Southmere Village Library Building Competition
Invitation to Tender
Page 29
23.3. Evaluation Methodology
Bidders should note that an appointment will not necessarily be made on the basis of the lowest tender
offer, but on the criteria stipulated within Section 23.2 - i.e. Bids will be evaluated both technically and
financially. The award of contract will be based on the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) to
Peabody in terms of the criteria, which will be applied to each bidder’s submission in its entirety.
The following scoring guide will be used to evaluate the bids against the Evaluation Criteria.
Score Definition Benchmark
5 Exemplary
In the opinion of the evaluators, the Bidder’s response or information
provided is exceptional or exemplary in relation to the project and the
criterion being scored.
Overall the response provides Peabody with a high level of confidence in the
Bidder’s ability to service the requirement.
In the opinion of the evaluators, the Bidder’s response or information
provided addresses all requirements and exceeds the normal expectation in
relation to the project and the criterion being scored.
Overall the response provides Peabody with a significant level of confidence in
the Bidder’s ability to service the requirement.
3 Satisfactory
In the opinion of the evaluators, the Bidder’s response or information
provided is acceptable and meets the normal requirement/expectation in
respect of the project and the criterion being scored.
Overall the response provides Peabody with a reasonable level of confidence
in the Bidder’s ability to service the requirement.
2 Below average
In the opinion of the evaluators, the Bidder’s response or information
provided falls below the normal requirement/expectation in respect of the
project and the criterion being scored.
Overall the response provides Peabody with limited confidence in the Bidder’s
ability to service the requirement.
1 Poor
In the opinion of the evaluators, the Bidder’s response or information
provided does not adequately address the stated requirement/expectation in
respect of the project and the criterion being scored.
Overall the response provides Peabody with little confidence in the Bidder’s
ability to service the requirement.
0 Unsatisfactory
The Bidder fails to provide a response, or provides information which in the
opinion of the evaluators provides insufficient detail for evaluation, and/or
does not address the requirements.
Overall the response provides Peabody with no confidence in the Bidder’s
ability to service the requirement.
NOTES:
1. Scoring will be by consensus, with weightings applied to Evaluators’ agreed scores accordingly.
2. Final aggregated weighted scores, and ranking will be released to each Bidder upon completion of the ITT.
In applying the above scoring scale, each Bid will be evaluated according to its quality and deliverability.
The term ‘quality’ in this context refers to fitness for purpose and therefore covers any aspect of a
submission that affects the performance of the contract. ‘Deliverability’ refers to the likelihood that all
aspects of a particular submission (including time and cost) could in fact be delivered by the Bidder
concerned.