Annexure 6 — CONSULT_MANUAL

(For EoI/ Techno-Commercial/Financial Bids) (Refer Para 7.3.4-4, 8.2.8-1 and 8.4.7) Organisation:_____________________________ _______________________________________________ Minutes of Tender Committee Meeting (EoI/ Techno-commercial/Financial Bids) Stage of Evaluation: EoI/ Technical/ Financial Section I: Top Sheet File No: Date: Procuring Entity/ Client Method of Selection LCS/ QCBS/ SSS Type of Contract Lump-sum/ Time Based/ Percentage/ Retainer cum Success Fee/ Indefinite Delivery Name of Assignment Estimated Cost:- Tender Stage Published In Date of Publication Bid Validity and Extensions taken Bid Opening Date Past Precedents/ Procurements Sr. No. service provider Order Reference & Date Description of Service Cost Details Remarks Members of the Tender Committee Sr. No. Name Designation Sr. No. Name Designation 1 2 3 4 Section II: Background of the Assignment Include a brief description, context, scope, and objectives of the services. Mention technical and financial approvals; estimated cost; budgetary provisions; urgency of requirement; special technical requirements and other connected procurements which are part of same package/project. Review special conditions, restriction if any, on participation of bidders; purchase preferences, requirements prescribed in bid documents (EMD, document submission, etc.) Describe briefly the selection process that has been completed before this stage: mode of bidding; bidding document contents; bid publication; Pre-proposal Conferences, Amendment/ Clarifications sought and given, withdrawals of firms before proposal submissions, level of competition obtained; issues if any noticed during bid-opening (bids not opened due to lack/ unsatisfactory EMD, etc.), the establishment of the shortlist, EoI, and. Describe major events that may have affected the timing (delays, complaints from consultants, reference of RfP document (attach with the Evaluation Report or make it

Annexure 6: CEC Committee Minutes Format for Consultancy Services

available for review/approving authority), extension of proposal submission date, and so on). Names/nationality of firms/associations (mark domestic firms and firms that had expressed interest) of Firms who participated and Shortlisted Bidders prior to this stage – EoI/ Technical Evaluation: i) Participated/ Expressed Interest: ii) Shortlisted in EoI/ Technical Evaluation prior to this Section III: Preliminary Evaluation of Responsiveness (Refer to Annexure 8) Review handling of any complaints received Discuss preliminary evaluation for determining substantially responsive bids and for minor corrections and clarifications Section IV: Evaluation of Responsive Bids: Technical Evaluation i) Briefly describe the meetings and actions taken by the evaluation committee: formation of a technical evaluation team, outside assistance, evaluation guidelines, justification of sub-criteria and associated weightings as indicated in the standard RfP and compliance of evaluation with RfP. ii) Summary of Evaluation Criteria and Weights assigned iii) Grading and Rating Scheme in the Bid documents or decided before the Evaluation iv) Present results of the technical evaluation: scores and the award recommendation (based on Rating System agreed among evaluators prior to receipt of proposals). v) Highlight strengths and weaknesses of each proposal (most important part of the report). a) Strengths: Experience in very similar projects in the country; quality of the methodology, proving a clear understanding of the scope of the assignment; strengths of the local partner; and experience of proposed staff in similar assignments. b) Weaknesses: Of a particular component of the proposal; of a lack of experience in the country; of a low level of participation by the local partner; of a lack of practical experience (experience in studies rather than in implementation); of staff experience compared to the firm’s experience; of a key staffer (e.g., the team leader); of a lack of responsiveness; and of disqualifications (conflict of interest). vi) Comment on individual evaluators’ scores (discrepancies). Items requiring further negotiations. Technical Evaluation Report should also contain a) Technical Evaluation Summary (simplified in case of LCS or EoI, otherwise detailed, if so chosen in RfP, Formats given in Annexure 7, 8 and 9) b) Evaluation of Consultancy Firm’s Experience (In case of Detailed Technical Evaluation specified, Formats given in Annexure 10) c) Evaluation of Methodology & Work Schedule (In case of Detailed Technical Evaluation specified, Formats given in Annexure 11) d) Evaluation of the Key Professionals (In case of Detailed Technical Evaluation specified, Formats given in Annexure 12) Section V: Evaluation of Technically Successful Bids: Financial Evaluation i) Start with review of techno-commercial evaluation and shortlisted Firms and approval and directions by CA ii) Briefly describe the meetings and actions taken by the evaluation committee: formation of a financial evaluation team, outside assistance, evaluation guidelines, justification of associated weightings as indicated in the standard RfP and compliance of evaluation with RfP.

iii) Insert a summary table of evaluated financial scores/ combined weighted scores iv) Deliberations should be in the sequence of financial/ combined scores etc. Indicate: any issues faced during the evaluation, such as difficulty in obtaining the exchange rates to convert the prices into the common currency used for evaluation purposes; adjustments made to the prices of the proposal

(s) (mainly to ensure consistency with the technical proposal) and determination of the evaluated price (does not apply to Quality-based (Quality-based), Selection- based on Qualifications (Qualifications), and Single-source Selection (Single-Source));arithmetical correction in case of Time-based Contract, tax-related problems; award recommendation; and any other important information. v) Attach Minutes of Public Opening of Financial Proposals Section VI: Summary of Recommendations Bid-wise recommendation should be recorded In case of evaluation of financial bids, 1. Give a summary of recommended bids, award value, bid expiry date and special conditions, if any; 2. Also mention that the rates recommended are considered reasonable (and basis for such determination); 3. Total value of the recommendations for determining level of acceptance authority; 4. Mention that none of the TC members have any conflict of interest with the parties recommended for award; 5. Request acceptance of recommendations by competent authority and that it’s within his powers of acceptance as per SoPP/ DFPR. Signature Name and Designation of the Members 1 2 Date: Date: (Name & Designation) (Name & Designation) 3 4 Date: Date: (Name & Designation) (Name & Designation) Remarks by the Accepting Authority: _____________________________________________ Signature:______________________________ Date:__________________ Name & Designation of Accepting Authority___________________________