2.5. Tender evaluation

Risks

• Unclear rules and obligations leaving room for different interpretations and not holding responsible persons accountable for their actions.
• Appointment of TEC members does not include randomness and excludes certain groups (for example from different departments or the finance team), often resulting with the same members.
• Members of the TEC are willing to collude.
• Change of TEC members during the evaluation process.

Good practice

• Monitor that the agreed procurement rules for TEC are implemented (i.e. TEC appointment procedures, roles and responsibilities of TEC members, representation from different departments, rotation of members, qualifications of TEC members, etc).
• Negotiate if it is possible to appoint external members and/or observers (external experts, Helvetas staff, NGOs, business and/or media representatives) to increase the objectivity of the TEC.
• Check the qualifications of TEC members to ensure that they are fit for evaluating the tender in question.
• TEC members and observers sign statements of impartiality and confidentiality before the evaluation starts. TEC members could also sign the code of conduct.
• All TEC members and observers sign the necessary documentation (statements, reports, minutes of meetings, etc) to hold them accountable for their actions.
• Monitor the process for possible changes in the TEC composition during the tender evaluation.

Risks

• Opening of offers is not done publicly, which is especially relevant for public institutions.
• Opening of offers is not done transparently and not documented properly.
• Different parts of the offer are not opened in a proper sequence (for example financial offer is opened together with other parts of the offer at the beginning of the process).
• Confidentiality of the content of offers is not maintained.
• Offers opened without all TEC members being present.
• Decisions of TEC members are influenced by outsiders (politicians, business owners, technical experts, etc).

Good practice

• Monitor that the agreed procurement rules for opening of offers are implemented. Opening of offers should be public for public institutions and NGOs, and as much as possible for private sector, in the presence of all TEC members and in the right order (for example technical offer is opened before the financial offer).
• TEC members and observers sign statements of impartiality and confidentiality before the evaluation starts. TEC members could also sign the code of conduct.
• TEC members and observers confirm in written the integrity of the envelope seals and the correct opening of offers.
• Document the opening of offers via photos, videos, signed reports, minutes of meeting, etc.
• Monitor the process for possible external influence on TEC members during the opening of offers.
• Monitor the complaints process, especially if there is a complaint about opening of offers.

Risks

• Assessment of eligibility of offers is not objective (for example including or excluding offers on no objective grounds).
• Suspicious offers are submitted (for example fake companies, subsidiaries, shell companies or affiliates – same names or contact details) to give the appearance of competition.
• Confidentiality of the content of offers is not maintained.

Good practice

• Document the validation of offers via signed reports and/or minutes of meeting.
• Perform some risk oriented cross checks on random basis.
• Monitor the evaluation process either directly through Helvetas staff or through external consultants. Inform the partner that Helvetas may perform cross checks on the offers and impose penalties or cancelling the contract if irregularities are found.
• Monitor the complaints process, especially if there is a complaint about validation of offers.

Risks

• Evaluation of offers is subjective. Evaluation criteria and/or scoring not applied correctly or changed during the evaluation process, whereby certain offers are favoured and no proper justification for scoring is provided.
• Big differences in scores between TEC members.
• Evaluation process disrupted for whatever reason and/or takes too long to finalise. Or the opposite, whereby the evaluation is rushed without paying due attention to the process.
• Big differences in offers either technically or financially.
• One TEC member, observer or an outsider dominates the evaluation.
• Exact costs or pricing data are not presented in the offer, resulting in an increased contract price later during project implementation.

Good practice

• Monitor the evaluation process through Helvetas staff or external experts. Focus on application of criteria, quality of offers, scoring differences between TEC members, reasons for delays or acceleration of the process, and potential influences on TEC members.
• Document the evaluation process via signed reports and/or minutes of meeting, with proper justifications of scores.

Risks

• Selection of other than the best offer, which could lead to delays and potential cancellation of the tender or the project entirely.
• Selection is not well documented, and no proper justification is provided.
• The partner repeatedly awards contracts to the same company.

Good practice

• Monitor the evaluation process through Helvetas staff or external experts.
• Document the evaluation process via signed reports and/or minutes of meeting, with proper justifications for selection of the supplier.
• Check other awarded contracts by the partner to see if the selected supplier is the preferred company of the partner. Transfer the responsibility for selection of supplier to the partner. When possible and appropriate (for example partner capacities are too weak), assume a role in approving the execution of the process. Make it clear that approval is only related to the correctness of the procurement process, and not approval of the outcome of the process.
• Monitor the complaints process, especially if there is a complaint about selection of supplier.

Risks

• Terms and conditions of the contract between the partner and its contractor are poorly defined.

Good practice

• Engage Helvetas staff or external experts to cross-check the contract to ensure that it is clear and easy to understand.
• Include in the contract clauses similar to the collaboration agreement (for example roles and responsibilities of the parties, anti-corruption measures, payment schedules, milestones, monitoring, delivery of products, warranty, bank guarantee, delays and penalties, audit, and contract termination).