Submissions are not evaluated in the same way
Risks
- Open to challenge that decision process was unfair
Solutions
- Use a standard approach and methodology such as whole life costing or other appropriate scoring-based system
- Document the decision process, evaluating the submissions against the published selection ( at pre-qualification stage) and award criteria
Lack of evidence of decision process
Risks
- Open to challenge that decision process was unfair
Solutions
- Use a standard approach and methodology such as whole life costing or other appropriate scoring-based system
- Document the decision process, evaluating the submissions against the published selection ( at pre-qualification stage) and award criteria
Insufficient record of decisions
Risks
- Open to challenge that decision process was unfair
- No record of decisions should these be challenged at de-briefing or by a Freedom of Information question
Solutions
- Use a standard approach and methodology such as whole life costing or other appropriate scoring-based system
- Document the decision process, evaluating the submissions against the published selection ( at pre-qualification stage) and award criteria
Clarifications change the nature of a bidder’s submission
Risks
- Open to challenge that the response to a clarification materially changes a bidder’s submission
Solutions
- Where a clarification materially changes a bidder’s submission the competition should be stopped and re-run or the bidder withdraws or is excluded from the competition
Whole life costing model not used as part of evaluation process
Risks
- Important aspects that could differentiate bids may not be considered
Solutions
- Consideration should be given to evaluating all 4 dimensions (financial, technical, quality, environmental and social) as these are all elements of a sustainable solution