Final Evaluation of Bids for O&M Consultancy Services

Evaluation Criteria

Financial Score= Lowest Price/ Price of proposal under consideration x 100

Weightage of Financial Score= 30%

Weightage of Technical Score= 70%

Financial Evaluation & Scores

Price (PKR) Financial Score

ILF 12,S73,034.00 100.00

OST 2S,118,S23.00 SO.OS

Ensibo 21,8S7,2S3.60 S7.S2

Final Scores

Technical Score Weighted

Financial Score Technical Score

ILF 86.28 60.39 100.00

OST 7S.9S S3.17 SO.OS

Ensibo 76.06 S3.24 S7.S2

Signatures of Consultant Selection Committee:

2-2 Member 1 t Member

v_s L,U~ Name: /vi ·~ Department: G-f>(- .) D \ ll J

Name:

Department: F ~

7 Member4 Members

tfl AAA @r tJ ~Ef1H'J

--~ d_ .. ~ ~- \~

Name:

Weighted

Financial Score

30.00

lS.02

17.26

Name: ~ \ ~ ~{MA Department: \I"'{) 0 · Department: f{ A ~ (fut )Ub

22nd Aug, 2017

Final Score

90.39

68.18

70.SO

Q~em~ Name: ffeH-M ~ Aftef-1>1J:fJ

Department: f ' 0 ( f.) C · J>.

Technical Evaluation of Bids for O&M Consultancy Services Final Score of Technical Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria

Weightage of Score for Company Profile

Weightage of Score for Project Team

Weightage of Score for Approach/Methodology

30%

50%

20%

Scores For

9th Aug, 2017

Company Profile (Al) Project Team {A2} Approach/Methodology (A3}

Grand Total

Actual Score Weighted Score Actual Score Weighted Score Actual Score Weighted Score

ILF 100 30 81.75 40.875 77 15.4 86.28

OST 59 17.7 90.5 45.25 65 13 75.95

Ensibo 65 19.5 78 39 87.8 17.56 76.06

Signatures of Consultant Selection Committee:

Member 3

Name: ame :s~ .u~ ~ Name:

Department: Q fX) ?V Department: F~ &(~ Department:

MeNnbeJ,. 4 .;..

~:

~rut~ .

Technical Evaluation of Bids for O&M Consultancy Services Scores for Company Profile

Evaluation Criteria

Score for number of similar assignments (size & complexity)

Every Project >=lOMW earns S marks upto 6 projects

Every such project outside country of origin earns S bonus marks upto 3 projects

Total Marks: 4S (30 basic+ lS bonus)

Score for Organizational Structure

Organogram (4 marks), ISO Certification (4 marks)

No. of Engineers in firm (2 marks)

Total Marks: 10

Project 1: UAE

Size Va lue

(MW) (Mill.$)

ILF Details 13 1.18

Base Score s s Bonus s s Total 20

Project 1: Egypt

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

OST Details so 0.074

Base Score s 0

Bonus s 0

Total 10

Project 1: Kazakhstan

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

Ensibo Details so 0.2S

Base Score s s Bonus s s Total 20

Project 2: UAE

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

260 1.09

s s s s 20

Project 2:Jordan

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

23.8 0.019

s 0

s 0

10

Project 2: Germany

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

10.7 0.09

s 0

0 0

s

Firm Score for Similar Assignments

Size Value Sub-Total

ILF 45 45 90 OST 45 5 so Ensibo 45 10 55

Project 3: UAE

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

800 2.93

s s s s 20

Project 3: Kazakhstan

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

so 0.068

s 0

s 0

10

Project 3: Germany

Size Value

(MW) (Mill.$)

20.18 0.08S

s 0

0 0

s

Score for value of similar assignments

Each project have consultancy value>= USO 0.2M shall earn S marks upto 6 projects

Every such project outside country of origin earns S bonus marks upto 3 projects

Total Marks: 4S (30 basic+ lS bonus)

Project 4: Bulgaria Project S: Senegal Project 6: QASP Total Score

Size Value Size Value Size Value Size Va lue (MW) (Mi ll. $) (MW) (Mill.$) (MW) (Mill.$) (MW) (Mill.$)

12 0.41 40 1.S 100 1.S

s s s s s s 30

0 0 0 0 0 0 lS

10 10 10 90

Project 4: Africa Project S: UK Project 6: Egypt Total Score

Size Value Size Value Size Va lue Size Va lue (MW) (Mi ll. $) (MW) (Mill. $) (MW) . (Mill. $) (MW) (Mill.$)

86 0.026 101 1.2 66 0.118

s 0 s s 5 0 30

0 0 0 0 0 0 lS

s 10 5 so

Project 4: Germany Project S: Ita ly Project 6: Italy Total Score

Size Value Size Value Size Value Size Value (MW) (Mill.$) (MW) (Mill.$) (MW) (Mill. $) (MW) (Mill.$)

22.6 0.062 10.2 0.03 18 0.06

s 0 s 0 5 0 30

0 0 s 0 5 0 15

s 10 10 SS

Score for Organizational Structure Total Score for Company

Organogram ISO ff of Engineers Sub-Total Profile (Al)

4 4 2 10 100

4 4 1 9 59

4 4 2 10 65

r ev

9th Aug, 2017

Grand Tota l

30

lS 90

Grand Total

s so 0

Grand Total

s s

SS

Evaluation Criteria

Score for Senior Resource Specialist

Score for Principal Electrical Engineer

Score for Resident Engineer

Score for QC/HSE Engineer

Tota l Marks

40 marks

30 marks

20 marks

10 marks

100 marks

Technical Evaluation of Bids for O&M Consultancy Services Scores for Project Team

Scores for each of these posts shall be based on

Education and qualifications

Relevant experience

Time with firm

25%

70%

5%

Postion Senior Solar Specialist (SSS) Principal Electrical Engineer (PEE) Resident Engineer (RE) QC/ HSE Engineer (HSE)

Category Education Experience Time Education Experience Time Education Experience Time Education Experience

Max. Marks 10 28 2 7.5 21 1.5 5 14 1 2.5 7

ILF 10 28 0 5 8 0.75 s 14 1 2.5 7

OST 10 28 2 7.5 21 0 s 7 0 2.5 7

Ensibo 10 28 2 5 15 0 s 3.5 0 2.5 7

Marks for Project Team

SSS PEE RE HSE Total Marks (A2)

(Max. 40) (Max. 30) (Max. 20) (Max. 10) Max. Marks 100

ILF 38 13.75 20 10 81.75

OST 40 28.5 12 10 90.5

Ensibo 40 20 8.5 9.5 78

f cY

9t h Aug, 2017

Time

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

Sr. No.

1

2

3

4

5

Sr. No.

Technical Evaluation of Bids for O&M Consultancy Services Scores for Approach & Methodlogy

Score for Understanding & Innovativeness

Criteria Grade

ILF

Score Grade

What is the depth of firms' understanding of the requirements and objectives of the consultancy A 8 A

assignment?

What is the quality ofthe improvements to the ToR suggested by the consultant to improve the

outcome of the assignment? D 0 c

What is the level of identification of potential risks that will affect the execution of the D 0 c

assignment, and what is the quality of mitigation measures proposed?

What is the usage of background studies or analysis of existing works in the proposal? A 8 A

How suitable are t he assumptions regarding the consultancy assignment? B 5.2 B

Tot al Score (Max. 40) 21.2

Score for Methodology

Criteria Grade

ILF

Score Grade

1 How in-depth is the Statement of Work: does it fully cover the scope of assignment and is it

sufficiently developed to ensure assignment completion? A 12 c

2 How developed is the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS} for the assignment? A 12 A

3 How clear is the mapping of the WBS to the given deliverables? A 12 A

4 How suitable is the Resource Assignment Matrix (RAM} and its linkage with the WBS? B 7.8 B

5 How ~uitable is the Work Plan (staffing schedule}: is the resource utilization sufficient and

practical? A 12 c

Total Score (Max. 60) 55.8

OST

26

OST

39

Scores Approach and Methodology (A3)

Understanding Methodology

ILF 21.2 55.8

OST 26 39

Ensibo 32 55.8

9th Aug, 2017

Ensibo

Score Grade Score

8 A 8

2.4 D 0

2.4 A 8

8 A 8

5.2 A 8

32

Ensibo

Score Grade Score

3.6 A 12

12 A 12

12 A 12

7.8 B 7.8

3.6 A 12

55.8

Total

77

65

87.8 f o/