Para 4.2.2 — CONSULT_MANUAL

3. Caution against consortium/ JV in QCBS Procurements: a) Since quality is given weightage in the evaluation itself, in QCBS procurement, therefore, Joint Ventures may be avoided, as far as possible. Joint Ventures could, however, become necessary in high technology or innovative projects where a single entity may not be able to execute the work alone. c) If consortiums/ JVs are allowed, measures should be taken to ensure that all the consortium/ JV partners are present and deliver services all through the contract period. An Implementation Board with the participation of all consortium/ JV partners may be provided for wherein the Project Manager from the procuring entity shall also be allowed an audience when required. Meeting of consortium/ JV partners with the project executing authority for quarterly progress review may be made as a criterion linked to the achievement of key dates or even payment.

Description Remarks Quality/Cost Score Weighting (%) High complex/ downstream consequences/ specialised assignments Use QCBS with higher technical weightage 80/20 Moderate complexity Majority of cases will follow this range 75-65/ 25-35 Assignments of a standard or routine nature such as auditors/procurement agents handling the procurement Use of LCS is appropriate 60-50/40-50

2. Quality/ Technical scores are assigned to proposals based on specified quality criteria. Minimum qualifying marks (normally 70-80 (seventy – eighty) out of maximum 100 (hundred) marks) as benchmark for quality of the technical proposal is prescribed and proposals below this benchmark are not considered for Financial evaluation. The Financial Proposals are also given cost-score based on relative ranking of prices, with 100 (hundred) marks for the lowest and pro-rated lower marks for higher priced offers. The total score shall be obtained by weighting the quality and cost scores and adding them. For example, the weightage given to cost score may be 30% (thirty percent) and technical score may be given weightage of 70% (seventy percent but should never be more than 80%). The ratio of weightages for cost and Technical score could also be 40:60 (forty: sixty) or 50:50 (fifty: fifty) etc. However, the weight for the “cost” shall be chosen, considering the complexity of the assignment and the relative importance of quality. The proposed weightings for quality and cost shall be specified in the RfP. The firm obtaining the highest total score shall be selected. It may be noted that theoretically QCBS system with weight of 100% (hundred percent) for the ‘cost’ approximates the price based LCS system. This method of selection shall be used for highly technically complex and critical assignments where it is justifiable to pay appropriately higher price for higher quality of proposal.

4. Table 1 below provides a suggestive weighting for QCBS. (Rule 192 of GFR 2017, also see para 8.5.3) Table 1. A suggestive weighting of scores for QCBS

4.2.2 Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) 1. In QCBS system of selection, both the quality of the proposal and the cost of the services are considered as deciding factors. This approach is employed when the quality of deliverables is crucial, but the cost of service or work cannot be ignored.

Risk Mitigation 1. Inappropriate Selection of QCBS: There is a possibility that QCBS system is selected where LCS or other systems would have been more appropriate considering the quality requirements or the capability of Procuring Entity to monitor the assignment. Selection of QCBS should be justified and applied only under circumstances mentioned above. 2. Weightage of Technical: Cost may not be proportional to quality requirements Weightage different from 70:30 (seventy: thirty) should be adequately examined and justified. 3. Technical criteria may not be relevant to realization of quality of assignment. Technical criteria selected should be relevant and proportional to the requirement of quality of assignment and the selection process should be rigorous enough to ensure that on one hand no technically unsatisfactory bids should be able to get past a loose criterion and on the other hand no technically satisfactory offer should get ruled out by tight criteria. 4. Marking Subjectivity: The scheme of marking or its application may be subjective. It is important to lay down as objective a scheme of marking as possible. Cases where subjectivity is unavoidable (as in evaluation of methodology etc), a system of grading responses and their marking may be laid down in the bidding documents. Procuring Entity should also have a system of conciliation and moderation of widely disparate markings by different members of evaluation committee.

Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services, Second Edition, 2025 5. QCBS - Risks and Mitigations