W4_ ALI HUBAIS_ Bid Evaluation process


1. Problem Definition

TO select the right contract, Tender board committee has to evaluate the bid carefully to ensure the success of project they have to select the right bidder and now a day’s many projects get delay due to selection of disqualified contractor.

Most of Tender evaluations are divided into two different sections.

A)    Technical evaluation ( Pre qualification )

B)    Commercial Evaluation (Cost, terms & Condition)

The role of technical team (End user) is to evaluate the technical bid as per their required data for evaluation purpose so based on technical evaluation result the commercial team will precede.

2. Identify the Feasible Alternative

The best way to evaluate and rank the bidders is the compensatory models which will help them to pick up the right bidder as per required evaluation. The Model of Compensatory as per follow. These four models will be used to evaluate and rank the bidders

  • Satisficing
  • dominance
  • lexicography
  • disjunctive resolution

3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

The main area to Evaluation the bidders criteria are as follow and the below listed date are required.

  • Bidder general information
  • Bidder Project Execution plan
  • Bidder Project organization
  • Bidder Quality assurance and Quality control
  • Bidder Health, safety and Security plan
  • Bidder Tenderer’s resources
  • Technical Expectation
  • Current commitment and workload
  • Experience and Track record

 

 

4. Selection Criteria

The criteria of the feasible alternatives using no compensatory models as follow:

Criteria Category Bidder A Bidder B Bidder C Bidder D
Bidder general information Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
Bidder Project Execution plan Fair Excellent good fair
Bidder Project organization Good Excellent Poor fair
Bidder Quality assurance and Quality control Good Excellent good Poor
Bidder Health, safety & Security plan Fair Excellent Excellent fair
Bidder Tenderer’s resources Good Excellent good good
Technical Expectation Fair Excellent fair fair
Current commitment and workload Good Excellent good Poor
Experience and Track record Poor Excellent good good

Table 1 For Feasible Alternatives

5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

The below table to Analysis and comparison of the alternatives between bidders: –

Criteria Category Bidder A VS Bidder B Bidder B VS Bidder C Bidder B VS Bidder D Bidder C VS Bidder D
Bidder general information Equal Equal Equal Equal
Bidder Project Execution plan Worse Better better better
Bidder Project organization Worse Better better worse
Bidder Quality assurance and Quality control Worse Better better better
Bidder Health, safety and Security plan Worse Equal better better
Bidder Tenderer’s resources Worse Better better Equal
Technical Expectation Worse Better better Equal
Current commitment and workload Worse Better better better
Experience and Track record Worse Better better Equal
Dominance yes yes yes No

Table 2 for Dominance Analysis

Criteria Category Minimum Acceptable Value Maximum Acceptable Value unacceptable alternatives
Bidder general information Good Excellent None
Bidder Project Execution plan Fair Excellent None
Bidder Project organization Good Excellent Bidder C
Bidder Quality assurance and Quality control Good Excellent Bidder D
Bidder Health, safety and Security plan Fair Excellent None
Bidder Tenderer’s resources Good Excellent None
Technical Expectation Fair Excellent None
Current commitment and workload Good Excellent Bidder D
Experience and Track record Poor Excellent Bidder A

Table 3 Satisfying analysis

1) Comparison of Criteria category Maximum acceptable Value
General Information VS Project execution plan Less Important
General Information VS Project Organization Less Important
General Information VS Quality assurance & control Less Important
General Information VS HSE Plan Less Important
General Information VS Tenders Resource Less Important
General Information VS Technical expectation Less Important
General Information VS current commitment and workload Less Important
General Information VS experience and track record Less Important
Project Execution plan VS Project Organization More Important
Project Execution plan VS Quality assurance & control More Important
Project Execution plan VS HSE Plan More Important
Project Execution plan VS Tenders Resource More Important
Project Execution plan VS Technical expectation More Important
Project Execution plan VS current commitment and workload More Important
Project Execution plan VS experience and track record More Important
Project Organization VS Quality assurance & control More Important
Project Organization VS HSE Plan More Important
Project Organization VS Tenders Resource More Important
Project Organization VS Technical expectation More Important
Project Organization VS current commitment and workload More Important
Project Organization VS experience and track record More Important
Quality assurance & control VS HSE Plan More Important
Quality assurance & control VS Tenders Resource More Important
Quality assurance & control VS Technical expectation More Important
Quality assurance & control VS current commitment and workload More Important
Quality assurance & control VS experience and track record More Important
HSE Plan VS Tenders Resource More Important
HSE Plan VS Technical expectation More Important
HSE Plan VS current commitment and workload More Important
HSE Plan VS experience and track record More Important
Tenders Resource VS Technical expectation More Important
Tenders Resource VS current commitment and workload More Important
Tenders Resource VS experience and track record More Important
Technical expectation VS current commitment and workload More Important
Technical expectation VS experience and track record More Important
current commitment and workload VS experience and track record Less Important
2) Criteria Category Ranking
Bidder general information 0
Bidder Project Execution plan 9
Bidder Project organization 7
Bidder Quality assurance and Quality control 6
Bidder Health, safety and Security plan 5
Bidder Tenderer’s resources 4
Technical Expectation 3
Current commitment and workload 2
Experience and Track record 2
Table 3 Disjunctive Resolution

 

2) Criteria Category Ranking Alternative Rank
Bidder general information 0 Bid A= Bid B= Bid C= Bid D
Bidder Project Execution plan 9 Bid A< Bid b> Bid C> Bid D
Bidder Project organization 7 Bid A< Bid b> Bid C< Bid D
Bidder Quality assurance and Quality control 6 Bid A< Bid b> Bid C> Bid D
Bidder Health, safety and Security plan 5 Bid A< Bid b= Bid C> Bid D
Bidder Tenderer’s resources 4 Bid A< Bid b> Bid C= Bid D
Technical Expectation 3 Bid A< Bid b> Bid C= Bid D
Current commitment and workload 2 Bid A< Bid b> Bid C> Bid D
Experience and Track record 2 Bid A< Bid b> Bid C= Bid D
Table 5 Lexicography

As per the Table above it is observed that alternative can be expressed in different ways where dominance is useful screening method for eliminating inferior alternative from the analysis. Satisfying, it referred as the method of feasible ranges and it is required the establishment of the acceptable value as minimum.

6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative Lexicography method is one of the best techniques to use in bid evaluation process where it’s simple, give good information as well it helps decision make to get clear inform and more indication of selection best bidder through Lexicography technique as per table 5

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result The best technique for selecting best option Might be using Multi-attributes of no compensatory models where it indicate the weakness point of each bidder and help the tender board committee to select the right bidder for the required

8. Reference:

  1. Tender Evaluation Retrieved July 6, 2014 From http://toolkit.smallbiz.nsw.gov.au/part/26/137/642
  2. Evaluation of tenders and preferred Bidder Selection Retrieved July 7, 2014 from http://www.eib.org/epec/g2g/iii-procurement/31/314/index.htm.
  3. Griffiths, J. (2012, May 14). Non-Compensatory Choices. Retrieved July 6, 2014, from http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4056066.html

 

 

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “W4_ ALI HUBAIS_ Bid Evaluation process

  1. EXCELLENT, Ali!! Very well done!!! Now how about you take the same case study and for your W5 blog posting, use the 2 COMPENSATORY models? (Non-dimensional Scaling and the Additive Weighting Technique)

    Let’s try to get that W5 posting done before Saturday so it will put you back in the green?

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s