Para 8.4.4 — CONSULT_MANUAL

8.4.4 Individual Scoring of Proposals CEC members should carry out the evaluation independently and score the proposal based on the rating criteria. The CEC evaluation should be based on the proposal as submitted. Under no circumstances can the CEC request information or clarifications that may change the proposals. Issues to be clarified with the selected consultant will have to be discussed during negotiations. Individual evaluators’ results are recorded on pre-established worksheets. After each member has independently rated all criteria and sub-criteria, it is good practice to read each proposal again to ensure that scores reliably reflect the quality of the proposal.

8.4.5 Joint Review and Mitigation 1. The CEC should conduct a joint review and discuss the merits of individual evaluations and scores. Some evaluators tend to be generous while others will be rigid in their judgment and ratings. Such disparity does not matter, provided each evaluator is consistent and differences in scores are not too large. Large differences should be reviewed and explained; because they often are caused by improper or inaccurate use of the rating system. Reconciling differences that are considered too large by the CEC may result in members revising some of their ratings and scores. As such, any changes should be recorded. If a discussion is needed to reach a final decision, an independent party should prepare minutes. Finally, the scores given by different members may be averaged out. During the meeting, the CEC should also comment on the strengths and weaknesses of all proposals that have met the minimum technical score indicated in the RfP. This will help identify any elements in the winning proposal that should be clarified during negotiations.

2. Eventually, for each of the technical proposals, the CEC should calculate the average of the scores allocated to each criterion by all members, establish the technical ranking of the proposals, identify the best, and propose it for award. The evaluation also establishes whether a proposal passes the minimum qualifying mark (or technical score, normally 75 (seventyfive)) provided for in the RfP. If one or more proposals fail to meet the minimum qualifying mark, both individual and joint assessments must be carefully reviewed and justified. Shortlisted consultants are usually discouraged when their proposals are rejected, particularly when they are only a few points below the minimum mark; therefore, the Procuring Entity should be prepared to debrief consultants to explain the evaluation of their proposals.