Para 7.4.3 — NONCONSULT_MANUAL

7.4.3. Single Source Selection (SSS) The Single Source in case of SSS selection shall be called for further negotiation, if need be, after opening and evaluation of its financial proposals.

7.4.4. QCBS Selection 1. Please refer to para 4.3.2 for the conditions permitted, for the use of QCBS selection in procurement of NC Services. That para also details competent authority and grounds for declaring a procurement as Quality Oriented Procurement (QOP), for use of QCBS method. That para also covers the role of STC (or Technical Committee in case of NC Services) for fixing parameters of the QCBS selection. 2. Evaluation of QCBS Bids: For evaluation, a suitable committee shall be constituted. However, members of the STC shall not be involved. a) Joint Ventures: Joint Ventures may be avoided in general in Non-consultancy services and particularly in QCBS system in NC Services. (Please refer to para 4.3.2 above) b) Since MII order is applicable ‘where the bid is evaluated on price alone’ – MII purchase preference would not be applicable where evaluation is based inter-alia on non-price criteria, e.g., QCBS or FBS in Services and Works. c) Weightages: As mentioned in para 4.3.2, the proposed weightages for quality and cost shall be specified in the Tender. Under QCBS selection, the technical proposals will be allotted weightage of not more than 30% (Thirty per cent) while the financial proposals will be allotted weightages of 70% (Seventy per cent) or more as declared in the Tender. d) Qualifying Benchmark: As mentioned in para 4.3.2, in QCBS selection, minimum qualifying marks (normally 70-80 (seventy – eighty) out of maximum 100 (hundred) marks) as qualifying benchmark for quality of the technical proposal shall be prescribed and indicated in the Tender Document along with a scheme for allotting marks for various technical criteria/ attributes. Bids scoring less than the minimum threshold shall not be considered for further evaluation. Since the weightage of the cost element adopted in NC services is as high as 70 (seventy) percent, financial considerations would dominate the selection, though to a lower extent as compared to LCS (Least Cost Selection – L1 basis). In such cases, it is essential to ensure that the minimum qualifying marks in the evaluation is set sufficiently high, to weed out low quality bids with low prices. e) Evaluation of Quality Score: Proposal with the highest technical marks (as allotted by the evaluation committee) shall be given a score of 100 (Hundred) and other proposals be given technical score that are proportional to their marks w.r.t. the highest technical marks.

f) Evaluation of Financial Score: Similarly, proposal with the lowest evaluated cost may be given a financial score of 100 (Hundred) and other proposals given financial scores that are inversely proportional to their prices w.r.t. the lowest offer.

g) Weighted QCBS Score: The total score, both technical and financial, shall be obtained by weighing the quality and cost scores and adding them up. On the basis of the combined weighted score for quality and cost, the service providers shall be ranked in terms of the total score obtained. The proposal obtaining the highest total combined score in evaluation of quality and cost will be ranked as H-1 followed by the proposals securing lesser marks as H-2, H-3 etc. The proposal securing the highest combined marks and ranked H-1 shall be recommended for award of contract. In the event two or more bids have the same score in final ranking, the bid with higher technical score will be H-1 h) QCBS Formula: In such a case, an Evaluated QCBS Score (B) will be calculated for each responsive Bid using the following formula, which permits a comprehensive assessment of the Bid price and the technical merits of each Bid:

C = Evaluated Bid Price C low = the lowest of all Evaluated Bid Prices among responsive Bids T = the total Technical Score awarded to the Bid Thigh = the Technical Score achieved by the Bid that was scored best among all responsive Bids X = weightage for the Price as specified in the Tender Document i) The Bid with the best evaluated Bid Score (B) among responsive Bids shall be the Most Advantageous Bid j) Example: Following example illustrates the evaluation of QCBS:

i) In a particular case of selection of service provider, it was decided to have minimum qualifying marks for technical qualifications as 75 (Seventy-five) and the weightage of the technical bids and financial bids was kept as 30: 70 (Thirty : Seventy). In response to the Tender Document, three proposals, A, B & C were received. The technical evaluation committee awarded the following marks as under:

A: 75 Marks B: 80 Marks C: 90 Marks Chapter 7: Bid Evaluation, and Award of Contract ii) The minimum qualifying marks were 75 (Seventy-five) thus, all the three proposals were found technically suitable. Using the formula T/Thigh, the following technical points are awarded by the evaluation committee:

A: 75/90 = 83 points B: 80/90 = 89 points C: 90/90 = 100 points iii) The financial proposals of each qualified service provider were opened after notifying the date and time of bid opening to the successful participants. The price evaluation committee examined the financial proposals and evaluated the quoted prices as under:

A: Rs.100. B: Rs.104. C: Rs.106. iv) Using the formula Clow/C, the committee gave them the following points for financial proposals:

A: 100/100 = 100 points B: 100/104 = 96 points C: 100/106 = 94 points v) In the combined evaluation, thereafter, the evaluation committee calculated the combined technical and financial score as under:

Proposal A: 83x0.30 + 100x0.70 = 95 points. Proposal B: 89x0.30 + 96x0.70 = 94 points Proposal C: 100x0.30 + 94x0.70 = 96 points.

vi) The three proposals in the combined technical and financial evaluation were ranked as under: Proposal A: 95 points: H-2 Proposal B: 94 points: H-3 Proposal C: 96 points: H-1 vii) Proposal C at the evaluated cost of Rs.106 (Rupees One hundred and six) was, therefore, declared as winner and recommended for approval, to the competent authority.