Introduction Introduction: The process of selecting the evaluation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Evaluator Briefing Session

Juan Carosio, Senior Head of Procurement (NCL WELC)

Introduction: The process of selecting the evaluation criteria, and the application of evaluating tenders, must take consideration of The Public Contract Regulations principles for assessment, selection, and award. Evaluation Briefing: In this briefing session, we will focus on some of the key areas to ensure a compliant, and auditable evaluation process, namely:

• 1. The Evaluation Principles
• 3. Evaluation Execution

Introduction

Tender Procedure

Procurement Cycle

Procurement Process: For demonstration purposes this evaluation briefing is based

• n the agreed Open procurement procedure route.

111 Procurement

Evaluation Principles

The assessment of tenders against a contracting authority's requirements, is the most important part of the procurement process. It is also the stage of the process which is most frequently challenged! It’s therefore important that everyone involved in the evaluation process follows the following principles in order to make sure that all applicants have a fair and equal chance:

• Transparency: this is not simply about disclosure and openness but also the removal of

discretion, or personal preference, and subjectivity, or bias. Evaluation of the bids must be based on objective criteria that are known to bidders in advance.

• Fairness: evaluation criteria and the evidence required from bidders must be actually and

demonstrably related to the subject matter of the contract and applied proportionately to the stated objectives.

• Equal treatment (or non discrimination): all bidders and potential bidders must be given the

same opportunity, based on the same information and criteria, and evaluated in a non discriminatory manner.

Evaluation Principles: Public Contracts Regulations

Evaluation Principles: What this Means for You

• All providers will be given the same list of criteria, will have to submit the same evidence, and

will be asked the same questions.

• As evaluators, you will score the tenders according to how well you think the proposals and

evidence the providers have submitted match the criteria and answer the questions.

• You must take care that the score you give is based only on this, and not allow your personal
• pinions or views to influence your scoring.

Appendix E - NHS 111, Integrated & OOH Guidance for Clinical Commissioning Groups PROCUREMENT

Evaluation Execution

111 Procurement

Evaluation Execution

1. The EU principles of transparency, non-discrimination, equality and proportionality must be followed by all members of the evaluation panel to ensure that the selection of the preferred bidder is fair and based on the objective evaluation criteria rather than personal

• pinions.

2. The evaluation panel has to have a clear ‘audit trail’, or written record, which shows how they reached a decision to recommend a preferred provider.

• Audit trail may be required to justify selection

– Submit evidence in defence of a legal challenge – Internal board approval for contract award

3) Collaboration is key and a few vital points required for the successful delivery

• f any evaluation process are.
• Make sure you have put aside enough

time to score the tenders before the Moderation meeting

• When you have awarded a score you

must include an explanation for why you have given that score. This will help discussions during the moderation meeting and help give detailed feedback to bidders.

.

Evaluation Execution

Evaluation Execution

4) Evaluation Process:

• Evaluators are asked to score specific sections of the applications

according to their expertise. For example, a member of the finance team will score the finance section.

• Patient Reps will score “Resident Views” and “Patient Feedback”
• You will need to rate the providers’ responses to the criteria

between 0 and 5. These scores will be combined and will be used to rank the applications. The following slide describes what these ratings mean.

Numerical Scoring

Score Definition Non-compliant No response or partial response and poor evidence provided in support of it. Does not give the commissioner confidence in the ability of the Bidder to deliver the Contract. 1 Weak Response is supported by a weak standard of evidence in several areas giving rise to concern about the ability

• f the Bidder to deliver the Contract.

2 Minor reservations Response is supported by a satisfactory standard of evidence in most areas but a few areas lacking detail/evidence giving rise to some concerns about the ability of the Bidder to deliver the Contract. 3 Compliant Response is comprehensive and supported by good standard of evidence. Gives the commissioner confidence in the ability of the Bidder to deliver the contract. Meets the Commissioner’s requirements. 4 Very good Response is comprehensive and supported by a high standard of evidence. Gives the Commissioner a high level

• f confidence in the ability of the Bidder to deliver the contract. Exceeds the commissioner’s requirements in

some respects. 5 Excellent Response is very comprehensive and supported by a very high standard of evidence. Gives the Commissioner a very high level of confidence the ability of the Bidder to deliver the contract. Exceeds the Commissioner’s requirements in most respects.

Sections of the Evaluation

Section Criteria & Sub Criteria 1 Service Delivery 1.1 Proposed Service Model 1.2 Primary Care Development 1.3 Accessibility 1.4 Medicines Management 1.5 Assurance Reports 2 Demand & Workforce Planning 2.1 Workforce Modelling 2.2 Workforce Strategy 2.3 Staff Planning and Staff Contingencies 2.4 Employment Practices 2.5 Registration and Qualifications 2.6 Non registerable clinical staff and other staff 2.7 Induction 2.8 Medical Emergency Training 2.9 Continued workforce development 2.10 Performance Management and Appraisals 2.11 Clinical supervision 2.12 Structure 2.13 TUPE 2.14 Access to Pensions 2.15 Equality & Diversity 3 Clinical Governance & Quality 3.1 Clinical & Integrated Governance and Quality Assurance 3.2 Safeguarding children and vulnerable adults 3.3 Patient Pathways 3.4 Incident Management 3.5 Complaints 3.6 Duty of Candour 3.7 CDSS 3.8 Surge Management 3.9 Emergency Planning 3.10 Business Continuity 3.11 Disaster Recovery

Sections of the evaluation (cont.)

4 Mobilisation 4.1 Mobilisation Exit strategy 4.2 exit Strategy 5 Stakeholder Involvement and Feedback 5.1 Resident Views and Patient Feedback 5.2 Public involvement 5.3 Other organisations feedback 5.4 Public awareness 6 Information & Reporting / Information Management & Technology / Information Governance 6.1 Business Intelligence reporting 6.2 Overall Delivery Model 6.3 Clinical System and Infrastructure 6.4 Interoperability 6.5 Information Governance and Security 7 Premises and Equipment 7.1 The Premises 7.2 Regulatory Standards (Premises 7.3 Lease 7.4 CQC Compliance 7.5 FM Requirements 7.6 Provision of Equipment 7.7 Purchase and Safe Storage (Consumables) 7.8 Infection Control and Waste Disposal

Appendix E - NHS 111, Integrated & OOH Guidance for Clinical Commissioning Groups PROCUREMENT

Sections of the evaluation (cont.)

8 Financial 8.1 CASH/FLOW 8.2 TOTAL Contract Price for Contract Volume (SET UP & OPERATING) 8.3 State total contract price for modelled call volume - lower 8.4 State total contract price for modelled call volume mid 8.5 State total contract price for modelled call volume - upper ITT PRESENTATIONS 9 ITT Presentations (for shortlisted bidders) Details to be confirmed during the ITT Evaluation Stage

Appendix E - NHS 111, Integrated & OOH Guidance for Clinical Commissioning Groups PROCUREMENT

Moderation Meeting

The Moderation Meeting will be held after the deadline for all evaluation panel members to submit their completed scores. Under normal circumstance all evaluation panel members MUST attend the moderation meeting. The evaluation cannot take place if Commissioners, Clinical leads, and relevant Patient Representatives, are not present At the Moderation Meeting members will discuss the scores and, in particular, any examples where there is a big difference between the scores different evaluators gave. All evaluators are required to be present as all must be provided with ‘equality of

• pportunity’ to discuss their scores(where required).

The meeting will last a working day.

What do you need to do?

Procurement

• Verify bids;
• Release bids.
• Support on questions

regarding the online portal

Panel

• Evaluate bids;
• Score / assess bids;
• Provide comments;
• Request clarifications, if

relevant.

All

• Attend moderation

meeting to discuss rationale for score.

Time commitment required from patient reps

Preparation

• Half day

Evaluation

• Approximately 3 days

(depending on the number of bids) + Attendance at moderation meeting (1 day)

Presentation

• Attend Presentation (1

day)

Key Ingredients of a successful Evaluation process Use of a competent procurement partner Team-working and fully committed to evaluation process Adherence to EU principles of equality, non- discrimination, transparency and proportionality Delivery of an effective evaluation training session Appointment of evaluators with appropriate skills mix for the diverse areas of evaluation Understanding of the evaluation process and recording for audit purposes

Conclusion Summary of the Key Ingredients of a Successful Evaluation Process

EVALUATOR BRIEFING CONCLUDED