and the Time-Based Form of Contract has been in- cluded in the RFP, the EC shall correct the quantifica- tion indicated in the financial proposal so as to make it consistent with that indicated in the technical proposal, apply the relevant unit price included in the financial proposal to the corrected quantity, and correct the total proposal cost. If the Lump-Sum Form of Contract has been included in the RFP, no corrections are applied to the financial proposal in this respect. For example, if a technical proposal indicates the presence of the team leader at the assignment site for 12 months (but the financial proposal indicates only 8 months) and the Time-Based Form of Contract has been included in the RFP, an adjustment should be calculated by adding the corresponding amount of staff remuneration to the proposed amount.
To compare proposals, evaluated prices should be converted to a single currency using the exchange rate, date, and source indicated by the Borrower in the RFP. The scores of the evaluated prices should then be cal- culated according to the formula provided in the RFP (see para. 14.3.2, Paragraph Reference 5.7).
When FBS is adopted, adjustments made by the Evaluation Committee to correct omissions or in- consistencies detected during the evaluation of the financial proposal could raise the evaluated price of a proposal over the available budget indicated in the RFP. This could lead to the rejection of the proposal (see para. 9.3.3).
16.7 Combined Quality
and Cost Evaluation
If QCBS is the method of selection, the Evaluation Committee weighs and combines the scores of the tech- nical and financial proposals to obtain a final ranking of the proposals and recommendation for award. The data are then recorded in the final evaluation report, which is delivered to the decision-making authority. The authority reviews the report, confirms the rec- ommendation for award, obtains any additional clear- ance that may be required under local regulations, and forwards the report to the Bank for its information.
The Borrower invites the consultant whose pro- posal has obtained the highest combined score to ne- gotiate, informs the other consultants that they were unsuccessful, and releases the name of the selected firm. If the Borrower believes that negotiations could fail or could go beyond the proposal validity period, it
should ask the consultants to extend the validity of their proposals.
After technical and financial negotiations are com- pleted, the Borrower shall provide the Bank, in suffi- cient time for its review and “no objection,” with a copy of the initialed negotiated contract. If the negotiated contract resulted in a substitution of key staff or any changes in the TOR and in the originally proposed con- tract, the Borrower shall highlight the changes and pro- vide an explanation of the changes.
Once the contract is awarded, the Borrower shall publish in UNDB online and in dgMarket the following information: (a) the names of all consultants who sub- mitted proposals; (b) the total technical points assigned to each consultant proposal; (c) the evaluated prices of each proposal; (d) the final point ranking of the con- sultants; and (e) the name of the successful consultant and the price, duration, and summary scope of the con- tract. The Borrower shall also send the same informa- tion to all consultants who have submitted proposals.
Consultants may wish to be informed of the rea- sons why they were not selected. The Borrower should provide reasonable, prompt, and satisfactory replies to all such requests, either in writing or in a debriefing meeting, at the consultant’s discretion. The Borrower should not discuss the details of any other proposal except that of the inquiring consultant. If the consult- ant is not satisfied with the Borrower’s explanation, it can request the Bank to organize a debriefing meeting with concerned Bank staff. The Regional Procurement Manager coordinates this meeting. The debriefing process is intended to help losing firms understand why they lost and encourage them to submit improved- quality proposals in the future.
16.8 Rejection of All Proposals
If all proposals are found to be nonresponsive, the Borrower may be justified in rejecting all of them. The grounds for rejecting all proposals are as follows:
•
The proposals present major deficiencies in com- plying with the RFP and specifically the TOR.•
All proposals fail to achieve the minimum qualify- ing mark (technical score) indicated in the RFP.•
The proposal prices are substantially higher than the Borrower’s estimated budget.In the first case, there may be technical reasons for the deficiencies. Most frequently, the Borrower and
87
PREPARATION, SUBMISSION, AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
consultants disagree on which contractual party should be responsible for executing specific assignment ac- tivities or on the exact content and feasibility of spe- cific deadlines affecting the implementation schedule of the Borrower’s project. In other instances, consult- ants may find the estimated staff-months and the dis- tribution of risks unacceptable.
In the third case, the Borrower may not know the ongoing remuneration levels of consultants for the type of service being considered, consultants may mis- interpret the TOR, or the Borrower’s plans may be too ambitious for the available budget.
In all cases, good TOR, accurate budget, and re- view of the RFP before the Bank issues its “no objec- tion” can reduce the risks of nonresponsive proposals. In the third case, before rejecting all proposals, the Borrower, in consultation with the Bank, should inves- tigate the feasibility of increasing the budget or scaling down the scope of services to meet the original budget. Before all proposals are rejected and a new re- quest for proposals is issued, the Borrower shall notify the Bank, indicating the reasons for such rejection, and shall obtain the Bank’s “no objection” before pro- ceeding with a new selection process. The new process may include revising the RFP (including the short list) and the budget. These revisions shall be agreed on with the Bank. Calling for new proposals creates obvi- ous delays and should remain the last resort.
16.9 Role of the Bank in the
Evaluation Process
Selecting consultants is the Borrower’s responsibility. The Bank does not take part in the evaluation of pro- posals, but upon request of the Borrower, may pro- vide advice on methodology and selection procedures before the actual evaluation takes place.
In prior review assignments, the Bank reviews the technical evaluation report and, if satisfied, sends its “no objection” to the Borrower (see para 8.2). The Bank may request additional explanations or infor- mation about the report’s content from the Borrower, when necessary. In exceptional cases, the Bank may ask the Borrower to submit one or more proposals for its review. The Borrower may proceed with the open- ing of the financial proposals only after receiving the
Bank’s “no objection” to the technical evaluation. When price is a factor of selection, the Borrower may then proceed with the financial evaluation.
If the Borrower receives a complaint from a con- sultant, copies of the complaint and the Borrower’s response shall be sent to the Bank for information. If, because of analysis of a complaint, the Borrower changes its contract award recommendation, the rea- son for the decision and a revised evaluation report shall be submitted to the Bank for “no objection.” The Borrower shall publish once again the contract award, as provided for in the Guidelines.
If the Bank determines that the final evaluation report, recommendation for award, or negotiated con- tract is inconsistent with the provisions of the RFP, it shall promptly inform the Borrower and state the rea- son for its determination. Otherwise, the Bank shall provide its final “no objection” to the contract award. The Borrower shall confirm the award of the contract only after receiving the “no objection” from the Bank. The description and amount of the contract, together with the name and address of the firm, shall be subject to public disclosure by the Borrower after contract signing. (see para. 16.7).
Notes
1. For example, if there are 6 proposals and 5 EC mem- bers, there will be a total of 30 ratings for each aspect subject to evaluation. Comparing the 30 ratings will allow the EC to (a) identify those members who have been systematically too generous or too severe and (b) correct ratings that are obviously wrong. The highest rating (“very good”) and the lowest (“poor”) are usually easier to assign and more difficult to dis- pute. In fact, in most cases, it is quite evident to all EC members that an aspect of a proposal is of either outstanding technical quality, thus deserving a “very good” rating, or largely unsatisfactory, thus deserv- ing a “poor” rating. However, most ratings fall in the middle (“good” and “satisfactory”) and reaching a consensus may be difficult. Comparing the ratings assigned to each element of the proposals by the EC members may be helpful in this context.
2. “Sample Form of Evaluation Report: Selection of Consultants,” World Bank, 2004, Washington, DC.
88 PREPARATION, SUBMISSION, AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS