“The purpose of this ITT is to invite you to propose a solution / best price to meet the Authority’s requirement. This documentation explains and sets out the … b. instructions and conditions that govern this competition …”
“The overall objective of the Tender evaluation process is to select the Tender, from the pre-qualified Tenderers, that is the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) to the Authority. This section details how your Tender will be evaluated, the tools used to evaluate the Tender and the evaluation criteria.”
“…the Tenderers’ responses to this ITT will be evaluated and awarded to the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT). This combines Commercial, Technical and Financial evaluations.”
“The Authority will be evaluating the Tender using the MEAT method. This is a comparative score and the scoring method is worked out using the ratio and calculation below. The optimum is the highest technical score and lowest price, this together would get the highest total score. If you had the highest technical score but your price was double that of the lowest priced compliant Tender, this would receive a lower total score.”
“The Authority will use the AWARD evaluation tool for the evaluation of the Commercial and Technical elements of the tender. Financial evaluation will not be conducted through the utilisation of the AWARD tool and will be in accordance with Appendix 3 to this Section D and/or in line with instructions at Section E via tender board submission. It is the Authority’s intention to evaluate all Tenderer’s responses as follows: A. Commercial Compliance and Financial Evaluation: Commercial compliance will be conducted in accordance with Appendix 1 to this Section D. This will result in a compliant / non-compliant assessment. Financial Evaluation will evaluate firm prices of Tenderers responses in accordance with Appendix 3 to this Section D. B. Technical Evaluation: This will be conducted in accordance with Appendix 2 to this Section D.”
“The “Winning Tenderer” will be selected based on a MEAT assessment. This will require a compliant result on Commercial Compliance, obtain the minimum requirement where annotated for Technical Evaluations and have the highest combined scores from the Technical and Financial evaluations as set out in this Section D.”
“Each Management Plan/Schedule submitted by the Tenderers shall provide full details of the Tenderers’ solutions/methodology and should not merely provide, or support, responses to the related evaluation criteria.”
“Tenderers will be required to state: ‘what’ the proposed solution is to the required activity; and ‘how’ they will implement the solution. This will enable the Authority’s evaluators to test the Tenderers’ understanding of the requirement, providing assurance that they are competent to deliver the required contract deliverables. The ‘how’ will enable the Authority’s Technical evaluators to evaluate the level of risk for an activity.”
“The ‘Winning Tenderer’s’ bid will offer the highest combined technical and financial score, based on the MEAT evaluation of all Tenderers’ proposals for the requirement…”
“The MEAT assessment will be conducted as follows: A. Evaluation of the Technical Tender (40 percent of the award criteria): The evaluations of the Technical Criteria will be carried out by Subject Matter Experts (SME) for the requirement and the contract management proposition, utilising the AWARD tool. A consolidated moderation exercise will be conducted by a senior Military representative (not below the rank of Commander) of the primary customer, or Civil Servant equivalent at C1/SO1 grade. The outputs of this exercise will determine the score for the technical evaluation in accordance with Appendix 2 to Section D of DEFFORM 47. B. Evaluation of the Commercial/Financial Tender (60 percent of the award criteria): i. Commercial: There is a compliant/non-compliant assessment on matters of commercial compliance in accordance with Enclosure 1 to Appendix 1 to this Section D. ii. Financial: In accordance with Enclosures 1 to 3 to Appendix 3 of this Section D. C. Winning Tenderer: The Winning Tenderer will require a “compliant” result for the commercial evaluation and have the highest combined Technical and Financial score following evaluation.”
“D1.2 … Commercial evaluation of the Tenders will not result in a weighted score. The evaluation will result in an overall commercial compliant/non-compliant assessment. D1.5 … If the Tenderer is judged to have satisfied all Commercial requirements throughout, the Tender shall be assessed commercially as “Compliant.”
“D2.1 The Technical Evaluation will be conducted by testing the following aspects of the Technical Tender: A. Capability: This will examine the credibility of the Tender in response to the requirement and assess understanding of requirements, capacity, flexibility, implementation, mobilisation and resilience of the tenderer; B. Customer Relationship: This will examine the proposals in relation to interfacing, knowledge sharing, and relationship management; C. Supply Chain Management: This will examine the tenderer’s approach as detailed with proposed Methodology plans and suggested improvement through innovation and its implementation; D. Value for Money: This will examine the tenderer’s methodology for ensuring best value for money across the services to be provided under any resultant contract; E. Safety: This will examine the Safety Management Plan provided specifically for the Port, Maritime and Other Logistical Support Services tender; F. Quality Management: This will examine the Quality Management Plan provided specifically for the Port, Maritime and Other Logistical Support Services tender. Evaluation Methodology D2.2 The Authority’s technical evaluation team will comprise of SMEs from the primary customer as well as SMEs who will evaluate specific areas such as Quality and Insurance. This team will review the evidence in the tender and evaluate it against the requirements set out in the ITT and the Assessment Criteria at Enclosure 1 to this Appendix 2 to Section D. Evaluation will consider the Tenderers’ proposals for delivery of the requirements, supported by appropriate management plans. D2.3 In the evaluation process the Authority SMEs will individually evaluate the responses using the scoring guidance for each question and award the appropriate mark. D2.4 The Authority will reject any Tender if any response achieves an assessment of lower than ‘Good Confidence’ in accordance with the evaluation criteria. … D2.6 Moderation of the technical evaluation will follow the individual SME evaluations … The moderator’s score will be the final technical Authority score. … D2.8 Tenderers should note the Scoring Guidance in the Technical Criteria attached at Enclosure 1 to this Appendix 2 to Section D.”
“Describe in your response to Schedule 16 (Contractor’s Management Plan) how you will ensure that a safe working culture is promoted and practised throughout your supply chain in the delivery of this contract.”
“D4.1 In accordance with D22 above the Authority will evaluate and award the contract to the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) that is deemed to be both Commercially and Technically compliant.”
“The purpose of the question is to test and ensure that the PMLSSC provider will practise and promote a safe working culture throughout its supply chain. Your response to the question must demonstrate that any proposal from you describes how it is to be tested throughout the duration of the contract.”
“The Supply Chain Management section (Section 4) of our response to Schedule 16 (Contractor’s Management Plan), describes MLS’ approach to the management of its supply chain… MLS has extensive, global experience in managing our supply chain to support local, regional and global service delivery. The primary element of our supply chain is our network of port agents around the world…”
“Our response to Schedule 16 (Contractor’s Management Plan) describes how we will ensure that a safe working culture is promoted and practised throughout our supply chain in the delivery of this contract.”
“MLS is contracted by its Defence customers to provide port agency and logistics services. MLS executes these duties via its global network of port agents (MLS local representatives) … MLS utilises independent port agencies to support the work with all our navy / defence customers. The business relationship between MLS and these local port agents is a simple and straightforward Prime/Agent relationship. All of our local port agents are independent businesses, either headquartered or with established offices in their respective ports… We select our local port agents based upon many criteria, including their proven honesty, integrity, financial stability and capability, ISO and other appropriate certifications / insurances and performance records, knowledge of detailed requirements and protocols, established professional relations with local authorities, and their general ability to “get things done” meeting and exceeding our contractual obligations. MLS enforces very strict criteria for accrediting them; educating them on our quality standards, and monitoring their performance against compliance with those standards. New port agents are given all the training they require, including hands on support during the first port visits handled in the areas and training in the Standard Operating Procedures. … Contractual arrangements with our local port agent, service providers and suppliers are carefully negotiated to ensure that responsibilities and expectations are very clearly defined. We have linked our Port Agency Agreements and Operations Procedures Manual (OPM) to each other in order that we may flow down key obligations from our contractual requirements to the local port agents.”
“MLS adopts a planned and systematic approach to risk management … Key to the success of this approach is our operating philosophy of developing collaborative working relationships with our Defence customers, local port agents, and suppliers/service providers. We have linked our Port Agency Agreements and Operations Procedures Manual (OPM) to each other in order that flow-down our contractual obligations to the local port agents… Risks may be identified, and mitigations proposed, by MLS, its customers and its local port agents. At the start of any contract or service delivery we ensure alignment of plans and policy with all parties which includes risk management.”
“To achieve high Health & Safety standards our organisation will be structured and operated so as to enable our Health & Safety policy to be put into effective practice. We appreciate that this will be helped by the creation of a positive culture, which secures involvement and participation at all levels. We recognise that this will need to be sustained by effective communications and the promotion of competence that enables all our employees to make a responsible and informed contribution to Health & Safety issues. We understand that the visible and active leadership by senior managers is necessary to develop and maintain effective and functional Health & Safety management… We will adopt a planned and systematic approach to policy implementation…Performance standards will be established and performance measured against these. Specific actions needed to promote a positive Health & Safety culture and to eliminate and control risks will be identified… Health and Safety is recognised as the most important responsibility that the company has towards its employees and all others affected by the company’s working. All management as part of their employment are committed to the pursuance of progressive improvements in health and safety performance through good controls, communications and encouragement, ensuring that a positive health and safety culture is promoted and developed.”
“Beverley Waskett … The tenderer response has not demonstrated sufficient evidence that safety culture exists throughout the supply chain on a global scale.” “Cath Valentyne … Very limited or no evidence of safety culture throughout the supply chain. Health & Safety atWork Act 1974 underpins the SHEF manual but doesn’t cover a global scope with no reference to local or regional requirements or flow down of contract requirements for a health & safety culture.”
“Given the potential seriousness of this assessment I have spoken to both evaluators independently and searched all of the documentation provided, both in the electronic and manuscript formats. Whilst, on current performance, I do not believe that MLS present safety concerns, I can only assess their potential to operate the PMLSSC safely through the evidence provided in the company’s tender submission. To that end, and despite the company having a detailed SHEF policy, I have failed to find any tangible link that demonstrates how this policy is passed down through all levels of the global supply chain nor can I find any reference to safety standards nor the promotion of a safety culture within the company’s supplier selection processes. Given these factors, and despite my own belief that MLS is not unsafe, I do not have any evidential means to award a pass for this requirement.”
“Many of the services described in the SOR require the service provider to use plant, machinery and vehicles or tools on board or in close proximity to ships and our personnel, engaging in potentially hazardous activities … Even the provision of food and water has serious health and safety concerns … The RN must ensure that appropriate health and safety precautions are known, understood and adhered to by all those with whom we work. This obligation cannot be delegated or transferred. A ship or submarine visiting a port must be able to trust the contractor to be using appropriate HS&EP practices but there is no possible way for the ship to assure this themselves, prior to their arrival. Accordingly, the PMLSSC deliberately seeks to place a requirement on the prime contractor to ensure that their sub-contractors are able to meet the standards required, to mitigate this risk… MLS’s response fails to provide sufficient evidence that they promote, maintain, or test their company’s safe working practices through the supply chain to the point of service delivery by a sub-contractor to the ship in port. Their response in Schedule 16 Annex C does give detail of how this is managed for their own direct employees and contractors visiting their sites but does not expand on this. Accordingly, the evaluators had insufficient evidence, and therefore no confidence, that the actual delivery of goods and services would be conducted in accordance with the mandated HS&EP policies… Amongst the tenders that were assessed as a pass on this section, all identified a governance process in their own organisation. Two of the tenderers identified personal responsibilities, demonstrated an understanding of UK legislation, highlighted the appointment of a competent advisor as a safety manager and outlined a process of inspections, investigations and reporting on safety culture with their subcontractors… In contrast, MLS provided some salient general points on the issues but, in the opinion of the evaluators, they lacked sufficient detail specifically relating to evidence that a safety culture exists throughout their supply chain…”
“On that basis the decision of the Tender Evaluation Panel meeting was that the fail score was upheld. In reaching this conclusion the Tender Evaluation Panel were aware of the serious impact of this score and were mindful of the fact that the only compliant bid was slightly more expensive but within the affordability criteria and achieved a slightly lower technical evaluation score but was still fully compliant.”
“This letter notifies you of the MOD’s decision to award the contract to SCA – Shipping Consultants Associated Ltd (the “Winning Tenderer”) … The contract award criteria are based on the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT), which required all 3 of the following elements: a. a fully compliant response to the commercial Compliance Matrix. b. a Technical submission, with the potential to achieve up to 40% of the overall MEAT calculation and as detailed in the ITT, was subject to: i. obtaining the minimum of “Good Confidence” ii. obtaining a pass mark question 6 which was scored as pass/fail. c. a Financial submission with the potential to achieve up to 60% of the overall MEAT calculation… Please note, that your tender submission would have been successful had it not been scored a FAIL for the Technical Question 6.3…”
“(d) the relative weighting of criteria for the award of the contract or, where appropriate, the descending order of importance for such criteria, if this information was not specified in the contract notice …”
“… [In the Mayo case] the Court explained what the legal principle of transparency meant in the context of invitations to tender for public contracts: the award criteria must be formulated in such a way as to allow all RWIND tenderers to interpret them in the same way. That requirement set a legal standard: the question was not whether it had been proved that all actual or potential tenderers had in fact interpreted the criteria in the same way, but whether the court considered that the criteria were sufficiently clear to permit of uniform interpretation by all RWIND tenderers.”
“… the correction, or amplification of details of a tender where appropriate, on an exceptional basis, particularly when it is clear they require mere clarification, or to correct obvious material errors, provided that such amendment does not in reality lead to the submission of a new tender.”
“The principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency require a contracting authority that has adopted a decision-making procedure for assessing bids to comply with it once it has begun to do so. A different way of expressing the same principle is to state that a contracting authority that has set rules for that procedure must follow them, applying those rules in the same way to the different bidders. Changing the decision-making procedure during the process of assessment risks arbitrariness and favouritism, a risk that it is the purpose of such requirements to avoid. In C-226/09 Commission v Ireland[2010] ECR I-11807 the weighting was altered after tenders had been submitted and after an initial review of those tenders had been performed. This was held to be conduct that was not consistent with the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency.”