Page 1
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>.
Page 2
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~ .
Page 3
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
Page 4
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
Page 5
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/