ANÁLISIS PESTEL

the applicant being excluded from further evaluation by the committee.

A convenient method of comparison of eligibility, completeness of applications and financial stability of the applicants is by the completion by members of the committee of the form shown in Table 8.1. Each

applicant, having been given a reference code, is marked as either ‘suitable’ or ‘unsuitable’. Unsuitable applicants would normally be excluded from further consideration.

The committee should then determine for each applicant its capacity and suitability based on:

- Structure and organisation; location.

- Available resources in terms of management capability, technical staff, construction equipment, fabrication facilities, and any other relevant factors such as, if appropriate, training facilities and operation and maintenance capabilities.

- Extent to which any work would be likely to be subcontracted.

- Experience in both the type of work and the country or region in which it is to be undertaken.

- Relationships with local companies, taking into account any potential language difficulties.

- Quality assurance procedures; health, safety and environmental policy.

- Litigation and arbitration history.

- Security level required.

Evaluation of the capacity and suitability of potential contractors should be made on the basis of the prequalification application. This may be supplemented by previous experience of the employer and by

confidential enquiries made to previous employers or clients, and from trade associations and directories or national company registers.

A convenient method of comparing applications is to record scores against criteria representing various aspects of the submissions. The resulting scores are then suitably weighted. An example of this method is illustrated in the analysis given in Tables 8.3 and 8.4.

An example of the use of a matrix comparison form before the application of weighting is illustrated in Table 8.3. The criteria are shown on the left-hand side of the table while columns are provided for entries of the scores against the headings under each of the prequalification applicants 1 to 11 (eleven applicants in this example). The scoring against each criterion is in the range 0-100, 100 being ‘exceptional’ and going down through the ranges of ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘average’,

‘poor’ and ‘weak’ to 0 showing ‘no data’.

It is good practice for the same evaluators, who may be more but never less than two, to score each criterion for each applicant and for the evaluators’ scores for each criterion for each applicant to be averaged. This method avoids possible distortion in scoring values, which might be caused by different evaluators marking relatively high or low. To assist in the comparison of applicants, it is also recommended that the evaluators score all applicants for a criterion before the next criterion is considered.

In the case of joint ventures, for which each member will have been given separate subjective scores under each criterion, it is suggested that averages of the

102

Criterion Maximum Score Prequalification Form Weighting Percentage

1 Structure and organisation 100 C, E and F 10%

2 Resources: directors, managers and staff 100 G and H 10%

3 Resources: labour force/subcontractors 100 I 5%

4 Resources: plant, equipment and facilities 100 J 5%

5 Experience: geographical 100 K 5%

6 Experience: relevant contracts completed 100 L 15%

7 Experience: all contracts in progress 100 M 15%

8 Quality assurance system, health and 100 N, O and P 15%

safety plan and environmental policy

9 Litigation and arbitration history 100 S 20%

Maximum possible: 100%

Table 8.2 – Prequalification form and weighting factor for each criterion for Tables 8.3 and 8.4

8 Prequalification of Tenderers:

Contracts for Works

Notes 1 The average scores of evaluators are given against each criterion for each suitable applicant.

2 Maximum score against each criterion is 100.

3 In the example above, applicants 1 and 4 had been eliminated after the evaluation of eligibility, completeness of application and financial stability.

Table 8.3 – Analysis of prequalification applications for the tendering of contracts for works Matrix example: scoring sheet

Prequalification Criterion

1 Structure and organisation

2 Resources: directors, managers and staff 3 Resources: labour force/subcontractors 4 Resources: plant, equipment and facilities 5 Experience: geographical

6 Experience: relevant contracts completed 7 Experience: all contracts in progress 8 Quality assurance system, health and

safety plan and environmental policy 9 Litigation and arbitration history

1

Code for Prequalification Applicants Weighting to Apply

Notes 1 The average scores of evaluators are given against each criterion for each suitable applicant.

2 In the example above, applicants 1 and 4 had been eliminated after the evaluation of eligibility, completeness of application and financial stability.

3 In the example above, if five prequalified candidates were to be selected, these would be 7, 8, 11, 3, and 10.

Table 8.4 – Analysis of prequalification applications for the tendering of contracts for works Matrix example: application of weighting, showing effect of percentage weighting Prequalification Criterion

1 Structure and organisation

2 Resources: directors, managers and staff 3 Resources: labour force/subcontractors 4 Resources: plant, equipment and facilities 5 Experience: geographical

6 Experience: relevant contracts completed 7 Experience: all contracts in progress 8 Quality assurance system, health and

safety plan and environmental policy 9 Litigation and arbitration history

Total weighted score:

Code for Prequalification Applicants Weighting Applied

104

8 Prequalification of Tenderers:

Contracts for Works

Contractors considered ineligible from the assessments above, and those who do not meet the satisfactory financial requirements, should be excluded from the final stage of the selection process.

It is recommended that the selection of tenderers is made from those with the highest percentages assessed in the analysis procedure described above in order to arrive at:

- no more than eight for an uncomplicated employer-designed construction project; or

- no more than five for contractor-designed works; or - no more than three for a complex turnkey contract or

for tenderers selected under the competitive dialogue method; or

- usually one but not more than three for negotiated tenders.

An advice to employers is “do not prequalify any contractor to whom you would be unhappy to award the

contract”. Clearly, an employer must have a substantial reason for excluding a contractor from prequalification.

Where the tenderer is a subsidiary in a group of companies, it needs to be appreciated that the only security for the performance of the subsidiary is the subsidiary’s assets and that it would be wholly imprudent and unwise to rely on the fact that the subsidiary is part of a larger and/or well-known group of companies. In such a case the employer should consider insisting on receiving a guarantee from the parent company which would have the assets and resources necessary to assure good performance of the construction contract.

8.7 Selection of tenderers

members’ scores under each criterion are calculated and then entered on a new matrix sheet to represent the score of the joint venture. Alternatively, the scores of each member could be weighted in proportion to its stated financial percentage commitment to the joint venture.

Each criterion will have been previously weighted. The average score against each criterion for each applicant is then adjusted by the weighting percentage. Table 8.2 gives the corresponding page or pages of the standard prequalification form, shown in Appendix 8.3.1, for each of the criteria in the examples of Tables 8.3 and 8,4, together with the weightings and maximum possible score.

The total score of each applicant is then calculated as a percentage of the maximum possible score of 100.

The applicants with the highest percentages are then considered to be the best qualified.

The prequalification criteria and weightings may, of course, be adjusted to suit the circumstances of the

project/contract. It is to be added that where appropriate and feasible, discussions may be held with applicants.

In this regard it will be noticed that no provision has been made in the examples given to show the effect of prequalification submission for training of the

employer’s personnel or for ongoing operation and maintenance of a completed facility (Forms Q and R of Appendix 8.1). If such information is required from the applicants, it is then necessary to take account of this by the introduction of additional criteria to Tables 8.3 and 8.4 and by suitable adjustment of the weighting percentages to ensure that the maximum total score remains at 100.

Any information provided by prequalification applicants on Form U – Additional Information of the standard prequalification form should be taken into account by the shortlist committee in the assessment of Forms E to T, as may be appropriate.

When the list of selected and prequalified tenderers has been prepared, successful applicants (except in the case of the open tendering method, where tenders will have already been submitted) should be notified and requested to confirm their intention to submit a tender. This should ensure, as far as possible, an adequate number of competitive tenders. If a potential applicant wishes to drop out at this stage, the next best-placed applicant should be invited and requested to confirm his intention to submit a tender.

Following this, all applicants should be notified of the list of selected tenderers without giving explanation of the decisions.

The employer should advise successful applicants when they can expect to receive the tender dossier, and should notify unsuccessful applicants that they have not been prequalified.

8.8 Notification to prequalification applicants

8 Prequalification of Tenderers:

Contracts for Works