REFORM
Phase 6: Finalisation and approval
15. EVALUATION CRITERIA
This bid shall be evaluated based on functionality and in accordance with 80/20 preference points system as stipulated below.
15.1 First stage: Evaluation of functionality
The evaluation of the support services and functionalities will be done individually by Members of the Bid Evaluation Committee in accordance with the following functionality criteria and values. The applicable values that will be utilized when scoring each criteria ranges from 1 poor, 2 average, 3 good, 4 very good and 5 excellent.
Table 1: Evaluation criteria for functionality
CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION WEIGHT
RESOURCES A project leader must hold a relevant formal tertiary qualification with a minimum of 8 years post-registration experience, must have a minimum of 8 years in geospatial data infrastructure and must be registered with SAGC as a Professional GISc Practitioner.
(Attach certified copies of qualifications and a CV indicating a detailed profile of previous work experience.)
Score rating:
1) CV attached with less than 6 years experience and less than 6 years in executing similar projects –Poor = 1
2) CV attached with 6 to 7 years experience and 6 - 7 years in executing similar projects – Average = 2
20
Page 53 of 67
CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION WEIGHT 3) CV attached with 8 years experience and 8 years in executing
similar projects –Good = 3
4) CV attached with more than 9 years experience and more than 9 years in executing similar projects - Very good= 4
5) CV attached with more than 10 years experience and 10 or more years in executing similar projects – Excellent = 5
Excluding the project leader, the project team must have:
i. A minimum of ten (10) resources.
ii. At least one resource with expertise in SDI research with a track record in research work and publication and a minimum of 6 years in geospatial data management.
iii. At least one resource with expertise/ and or background in Legal Compliance, Risk, Compliance Audit and a minimum of 6 years.
iv. At least three resources registered as Professional GISc Practitioners with a minimum of 6 years in geospatial data management.
v. At least five resources registered with the SAGC as GISc Technologist or Technicians with a minimum of 6 years in geospatial data management.
(Attach certified copies of qualifications and a CV indicating a detailed profile of previous work experience.)
NB: resources must remain the same for the duration of the project, a change of resources must be done in consultation with DALRRD where a replacement of similar or more experience will be approved.
Score rating:
1) Not meeting above i, ii, iii, iv, v criteria requirements –Poor (1) 2) One of the above i, ii, iii, iv, v criteria requirements not met –
Average (2)
3) Meet all the above i, ii, iii, iv, v criteria requirements –Good (3 ) 4) All the above i, ii, iii, iv, v criteria requirements are met with 8
years or more post qualification experience –Very good (4)
20
Page 54 of 67
CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION WEIGHT 5) All the above i, ii, iii, iv, v criteria requirements are met with 10
or more years’ experience –Excellent (5)
CAPABILITY The bidding entity should have at least completed a minimum of 3 projects with a proven record of the Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) environment.
The bidder must provide at least three (3) reference letters from contactable clients the certificates/letters must be on the
bidders’ Client’ official letterheads with contact details and it must be duly signed.
Score rating:
1) Duly signed reference letters/testimonials on the client letterhead indicating that the service provider has done 1 project clearly indicating methodology, outcomes, resources and timelines – Poor
= 1
2) Duly signed reference letters/testimonials on the client letterhead indicating that the service provider has done 2 projects clearly indicating methodology, outcomes, resources and timelines – Average = 2
3) Duly signed reference letters/testimonials on the client letterhead indicating that the service provider has done 3 projects clearly indicating methodology, outcomes, resources and timelines – Good = 3
4) Duly signed reference letters/testimonials on the client letterhead indicating that the service provider has done 4 projects clearly indicating methodology, outcomes, resources and timelines - Excellent (5).2 (two) Category projects successfully completed–
Very good= 4
5) Duly signed reference letters/testimonials on the client letterhead indicating that the service provider has done 5 or more projects clearly indicating methodology, outcomes, resources and timelines - Excellent (5).2 (two) Category projects successfully completed– – Excellent = 5
20
METHODOLOGY AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
A broad overview of approaches and methodologies that may be employed to execute the project as per the scope of work.
• Appropriateness of proposed approach and methodology
40
Page 55 of 67
CRITERIA GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION WEIGHT
• The degree to which the methodology proposed is sound, professional, realistic and logical.
• Clear consultation approach and engagement mechanism with national departments.
• Method and clarity regarding the presentation of the final outputs of the project;
• Programme with clear timelines and output
• Indicators and means of verifying progress.
• Quality assurance steps indicated
• Clear reporting mechanism.
Score rating:
1) Methodology and the proposed plan do not outline the requirements as specified in the ToR –Poor = 1
2) Methodology and proposed plan inadequately and poorly addresses requirements in the ToR – Average = 2
3) Methodology and proposed plan adequately addresses all of the requirements in the ToR –Good = 3
4) Methodology and proposed plan adequately specified all requirements in the ToR and is acceptable for implementation - Very good= 4
5) Methodology and proposed plan exceptionally specifies the manner in which the project will be delivered and indicate the additional value adds Excellent = 5
TOTAL 100 Note: All service providers who score less than 65 out of 100 points for functionality will not be considered further for the second stage which is pricing.
15.2 Second stage – Evaluation in terms of 80/20 Preference Point System
Only bidders who met all the minimum requirements in terms of section 13.1 above will be brought on a comparative price basis in terms of the applicable preference points system as prescribed in the Preferential Procurement Regulations 6 and 7 of 2017.
15.3 Calculation of points for price
Page 56 of 67
The PPPFA prescribes that the lowest acceptable bid will score 80 points for price. Bidders that quoted higher prices will score lower points for price on a pro-rata basis.
15.4 Calculating of points for B-BBEE status level of contribution
Points will be awarded to a bidder for attaining the B-BBEE status level of contribution in accordance with the table below: