the RFx have been completed and no non-compliance has been identified
  • their response to the RFx is compliant with the RFx Process Terms and Conditions.

RFx Process Terms and Conditions (Conditions of Tendering) [PDF, 543 KB]

These preliminary checks are conducted so that the suppliers that are either non-compliant or have misinterpreted the school’s needs can be excluded from the evaluation process.

Excluding a supplier from further evaluation based on these initial quality checks requires approval from the procurement sponsor.

The sponsor can exclude a supplier in any of the below circumstances:

  • The offer is received after the tender deadline for the submission of responses.
  • The offer does not comply with the tender terms and conditions (including not conforming to the tender Response Form format).
  • The offer does not meet a pre-condition as listed in the tender document.
  • The offer does not pass initial due diligence (e.g. does not meet insurance requirements).

See more on Roles in property procurement.

Evaluate non-price criteria

All evaluation team members individually score every offer for its meeting of each non-price criteria. These individually decided scores are compared at the evaluation team meeting.

Evaluators should try to use the full range of scores available (0-10) and avoid giving all offers the same, or similar scores. This makes it more likely that each offer receives a final score that is distinct from other offers.

To evaluate non-price criteria effectively, all evaluators need to have a clear understanding of the requirements stated in the Request document.

Evaluating a Registration of Interest (ROI)

ROIs are used in the first stage of two-stage tenders. Evaluate ROIs to decide which suppliers will be asked to submit a full offer in the closed second stage of the process. Learn more about when ROIs are used on the page below.

Approaching the market

When evaluating ROI responses, evaluators consider the supplier’s capability and capacity to deliver. Scores for both criteria are made on a scale of 1-10.

Find more information in the guide below, which can be provided to each evaluator to assist them with making their individual decisions.

School property procurement evaluator's guide [PDF, 126 KB]

The workbook below may be used when evaluating ROIs.

School property procurement ROI evaluation workbook [XLS, 182 KB]

Evaluating Request for Quote (RFQ) responses

RFQs are used in direct source procurements and closed tenders. Learn more about when RFQs are used on the page below.

Approaching the market

When evaluating RFQ responses, evaluators consider the supplier’s capability and capacity to deliver, along with their proposed solution. Scores for each individual criteria are made on a scale of 1-10.

Find more information in the guide below, which can be provided to each evaluator to assist them with making their individual decisions.

School property procurement evaluator's guide [PDF, 126 KB]

Evaluating Request for Tender (RFT) and Proposal (RFP) responses

RFTs and RFPs are used to request full offers from suppliers, either in an open single-stage process or as the closed second stage of a two-stage process. Learn more about when RFTs and RFPs are used on the page below.

Approaching the market

When evaluating RFT and RFP responses, evaluators consider the supplier’s capability and capacity to deliver, along with their proposed solution. Scores for each individual criteria are made on a scale of 1-10.

Find more information in the guide below, which can be provided to each evaluator to assist them with making their individual decisions.

School property procurement evaluator's guide [PDF, 126 KB]

The workbook below may be used when evaluating RFTs or RFPs.

School property procurement open tender evaluation workbook [XLS, 211 KB]

Evaluate price

Price analysis is completed by the procurement officer separate to the evaluation of non-price criteria. The other members of the evaluation team are presented with the price analysis at the evaluation team meeting.

See more on Roles in property procurement.

The goal of price evaluation is to be able to assign a single price to each offer. It must be possible and fair to compare offers on the basis of this single price.

Evaluating Request for Quote (RFQ) responses

The total price of construction works or consultancy services is likely to be clear when it is submitted in response to an RFQ.

Evaluating Request for Tender (RFT) responses

When a tender is received for construction works, it is unlikely that a single price that can be fairly compared will be immediately clear. The procurement officer therefore evaluates the price so that this price can be confirmed.

The workbook below may be used when evaluating the price of construction/contract works.

Contract works price analysis workbook [XLS, 27 KB]

Contract works price analysis guide [PDF, 254 KB]

Evaluating Request for Proposal (RFP) responses

The total price of consultancy services is likely to be clear when submitted in response to an RFP.

Hold an evaluation team meeting

At the evaluation team meeting, evaluators review the findings of the initial quality checks.

They then compare the non-price scores that they individually gave each offer, for each criteria.

The team must agree by consensus to a final non-price score for each criteria, for each offer. If consensus cannot be reached, the score preferred by the majority of team members is finalised and the alternative is noted, along with the justifications for using either score.

The evaluation team may assign consensus scores that are contingent on specific clarifications to be sought from suppliers. The final score can then be confirmed when clarifications are received.

All acceptable offers can then advance to either conformance and value or weighted attribute evaluation. Unacceptable (non-conforming) offers cannot advance.

Acceptable offers are typically those which receive a score of 5/10 or more for all non-price criteria. However, non-conforming offers can be deemed acceptable by exception.

Conformance and price model for evaluating RFQ responses

If evaluating only one quote (in a direct source procurement or if only one quote is received), draw on the knowledge gained through market research to decide if the quote presents good value. If the evaluation team agrees that the quote does present good value, the procurement can proceed.

See Complete market research

If evaluating more than one quote, compare their prices and their total overall non-price scores. The quote that the evaluation team agrees presents the best value for money is the preferred offer and can proceed.

Weighted model for evaluating ROI, RFT and RFP responses

If evaluating ROIs using this model, decide on a score ‘cut-off point’ before beginning. Offers scoring at or above the cut-off will progress to the second-stage of the procurement process, while the suppliers who made offers that score below the cut-off will not be invited.

Step Action

1

 

Look to the details confirmed in the procurement plan and note the percentage weightings that were assigned to each evaluation criteria.

 

These weightings add up to a total of 100%, with more important criteria being assigned a higher percentage.

 

Example:

  • Fit for purpose 15%
  • Supplier’s capability to deliver 10%
  • Supplier’s capacity to deliver 5%
  • Value for money 70%

 

2

 

For each offer, assign the non-price scores agreed to by the evaluation team to each criteria. Also assign a score for price.

 

These scores are raw scores as they are not weighted.

 

Example:

  • Fit for purpose, 7
  • Supplier’s capability to deliver, 8
  • Supplier’s capacity to deliver, 8
  • Value for money, 8.3

 

Total raw score, 31.3

 

3

 

Apply your weightings from Step 1 to each raw score from Step 2. The resulting scores will be added together to establish a final score for the offer in Step 4.

 

Multiply each raw score out of ten by the weighted % of its criteria.

 

Example: Fit for purpose

  1. 7 (raw score achieved) ÷ 10 (maximum raw score) = 0.7.
  2. 0.7 x 15 (weighted % for criteria) = 10.5.
  3. This offer’s fit for purpose score is 10.5.

 

Example: Supplier’s capability to deliver

  1. 8 (raw score achieved) ÷ 10 (maximum raw score) = 0.8.
  2. 0.8 x 10 (weighted % for criteria) = 8.
  3. This offer’s supplier’s capability to deliver score is 8.

 

Example: Supplier’s capacity to deliver

  1. 8 (raw score achieved) ÷ 10 (maximum raw score) = 0.8.
  2. 0.8 x 5 (weighted % for criteria) = 4.
  3. This offer’s supplier’s capacity to deliver score is 4.

 

Example: Value for money

  1. 8.3 (raw score achieved) ÷ 10 (maximum raw score) = 0.83.
  2. 0.83 x 70 (weighted % for criteria) = 58.1.
  3. This offer’s value for money score is 58.1.

 

4

 

Add together the scores established in Step 3 for each criteria to form a total weighted score out of 100 for each offer.

 

Example: This offer’s total weighted score is 80.6 out of 100 (10.5 + 8 + 4 + 58.1 = 80.6).

 

The offer with the highest total weighted score is the best offer and advances to final due diligence checks.

 

When assigning a score for the price criteria, the lowest priced acceptable offer should always receive the maximum score possible (10/10).

All other offers should then receive a lower score for the price criteria, with their score reduced from the maximum available in proportion to their variation from the cheapest price offered.

For example, if the lowest price offered is $100,000, that offer scores 10/10. An offer made for $120,000 will then be scored 8.3/10. This results from dividing the best price offered by the price of the offer being evaluated (100,000 ÷ 120,000 = 0.83) and then multiplying this by 10 (0.83 x 10 = 8.3).

Conduct full due diligence checks

Before recommending the best supplier identified through the prior evaluation steps, conduct comprehensive due diligence checks on them. All findings from the checks must be documented.

Schools should always inform suppliers of the actions that will be taken during due diligence checks through the RFx document.

Due diligence checks can include:

  • checking the supplier’s accreditation and staff’s qualifications
  • credit checks and a review of the supplier’s financial information/accounts
  • researching the supplier online, reading any reviews and media reports
  • contacting two of the supplier’s referees (these should be current or recent customers)
  • asking other local schools if they have worked with the supplier and for their opinions.

Police vetting is mandatory for anyone who has, or is likely to have, unsupervised access to students at a school during normal school hours. It is an essential aspect of due diligence checks.

See Police vetting for school property contractors

When issues are found

When issues are found, decide how serious they are.

If they are not serious, decide if they can be prevented from impacting the school.

If they are serious, the supplier should not be awarded the contract. The procurement sponsor can approve the supplier’s exclusion. In this case, schools should conduct due diligence checks on the next best supplier identified.

Last reviewed: Has this been useful? Give us your feedback