Para 8.3.6 — CONSULT_MANUAL

8.4 Evaluation of the Quality – Technical Proposals 1. Only substantively responsive bids shall be evaluated for further evaluation. 2. Please refer to the paras 8.4.3, 8.4.4 and 8.4.5 below for Rating/ Grading Schemes, Individual/ Joint Review, and mitigation of subjectivity in evaluation of quality by the CEC.

8.4.1 Responsiveness to ToR CEC shall evaluate each proposal on the basis of its responsiveness to the ToR. Proposals not responding to the ToR fully and properly will be summarily rejected as being nonresponsive, before taking up the appraisal of the technical proposal for evaluation of quality. A technical proposal pre-disclosing any material pricing information shall also be rejected.

8.4.2 Criteria and Sub-criteria 1. CEC shall evaluate quality of the technical proposal by awarding marks so as to make the total maximum technical score of 100 (one hundred) for the criteria and sub-criteria for Quality/ Technical Proposals -

(a) the consultant's relevant experience for the assignment;

(b) the quality of the methodology proposed;

(c) the qualifications of the key staff proposed; and

(d) capability for transfer of knowledge (if relevant). Each proposal should be judged on its own merits and assigned an absolute - not comparative -grade against predefined criteria and sub-criteria. A comparative evaluation would single out the best proposal on a relative scale, but still could leave the Procuring Entity with a poor proposal.

8.3.6 Evaluation of Eligibility: Procuring Entity shall determine, to its satisfaction, whether the Bidders are eligible as per the eligibility criteria in the Tender Document to participate in the Tender Process. Tenders that do not meet the required eligibility criteria prescribed shall be rejected as unresponsive.

Table 4. A model scheme of maximum/minimum marks in terms of percentage

Rated Criteria Range of Percentage for Score 1.Consultantcy firm’s Experience relevant to assignment 5-10% 2. Proposed approach Methodology, work plan, and understanding of requirements 20-50% 3. Qualification and adequacy of experience of Key Staff 30-60% 4.Transfer of Knowledge, if relevant* 0-10% Overall 100 %

Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services, Second Edition, 2025 2. The criteria and weightage to each criterion or sub-criterion would depend on the requirements of each case and may be fixed objectively. A model scheme of maximum/minimum marks in terms of percentage is, however, proposed in Table 4.

Note: * If this criterion is not required, the marks can be adjusted against some other criteria. The weight given to the firm’s experience can be relatively modest since this criterion has already been considered when short listing the consultant. More weight shall be given to the methodology in the case of more complex assignments (for example, multidisciplinary feasibility or management studies). Evaluation of only the key personnel is recommended. Since key personnel ultimately determine the quality of performance, more weight shall be assigned to this criterion if the proposed assignment is complex. The CEC shall review the qualifications and experience of proposed key personnel in their curricula vitae, which must be accurate, complete, and signed by an authorized official of the consultant and the individual proposed. The experience criteria mentioned in point 1 in the table above holds true for Consultancy Firm and not for an individual consultant.

3. The CEC shall normally divide the above criteria mentioned in Table 4 into sub-criteria. However, the number of sub criteria should be kept to the minimum that is considered essential. For example, methodology Criteria can be sub-divided into sub-criteria as:

a) understanding of ToR (30% weightage); b) acceptability and detailing of methodology and work plan (50% weight); c) innovation, if it is important (20% weightage);

4. The criteria for suitability of the key professionals for the assignment can also be divided into: a) Educational qualifications (20% weightage), b) Professional experience in the required area of assignment (80% weight).

Similar to in LCS (para 4.2.1) and EoI (para 7.3.3-10), a simplified evaluation criteria laying down minimum qualifying fail-pass benchmarks for each criteria/ sub criteria (instead of marking schemes) may also be used in appropriate cases. All offers that pass the qualifying benchmarks are declared as technically qualified and their financial bids are opened.