Bid Evaluation Guide

The objective of the Bid Evaluation Guide is to assist contracting authorities and business owners when acquiring goods and services for Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) operational requirements, in a manner that enhances access, competition and fairness and results in best value.

Government of Canada procurements must be conducted in a manner that will stand the test of public scrutiny in matters of prudence and probity and reflect fairness in the spending of public funds. The Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) Code of Conduct for Procurement sets out the responsibilities of public servants and suppliers.

In order to ensure the integrity of the procurement process, business owners are responsible for ensuring that all information relating to their requirements is complete and accurate. The Procurement team is responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable procurement-related legislations and policies.

This portion of the procurement process is important in light of our obligations under the various trade agreements and bid challenge processes (Office of Procurement Ombudsman (OPO) and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT)). As such, it is important that all personnel involved in the procurement process have an in-depth working knowledge of the bid evaluation process and contractor selection methods.

• Contracting Authority (CA)*

  A contracting authority supports the objectives of the Senior Designated Official (SDO) for procurement and takes into consideration the insights of the technical authorities, while managing the procurement process and contract management functions. This is generally the person who signs the contract and ensures that the applicable procurement policies and processes have been considered and applied.

  *Also known as: contracting officer, procurement officer, buyer and procurement specialist.

• Business Owner (BO)*

  The business owner is the executive (or identified individual) who is responsible for the business or program area for which the project or programme has been established. The business owner is responsible for defining the required capabilities, intended business outcomes and benefits of a project or programme at its outset and for the achievement of the business outcomes and benefits following implementation of the project. A business owner offers operational and technical expertise while collaborating with the contracting authority, including planning procurements that leverage socio-economic goals.

  *While minor differences may exist in their definition, this term is used within this guide to also encompass: client, responsibility centre manager, technical/scientific authority, functional authority, project manager/authority/sponsor.

The bid evaluation process takes into consideration many factors, including the nature of the requirement and the ability to articulate the requirement in a clear and concise manner, as well as the ability to identify relevant evaluation criteria. It is important to recognize that every procurement is likely to be different and, therefore, the bid evaluation process must be tailored for each particular requirement. The ESDC Chief Financial Officer Branch (CFOB) contracting authorities must be involved as early as possible, since they are accountable for the integrity of the procurement process. The respective procurement roles are set out in the key roles and responsibilities chart found at (to be added).

The contracting authority must ensure that the procurement file contains all documentation relevant to the bid evaluation process. This Guide outlines the steps involved in the bid evaluation process and will assist CA in guiding the BO in:

1. Developing appropriate bid evaluation criteria and rating system
2. Determining the most appropriate contractor selection method
3. Communications with Bidders
4. Evaluating the bids/ proposals/ offers

In the context of bid evaluation, reference to the technical merit or technical evaluation in this Guide includes the evaluation of the technical, management or experience aspects of the bid.

Procedures described in this document apply mostly to standard and complex requirements and may not be suitable for all types of procurement, such as low dollar value, low complexity or basic requirements for services or goods. The bid evaluation process must be adapted to each situation to ensure the appropriate results are achieved to meet business owner needs. For more complex requirements, this could include obtaining the assistance of functional and technical specialists from departmental, government and consultant resources, if necessary.

This Guide was designed as a reference for contracting authorities within ESDC and is not meant to replace formal training in bid evaluation and contractor selection methodologies. If you are unsure of how to proceed at any stage of the process, always check with your manager on what steps to take.

Comments or questions regarding this Guide can be forwarded to the Policy Team.

• 1. Developing appropriate Bid Evaluation Criteria and Rating System

  • 1.1 Evaluation Criteria- Early Steps

    The first step in developing the bid evaluation criteria is for the business owner to write a clear and complete SOW, and to clearly identify effective elements to be evaluated to assess both the competence of the bidder and the technical approach to the requirement. It is important that evaluation criteria are neither too restrictive nor too broad; otherwise, they will be ineffective at identifying the most qualified bidder and may unnecessarily limit competition.

    The SOW forms a pivotal part of the contract, and is therefore essential for successful contract outcomes. Effective bid evaluation criteria results in getting the right people/company to do the job, while ensuring all bidders are fairly treated, at the best value to the Crown. Evaluation criteria must be clearly linked and based upon the information contained in the bid solicitation; most commonly in the statement of work.

    Evaluation criteria must be set out in the solicitation document and be clear, precise, measurable and defensible. Unclear evaluation criteria can lead to multiple interpretations of the requirement and are a common reason for complaints and/or challenges. If, upon review by the CA, weaknesses are found within these documents, they must work in conjunction with the BO to correct the weaknesses and produce a final product that has the greatest chance of success.

  • 1.2 Things to consider when determining evaluation criteria

    Several things must be considered when developing evaluation criteria. While the specific considerations may change with each requirement, some of the most common considerations are:

    • Are the criteria clearly articulated and well defined, exempt of any ambiguities, allowing an increased understanding from bidders?
    • Are they measurable, making it easier for the evaluation team to evaluate?
    • Are they defensible by relating directly to the requirements included in the SOW?
    • Are they based on actual needs, avoiding artificial barriers or requirements that will reduce competition?
    • Are they realistic, asking for experience levels and/or certifications that are reasonable, commonly known and used for the related commodity?

    Whenever the following adjectives are used, they must be defined in accordance with the context of the bid solicitation.

    • Current – This year, within one year, ongoing?
    • Recent – Within the last year, 2 years, etc.? Calendar year, fiscal year, 12 months from bid closing?
    • Similar – Same duration or quantities, same complexity, same area of expertise?

    The verbs "must", “will”, "should", and "may", are used in accordance with the following interpretation:

    • must - action described is mandatory
    • will - action described is mandatory when accompanied with additional details, such as timeframes or due dates
    • should - action described is recommended but not mandatory
    • may - action described is discretionary

    Several tools have been developed to assist business owners in the development of SOWs and any subsequent evaluation criteria. An index of these tools, with corresponding links, can be found at Tools and Templates for Admin Professionals and Managers.

  • 1.3 Bid Evaluation Methodology

    Bids are evaluated using one of the following methods:

    1. Evaluation on the basis of mandatory criteria only: to be considered responsive, a bid must meet all the mandatory criteria specified in the solicitation document.
    2. Evaluation on the basis of point rated criteria only: to be considered responsive, a bid must obtain the required minimum score on the point rated criteria.
    3. Evaluation on the basis of a combination of mandatory and point rated criteria: to be considered responsive, a bid must meet all the specified mandatory requirements and obtain the required minimum score on the point rated criteria.
  • 1.4 Mandatory Evaluation Criteria

    Mandatory requirements identify at the outset the minimum requirements for bids to be considered for further review. This permits the evaluation team to screen out bidders who do not have the minimum necessary competency and capability for undertaking the work.

    Mandatory requirements are strictly and narrowly evaluated on a simple pass or fail basis. This is clearly indicated within the solicitation document by inserting provisions that state that a failure to meet any of the mandatory criteria will render the bid non-responsive and that it will be given no further consideration. For this reason, mandatory criteria should be kept to a minimum and restricted to the essential elements and capabilities needed to do the work.

    Mandatory criteria are expressed by using the imperative verb "must".

    Because of their importance, mandatory requirements must be grouped together and specifically identified in the solicitation document.

    Contracting authorities must ensure that competition is not limited by using unnecessarily restrictive mandatory evaluation criteria. For example, a bidder's previous experience is a mandatory evaluation criterion that is often used, but which could preclude new entrants from bidding on government requirements. Unless the level of experience required is because of operational requirements, it might be more appropriate to consider point rating the bidder’s experience to allow new or less experienced firms the opportunity to submit a bid.

    Examples of Mandatory Evaluation Criteria:

    • The bidder must have an office in all five regions to undertake program evaluation on a national scale. The address of the office corresponding to each region must be provided in the bid. Each office must be physically located within the identified region.
    • The proposed Project Manager must have a minimum of 5 years of experience in managing program evaluation projects within the last 10 years from bid closing date. The resume of the proposed resource, clearly demonstrating this experience, must be provided with the bid.
  • 1.5 Point Rated Evaluation Criteria, if applicable

    Point rated criteria identify elements that can be evaluated on a scale to determine the relative technical merit of each bid. When determining best value, point rated criteria will identify value added factors, over and above those which satisfy the minimum requirements. Point rated evaluation criteria can be used to establish the minimum requirements (by setting a pass mark) that a bid must meet to be considered valid and responsive. A pass mark can be applied to an individual criterion, group(s) of criteria, to the overall technical score or a combination of any of these.

    Examples of Point Rated Evaluation Criteria (high-level):

    • Proposed approach and methodology (60 points)
    • Experience of the proposed project manager in managing program evaluation beyond the five (5) years mandatory experience and within the last twenty (20) years (100 points)
    • Experience of the firm completing projects on a national scale (60 points)
    • Proposed work plan (schedule, resources and level of effort) (80 points)

    Point rated criteria are expressed by using the verbs "should” or “may.

  • 1.6 Combination of mandatory and point rated criteria, if applicable

    Evaluation criteria can be subject to both mandatory and point rated evaluation criteria. For example, it could be mandatory for a bidder to have an academic degree or diploma in a specific area of expertise and any experience related to this area of expertise can be subject to point rating.

    The best practice is to avoid criteria duplications. A criterion that is used as a mandatory should not be subject to point rating. When the level of experience exceeding the minimum mandatory requirement needs to be assessed, it is recommended to use rated criteria with a pass mark that is set in accordance with the minimum acceptable requirement.

  • 1.7 Objective and Subjective Evaluation Criteria

    The overarching rule when looking at evaluation criteria is that it should be clear, precise, measurable and defensible. To that end, evaluation criteria should be expressed in a way that can be objectively measured, to clearly identify to the bidder what is required and how it will be measured. Objective criteria are simpler to assess by the Evaluation Team, and will facilitate reaching a consensus when scoring proposals.

    Examples of objective criteria:

    • Years of relevant experience (e.g. points awarded according to number of years of experience up to a maximum)
    • Number of similar size projects completed, (e.g., points awarded accordingly to the number of projects of similar size)
    • Offices in country or region, (e.g., points awarded accordingly to distribution of offices across the country)
    • Academic qualifications

    When objective evaluation criteria cannot be used, the alternative is to use subjective criteria. With subjective criteria, it is more difficult for the bidder to determine what is required and the way in which they can best demonstrate how it will be met. As well, subjective criteria require that the evaluators have sufficient knowledge and experience to assess bid for compliancy (in the case of mandatory criteria) or determine the quality of the bid for scoring purposes. There could be differences in each member’s evaluation of the proposal, making it more difficult to reach a consensus, which could leave ESDC vulnerable to challenges.

    Examples of subjective criteria:

    • Degree of understanding of objectives and problems, what is required and what has to be done
    • Degree to which a requirement has been met
    • Understanding, clarity and potential effectiveness of approach to meeting the requirement
    • Consistency with strategy and objectives
    • Value of innovations and proposed improvements
    • Clarity of the bid

    Note: Description of subjective criteria needs to be well defined, giving potential bidders as clear a picture as possible of what will be evaluated and how.

  • 1.8 Assigning Rating Values to Evaluation Criteria

    The assignment of rating values to evaluation criteria must be specific to the requirement and is a business owner responsibility with the assistance of the contracting authority. Higher values (and thus more weighting in the final score) are assigned to areas of greater importance. Mandatory criteria is not given a value, but simply a ‘met’ or ‘not met’.

    Guiding principles:

    1. 1. The rating scale for each criterion or sub criterion must be included in the solicitation document. The maximum points available for each criterion or sub criterion will depend on the importance of that element.
    2. 2. To avoid situations where a bid compensates for weaknesses with remarkable strength in one or more other areas, a minimum score or a pass mark should be considered for all or a selected group of evaluation criteria. If a pass mark is not established for all criteria, a minimum overall score could be used as well. For example, bids may be required to achieve at least 65% for some criteria and the overall pass mark for bids could be 70%;
    3. 3. Changes to the number of points assigned to bid evaluation criteria are not permissible after bid closing. If changes are deemed necessary, solicitations must be re-issued in accordance with re- tendering procedures.
  • 1.9 Developing a Detailed Scoring Grid

    When using point rated criteria, a detailed scoring grid must be developed to indicate how the bidder is to demonstrate their experience. A rating grid that will be used to evaluate the bids must also be developed.

    Including a detailed scoring grid with the solicitation documents will not only help bidders with their bids but also the evaluators when conducting their evaluation.

    For each evaluation criterion, the detailed scoring grid should identify the information that will be expected from the bidders, the rating value allocated to each evaluation criterion and sub-criterion, and the scoring method that will be used to assess the evaluation criteria.

    It should be noted that not disclosing to bidders the evaluation criteria or not using reasonably predicted evaluation criteria from the solicitation document may lead to complaints by bidders that would have written their bid differently had the detailed scoring grid been provided.

    See tables 1 and 2 of Annex of Tables.

  • 1.10 Standard Scoring Methods

    • Objective Scoring Method

      To the extent possible, objective evaluation criteria should be used. Objective criteria are normally awarded points based on an arithmetic basis, see table 2.

      • In R2, the Project Manager experience is being calculated as follows: 10 points are awarded for each year of experience up to a maximum of 100 points.

      Bids that offer more than what is specified as the maximum required to perform the work will not be awarded additional points beyond the full mark. For example, if a criterion is rated a maximum of 100 points for 10 years of experience, it follows that additional points will not be offered for bidders offering personnel with more than 10 years of experience.

    • Subjective Scoring Method

      When objective evaluation criteria cannot be used in point rating evaluation, the use of a subjective evaluation point rating scoring system is permissible.

      See table 3 for an example of a subjective scoring scale that can be applied generically to subjective evaluation criteria, with the understanding that the description of the Rating Level must be applied to the specific requirement involved. Thus, the Rating Levels must be complemented by a definition of what factors would cause a criteria to be awarded a specific number of points. These factors should cover questions such as:

      • What items must be addressed in the bid?
      • How accurately?
      • In what detail?
      • What conditions must be met?
      • To what extent?
      • What should the bid offer or demonstrate?
      • How suitable…?
      • How efficient…?
      • How essential are the items offered by a bidder?
• 2. Contractor Selection Methods

  • 2.1 General Instructions for Selecting a Contractor Selection Method

    The appropriate contractor selection method is determined through consultation between the business owner and the contracting authority. The method must be clearly identified in the solicitation document and should ensure fair, open and transparent treatment of all bidders.

    Both the business owner and contracting authority are accountable for the implications of the selection method used. The CA is also responsible for ensuring that the winning bidder is chosen in accordance with the method set out in the solicitation document.

    The objective of selecting the most appropriate method is to achieve "best value" while meeting the operational needs of the department. The Treasury Board definition of "best value" is the best combination of price, technical merit, and quality.

    The most common contractor selection methods used at ESDC, with links to their associated Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Manual clauses, are the following:

    1. Selection on the basis of the lowest priced responsive bid
    2. Selection on the basis of the responsive bid having the lowest price-per-point
    3. Selection on the basis of the responsive bid having the highest combined rating of technical merit and price
    4. Selection on the basis of the responsive bid having the highest technical rating within a stipulated maximum financial budget

    To assist in determining the most appropriate contractor selection method for each procurement, refer to tables 4 and 5. These tables illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of each method and when they are best used.

  • 2.2 Lowest Priced Responsive

    With this method, price is the governing factor in the selection of the Contractor. This means that the lowest priced responsive bid will be recommended for award of the contract. A bid is declared responsive if it complies with all of the mandatory requirements specified in the solicitation document, and if it meets or exceeds the pass mark(s) specified for the point rated requirements.

    This method is used with most goods, and low to medium complexity services requirements, where the scope of work can be clearly and completely defined for bidders to establish the price. The work is recognized to be within existing technologies and all bidders would be proposing essentially the same solution or approach; there is little need by either the client or the contractor for flexibility in the performance of the work; and the cost of the work can be determined and supported with a high degree of confidence.

  • 2.3 Lowest Responsive Price-per-Point

    With this contractor selection method, the total bid price is divided by the corresponding total points achieved by the bidder for its technical bid, which determines each bidder's price-per-point. By dividing the price by the point rated score of the technical bid, both technical merit and price are being given approximately equal weighting in the proposed evaluation. This encourages bidders to give higher quality bids while offering a competitive price. The responsive bid with the lowest price-per-point will be recommended for award of the contract.

    A maximum budget is generally not specified in the solicitation document. However, the client should consider providing an indication of the expected level of effort required for completing the work. The indication of an expected level of effort or maximum budget may restrict the price competition, but it can also serve to prevent situations where bidders spend a considerable amount of time and financial resources preparing bids and bidding excessive prices because the absence of this information in the solicitation document failed to provide a clear indication of the expected level of effort or budget available to complete the work.

    The price-per-point method is used in medium to high complexity requirements where the bidders are required to provide solutions to a problem. The requirement and expected results are less defined than when the lowest priced responsive bid selection method is used. The competence of each bidder and the worth of each bid needs to be evaluated. Different solutions or approaches are possible. More flexibility in the performance of the work is expected or permitted. Price and technical merit are both significant factors and are given equal consideration in the evaluation. Selecting this method could lead to the client paying a certain premium.

  • 2.4 Highest Responsive Combined Rating of Technical Merit and Price

    In this method, price is given a rated value that is included in the total calculation of the point rated score. For example, 60% of the points can be awarded for technical merit and 40% of the points to the price. A ratio of relative importance is achieved by varying the amount of the weighted value assigned for technical merit and price.

    The evaluation team determines the combination of weighting factors for technical merit and price that will provide the best value to Canada. The bid which offers the highest overall point rating for technical merit and cost is recommended for award.

    The scoring of the price is done by giving full marks to the lowest priced responsive bid with the other bids being given a prorated score. As in the price-per-point selection method, a budget is not generally specified however, consideration should be given to indicate in the solicitation document the desired level of effort or a maximum budget available to complete the work.

    Table 6 illustrates an example where the selection of the contractor is determined by a 60/40 ratio of the technical score and price, respectively. The lowest priced technically responsive bid is allocated the maximum points of 40 and other price proposals are prorated accordingly. The technical points obtained during the evaluation are established against the total technical score available. The bid with the highest total score, when adding the technical points and the price points, is considered as the bid representing the best value to Canada.

    Note: Selecting this method could lead to the client paying a premium, see table 7.

  • 2.5 Highest Rated Responsive Bid within a Stipulated Maximum Budget

    With this contractor selection method, the responsive bid with the highest technical score within a stipulated maximum budget is recommended for contract award. Bidders are requested to submit bids on the understanding that the requirement must be provided within the specified maximum budget. The requirements are normally defined in general terms to minimize the number of constraints and encourage new ideas and price effective solutions from the bidders.

    This selection method is commonly used for scientific work or where the outcome is based on a solution. The client is expecting a maximum return for the budget available and the final choice of the supplier will depend on technical merit rather than price. A broad definition of the requirement and expected results is provided; different solutions or approaches to the requirement are anticipated; considerable flexibility in the performance of the work is expected and required. The objective is to select the contractor with the highest probability of technical success in achieving the goal.

  • 2.6 Advantages/ Disadvantages of Contractor Selection Methods

    Advantages/ Disadvantages of Contractor Selection Methods

    It is important to understand the various benefits and risks associated with each contractor selection method to ensure that the choice of method is appropriate for each requirement. The way the various methods are applied or interpreted can lead to difficulties during or after the evaluation of the bids.

    Examples of elements that could skew the results include misalignment of evaluation rating elements to its actual value to the requirement, unnecessarily high passing marks, over-emphasizing technical weighting, unclear requirements and selection methods may result in payment of price premiums for marginally superior bids.

    Table 5 provides the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the optimal cases for using the various contractor selection methods.

    Different bid evaluation and contractor selection techniques are appropriate depending on the requirement. It is important to consider each and every requirement separately, to work out the possible scenarios, keeping in mind that taxpayers' money is being spent, and to determine with the business owner the most appropriate method that should be used to meet both the technical and financial aspects of each requirement.

  • 2.7 Budget Information in a Solicitation Document

    The decision to include a maximum budget in the solicitation document depends on the contractor selection method. For example, with the lowest priced and the lowest price-per-point contractor selection methods, there is no need to include a budget as selection is based entirely or mainly on price competition.

    For requirements that are not well defined, it may be advantageous to both the business owner and bidders if an indication of the estimated level of effort or budget is provided. If an indication of the estimated level of effort or budget is not given, there is a risk that prices quoted by bidders could vary substantially and evaluators could end up comparing substantially different bids in terms of the technical merit. This is especially true in solution-based requirements where the proposals could range from basic to extravagant. For example, if the requirement is to design a training program for new employees; without well-defined requirements of what must be included, the proposals received could range from a 2 page document with basic information to a 5 day course.

    A maximum budget should be stipulated in the solicitation document when the highest rated responsive bid contractor selection method is used. The publication of the maximum budget ensures a level playing field for all bidders when selection of the contractor is based on a "technical competition", as opposed to a price competition.

• 3. Communications with Bidders

  From the point at which the solicitation is posted until the contract is awarded, the contracting authority must be the sole point of contact with any bidders or potential bidders.

  • 3.1 Questions from Bidders

    During the solicitation phase, questions may be received from potential bidders. When such questions are received, several things must be confirmed:

    1. Who receives the questions?
       During the solicitation period, to ensure the integrity of the process, all questions and other communications must be directed only to the contracting authority. A bid may be declared non-responsive if these instructions are not followed. Any person receiving questions or communications must immediately advise the CA by forwarding the information to them.
    2. Who needs to be advised of the reply?
       To ensure consistency, quality of information and fairness, the same information must be provided to all potential bidders, at the same time, using the same communication medium as the one used for the solicitation (email, Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS), etc.) and in both official languages, if applicable. This includes all questions from bidders and the provided answers, and is usually done by issuing an amendment to the solicitation.
    3. Is an extension to the closing date necessary?
       Bidders must be provided with sufficient time to prepare and submit bids based on the nature and the complexity of the requirement. This means that CAs should always evaluate if an extension to the solicitation is required before issuing an amendment, including questions and answers. The point at which, during the solicitation period, the amendment is issued, the scope and the number of changes brought to the SOW/Specifications and/or to the solicitation documents are some of the factors to be considered. The decision to extend the solicitation must be taken jointly between the business owner and the contracting authority and must consider the risks associated with not extending.
  • 3.2 Clarifications during Evaluation

    During the bid evaluation process, it may be necessary for the CA to seek clarifications or additional information from bidders in order to finalize the evaluation. It is important to note that a clarification is an explanation of some existing aspect of a bid that does not amount to a revision or modification of the bid. With this in mind, the evaluation team cannot add information in the bid. Neither can the evaluation team relax or otherwise modify the evaluation criteria set out in the solicitation document.

    Contracting authorities must ensure that the clarification process does not give any bidder an advantage over the others and, in no event, can clarifications alter the price quoted or allow for any substantive changes to a bid. If there are any doubts about whether the information requested would constitute either a bid clarification or a bid change/repair, the situation should be discussed with management and Legal Counsel and, if necessary, a formal legal opinion obtained, before any further consideration is given to this process.

    There may be instances where minor clarifications can remove any ambiguities in the bid. Clarification questions must be drafted by the contracting authority, in conjunction with the evaluation team, and must be limited to queries on documentation which bidders have been asked to provide as per the solicitation document.

    Clarification questions must not be used as a vehicle to give a bidder the opportunity to correct for items assessed as being non-responsive, nor must they be used as a means to gather new information for improving the bid rating. Clarifications can be obtained during the evaluation process to determine the correct interpretation of information contained in the bid that would permit evaluators to arrive at a warranted score.

    Canada may, but will have no obligation to, correct any error in the extended pricing of bids by using unit pricing, or any error in quantities in bids to reflect the quantities stated in the bid solicitation. In the case of error in the extension of prices, the unit price will govern. (Reference: SACC Standard Instructions 2003).

    When CAs identify an unusually low bid price, the bidder must be given the opportunity to either confirm the price or withdraw its bid, which must be done in writing. Contracting authorities must not divulge the difference in price between that bid and any other bid. In no event will the bidder be permitted to alter its bid price. CAs will specify the number of days the bidder will have to comply with any request for clarification. Failure to comply with the request may result in the bid being declared non-responsive.

• 4. Evaluating Bids/ Proposals/ Offers

  A Bid Evaluation Plan formalizes the procedures on how the evaluations will be conducted (e.g. location, timeframe allocation, the names of the evaluation team members, etc.). It is developed with the involvement of the business owner, and is kept in the procurement file as a record of how the evaluation process will unfold. When designing this plan, all parties must ensure that ESDC procurement activities are conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner.

  The bid evaluation is typically conducted by business owner representatives (bid evaluation team) under the supervision of the contracting authority. CA’s are responsible for clearly communicating the roles and responsibilities to the bid evaluation team, providing members with general guidance and advice on the bid evaluation process and objectives. Whenever the CA is not directly involved in the technical evaluation process, they must ensure that the evaluation has been carried out in accordance with the solicitation. CAs are also responsible for the evaluation of the financial portion of the bid.

  The evaluation of bids must be performed with integrity in an open, fair and transparent manner. All members of the evaluation team are jointly responsible for the evaluation of the bids however, as stated earlier, ESDC CAs and BOs are responsible for defending the final selection of the recommended bidder. The bid evaluation process must ensure that all bidders are subjected to the same conditions and considerations.

  Financial information must not be disclosed to the evaluation team before the technical evaluation of bids is complete. If the price quoted is known to evaluators at the outset, technical proposals could be evaluated, or perceived to be evaluated, in a biased way so as to influence the selection of the contractor on the basis of the price quoted as opposed to the contractor selection method set out in the solicitation document. Exceptions should only be made following the authorization of ESDC management.

  It may not always be practicable for contracting authorities to be involved in all bid evaluations. However, they are responsible to supervise the entire procurement process and therefore, must be involved in the evaluation of complex and sensitive requirements to a degree sufficient to ensure that evaluations are performed in a fair manner and in conformity with instructions set out in the solicitation document.

  • 4.1 Evaluation Process

    Evaluation Team

    The evaluation of the technical portion of the bid is the responsibility of the evaluation team, which is ideally composed of a minimum of three business owner representatives. The number of evaluators may increase with the size and complexity of the process. The qualifications and experience of the evaluation team members should be compatible with the nature of the requirement.

    The instructions outlining the responsibilities of the evaluation team members are established and communicated using The Bid Evaluation Team Instructions (Annex B), which must be signed by each member.

    Once the evaluation team has been created, its membership should remain constant with core members being available to participate in the development of the evaluation criteria and scoring grid, in the performance of the evaluation itself, and in the debriefing of unsuccessful bidders.

    Evaluation of Bids

    The contracting authorities must treat all information in a secure and confidential manner to ensure the integrity of the contracting process.

    The financial portion of the bids will remain with the contracting authority and opened only after the technical evaluation is complete. Unopened financial bids can be returned to bidders whose proposal was found technically non-responsive.

    Prior to meeting collectively for the purpose of evaluating bids (consensus meeting), team members evaluate the bids independently, on a provisional basis, following the detailed scoring grid.

    Each member of the evaluation team must read each bid in its entirety even though they may be tasked with providing point ratings in assigned areas only. Information relevant to one criterion may be found in an area of the bid not specified as responding to the criterion. Unless it was specified in the bid solicitation document to use a specific format for information, the evaluators must consider all information contained in the bid in their evaluation.

    Reading through the entire bid will also provide all evaluators with a general overview of the bids and the necessary background information to participate in discussions when members need to agree on final ratings, which should be achieved by consensus. As a last resort, if no consensus can be reached, final ranking may be achieved through averaging, or eliminating high and low scores and averaging the remainder, or other reasonable agreed to means. In all cases, all individual notes and scoring sheets must be retained and a copy must be provided to the contracting authority to document the procurement file.

    Bids are to be evaluated as objectively as possible, documenting strengths, weaknesses and missing information. Remarks should be factual and objectively stated so that this information can be provided in response to Access to Information requests, or by part of a response to a Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) inquiry. This information must be recorded in an Individual Scoring Grid form as per the examples in tables 1 and 2.

    After individual review, the evaluation team must convene and proceed with the collective, formal assessment of the bids (consensus meeting). The evaluation team should meet in a common location and conduct the evaluation with due regard for the confidentiality of the bids. The CA supervises the consensus meetings.

    Evaluation team members must keep bid information in strict confidence. No information will be divulged to any third party or any other party not involved in the evaluation process. Bid pricing information must not be opened until the technical evaluation is complete.

    Where applicable, bids must be evaluated against the list of mandatory requirements specified in the solicitation document. Bids not meeting the mandatory requirements must be declared "non-responsive" and must not be given any further consideration.

    All responsive bids must then be evaluated against the point rated criteria set out in the solicitation document. When two or more evaluators are involved in rating the same assigned area, the final score must be determined by consensus. A bid that does not meet the pass mark(s) for rated requirements must be declared "non responsive" and not be given further consideration.

    Results of the ratings are to be tabulated on an Evaluation Summary Report (tables 8 and 9) and a final review must be performed by the contracting authority. Strengths and weaknesses, and missing information of each bid must also be recorded and summarized in the Evaluation Summary Report. The CA is responsible to accept or challenge scoring and remarks that are not appropriate or consistent with scoring.

    A copy of the final Evaluation Summary Report (Annex C) must be signed by all members of the evaluation team and a copy must be included in the procurement file in a manner suitable for disclosure in a formal debriefing of unsuccessful bidders or for submission to auditors or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT).

  • 4.2 Financial Evaluation and Contractor Selection

    Contracting authorities are responsible for the evaluation of the financial portion of the bids and do not provide business owners with price information during the technical evaluation process to ensure its integrity. Financial information is only provided to the BOs after the completion of the technical evaluation. The financial proposal(s) of unsuccessful bidder(s) are not to be opened.

    The solicitation document must clearly address how identical bids or a tie will be handled.

    Contracting authorities must ensure that the bids remain valid until the time of contract and that sufficient funding is available to award the contract, otherwise additional funds will have to be authorized by the business owner before a contract can be awarded. Refer to the “Extending the bid validity period” information within below section V for more information.

    Selection of the contractor and award of the contract must be done in accordance with the contractor selection method outlined in the solicitation document.

Negotiation Procedures

When two or more responsive bids are received in response to a competitive bid solicitation and neither of them represents fair value, the contracting authority must consult with management. After examination of the solicitation to determine the possible cause(s) and conferring with management, the contracting authority may either negotiate with all compliant bidders or cancel and reissue the bid solicitation.

Notification of Unsuccessful Bidders

Contracting authorities must notify unsuccessful bidders as soon as possible after contract award. Once this is done, an award notice must be posted for all procurements subject to trade agreements (or which were originally posted through GETS), within the specified time frame. See the “Contract Award” information part of the Acquisition Phase of the Procurement Roadmap.

Unsuccessful bidders must be informed in writing by regret letter of both the winning bid’s total score and the value of the contract. Unit pricing information contained in standing offers can be disclosed as well, but only when the bidder has been notified of the Department's intent to disclose such information by incorporating section 09 Disclosure of Information from SACC General Conditions 2005 in the Request for Standing Offer bid document.

A template regret letter is available in the ESDC Operation Team shared folder.

Bidders may request formal debriefings and the assistance of business owners may be required in technical areas. During a debriefing, only the strengths and weaknesses of the bidder's bid can be discussed. The purpose of debriefings is to explain to unsuccessful bidders why their bid was not accepted, allowing them to improve for future solicitations, not to provide information about other bids.

Should a bidder request information about competitors' bids, other than what is listed above, the contracting authority is to inform the enquirer that such information is protected under Access to Information Act and that it must be requested through ESDC’s Access to Information and Privacy Division.

Canceling and Reissuing a Bid Solicitation

If a solicitation is cancelled before the closing date, contracting officers must issue a cancellation notice using the same medium as the solicitation, including the Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS).

If the cancellation takes place after the closing date, bidders should be informed within 10 calendar days of the cancellation of the solicitation.

Reissuance of a cancelled solicitation should not occur without consultation with management.

Extending the Bid Validity Period

The standard bid validity period is 60 calendar days from the closing date of the bid solicitation, unless otherwise indicated in the bid solicitation.

In certain circumstances, before the solicitation is published, it may be known that the award cannot be made within the standard bid validity period. In such circumstances, the contracting authority will carefully assess the potential for extended bid evaluation periods and indicate in the bid solicitation the modified bid validity period.

Contracting authorities must carefully monitor events during the bid evaluation period and contract approval process in order to ensure that the contract is awarded before the bid validity period has expired. Subject to the Instructions to Bidders, Canada may seek an extension of the bid validity period if unexpected delays occur.

If the bid validity period has expired, and the contract has not been awarded, the requirement must be cancelled and potentially retendered.

The bid evaluation process is integral to the procurement process in light of our obligations under the various trade agreements and bid challenge processes. As such, it is important that all personnel involved in the procurement process have an in-depth working knowledge of the bid evaluation process and contractor selection methods.

While this Guide was designed as a reference for Procurement Authorities within ESDC, it is not meant to replace formal training in bid evaluation and contractor selection methodologies. If you are unsure of how to proceed at any stage of the process, always check with your manager on what steps to take.