table of contents - … · table of contents ... procedural matters, this step is essentially...
TRANSCRIPT
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 1 of 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD .................................... 2
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2
4.1.1 Structure of Chapter 4 ............................................................................... 2
4.1.2 Bodies responsible for the evaluation of tenders and the award of
the contract ............................................................................................... 3
4.2 OPENING OF TENDERS .................................................................................... 6
4.2.1 Opening procedure ................................................................................... 6
4.2.2 Entry of tender details in a special form .................................................... 8
4.2.3 Announcement of ranking order ................................................................ 8
4.3 EVALUATION OF TENDERS ............................................................................... 8
4.3.1 Purpose of the procedure for the evaluation of tenders ............................. 8
4.3.2 Basic evaluation principles ........................................................................ 9
4.3.3 Time-related commitments of the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders ............................................................................. 10
4.3.4 Evaluation procedure .............................................................................. 11
4.4 AWARD OF CONTRACT .................................................................................. 44
4.4.1 Approval of the Final Evaluation Report and Award of the Contract ........ 44
4.4.2 Cancellation of the tender procedure ...................................................... 45
4.5 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC OPERATORS ................................. 46
4.5.1 Initial notice to all interested parties ........................................................ 46
4.5.2 Notice to the Contractor .......................................................................... 47
4.5.3 Notice to unsuccessful tenderers ............................................................ 47
4.5.4 Handling of Hierarchical Recourses ........................................................ 48
4.6 CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT .......................................................................... 56
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 2 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1.1 Structure of Chapter 4
In the previous Chapter 3 of this Guide, instructions and guidelines on how to implement the
strategic choices regarding public procurement were given. More specifically, an analysis
was made of the actions that should be implemented during each of the five (5) stages
involved in preparing and launching a tender procedure, i.e.:
1. Definition of the contract scope
2. Preparation of the tender documents
3. Required advertising actions
4. Release of the tender documents
5. Provision of clarifications and additional information on the tender
documents
Chapter 4 contains guidelines and instructions concerning the implementation of the
announced tender procedure. In particular, an analysis is made of the actions to be carried
out during each stage of the procedure, starting with the opening of the tenders submitted by
interested economic operators, and concluding with the signature of the contract.
For each particular stage of the procedure leading to the award of a contract, best practices
are presented and guidelines, instructions and useful tools are provided, always within the
framework determined by the key arrangements and provisions of the laws and regulations
governing the award of public contracts, as applicable in the Republic of Cyprus.
The stages of the above procedure which make up this Chapter, are the following:
1. OPENING OF TENDERS: A detailed description of the procedure followed for the
opening of the tenders submitted by interested economic operators is given. In
this respect reference is made to the duties and responsibilities of the competent
officials and employees of the Contracting Authority before whom the tenders are
opened, as well as to the persons authorised in each case to attend this
procedure.
2. EVALUATION OF TENDERS: A description is given of the way in which the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions and of the procedure for
the evaluation of tenders, which includes the verification of the eligibility for
participation in the tender procedure, the verification of the fulfilment of the
qualitative selection criteria and the evaluation of the tenders on the basis of the
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 3 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
award criteria contained in the tender documents, and is completed with the
preparation of the required Evaluation Report.
3. AWARD OF CONTRACT: A description is given of the most practicable
procedure deemed advisable for the Contracting Authority to adopt, in the
framework of the provisions of the applicable legislation, for awarding the contract
after the evaluation procedure has been completed and its results have been
approved. Specific reference is made in this stage to the cases where the
Contracting Authority is allowed to decide to suspend or cancel the announced
tender procedure.
4. PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC OPERATORS: A description is
given of the method used to provide information about the outcome of the tender
procedure to the economic operators that participated in it by submitting a tender.
Special reference is made in this stage to the manner in which recourses, if any,
filed against the tendering procedure are handled, in accordance with the
provisions of the Law.
5. CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT: A description is given of the procedure
according to which the economic operator whose tender has been selected by the
Contracting Authority as the most advantageous one is invited to sign the final
agreement with the Contracting Authority, which shall signal the conclusion of the
contract and the commencement of the implementation of its scope.
Figure 4-1: The five steps of the tendering procedure
In the case of contracts awarded using the restricted procedure, these five steps are
preceded by a step involving the prequalification of interested economic operators,
after the submission of their requests to participate in the tender procedure. In terms of
procedural matters, this step is essentially identical to the first phase of the tender evaluation
procedure under the open procedure, and is examined in the respective Section of the
present Chapter.
4.1.2 Bodies responsible for the evaluation of tenders and the award of
the contract
The tender procedure, from the opening of the tenders until signature of the final agreement
between the contractor and the Contracting Authority, is carried out by established bodies
within each Contracting Authority, which function either on a permanent basis or are
appointed on a on a case by case basis in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations
applicable to the Contracting Authority.
Prior to assuming their duties, the persons who compose the competent collective bodies are
obliged to sign a statement whereby they undertake towards the Contracting Authority to
perform their duties with conscientiousness and impartiality, without fear or favouritism, and
to observe strict confidentiality in performing their duties. Especially for government
OPENING OF
TENDERS
EVALUATION OF
TENDERS
AWARD OF
CONTRACT
PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC OPERATORS
CONCLUSION OF
CONTRACT
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 4 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
employees appointed as members of the aforementioned bodies, this statement is inserted
at the beginning of the minutes or the report, as the case may be, which they must prepare.
The members of the established bodies must not have any financial or other interest,
either direct or indirect, in connection with any tender procedure leading to the award
of a contract, or any special relation or up to fourth degree relationship by blood or affinity or
be in severe conflict with any person having an obvious financial or other interest in the said
procedure. Should any of the above prohibiting circumstances apply to any person appointed
as Chairman or a member of a competent collective body, such person is obliged to report
this fact and abstain from participating in the procedure. The Code of Ethics in Public
Procurement contains references to this obligation.
The established bodies, whose names may differ depending on the provisions of the
Regulation applicable to each Contracting Authority, shall be referred to hereinafter for
the purposes of this document as the “Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders”,
“Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders”, or “Competent Body for the Award of the
Contract”.
Establishment and functioning of the Competent Bodies
The Competent Bodies for the Opening of Tenders, the Evaluation of Tenders and the Award
of the Contract may be distinct from one another or may be the same, depending on the
provisions of the Regulation applicable to each specific Contracting Authority. In particular,
the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract may be either a collective body
established specifically to meet the needs of a Contracting Authority (e.g. Evaluation
Committee, Tender Board) or it could be the administrative Body of the Contracting Authority
itself (e.g. its Board of Directors). On the other hand, the Competent Bodies for the Opening
of Tenders and the Evaluation of Tenders are bodies established either to meet the needs of
all tender procedures conducted by a Contracting Authority or to meet the needs of a specific
tender procedure.
The decisions of the competent collective Bodies, unless otherwise provided for in the
Regulations, are taken by majority vote, while the Chairman’s vote is a prevailing one in
cases where the voting result is halved.
The members of the Competent Bodies for the Opening of Tenders, the Evaluation of
Tenders and the Award of the Contract are officials and/or employees of the Contracting
Authority. For Contracting Authorities belonging to the Central Government, the members of
the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may also be employees of a
Department/Service other than the Contracting Authority, on the understanding that this
arrangement takes place with the approval of the Head of the Department/Service from
which these employees come. In all cases, the members of the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders must possess the technical and/or professional training required by
the subject matter of the tender procedure . In the case of the Central Government, members
of the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract may also be employees of other
Contracting Authorities, as per the applicable Regulations.
Participation of a person in the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is
incompatible with the concurrent participation of that same person in another
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 5 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Competent Body that deals with the same tender procedure for which the Competent Body
for the Evaluation of Tenders has been established.
Every meeting of the competent collective Bodies is certified by relevant Minutes,
prepared and signed by the Chairman and the members. The Minutes list the
participants in the meeting and describe the procedures followed, the findings and
conclusions and the decisions reached, as the case may be. The decisions of the Competent
Bodies, especially those concerning exclusion of a candidate during the qualitative selection
procedure or rejection of a tender during the evaluation procedure, or the marking method in
the case of a contract for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous
tender, must be adequately documented, with a precise description of the reasons that
dictated these decisions. In the case of simple contracts, the Evaluation Report can also
serve as Minutes.
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is the body with the most
important (in terms of essential contribution) but also the most difficult role in the
tendering and contract award procedure. In order to perform their duties correctly, the
members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must:
Examine carefully the tender documents.
Have (or acquire) excellent knowledge of the requirements of the Contracting Authority in
relation to the contract to be awarded.
Be cognizant of the restrictions and requirements of the relevant legislation.
Undertake significant study in order to fully understand the content of the tenders.
Be familiar with the market to which the specific contract relates.
Possess administrative skills, knowledge and –if possible– experience of public
procurement procedures.
Understand the objectives of the evaluation procedure and its role within the wider
framework of public procurement.
In the following Sections of this document (and especially in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4)
reference is made to actions under the responsibility of the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders or of the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract. It is obvious
that this is valid in cases where the applicable Regulations provide for the establishment of
two separate Bodies, i.e. one for the evaluation of tenders and one for the award of the
contract. Otherwise (i.e. where the functions of evaluation and award are carried out by the
same Body), the text of this document must be interpreted accordingly.
Assistance to the Competent Bodies
To address special issues that may come up during the tendering procedure, the Competent
Bodies may, provided that this is foreseen under the respective Regulations:
(a) Seek the assistance of ad hoc technical committees, established in accordance with
the provisions of the relevant Regulations and composed of at least three members,
for the study of evaluations, the conduct of special investigations and the
submission of reports on specialised technical matters.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 6 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
(b) Invite to their meetings experts or other specialists seeking advice or clarifications
on matters falling within the areas of their specialisation which are deemed
necessary for the correct decisions to be taken.
(c) Use the services of private consultants for the evaluation of tenders, in cases where
the Contracting Authority has signed a contract for the provision of consulting
services which include support to the Contracting Authority for the implementation of
the specific tender procedure.
Participation of a person in an ad hoc technical committee is incompatible with the
concurrent participation of that same person in the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders or for the Award of Contract that deals with the same tender procedure.
Observers
Subject to the provisions of the relevant regulations, the Attorney General, the Auditor
General and the Accountant General (the latter in his capacity as Head of the Competent
Authority on Public Procurement), or their representatives, are entitled to attend as
independent observers the meetings of the Competent Bodies, where they can express their
views and request to have them recorded in the Minutes of the meeting. In such cases, the
agenda of each meeting of the Competent Bodies should be notified to the observers at least
one day prior to that meeting.
4.2 OPENING OF TENDERS
4.2.1 Opening procedure
Opening of the tenders submitted by the economic operators participating in the tender
procedure, or sent and received, within the specified time limit, is carried out by the
Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders as soon as possible after the expiry of the
deadline for the submission of tenders and, where the tender documents contain a relevant
provision thereto, immediately after the expiry of the said deadline.
According to the provisions of the relevant Regulation the tenders are opened in the
presence of the persons authorised to attend this procedure.
According to the provisions of the relevant Regulations, upon opening the tenders a
copy of all tenders submitted is kept by the authorized competent body while the
remaining copies together with the original are handed over to the representative of the
Contracting Authority or of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders as the case
may be. Where according to the Tender Documents, tenders should be submitted in two
separate sub-envelops then during the procedure for the opening of tenders, the outer
envelope of each tender is opened and, the sub-envelope containing the supporting
documents for participation and the technical offer is also opened. The sub-envelope
containing the financial offer is kept by the Chairman of the Competent Body or by the Head
of the Contracting Authority, and is unsealed at a later time, provided that it has not been
rejected during the qualitative selection and technical evaluation stages. With regard to the
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 7 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
tender procedures in which according to the tender documents a single envelope is foreseen,
the envelope unsealed is the envelope which also contains the financial offer.
The representatives of the economic operators who have submitted a tender are entitled to
attend the opening of the tenders, whenever this is provided for in the tender documents.
A prerequisite for the presence of representatives of the economic operators in the
procedure for the opening of tenders is the production, upon their arrival at the place
where the tender procedure is conducted, of a relevant authorisation by the tenderer or its
legal representative.
The presence of representatives of the tenderers during the opening of the tenders
lends status to the evaluation procedure, minimises the likelihood of suspicion or
mistrust among the parties and mitigates to a great extent the risk of recourses being filed or
of the tender procedure being contested until its completion. However, if the opening
procedure is attended by representatives of the tenderers, the persons authorised to open
the tenders should be prepared to act as catalysts to resolve problems, should any arise.
More specifically, the authorised persons must act in accordance with the guidelines
outlined in the Table below:
ACTIONS BY THE COMPETENT BODY FOR THE OPENING OF TENDERS
1 Briefing of attending representatives, before commencement of the opening procedure,
on the procedure to be followed during their presence in the room, as well as about the
exact point in time when they will be asked to leave the room.
2 Announcing to the attending representatives that no verbal interventions, references or
comments on the procedure are accepted.
3 Refraining from responding to all cases of verbal intervention or comment attempted by
any one of the representatives, taking nevertheless note of such intervention or comment
in order to examine the need to have them further investigated at the next stage of the
evaluation.
4 Encouraging the attending representatives to communicate in writing to the Contracting
Authority any significant, in their judgment, matters of which they have become aware by
attending the opening procedure.
The presence of representatives of various economic operators who are competitors in
a specific market may prove particularly useful in the evaluation procedure. For
example, the representatives may be aware from their participation in other similar tender
procedures conducted by other Contracting Authorities –possibly in other Member States of
the EU– of any breach or non-proper execution of a contract awarded to a particular
economic operator, to such extent that the performance guarantee of that operator has been
forfeited or that the operator has been declared in default by the Contracting Authority. In this
case, the written notification of the Contracting Authority in accordance with point (4) of the
above table, shall enable the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, once it has
verified the validity of the allegations, to reject the participation of the economic operator not
meeting a specific participation requirement, regardless of whether or not the problematic
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 8 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
economic operator has submitted a solemn declaration stating that no such impediment
exists.
4.2.2 Entry of tender details in a special form
The authorised member of the Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders numbers the
tenders, initials them and enters their details in a special form, a template for which is
included in the Annex to this Chapter.
The form used to enter the number of each tender and the full name or company name of the
tenderer is signed by all members of the Competent Body for the Opening of Tenders and
possibly by the attending observers, if they so wish.
If the opening procedure is also attended by representatives of the economic operators, the
full name(s) of the attending representative(s) of each tenderer is (are) also entered in the
special form, and these persons are invited to sign next to their names in order to certify their
presence.
4.2.3 Announcement of ranking order
According to the provisions of the applicable Regulations, and subject to the verification of
the full compliance of the tenders with the terms and conditions of the tender documents,
which shall take place during the evaluation stage that follows the opening of tenders, the
Chairman of the Competent Body or the Head of the Contracting Authority, or a
representative of these persons, announces to the tenderers, wherever this is feasible and in
the manner that he deems most appropriate (e.g. notice board, facsimile, electronic mail
etc.), their ranking order according to the price offered in their tenders.
Provided that the tender documents contain a relevant provision, it is recommended
that the ranking order according to the price offered be announced only in cases of
ordinary contracts without special requirements or anticipated difficulties during the
evaluation procedure, for which the award criterion is exclusively the lowest price.
4.3 EVALUATION OF TENDERS
4.3.1 Purpose of the procedure for the evaluation of tenders
The purpose of the evaluation procedure is to select the best among the tenders submitted
prior to expiry of the submission deadline by tenderers who are eligible to participate in the
tender procedure and meet the participation requirements (qualitative selection criteria)
specified in the tender documents.
The term “best” tender, on the basis of which the contract shall be awarded to the
corresponding tenderer, means:
Either the tender with the lowest price, if the criterion for the award of the contract is that
of the lowest price, or
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 9 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The tender with the best value for money, if the criterion for the award of the contract is
the most economically advantageous tender.
In all cases, the best tender must be selected in strict adherence to the provisions of
the tender documents, as regards both the method used to verify the fulfilment of the
participation requirements and the method and procedure followed for assessing the value of
each offer in relation to its quality and price.
4.3.2 Basic evaluation principles
The evaluation procedure must be reasonable and systematic, must address all tender
aspects under evaluation, must be fair, precise and documented, must be conducted in
confidentiality, and must follow the basic principles of national and community law on public
procurement (freedom of movement of goods, freedom of establishment, freedom to provide
services, non-discrimination, equal treatment, mutual recognition, proportionality,
transparency).
The following paragraphs provide guidance on how to observe the basic evaluation
principles:
Equal treatment
During the evaluation procedure it is imperative to avoid any discrimination on the basis
of the nationality of the tenderers or of the country of origin of the goods –in the case of
supply contracts– or of any other criterion not explicitly stipulated in the tender
documents and not justified by objective reasons.
All tenders submitted within the specified time limit are evaluated in accordance with the
terms and provisions of the tender documents, while rejection of tenders is allowed only
in cases of tenders which demonstrably do not meet the requirements or the terms of
reference or the provisions of the tender documents in general.
Transparency
After the opening of the tenders, no tenderer is allowed to make any changes to its
tender. The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications, on
condition that such clarifications do not alter the substance of the contents of the tender.
During the evaluation procedure, detailed records must be kept of all actions of the
Competent Body, while all decisions taken by it must be sufficiently documented and
justified.
Mutual recognition
During the evaluation procedure, it is prohibited to exclude a tenderer from participation
or reject a tender because any technical specifications, titles, certificates or qualifications
contained in the tender are not identical to those required by the Contracting Authority, so
long as they are recognised as equivalent in other EU Member States.
Confidentiality
After the opening of the tenders, the following must not be leaked:
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 10 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Any item designated by the economic operators as confidential, such as
information concerning technical or trade or industrial secrets.
Any information in connection with issues related to the examination,
investigation, clarification, confirmation, evaluation or marking of the tenders.
4.3.3 Time-related commitments of the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders
Upon its establishment, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must
schedule its individual tasks, taking into account:
The estimated date for signature of the contract, as specified in the tender documents.
The period of validity of tenders, as specified in the tender documents.
The estimated time for approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation
Report and of the Final Evaluation Report by the Competent Body for the Award of the
Contract1.
The time that may be consumed in the procedure of hierarchical recourses, if any such
recourses are filed.
The provisions of the tender documents and of the applicable legislation regarding the
possibility of extending the period of validity of the tenders in certain extraordinary cases.
In accordance with the provisions of the regulations, the period of validity of tenders is
specified in the tender documents and in the case of ordinary contracts it should not
exceed six months, while for complex contracts it can be as long as twelve months. If the
period of validity of tenders specified in the tender documents is shorter than the periods
specified above, then it may be extended up to the aforementioned time limits described
above, as per the provisions of the Regulation applicable in each case.
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, should promptly recommend to
the Contracting Authority to extend the period of validity of the tenders and that of the
deposited tender guarantees, should it suspect that for reasons which may be due either to
an inaccurate estimate of the period of validity of the tenders specified in the tender
documents or to an unexpectedly high turnout of candidates, or even to events beyond its
control which nevertheless affect its activities, the specified period of validity of tenders is
insufficient.
The task of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is by definition
demanding and time-consuming, especially so in cases of contracts which are
awarded using the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender and which
concern complex Projects with a complicated or extensive scope and with correspondingly
comprehensive technical specifications and requirements. For this reason, the members of
the Body must prepare themselves properly before the official commencement of their
1 Valid only where the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract is distinct from the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders. Similar remarks apply throughout the remainder of this text.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 11 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
activities, taking advantage of the time intervening between the establishment of the Body
and the official commencement of the evaluation work after the opening of tenders.
During this interval, the members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders could
carry out the following indicative actions:
INDICATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COMPETENT BODY FOR THE
EVALUATION OF TENDERS
STEP ACTIONS OF THE COMPETENT BODY
1
First meeting of the Competent Body. Gathering of the necessary information and
data concerning the performance of their duties: tender documents, clarification
answers and supplementary documents, if any. Initial scheduling of the actions to
be carried out by the date set for expiry of the deadline for the submission of
tenders.
2
During the period leading to the deadline for the submission of tenders, the
members of the Competent Body should:
Study thoroughly the tender documents, placing special emphasis on the
requirements for the qualitative selection of tenderers, on the technical
specifications and terms of reference with which tenders must comply, and on
the specified/proposed evaluation procedure and the evaluation criteria to be
marked, in the case of contracts awarded using the criterion of the most
economically advantageous tender.
Seek clarifications, if these are considered necessary, from the authors of the
tender documents, to answer any type of question or doubt or deal with any
inability to understand the contents of the technical specifications and terms
of reference that form part of the tender documents.
Strive to fully understand the Contracting Authority’s objectives, priorities and
needs, as these are directly or indirectly expressed in the tender documents.
3 Second meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, during
which its members should confirm that a clear and shared understanding of the
requirements of the contract scope and of the evaluation procedure specified in
the tender documents has been established.
4.3.4 Evaluation procedure
In accordance with the provisions of the legislation on the award of public contracts, the
evaluation procedure comprises two key distinct stages:
The qualitative selection of the candidate economic operators, and
The evaluation of the tenders of the economic operators found to meet the
qualitative selection criteria, for the appointment of the contractor and the award of
the contract.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 12 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The aim of the qualitative selection stage is to verify the existence of the characteristics and
capacities which the Contracting Authority deems necessary for economic operators to
possess in order to be eligible to participate in the tender procedure conducted, being thus
considered as potentially capable of performing the contract.
The stage of appointment of contractor, which follows the qualitative selection stage, is
directly linked to the technical and financial evaluation of the tenders of economic operators
who, during the previous stage, were considered as potentially capable of performing the
contract.
The stage of qualitative selection of candidate economic operators constitutes the
prequalification phase (in the case of contracts put out to tender using the restricted
procedure) or the first phase of the evaluation (in the case of contracts put out to tender
using the open procedure), with no differences as to its objectives and the method of its
implementation between the two cases. The only difference is the eventual limitation of the
number of candidate economic operators during the prequalification stage under the
restricted procedure, if a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents. This
particular case is dealt with below by means of a special reference.
To facilitate the work of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and ensure the
soundest allocation of its individual activities from the viewpoint of methodology, it is
advisable to break down the two above-mentioned evaluation stages into successive steps,
as follows:
Stage of qualitative selection of candidate economic operators:
Preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders.
Verification of formal requirements for participation.
Verification of the fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria.
Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the qualitative selection.
Ranking of participants, where a specific number of candidates to be invited to tender
is provided for (in the case of a restricted procedure).
Drawing up of part Α of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report,
concerning the qualitative selection.
Where the tender procedure is conducted in accordance with the restricted procedure, the
Qualitative Selection Report is a separate report and is submitted for approval to the
Competent Body for the Award of the Contract.
Stage of evaluation of tenders for the award of the contract:
General evaluation of the technical offers.
Presentation of tenders, if provided for in the tender documents.
Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the technical evaluation.
Marking of technical offers, when the contract award criterion is the most
economically advantageous tender.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 13 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Drawing up of part Β of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report,
concerning the technical evaluation.
At this point, the approval of the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract
concerning the Qualitative Selection and of Technical Evaluation Report is obtained (if
two separate sub-envelopes are provided for).
General evaluation of financial offers.
Marking of financial offers.
Ranking of tenders.
Drawing up of the Final Evaluation Report.
In the following Sections of this Chapter, a detailed presentation is made of the tasks and
activities of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, as well as of the manner of
addressing any problems emerging during each of the successive stages of the evaluation
procedure.
Preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders
In this step, tenders are checked to establish whether or not they conform to the provisions of
the tender documents regarding:
Their packaging and proper labelling with the titles of the tender procedure.
The existence of separate sub-envelopes (one for the supporting documents and
technical offer, and one for the financial offer of each tenderer), if a relevant provision
has been made in the tender documents.
The existence of magnetic media (CD), if the tender documents provide for the
submission of tenders also in electronic form.
The existence of the required number of copies of each tender, as provided for in the
tender documents.
The signature of the tender by the appropriate person, as per the terms of the tender
procedure.
To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a
table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETENESS OF TENDERS
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
TENDERER Α TENDERER Β TENDERER C TENDERER D
PACKAGING OF TENDER √ √ √ √
SEPARATE SUB-ENVELOPES √ √ √
LABELLING OF ENVELOPE / SUB-ENVELOPES
√ √
MAGNETIC MEDIA √
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 14 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETENESS OF TENDERS
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
TENDERER Α TENDERER Β TENDERER C TENDERER D
1 ORIGINAL AND 2 COPIES
SIGNATURE OF THE TENDER
For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (√) in the
cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements of the tender documents
have been met.
If a tenderer fails to meet any one of the requirements in the above table, the corresponding
cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be
specifically mentioned and designated as substantial or minor. This designation should be
supported by adequate justification.
It is understood that in the case of minor deviations from the provisions of the tender
documents, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may at its discretion
consider the respective tenders to be admissible. Readers are reminded that minor
deviations are taken to mean deviations which do not affect the extent of the Project scope or
the quality of its execution, do not limit in any respect the rights of the Contracting Authority
or the obligations of the Contractor, and do not impair the principle of equal treatment of
Tenderers. In any case, however, the above discretion of the Competent Body must be
exercised equitably and in accordance with common sense. In the preliminary examination
stage, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders could for example consider a
grammatical error in the labelling of the envelope or sub-envelopes, or even the submission
of three copies of the tender even though the tender documents call for four copies, to be
minor deviations; it should however consider as inadmissible a tender which does not contain
the financial offer in a sealed sub-envelope, when this is clearly provided for in the tender
documents.
After completing the above table, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
proceeds to the next stage of the evaluation procedure, for the tenders for which the
preliminary examination procedure has been successful.
Verification of formal requirements for participation
During this step, the existence of information certifying the eligibility of the economic operator
to submit a tender, in accordance with the specific provisions of the tender documents
applicable in each case, is verified. In particular, and if the relevant provisions have been
made in the tender documents, the following are checked:
a. The tender guarantee, which, if issued by a bank, must be drawn up in strict
compliance with the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the Tender
Documents, must be issued for the amount specified in the tender documents and
must be valid for the period of time indicated in the tender documents.
b. The country of establishment of the tenderer.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 15 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
c. If the tenderer is a legal person:
The existence of proof of establishment of the legal person,
d. If the Tenderer is a Consortium:
The existence of a Cooperation Agreement, signed by all participants in the
consortium, stating:
The intention of each participant to participate in the consortium,
The participation rate of each member in the consortium,
The member to be the leader of the consortium, and
The person appointed as Representative of the consortium.
e. the existence of a Certificate establishing the tenderer’s enrolment on a professional
or trade register, or a declaration on oath regarding the pursuit of the profession, or a
certificate issued by a Competent Public Authority certifying the pursuit of the
profession or, in the case of aliens, the existence of a certificate from the competent
authority in their country of origin certifying their enrolment on the registers of the
relevant chamber or other equivalent organisations.
To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a table
in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:
VERIFICATION OF FORMAL PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
NATURAL PERSONS
LEGAL PERSONS CONSORTIA
TENDERER Α TENDERER Β TENDERER C TENDERER D
PERSON Α PERSON Β
TENDER GUARANTEE
COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT
PROOF OF ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL PERSON
SIGNATURE AUTHORISATION
COOPERATION AGREEMENT
ENROLMENT ON A REGISTER
For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (√) in the
cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements of the tender documents
have been met.
If any one of the participation requirements in the table is not met, the corresponding cell
must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting or to the Qualitative Selection Report,
where the deviation should be specifically mentioned.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 16 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The formal requirements for participation examined in this stage are very important and no
deviation from the provisions of the tender documents is allowed. Should such a
deviation exist, it must lead to the rejection of the tender (or to the exclusion of the economic
operator from participating in the tender submission stage, in the case of the restricted
procedure).
After completing the above table, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
proceeds to the next stage of the evaluation procedure, for the tenders for which the
verification of formal requirements for participation has been successful.
Verification of fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria
In this stage, the supporting documents for participation of candidate economic operators are
validated, and fulfilment of the participation requirements regarding the economic operators’
personal situation, economic and financial standing and technical and/or professional ability,
as specified in the tender documents, is verified.
More specifically:
a. To verify the personal situation of each tenderer, the following are checked:
The existence of a completed and duly signed Solemn Declaration certifying the
Tenderer's Personal Situation, in the format of the template contained in the
Appendix to the tender documents.
In the case of public service contracts or public works contracts, a relevant
certification confirming that the tenderer is aware of and fulfils the obligations
deriving from the provisions of the legislation on the protection of the employees and
on working conditions, as in force in the Republic of Cyprus, drawn up in the format
of the template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents.
If the tenderer is a consortium of persons or if the tenderer relies on the capacities of
third parties in accordance with the provisions of article 53(2) of Law 12(I)/2006 (or with the
corresponding provisions of article 55(4) of Law 11(Ι)/2006), the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders must verify the personal situation of each member of the consortium
or of each third party, respectively.
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must confirm that the contents of the
submitted declarations and/or certifications comply fully with the relevant templates
contained in the tender documents.
Members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may from their
experience be aware of one or more reasons for exclusion, related to the personal
situation of a tenderer, despite the existence of a declaration or certification to the contrary.
In such a case, or in case the Contracting Authority is informed in writing by an economic
operator participating in the tender procedure of the participation of a competitor of that
operator, as described in Section 4.2.1 of this Chapter, the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to investigate the matter in more detail, in order to establish
the truth and decide accordingly. This investigation may for example be conducted by means
of written communication with another competent public authority of the Republic of Cyprus
or of another EU Member State, when there are suspicions that a candidate has been
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 17 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
deprived of the right to participate in tender procedures due, for example, to failure to fulfil its
contractual obligations.
To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a
table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:
VERIFICATION OF PERSONAL SITUATION
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
TENDERER Α
TENDERER Β
TENDERER C
CONSORTIA
TENDERER D
PERSON Α PERSON Β
Existence of Solemn Declaration certifying the tenderer's personal situation
Declaration drawn up in accordance with the relevant template contained in the tender documents
Existence of certification regarding the protection of employees
Certification drawn up in accordance with the relevant template contained in the tender documents
For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (√) in the
cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been met.
If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met, the corresponding cell must
contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically
mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted items be deemed necessary, the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with
the provisions of the Law.
b. To verify the Economic and Financial standing of each tenderer, the following are
checked (if the relevant provisions have been made in the tender documents):
The existence of the Table documenting the tenderer’s economic and financial
standing, duly completed and in the format of the template contained in the Appendix
to the tender documents, from which it may be established that the criteria specified
in the tender documents have been met (e.g. that the average annual turnover for
the last three (3) financial years is higher than the threshold specified in the tender
documents).
The existence of copies or extracts of audited finacial statements for the last three (3)
financial years, if the tenderer is obligated to publish its audited financial statements
(where the publication of audited financial statements is required under the company
laws of the country in which the tenderer is established), which should confirm the
accuracy of the information provided in the Table documenting the tenderer’s
economic and financial standing.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 18 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The existence of a statement confirming the tenderer's total annual turnover and,
where appropriate, the turnover in the area of activity that corresponds to the
contract scope, where the tenderer is not obliged to publish audited financial
statements, from which the accuracy of the data presented in the Table documenting
the tenderer’s economic and financial standing may be confirmed.
The existence of appropriate statements from banks or, where appropriate, of
evidence of professional risk indemnity insurance, should their submission be
provided for in the tender documents.
If the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, in accordance with the
provisions of article 53(2) of Law 12(Ι)/2006 (or with the corresponding provisions of
article 55(4) of Law 11(Ι)/2006), the availability of the necessary resources in such
third parties is also checked, while an additional check is made to confirm the
existence of declarations by these entities, whereby they guarantee to the
Contracting Authority that, should the tenderer be appointed contractor, they shall
place at its disposal the necessary resources as appropriate, or of any other
documentation to that effect as may be provided for in the tender documents.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, if a tenderer is unable, for well-founded reasons,
to produce the documentation required in the tender documents, then that tenderer
may submit any other document(s), which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
is obliged to examine as to their suitability. It is understood that in this case the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must also examine the validity of the reasons cited by the
tenderer as justification for not submitting the documentation required in the tender
documents. The Competent Body may request additional data or clarifications, should this be
deemed necessary.
If the tenderer is a consortium of persons, the thresholds specified in the tender
documents as criteria for verifying the tenderer’s economic and financial standing
should be satisfied by all members of the consortium, in accordance with the provisions of
tender documents. Similarly, if the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, the
thresholds should be satisfied by the tenderer as well as by such third parties, in accordance
with the provisions of the tender documents.
To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a
table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:
VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
TENDERER Α
TENDERER Β
TENDERER C
CONSORTIA
TENDERER D
PERSON Α PERSON Β
Existence of duly completed Table documenting the tenderer’s economic and financial standing
Fulfilment of the requirement ......... (e.g. of minimum average turnover)
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 19 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
TENDERER Α
TENDERER Β
TENDERER C
CONSORTIA
TENDERER D
PERSON Α PERSON Β
Existence of copies or extracts of financial statements
Correct transfer of financial statements data to the Table documenting the economic and financial standing
Existence of statement of total annual turnover
Consistency of the statement with the Table and the requirements of the tender documents
Existence of bank statements or of evidence of professional risk indemnity insurance
For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (√) in the
cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been met.
If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met, the corresponding cell must
contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the deviation should be specifically
mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted items be deemed necessary, the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with
the provisions of the Law.
The above table, which presents the overall picture of the results of the verification of
the economic and financial standing of tenderers, may be supported by individual
tables documenting the fulfilment of individual requirements. For example, regarding the
fulfilment of the requirement for a minimum average turnover, the following table could be
used:
VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
CRITERION: Average turnover for the last three financial years
TENDERER Α TENDERER Β TENDERER C TENDERER D TENDERER E
Minimum: EUR .......
The threshold of the average turnover specified in the tender documents is entered in the
above table, together with the average turnovers of all tenderers.
c. To verify the Technical and/or Professional ability of each tenderer, a check is
conducted to confirm that the relevant criteria specified in the tender documents are
fulfilled. Depending on each particular case, these criteria may concern the following:
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 20 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Experience in the implementation of contracts similar to the contract being put out to
tender.
The number of personnel employed and the suitability of the key experts and other
members of the Project team, in the case of public service contracts and public work
contracts.
Requirements regarding the suitability of products, technical equipment, equipment
and means of study and research, organisation and staffing of technical bodies,
machinery, facilities and other infrastructures.
Compliance with quality assurance standards or environmental management
standards.
To verify the fulfilment of the specified criteria, the following are checked:
The existence of a statement (if provided for in the tender documents) containing
general information about the tenderer’s business structure, activity areas, services
provided, and facilities and equipment.
The existence of a list (if provided for in the tender documents) of the personnel of
the tenderer employed under a permanent employment relationship, in the format of
the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents, confirming
that the corresponding participation requirement as specified in the tender
documents has been met.
The existence of CVs (if required) of the key experts or other members of the
proposed Project team, in the format of the standardised templates contained in the
Appendix to the tender documents, confirming that the corresponding participation
requirements as specified in the tender documents (number of experts, minimum
qualifications of each expert) have been met.
The existence of a list of Projects (if provided for in the tender documents), in the
format of the relevant template contained in the Appendix to the tender documents,
the actual degree of relevance of the Projects in the list to the scope of the contract,
and the implementation of the minimum required number of contracts with a relevant
scope, as provided for in the tender documents.
The existence of data (if required) documenting the successful implementation of the
projects, as provided for in the tender documents.
The existence of a certification (if required) establishing the tenderer’s compliance
with a quality assurance standard based on the CYS EN ISO 9000 series of Cyprus
standards or other equivalent certification(s) issued by organisations having their
registered office in other Member States, or other evidence of equivalent quality
assurance measures, as provided for in the tender documents.
The existence of a certificate (if required) establishing that the tenderer complies with
specific standards concerning environmental management, or other equivalent
evidence of environmental management measures.
The availability of the necessary resources in the third parties (ιf the tenderer relies
on the capacities of such third parties) and the existence of declarations by the third
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 21 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
parties, whereby they guarantee to the Contracting Authority that, should the
tenderer be appointed contractor, they shall place at its disposal the necessary
resources as appropriate, or any other documentation to that effect as may be
specified in the tender documents.
If the tenderer is a consortium of persons, the specific requirements of the tender
documents specified as criteria for verifying the tenderer’s technical or professional
ability must be met by all members of the consortium, in accordance with the provisions of
the tender documents. Similarly, if the tenderer relies on the capacities of third parties, the
requirements must be met cumulatively by the tenderer and by such third parties, in
accordance with the provisions of the tender documents.
To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use a
table in the following form, which it should draw up / complete for each particular case:
VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITY
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
TENDERER Α
TENDERER Β
TENDERER C
CONSORTIA
TENDERER D
PERSON Α PERSON Β
Experience in the implementation of relevant contracts
List <number> of contracts
Documentation of successful implementation <number> of contracts
Minimum personnel employed <number>
Suitability of key experts of the Project Team, on the basis of their CVs (may be developed into detailed individual verifications for each key expert and for each individual qualification requested of such expert).
Suitability of products, technical equipment, equipment and means of study and research, organisation and staffing of technical bodies, machinery, facilities and other infrastructures (as applicable in each case).
Compliance with quality assurance standards
Compliance with environmental management standards
Statements by third parties
For each tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders enters a tick (√) in the
cells of the table to indicate that the corresponding requirements have been fully met.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 22 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
If any one of the requirements in the above table is not met or it is partially met, the
corresponding cell must contain a reference to the Minutes of the meeting, where the
deviation should be specifically mentioned. Should any clarification on the submitted
informational documents be considered necessary, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders may request clarifications in accordance with the provisions of the Law.
The above table, which presents the overall picture of the results of the verification of
the technical and professional ability of the tenderers, may be supported by specific
tables documenting the fulfilment of individual requirements. For example, regarding the
fulfilment of the requirement for a minimum number of contracts with a relevant scope, the
following Table could be completed:
VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITIES
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
CRITERION: Number of contracts with a relevant scope
TENDERER Α
Minimum number of contracts: ...........
Title of contract 1 Title of contract 2 Title of contract 3
Relevance of scope
Minimum budget of each contract: EUR ....
Budget of contract 1 Budget of contract 2 Budget of contract 3
Minimum participation rate in each contract: ..%
Participation rate in contract 1
Participation rate in contract 2
Participation rate in contract 3
Minimum completion rate of each contract: ..%
Completion rate of contract 1
Completion rate of contract 2
Completion rate of contract 3
REQUIREMENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS
TENDERER Β
Minimum number of contracts: ...........
Title of contract 1 Title of contract 2 Title of contract 3
Relevance of scope
Minimum budget of each contract: EUR ....
Budget of contract 1 Budget of contract 2 Budget of contract 3
Minimum participation rate in each contract: ..%
Participation rate in contract 1
Participation rate in contract 2
Participation rate in contract 3
Minimum completion rate of each contract: ..%
Completion rate of contract 1
Completion rate of contract 2
Completion rate of contract 3
The minimum requirements specified in the tender documents are entered in the first column
of the above table, while the respective performance of each tenderer is entered in each one
of the other columns. A tick (√) is entered in the cells of the “Relevance of scope” row to
indicate that the requirement has been met.
Clarifications for the purposes of the qualitative selection
If during the verification of the personal situation, economic and financial standing, and
technical and/or professional ability of the tenderers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders ascertains that additions or clarifications are required in connection with the
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 23 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
supporting documents submitted together with the tenders, then it may request tenderers to
provide such clarifications.
The option to request clarifications must be strictly defined at the discretion of the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and must be governed by the principles of equal
treatment, transparency, non-discrimination, proportionality and mutual recognition. It is
obvious that, in line with these principles, the possibility to provide clarifications on, or make
additions to, supporting documents that refer to the same qualitative selection criterion and to
similar ambiguities or omissions, is not allowed to be granted selectively to specific
tenderers.
Supplementing submitted documents may under no circumstances be considered as a
clarification on, or addition to, such documents. Thus, it is not allowed to replace:
Supporting documents not submitted together with the tender.
Supporting documents and information not submitted in accordance with the
law.
The meaning of the term “not submitted in accordance with the law” includes e.g. certificates
with a date of issue other than the one specified in the tender documents.
In this respect, an addition to, or clarification on, submitted documents and certificates is
taken to mean the addition to a submitted document of any data which had been omitted by
mistake.
Moreover, the submission of missing supporting documents at a time after the submission of
the tender can not be considered as addition or clarification, as the latter refer exclusively to
supporting documents which have already been submitted. Thus, for example, the
submission –after the deadline for the submission of tenders– of documentation (certificates
or acceptance protocols) regarding the successful implementation of the projects listed in the
table of relevant projects for the purpose of documenting the experience of the tenderer, can
not possibly be considered as addition to, or clarification on, the supporting documents
submitted.
Ranking of participants on the basis of the qualitative selection
If, in the case of a restricted procedure, the tender documents provide for a limited number of
candidates who shall be invited to tender, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
is obliged, upon completion of the verification of fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria
as described in the previous Section, to proceed to the ranking of the candidates meeting the
qualitative selection criteria, by applying the relevant rules provided for in the tender
documents.
No ranking is required, even if provided for in the tender documents, in the event that the
number of candidate economic operators who submit a request to participate in the tender
procedure, or the number of those of them who fulfil the qualitative selection criteria, is lower
than or equal to the maximum number of candidates who will be invited to tender as provided
for in the tender documents.
The candidates meeting the qualitative selection criteria are ranked using one of the
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 24 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
qualitative selection criteria or a combination of suitably weighted qualitative selection
criteria, in accordance with the method provided for in the tender documents.
The procedure to be followed by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
regarding the ranking of candidates is obvious, provided such action is specified in the tender
documents, and it is carried out as follows:
Either by using only one of the qualitative selection criteria, e.g. based on the
turnover or on the number of persons in the permanent employment of the tenderers
or on the number of successfully completed relevant contracts and, if the number of
relevant contracts is the same, on their budget,
Or by using more than one criteria but without the weighting procedure, e.g. based
on the number of successfully completed relevant contracts and, if the number of
relevant contracts is the same, on the number of persons in the permanent
employment of the tenderers.
Contrary to the above, if the tender documents provide for a procedure involving the
weighting of several criteria for the ranking of candidates, then the task of the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders becomes more complex.
To understand the optimal working method of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders as far as the procedure for the ranking of candidate economic operators is
concerned, a relevant application example is given below. This example follows the
corresponding example presented for the definition of criteria and weighting factors in
paragraph 3.2.3.2 of Chapter 3 of the Guide.
APPLICATION EXAMPLE
The tender documents of a tender procedure conducted using the restricted procedure
provide that the following criteria along with the respective weight factors shall be used to
rank candidate economic operators at the qualitative selection (prequalification) stage:
o Experience in the implementation of similar projects: Weighting factor 5
o Turnover: Weighting factor 3
o Number of permanently employed personnel: Weighting factor 2
For each one of the aforementioned criteria, the tender documents also identify specific
thresholds and respective marks, as follows:
o Experience in the implementation of similar projects
If the minimum number of projects implemented by the candidate economic operator
has been set to 3 projects, then the thresholds are determined as follows:
Number of projects: 3 – 5 MARK 1
Number of projects: 6 – 9 MARK 2
Number of projects: > 9 MARK 3
o Turnover
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 25 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
If the minimum turnover has been set to 100% of the contract budget, then the
thresholds are determined as follows:
Turnover: 100% - 150% of the budget MARK 1
Turnover: 151% - 200% of the budget MARK 2
Turnover > 200% of the budget MARK 3
o Number of permanently employed personnel
If the minimum number of permanently employed personnel has been set to 20, then
the thresholds are determined as follows:
Number of employed personnel: 20 – 30 MARK 1
Number of employed personnel: 31 – 50 MARK 2
Number of employed personnel > 50 MARK 3
Eight (8) candidate economic operators submitted a request to participate in the tender
procedure.
During the procedure of preliminary examination of the completeness of tenders, of
verification of formal requirements for participation, and of the review of fulfilment of the
qualitative selection criteria, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders established
that seven (7) out of the eight (8) candidates may be considered eligible.
The characteristics of the seven candidates with respect to the criteria under evaluation are
as follows:
CANDIDATE 1
Number of projects: 2; Turnover: 120% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 25
CANDIDATE 2
Number of projects: 10; Turnover: 210% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 42
CANDIDATE 3
Number of projects: 5; Turnover: 170% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 30
CANDIDATE 4
Number of projects: 6; Turnover: 160% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 54
CANDIDATE 5
Number of projects: 3; Turnover: 180% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 60
CANDIDATE 6
Number of projects: 4; Turnover: 130% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 31
CANDIDATE 7
Number of projects: 6; Turnover: 100% of the budget; Number of employed personnel: 22
After applying the marks and factors provided for in the tender documents, the following
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 26 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
markings result for each candidate:
CANDIDATE 1: (1 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 10
CANDIDATE 2: (3 Χ 5) + (3 Χ 3) + (2 Χ 2) = 28
CANDIDATE 3: (1 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 13
CANDIDATE 4: (2 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (3 Χ 2) = 22
CANDIDATE 5: (1 Χ 5) + (2 Χ 3) + (3 Χ 2) = 17
CANDIDATE 6: (1 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (2 Χ 2) = 12
CANDIDATE 7: (2 Χ 5) + (1 Χ 3) + (1 Χ 2) = 15
The final ranking of the candidate economic operators is as follows:
CANDIDATE 1: 28
CANDIDATE 4: 22
CANDIDATE 5: 17
CANDIDATE 7: 15
CANDIDATE 3: 13
CANDIDATE 6: 12
CANDIDATE 1: 10
If the tender documents provide for limiting the number of candidates to five (5), Candidates
1 and 6 shall not be invited to tender for the purposes of technical evaluation.
Dealing with special cases during the Qualitative Selection procedure
During the conduct of the individual activities involved in the completion of the qualitative
selection stage, particular problems may emerge, on which the Competent Body for the
Evaluation must decide accordingly.
The following Table includes examples of such special cases, along with the manner
for dealing with each particular case:
DEALING WITH SPECIAL CASES DURING THE QUALITATIVE SELECTION PROCEDURE
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL CASE PROPER METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE CASE
In a restricted procedure, the number
of submitted requests to participate is
lower than the minimum number
provided for in the tender documents
(pursuant to the Law, this minimum
number is five - 5).
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may (but is not
obliged to) conclude the qualitative selection stage and proceed to
the second phase of the contract award, should it deem that the
number of the candidates it shall invite to tender is sufficient to
ensure genuine competition.
In a restricted procedure, the number The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may (but is not
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 27 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
DEALING WITH SPECIAL CASES DURING THE QUALITATIVE SELECTION PROCEDURE
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL CASE PROPER METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE CASE
of candidates fulfilling the qualitative
selection criteria is lower than the
minimum number provided for in the
tender documents (pursuant to the
Law, this minimum number is five -
5).
obliged to) conclude the qualitative selection stage and proceed to
the second phase of the contract award, should the Competent
Body for the Award of the Contract deem that the number of the
candidates it shall invite to tender is sufficient to ensure genuine
competition.
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders however may
not disregard the predetermined qualitative selection criteria and
thus admit to the second phase of the contract award certain
candidates who were initially excluded from the tender procedure,
only in order to secure the minimum number of prequalified
candidates.
Furthermore, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
may not include in the second phase of the contract award
economic operators who have not submitted a request to
participate, simply in order to secure the minimum number of
prequalified candidates.
In an open procedure, only one
economic operator submits a tender.
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders proceeds to
conclude the qualitative selection stage, applying the relevant
provisions of the tender documents, and:
In case it is ascertained that this single tender does not fulfil the
qualitative selection criteria, then it shall draw up a report
recommending to the Competent Body for the Award of the
Contract the cancellation of the tender procedure.
In any other case, the evaluation procedure continues normally,
since the submission of a single tender does not necessarily
entail the cancellation of the tender procedure. However, it may
serve as indication that the terms of the tender documents
contain conditions or technical specifications to which potential
candidates can not respond, or that these specifications lead
exclusively to a specific economic operator. If the Competent
Body for the Award of the Contract confirms one of the
aforementioned indications, then it should cancel the tender
procedure. If such reasons for cancelling the tender procedure
do not exist, then the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders should proceed with the evaluation of the tender and
should cancel the tender procedure only if the evaluation result
shows that the single tender submitted does not meet the
requirements of the Contracting Authority in terms of the
expected level of quality and price. The term “expected level” is
taken to mean the level that the Contracting Authority could
have achieved had more tenderers participated in the tender
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 28 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
DEALING WITH SPECIAL CASES DURING THE QUALITATIVE SELECTION PROCEDURE
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL CASE PROPER METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE CASE
procedure.
Drawing up of the Qualitative Selection Report
The procedure of verifying the fulfilment of the qualitative selection criteria is concluded with
the preparation of a relevant report, which –only in the restricted procedure– the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders submits for approval to the Competent Body for the
Award of the Contract. In the open procedure, the Qualitative Selection Report should be
prepared together with the Technical Evaluation Report, and both of them should then be
submitted to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract. The indicative contents of
the Qualitative Selection Report are presented in Annex 4-1.
All individual Minutes of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, together with the
following duly completed tables, are attached to the Qualitative Selection Report and form
integral parts thereof:
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETENESS OF TENDERS
VERIFICATION OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION
VERIFICATION OF PERSONAL SITUATION
VERIFICATION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STANDING
VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITY
The procedure followed must be analysed in the Qualitative Selection Report, with
specific references to:
The cases of exclusion, if any, of tenderers from participation in the tender
procedure and from the further stages of the procedure regarding the evaluation of
their tenders.
The precise reasons for their exclusion, which must be described in a documented
manner, with mention of the specific point(s) of the tender documents or the specific
provisions of the Law that impose the exclusion.
The deviations, if any, considered to be minor.
The precise reasons and data on which the deviations considered to be minor were
based.
The minority vote, if any, expressed during the qualitative selection procedure, as
described in the respective Minutes.
The Qualitative Selection Report is essentially the text that brings together all individual
references to the above matters, as these are included in the Minutes drawn up for each
meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 4.1.2 of this Chapter.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 29 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Documenting exclusions is usually a simple procedure and can be expressed solely
by means of references to the points of the tender documents or to the provisions of
the Law from which the tender deviates. On the contrary, the detailed reference to the
reasons for which existing deviations are designated as minor and do not lead to exclusion,
is absolutely necessary. It is obvious that it is not possible to standardise the manner in
which a deviation is designated as substantial or minor. In any case, the Competent Body for
the Evaluation of Tenders must apply its fair judgement, taking into account the provisions of
the tender documents, the degree to which the specific qualitative selection criterion is
related to the specific scope of the contract, the type and magnitude of the deviation, the
existence of similar minor deviations, if any, in all or most of the tenders, etc.
Given that the participants have a legitimate interest in filing a hierarchical recourse
when they deem their interests to be at stake, the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders must take into account that a recourse filed by a tenderer against the non-
exclusion of one of its competitors is equally likely with a recourse filed by the same tenderer
against its own exclusion.
In the open procedure, and in cases of non-complex contracts or of contracts of
limited interest or low budget, this step may be omitted and the Qualitative Selection
Report may be included in the Technical Evaluation Report. However, in these cases too, the
description of the qualitative selection procedure must be fully distinct, so that the Competent
Body for the Award of the Contract may verify that the terms of the tender documents and
the provisions of the applicable legislation have been faithfully adhered to.
General evaluation of Technical Offers
This step commences immediately after the conclusion of the qualitative selection procedure
and the preparation of the Qualitative Selection Report.
It involves the review of the technical offers as to their completeness and the extent to which
they satisfy the requirements, terms of reference and specifications of the contract, as these
are described in the tender documents. It is understood that this review refers only to the
offers submitted by economic operators who have been qualified as a result of the qualitative
selection procedure.
This particular step presents serious difficulties for the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders, at least in the case of complex contracts with correspondingly complex technical
offers.
In order to successfully complete the procedure for the general evaluation of technical offers,
the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must:
Be fully prepared, having studied the tender documents and understood the scope of
the contract and the objectives of Contracting Authority, as described in Section 4.3.3
of the present Chapter.
Study thoroughly the technical offers, together with the requirements and
specifications of the tender documents.
Have a broad knowledge of the specific, depending on the nature of the contract,
market and of its potential.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 30 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The way in which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions in this step of
the procedure depends on the knowledge, experience and culture of its members.
However, the Competent Body would be greatly assisted in the successful completion of its
tasks within the specified timeframe, which as a rule is particularly tight, if it were to follow a
well- planned and systematic procedure, which might indicatively include the steps presented
in the following Table:
INDICATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE GENERAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL OFFERS
STEP ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPETENT BODY
1
First meeting of the Competent Body for the purposes of the general evaluation of the
technical offers, during which the following take place:
Initial review of the offers to be evaluated, to obtain a general idea of their structure
and contents and to identify any serious omissions or shortcomings (i.e. omission of
an entire chapter from those required in the tender documents).
Undertaking by each member of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
to thoroughly review one or more technical offers, depending on their number. It is
obvious that where the number of offers is less than the members of the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, two members may undertake to review the same
offer.
Establishment of a work schedule for the tasks to be performed by the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, on the basis of the time constraints specified in
the tender documents.
Setting the date and time for the second meeting of the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders.
2
Thorough individual review of the technical offers (each member reviews the technical
offer for which he is responsible), and drawing up of a personal summary report,
containing general remarks by the member and a list of the strengths and weaknesses of
the offer, in the opinion of the member and in accordance with the requirements of the
tender documents, on which discussions and exchange of views should follow.
3 Second (or even third, if more time is needed) meeting of the Competent Body for the
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 31 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
INDICATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE GENERAL EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL OFFERS
STEP ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPETENT BODY
Evaluation of Tenders, during which the following take place:
General presentation of each offer by the member(s) who reviewed it.
Distribution of the personal summary reports to all members of the Body.
Discussion and exchange of views about the general presentations.
Swapping of offers between members, with each member undertaking to review a
different offer than the one previously reviewed, so that all members may form a
personal opinion of every offer.
4 Individual review of the technical offers and incorporation by each member to the first
personal summary report for the offer under review, of any new remarks, additions or
comments.
5 Next meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation, during which:
The discussion and exchange of views on the contents of the technical offers is
continued.
The personal summary reports, in which the new remarks have been incorporated,
are distributed to all members of the Body.
Offers are swapped between members, with each member undertaking to review a
different offer than the ones he has already reviewed.
6 Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until all members have reviewed all technical offers.
Where the tender documents provide for the obligation of the tenderer to complete a
Tender Summary and Technical Specifications Compliance Table, in the format of a
relevant template contained in the tender documents, this template may serve as an
additional tool for the completion of the general evaluation of the technical offers by the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of tenders, with the points covered by the offer under
evaluation and those from which it deviates being noted on the Table.
Readers are reminded that the sole purpose of the above procedure or any procedure which
the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may choose to follow, is to ensure
conditions that will allow a correct and fair opinion to be formed regarding:
The possible rejections of offers not meeting the technical specifications and the
requirements of the terms of reference.
The marking of the rest of the offers during the next step of the procedure, if the
criterion for the award of the contract is the most economically advantageous tender.
The case of presentations of the Technical Offers
This step refers to the cases where the tender documents provide for the presentation of the
offers by the tenderers.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 32 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The presentation of the offers is carried out in the manner and at the place specified in the
tender documents, and at a time set by the Contracting Authority during the period of the
technical evaluation.
This particular procedure aims to assist the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders in formulating a fair opinion of the technical value of the offered solutions.
Therefore, the presentations must be scheduled to take place within the period of time during
which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders reviews the contents of the
technical offers and, where the method outlined in the table of the previous Section is
followed, after Step 6 of the procedure.
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders sets a specific date (or dates, if offers are
too many) and time for the presentations, and sends a relevant invitation to the tenderers. In
setting this specific date, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should take into
account:
The need for timely notification of the parties concerned.
The availability of the members, so as to eliminate the possibility of them being
unable to participate.
The need to secure a room and other projection/display facilities required for the
presentations.
The time allowed to tenderers for their presentations, which is recommended to vary
between 20 and 40 minutes, depending on the complexity of the contract scope, must be
made known to the tenderers so as to allow them to prepare accordingly for their
presentations.
The presentation of the offers may prove extremely useful to the Competent Body for
the Evaluation of Tenders in formulating a fair opinion. However, it involves risks
which must be taken into account in order to determine in advance the manner in which
presentations will be conducted and the privileges that will be granted to the tenderers during
them.
In particular, during the presentations the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tender should:
Avoid the extensive exchange of views and the submission of specific questions,
especially in connection with queries which have arisen during the review of the
technical offers. Readers are reminded that such queries can (and should) be
answered by means of requesting written clarifications.
Not allow the presentation of issues to which no relevant reference is made in the
offer or, in any case, stress that such references shall not be taken into account in the
evaluation.
During the presentations, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must keep
Minutes, where it shall record the procedure followed and the main points on which the
tenderers focused their presentations. These Minutes shall form part of the Technical
Evaluation Report.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 33 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Provision of clarifications for the purposes of the technical evaluation
If, during the general evaluation of technical offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders ascertains that certain points need to be clarified, it may request tenderers to
provide relevant clarifications in writing.
It is understood that in the extreme case of an offer which is full of ambiguities to
such an extent that it becomes vague and impossible to evaluate, submission of a
request for clarifications is not advisable and the offer should be designated as eliminable.
Additionally, no request for clarifications is necessary in the case of offers which include
generalities or ambiguous and vague expressions which nevertheless do not lead to dispute
of the type or quality of the technical solutions offered. In such cases, the generalities or the
ambiguous and vague expressions may constitute grounds for a low mark in the next step of
the evaluation procedure, for contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically
advantageous tender.
The option to request clarifications must be exercised sparingly, must be strictly
defined for each particular case at the discretion of the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders, and must be governed by the principles of equal treatment, non
discrimination and transparency.
The main objective of the Competent Body in this case is to clarify any unclear points
of the offers, without however providing tenderers with the opportunity to differentiate
their offers or add elements not included in the solution which they have already offered.
In any case, should such a differentiation or addition occur as a result of a question for
clarification, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must not to take it into
account for the purposes of the evaluation, documenting this matter accordingly in the
Minutes.
Marking of Technical Offers
This step involves the marking of technical offers which have not been rejected during the
previous stage of the general technical evaluation, in the case of contracts for which the
award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.
Marking of the technical offers takes place in accordance with the procedure provided for in
the tender documents, and on the basis of the criteria and weighting factors contained in the
Table of Evaluation Criteria given in the tender documents.
Full understanding of the evaluation criteria, specified in the Tender Documents, in terms of
their detailed contents, the parts of the tender documents to which they are related, and any
specific parameters to be taken into account for their correct use, is a prerequisite for the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to proceed with the marking of the offers.
The breakdown of each evaluation criterion into individual parameters should be made by the
members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, based on their professional
experience and knowledge. In case the meaning of certain of the individual evaluation criteria
can not be easily understood from the tender documents, the Competent Body may contact
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 34 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
the Contracting Authority or the team responsible for the preparation of the tender
documents, to request relevant clarifications.
To facilitate the understanding of the evaluation criteria, the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders may use a table in the following form, which it should draw up /
complete on a case by case basis:
TABLE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluation
Criterion
Relevant parts of
the tender documents Parameters to be taken into account
1.
Contract scope
implementation
schedule
Technical Offer – Section
Α, paragraph (c): Schedule
of activities
1. Timely implementation of the
contract and timely delivery of all
deliverables foreseen.
2. Feasibility and realistic nature of
the schedule, also in relation to the
resources made available.
3. Identification of critical points.
4. Correct interdependence of
activities.
2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.
1
2
4.
1
2
3
. .
Readers are reminded that in the case of public service contracts, the mark given to each
criterion may range from a minimum level, provided for in the tender documents for each
particular case, and up to a maximum level of 100 points, while in the case of public supply
contracts it may range from a minimum level to a maximum level in accordance with the
provisions of the tender documents (e.g. from 80 to 120 points).
The marking of technical offers at this stage of the evaluation procedure should be
based on the criteria specified in the Tender Documents, using as reference the
corresponding requirements of the Tender Documents and it should t be governed by the
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 35 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
following basic rules:
If the requirement is fully met, the mark given to the corresponding criterion is 100
points.
Especially in the case of public supply contracts, if the requirement is exceeded, the
marks given to the specific criterion may reach up to the maximum level provided for
in the tender documents (usually 120 points).
In the event that the requirement is not fully met but the offer has been already
deemed admissible and the deviation has been considered as minor, the mark given
to the specific criterion is lowered, and may even reach the minimum level provided
for in the tender documents for each particular case (usually 80 points).
It should be clear that no mark below the minimum level specified in the tender
documents is allowed to be given to any of the evaluation criteria, as this would mean
that the offer should have been excluded in the previous step of the general technical
evaluation. However, it can not be ruled out that, as a result of the verification of the level to
which a particular evaluation criterion is met, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders may ascertain that an offer contains substantial deviations from the requirements of
the tender documents regarding the specific criterion. In such a case, the Competent Body
must record its findings in the Minutes of the corresponding meeting, and must designate the
specific offer as eliminable.
The technical offers are marked by being compared to the requirements of the
Contracting Authority and not by being compared to each other. The Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should not give high marks to an offer simply because it
is better than the others, which are of a poor level. Additionally, the marking of offers should
not necessarily cover the entire range of marking options, with the best offer (regardless of
how good it is) being given the highest mark and the worst offer (regardless of how poor it is)
being given by default the lowest mark. In other words, the marking of each offer should not
be related to the other offers but to the requirements of the Contracting Authority, as these
are expressed in the tender documents.
To conclude the marking procedure of the technical offers, each member of the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to give a mark to each criterion in the Table of
Evaluation Criteria.
The final mark of each evaluation criterion is the average of the individual marks given by the
members of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders.
It is understood that before the marking procedure commences, a relevant discussion
and exchange of views should take place between the members of the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in order to reach the highest possible degree of
convergence.
The final mark of each individual criterion is then weighted using the weighting factor for that
particular criterion, and is rounded to 2 decimal digits.
The sum of the weighted marks of the individual criteria is the final technical evaluation mark
of each tender.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 36 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
To facilitate its work, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may use for
each offer under evaluation a table in the following form, which it should draw up /
complete on a case by case basis:
MARKING OF OFFER 1
Evaluation criteria
Weighting factor
(%)
Member Α
Member Β
Member C
Member D
Member Ε
Average mark
Average mark
Χ weighting
factor
1 Α
2 Β
3 C
4 D
5 Ε
6 F
7 G
8 Η
9 I
10 J
FINAL EVALUATION MARK OF OFFER 1
The final evaluation marks of the Technical Offers are then recorded in the Minutes of the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, with adequate documentation of the marks
given.
The Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should adequately justify the
marks given to all criteria for all offers. The justification must clearly mention the
shortcomings that led to a reduction in the mark given or the advantages that led to a higher
mark. The advantages or shortcomings should concern the individual parameters into which
each criterion has been broken down.
It is understood that, in all cases, the per cent rate by which the mark is increased or lowered
must be commensurate to the respective shortcoming or advantage, with strict observance of
the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
The justification of the marks given by the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders becomes extremely difficult when the views of the members diverge and
extreme deviations are observed in their markings. Furthermore, the divergence of views
between the members also gives rise to doubts within the Competent Body for the Award of
the Contract regarding the way the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders functions
and, in the event of a hierarchical recourse being filed in the future, increases the risk of
cancellation decisions being issued by the Tenders Review Authority. For these reasons, it is
absolutely necessary, in all cases where such divergence of views occurs, for the members
of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to discuss the matter extensively and
exchange views and arguments, with the aim to reach unanimity or at least some degree of
convergence. If, despite the efforts made, it proves impossible for the views of the members
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 37 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders to converge, a specific reference to the
divergence should be made in the Minutes, and the different views should be recorded
together with the justification of each one of them.
In cases where the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender,
and where the tender documents provide that tenders failing to obtain a mark higher
than the minimum mark specified in the tender documents, which is calculated as a
percentage of the mark obtained by the tender with the highest technical evaluation mark,
shall not proceed to the stage of evaluation of Financial Offers, the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders must rank the tenders in decreasing order of the technical offer
evaluation mark.
For presenting the ranking of the technical offers in such a case, the Competent Body
for the Evaluation of Tenders may use the following table:
RANKING OF TECHNICAL OFFERS
No.
NAME OF TENDERER
TECHNICAL
OFFER EVALUATION
MARK (Τ)
PERCENT RATE
OF HIGHEST TECHNICAL
EVALUATION MARK (Τ)
PARTICIPATION IN THE
FINANCIAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE (YES – NO)
1
2
3
4
5
6
. .
. .
. .
Drawing up of the Technical Evaluation Report
The procedure for the evaluation and marking of the technical offers is concluded with the
preparation of a relevant report. The following are attached to the Technical Evaluation
Report, forming integral thereof:
All the individual Minutes of the meetings of the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders.
The Minutes drawn up during the presentations of offers, if any took place.
The additional clarifications supplied by the tenderers, if any were requested.
The completed tables used for marking each offer.
The table with the ranking of technical offers, if such a table was used.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 38 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The Technical Evaluation Report must present an analysis of the procedure followed, with
specific references to:
The cases of any tenders rejected during the general evaluation procedure.
The precise reasons for rejection, which must be described in a documented
manner, with mention of the specific point(s) of the tender documents and, more
specifically, of the technical specifications and of the terms of reference, that
necessitated the rejection.
The deviations, if any, considered to be minor by the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders.
The precise reasons and data on which the Competent Body for the Evaluation
based its reasoning in determining these deviations to be minor.
The general and specific reasons for individual marks given by the members of the
Competent Body for Evaluation to the evaluation criteria, should assessments
between the members differ.
The Technical Evaluation Report is essentially the text that brings together all individual
references to the above matters, as these are included in the Minutes drawn up for each
meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 4.1.2 of this Chapter. The indicative contents of the Technical
Evaluation Report are presented in Annex 4-1.
If the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders assesses, that none of the offers
meets the terms or the technical specifications of the tender documents or that, on
account of certain of the terms or technical specifications, the tender procedure leads
exclusively to a specific economic operator and provided that it can support its assessment
by indisputable evidence, it may recommend in the Technical Evaluation Report the
cancellation of the tender procedure by the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract.
The Technical Evaluation Report must address in a satisfactory way all intentions of
disputing the manner in which the procedure for the technical evaluation and marking
of the offers was conducted. Furthermore, it should be drawn up with a view to defending the
actions of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and of the Contracting Authority
in the event of a hierarchical recourse being filed, so that in such a case the hierarchical
recourse may be rebutted merely by using the texts of the Technical Evaluation Report.
Approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report
The body responsible for approval of the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation
Report, may:
Approve the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report and accept the
recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders regarding:
The offers that were considered to be eliminable, and
The marking of the rest of the offers.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 39 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Approve the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report and accept the
relevant recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders,
cancelling the tender procedure.
Choose not to accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders regarding the rejection of one or more of the tenderers or the marking of
one or more of the criteria, and decide otherwise.
Choose not to accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders, and cancel the tender procedure.
It is understood that despite the aforementioned theoretical option of not accepting the
recommendations of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, the
Competent Body for the Award of the Contract is usually expected to agree with the
recommendation, with the exception of the case where the cancellation of the tender
procedure is necessitated for departmental reasons not having to do with the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, and of the potential existence of serious and
substantiated suspicions regarding the functioning of the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders and the legitimacy of its actions in the performance of its duties.
General evaluation of Financial Offers
After the Qualitative Selection and Technical Evaluation Report is approved by the
appropriate competent body, the sub-envelopes of the financial offers are opened (where the
submission of two separate sub-envelopes is provided for) for the tenders that have not been
rejected in the previous stages of evaluation, and the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders proceeds to the step of the general evaluation of the financial offers.
For the purposes of this stage, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders should
establish the responsiveness of the financial offer to the relevant requirements of the tender
documents by examining the contents of the financial offers. In particular, it checks the
completed tables of the financial offer to confirm their completeness and the correctness of
the relevant calculations.
If the offered price does not result with absolute clarity from the contents of the
financial offer, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may deem the offer
to be eliminable. However, if the financial offer contains minor omissions or errors which may
be objectively considered to be obvious and which can be corrected without raising doubts
as to the accuracy of the correction, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders may,
and is advised to, make the relevant corrections. Especially in cases where the tender
documents specify the manner in which wrong calculations are to be handled (e.g. the tender
documents of a public works contract may provide for the possibility of correcting arithmetical
errors, where if there is a discrepancy between the unit price and the total price for the
quantity, the unit price shall prevail and the total price shall be corrected), the Competent
Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to make the relevant corrections.
The evaluation of financial offers, in contrast to that of technical offers, is comparative.
In addition to checking the relevant tables of the financial offer, the Competent Body
for the Evaluation of Tenders should take all actions required in order to ensure the
comparability of the offers under evaluation and, more specifically:
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 40 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Where the prices of an offer are expressed in foreign currency, it must convert them
to Euro, using the Foreign to Euro exchange rate (sale price) published by the Central
Bank on the closing date for the submission of tenders. If the closing date for the
submission of tenders is a bank holiday, then the exchange rate of the working day
which immediately precedes the closing date shall be used.
Where a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, and if the offers
specify different payment methods, it must proceed to convert all amounts payable to
current prices using the factor for conversion to current prices which is specified in
the tender documents.
Where a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, and if any of the
proposed solutions require special conditions to be secured by the Contracting
Authority, it must apply the procedure specified in the tender documents in order to
make the offers comparable.
If, during the general evaluation of financial offers, it is ascertained that certain offers do not
meet the terms and conditions specified in the tender documents, e.g. when the offered price
is denominated in a currency not included in the allowed currencies, or a payment method
other then the specified one is proposed, or if conditions contradictory to the general
conditions of contract are imposed regarding the time and method of payment, the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders must designate these offers as eliminable,
documenting the precise reasons for their rejection.
Special reasons for rejection which may arise during this step of the procedure, in addition to
those indicatively mentioned in the previous paragraph, are the following:
In the case of public supply contracts, when it is ascertained that the price policy
applied in an offer involves sale prices which are below the manufacturing cost of the
product or the acquisition price of the product for trading (price dumping), or if export
subsidy is received for the product offered.
In all cases of public contracts, when it is ascertained that the proposed price of an
offer appears to be abnormally low.
The case where the price of an offer is substantially lower than that of others presents
considerable difficulties. To begin with, it is only to be expected that the members of
the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders will be favourably disposed towards an
offer that seems to suit the requirements of the Contracting Authority, while in parallel
allowing savings to be made in terms of the resources that the Contracting Authority was
expecting to allocate for the specific contract. However, an abnormally low offer may conceal
circumstances which could potentially compromise the successful implementation of the
contract, or even illegal activities. For example, the specific economic operator may have
offered a low price for one or more of the following reasons:
It has misread the requirements of the Contracting Authority.
It has erroneously estimated the potential risks and their consequences.
It acts unfairly, at the expense of healthy competition, in order to maximise its
chances of being awarded the contract.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 41 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
It exploits the personnel in its employment or does not comply with the provisions
regarding the protection of employees and their working conditions.
It intends to claim later, as an offset, a decrease of its obligations, taking advantage
of any shortcomings or ambiguities in the tender documents.
In any case, particularly so if it suspects that any of the above is true, the Competent Body
for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged to consider the offered price as abnormally low.
In both the above cases which refer to price dumping or to the occurrence of
abnormally low offers, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders is obliged,
before designating the offers as eliminable, to request relevant clarifications in writing by the
tenderers and then decide whether it will accept the clarifications or reject the offers.
The request for clarifications on the financial offers involves the risk of leading to
changes in the offered price, a situation that the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders will not find easy to handle without considerable risk. For this reason, it should be
used solely in the aforementioned cases, and always in accordance with the principles of
equal treatment and transparency.
Regarding public supply contracts, if it is ascertained that the price policy applied involves
sale prices which are below the manufacturing cost of the product or the acquisition price of
the product for trading (dumping price), or if export subsidy is received for the product
offered, the clarifications supplied by the tenderers must confirm that:
The tenderers are aware of the relevant measures applicable in the country of origin
of the product or in the country of the manufacturer.
The offered product is not part of a price dumping policy and no export subsidy is
received for it.
In the case of abnormally low offers, the supplied clarifications may particularly refer to:
The economics of the construction method, the manufacturing process or the services
provided;
The technical solutions chosen and/or any exceptionally favourable conditions
available to the tenderer for the execution of the work, for the supply of the goods or
services;
The originality of the work, supplies or services proposed by the tenderer.
Compliance with the provisions relating to employment protection and working
conditions in force at the place where the work, service or supply is to be performed;
The possibility of the tenderer obtaining State aid.
Marking of Financial Offers
In this step of the evaluation procedure, the relative cost of each offer is calculated as
follows:
Financial Offer of Lowest Bidder
Relative cost = ------------------------------------------------------- x 100
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 42 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Financial Offer under Evaluation
where the Financial Offer under Evaluation is defined as the total amount which the tenderer
intends to charge for implementing the contract, exclusive of VAT, and the Financial Offer of
Lowest Bidder is defined as the offer with the lowest price.
The step of marking the financial offers forms part of the evaluation procedure only in the
case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous
tender.
Ranking of tenders
After the conclusion of the procedure of evaluation of financial offers, the Competent Body
for the Evaluation of Tenders must proceed to establish the final ranking of the tenders.
In the case of contracts for which the award criterion is exclusively the lowest price, the
tenders are ranked in decreasing order of offered price.
For presenting the final ranking of tenders in the case of contracts for which the award
criterion is exclusively the lowest price, the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders may use the following table:
FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS
No. NAME OF TENDERER OFFERED PRICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
. .
. .
. .
In the case of equivalent tenders with the same –lowest– price, their details are
entered in rows #1 and #2 of the Table. It is pointed out that in this case the award of
the contract by the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract shall take place by draw or
by applying any other procedure (e.g. splitting of the contract scope, if this is feasible)
provided for in the tender documents.
In the case of contracts for which the award criterion is the most economically advantageous
tender, the tenders are ranked in decreasing order of their Final Mark (L), which is calculated
by applying the formula specified in the tender documents, which has the following form:
L = Τ * <per cent weighting factor> + C * < per cent weighting factor>
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 43 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
where:
Τ = the technical offer evaluation mark, and
C = the relative cost of the financial offer.
The most economically advantageous tender is that with the highest Final mark (L) and, in
the case of tenders with the same Final Mark (L), the tender with the highest technical offer
evaluation mark, when a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents.
For presenting the final ranking of tenders in the case of contracts for which the award
criterion is the most economically advantageous tender, the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders may use the following table:
FINAL RANKING OF TENDERS
No. NAME OF TENDERER
OFFERED PRICE
RELATIVE COST
(C)
TECHNICAL OFFER
EVALUATION MARK
(Τ)
FINAL MARK
OF TENDER
(L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
. .
. .
. .
Drawing up the Final Evaluation Report
The evaluation procedure is concluded with the preparation and submission of the Final
Evaluation Report to the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract for approval.
The following are attached to the Final Evaluation Report, forming integral parts thereof:
The Qualitative Selection Report.
The Technical Evaluation Report.
The individual Minutes of the meetings of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders, held for the purposes of evaluating the financial offers.
The additional clarifications supplied by the tenderers, if any were requested.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 44 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
All documentation material collected or drawn up by the Competent Body for the
Evaluation of Tenders in the performance of its work.
The Final Evaluation Report is duly submitted and is accompanied by the tenders and any
other element of the tender procedure file which the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders may have available.
If the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders estimates, for reasons which it
may indisputably document, that the prices of all offers meeting the terms and
technical specifications of the tender documents are unrealistic or appear to be the product
of collusion between the tenderers, resulting in the circumvention of healthy competition, it
may recommend in the Final Evaluation Report the cancellation of the tender procedure by
the Competent Body for the Award of the Contract
The submission of the Final Evaluation Report signals the conclusion of the activities of the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, subject to the future need, if any, to support
the Contracting Authority, should a hierarchical recourse be filed against its final decisions.
4.4 AWARD OF CONTRACT
4.4.1 Approval of the Final Evaluation Report and Award of the
Contract
The body responsible for approval of the Final Evaluation Report, has the power to:
Approve the Final Evaluation Report and accept the relevant recommendation of the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders:
Awarding the contract to the tenderer whose tender was selected, following
the evaluation procedure, as the most economically advantageous one or the
one with the lowest price, in the case of contracts for which the award criterion
is the most economically advantageous tender or exclusively the lowest price,
respectively.
Rejecting the tenders considered, in accordance with the Final Evaluation
Report, to be eliminable.
Approve the Final Evaluation Report and accept the relevant recommendation of the
Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, cancelling the tender procedure.
Choose not to accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders, and award the contract to a tenderer other than the tenderer suggested
by the Competent Body.
Choose not to accept the recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation
of Tenders, and cancel the tender procedure.
It is understood that despite the aforementioned theoretical option of not accepting the
recommendation of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, the Competent Body
for the Award of the Contract is usually expected to agree with the recommendation, with the
exception of the case where the cancellation of the tender procedure is necessitated for
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 45 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
departmental reasons not having to do with the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders, and of the potential existence of serious and substantiated suspicions
regarding the functioning of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders and the
legitimacy of its actions in the performance of its work.
4.4.2 Cancellation of the tender procedure
The tender procedure may be cancelled before the date set for the expiry of the deadline for
the submission of Tenders for specific and justified reasons, by decision of the Contracting
Authority.
Cancellation of the tender procedure after expiry of the deadline for the submission of
tenders may be decided by the competent body of the Contracting Authority, where one or
more of the following conditions apply:
a. When no tender has been submitted within the specified deadline,
b. When it is established that the tender documents contain terms or technical
specifications that can not be met by any of the tenderers or that these
specifications lead exclusively to a specific economic operator,
c. When the prices of all tenders meeting the terms and the technical requirements of
the tender documents are unrealistic or appear to be the product of collusion
between the tenderers, resulting in the circumvention of healthy competition,
d. When the circumstances under which the tender procedure was announced have
changed to such an extent that the scope of the tender procedure is no longer
necessary, or
e. When any other serious unforeseeable reason, which the Competent Body deems
to be justifiable, applies.
The decision of the Contracting Authority to cancel the tender procedure must be fully
justified, particularly so when the cancellation is due to a change in the circumstances
under which the tender procedure was announced or to other unforeseeable reasons. In any
case, the fact that the interested economic operators consumed time and resources, which
can not be considered negligible, for preparing their tenders should not be neglected,
especially in the case of complex contracts with a complicated scope.
In any case, the Contracting Authority should bear in mind that the cancellation of the
tender procedure is a decision that precedes the conclusion of the contract and as
such, pursuant to the law, gives the right to any interested party who has or had an interest in
being awarded the specific contract, and who has sustained or is likely to sustain a loss as a
result of the cancellation, to file a hierarchical recourse to the Tenders Review Authority.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 46 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
4.5 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC
OPERATORS
4.5.1 Initial notice to all interested parties
The Contracting Authority informs promptly:
In the event that the tender procedure is cancelled, all tenderers by means of a letter
with the same content, and
In the event that the tender procedure has been concluded, by means of letters with
different content:
The candidate Contractor,
The tenderers who were either excluded during the qualitative selection
procedure or whose tenders were rejected during the technical or financial
evaluation procedure, or who, despite having been qualified, were not
selected for the award of the contract.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the minimum obligations regarding the provision of
information to candidates and tenderers are determined as follows:
The Contracting Authorities inform in writing as soon as possible, and upon request,
the candidates and the tenderers of the decisions taken in connection with the award
of the contract, including the reasons for which they have decided not to award the
contract.
Following a written request by the interested party, the Contracting Authorities notify
within fifteen (15) days at the latest from receipt of the request:
o To each unsuccessful candidate, the reasons for rejecting his application
o To each rejected tenderer, the reasons for the rejection of its tender, justifying
their decision about the non equivalence of the technical specifications or their
decision that the works, supplies or services do not meet the performance or
operation requirements.
o To each tenderer having submitted an admissible tender, the characteristics
and relevant advantages of the selected tender as well as the name of the
contractor.
It is however recommended, as best practice which is also aligned with the key
principle of transparency in public procurement, that the Contracting Authority
examine the possibility to include in the initial letters a summary reference to the specific
reasons that led to the cancellation, exclusion, rejection or non-selection.
It is understood that every tenderer or candidate who so wishes may submit to the
Contracting Authority a request for more detailed information, and the Contracting Authority
is obliged to provide such information.
The Contracting Authority may decide not to disclose certain information, referred to in
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 47 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
the previous paragraph, concerning the award of the contract, if the disclosure of the said
information may, in its objective judgement, prevent the application of the laws, be contrary
to the public interest or harm the legitimate commercial interests of public or private
economic operators or the conditions of fair competition between them.
4.5.2 Notice to the Contractor
The Contracting Authority informs the candidate contractor of the Award Decision, as soon
as possible after this decision is issued, as described in Section 4.5.1 of the present Chapter.
The initial informational letter should point out that it is sent subject to the filing of hierarchical
recourses, if any, and, consequently, to the issue of relevant decisions by the Tenders
Review Authority.
The initial informational letter to the candidate Contractor should be in the format of the
relevant Template No. 2, contained in Annex 4-2 of the present Chapter.
After establishing that no intention to file a hierarchical recourse has been notified, the
Contracting Authority, within no more than thirty (30) days from the date of issue of the
Award Decision, invites in writing the candidate Contractor to present himself, within a fixed
deadline which should not exceed thirty (30) days, for signing the relevant agreement.
In the event that an intention to file a hierarchical recourse is disclosed, as described in
Section 4.5.4 of the present Chapter, the Contracting Authority notifies accordingly the
candidate Contractor, mentioning specifically any impediment to the signature of the
agreement that arises.
It is understood that the Contracting Authority is responsible for ensuring that all
tenders and tender guarantees submitted in response to the tender procedure remain
valid for the period of time during which any interested party has the right to express its
intention to file an hierarchical recourse. The tender of the candidate Contractor, in particular,
must remain valid at least until the date of signature of the relevant agreement. Should one
or more tenderers express their intention to file a hierarchical recourse within the above-
mentioned period of time, the Contracting Authority must ensure that all tenders remain valid
until the final decisions are taken by the Tenders Review Authority or until signature of the
agreement.
4.5.3 Notice to unsuccessful tenderers
The Contracting Authority informs the unsuccessful tenderers (i.e. the tenderers who were
either excluded during the qualitative selection procedure or whose tenders were rejected
during the technical or financial evaluation procedure, or who, despite having been qualified,
were not selected for the award of the contract) of the Award Decision, as soon as possible
after it is issued.
The initial informational letter to the unsuccessful tenderers should be in the format of
the relevant Template No. 3, contained in Annex 4-2 of the present Chapter.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 48 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
4.5.4 Handling of Hierarchical Recourses
Procedure for filing and examination of hierarchical recourses
Pursuant to the provisions of article 94 of the Coordination of Procedures for the Award of
Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts and for
Related Matters Law of 2006 (Law 12(I)/2006) and, respectively, to the provisions of article
78 of the corresponding Water, Energy, Transport and Postal Services Sector Law of 2006
(Law 11(Ι)/2006), the appeal procedures provided for in Title IV – “Tenders Review Authority”
of the Award of Public Contracts (Supplies, Works and Services) Law of 2003 (Law
101(I)/2003) remain in force until a new Law providing for the coordination of appeal
procedures is applied.
Pursuant to Law 11(Ι)/2006, the competence of the Tenders Review Authority to
examine appeals applies only to contracts of an estimated value above the thresholds
of article 15 of Law 11(Ι)/2006.
The procedure in force regarding the filing and examination of hierarchical recourses, as
provided for in Title IV – “Tenders Review Authority” of the Award of Public Contracts
(Supplies, Works and Services) Law of 2003 (Law 101(I)/2003), is presented in Annex 4-3
(by means of a diagram) and is summarised in the following tables.
FILING AND EXAMINATION OF HIERARCHICAL RECOURSES
TABLE 1. FILING OF A HIERARCHICAL RECOURSE
1 RIGHT TO FILE
A HIERARCHICAL
RECOURSE TO THE
TENDERS REVIEW
AUTHORITY
Every interested party who has or had an interest in being
awarded a specific contract and who has sustained or is likely
to sustain a loss as a result of an act or decision of the
Contracting Authority which violates any provision of the
applicable law and precedes the conclusion of the contract.
2 PRELIMINARY
OBLIGATIONS OF THE
INTERESTED PARTY
Prior to filing a hierarchical recourse to the Tenders Review
Authority, the interested party must, within a deadline of five
(5) days from the date on which it became aware, by any
means whatsoever, of the act or decision of the Contracting
Authority, notify in writing the Contracting Authority with
simultaneous notification to the Competent Authority, of the
alleged violation and of its intention to file a hierarchical
recourse.
3 EXAMINATION OF THE
OBJECTIONS OF THE
INTERESTED PARTY BY
THE CONTRACTING
AUTHORITY
The Contracting Authority examines the objections of the
interested party and issues a reasoned decision within five (5)
days from the date it receives the written notification and, if it
deems the said objections to be well-founded, takes
appropriate measures. Should the deadline elapse, the
objections of the interested party shall be presumed to have
been rejected.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 49 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
4 TIME LIMIT FOR THE
FILING OF A
HIERARCHICAL
RECOURSE TO THE
TENDERS REVIEW
AUTHORITY
The hierarchical recourse is filed within a deadline of ten (10)
days from the date on which the interested party was notified
of the reasoned decision of the Contracting Authority or from
the expiry of the deadline of five (5) days of the previous
paragraph.
5 SPECIAL FEE FOR THE
FILING OF A
HIERARCHICAL
RECOURSE
For filing a hierarchical recourse to the Tenders Review
Authority, the applicant pays a special fee, in accordance with
the provisions, as applicable in each case, of the applicable
relevant decision of the Minister of Finance, published in the
Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus. The above fee is
non-refundable and is deposited into the General Government
Account. More information is available from the web site of the
Tenders Review Authority (www.tra.gov.cy).
6 CONTENT OF
HIERARCHICAL
RECOURSE
The interested party states specifically the grounds of the law
and the facts on which the recourse is based, and
accompanies them by full evidence, including the following
information:
Full particulars of the natural or legal person filing the
recourse.
Name of the Contracting Authority.
Particulars of the contract or invitation to tender.
Initial information letter by the Contracting Authority
regarding the award of the contract, if this has been sent
to the interested party.
Proof of payment of the special fee of the previous
paragraph.
If the evidence accompanying the recourse is incomplete or
inadequate, the Tenders Review Authority may at its absolute
discretion request the applicant to submit, within a deadline of
three (3) days, any further information which it deems
necessary.
Although covered by the Law, the Contracting Authority should not prefer the “do
nothing” option, leaving the deadline of five (5) days to elapse, instead of issuing the
reasoned decision described in item (3) of Table 1. A reasoned decision that answers each
one of the objections of the interested party, presenting all the technical details or legal
arguments documenting the answer, may discourage the interested party from filing a
hierarchical recourse with the Tenders Review Authority. It may also help the Contracting
Authority draw up immediately the written report of item (1) of Table 2, should a hierarchical
recourse be eventually filed.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 50 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
TABLE 2. PROCEDURE FOR THE EXAMINATION OF A HIERARCHICAL RECOURSE
1 NOTIFICATION OF THE
CONTRACTING
AUTHORITY
The Tenders Review Authority shall, within two (2) days from
the filing of the hierarchical recourse, notify the Contracting
Authority of such recourse and request that a written report,
including any other information which it considers necessary
be submitted within a 10 day period.
2 SETTING OF THE DATE
FOR THE EXAMINATION
OF THE RECOURSE
Upon receipt of the written report of the Contracting Authority,
the Tenders Review Authority shall fix a prompt date for the
examination of the recourse and shall notify in writing the
interested party or his representative and the Contracting
Authority or its representative, to appear before it and present
their views regarding any matter raised in the hierarchical
recourse examined by it.
3 TIME OF COMPLETION OF
THE PROCEDURE FOR
THE EXAMINATION OF
THE RECOURSE
The procedure for the examination of the hierarchical recourse
is completed as quickly as possible, and the decision of the
Tenders Review Authority is issued within thirty (30) days at
the latest from the date on which the hierarchical recourse
was filed.
It is understood that the written report mentioned in item (1) of Table 2 must be drawn
up the Contracting Authority with due care and diligence and with the support of the
competent body, as appropriate in each case (e.g. the Procurement Team responsible for
preparing the tender documents, in the case of a recourse against the tender documents, or
the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders, in the case of a recourse against the
results of the evaluation). It is also understood that the written report may be based on the
reasoned decision of item (3) of Table 1, provided that the reasoned decision was drawn up
with the same diligence. In the particular case of a recourse against a decision of the
evaluation stage, in drawing up the written report the Contracting Authority should seek
assistance by looking up the information contained in the Qualitative Selection and Technical
Evaluation Report and in the Final Evaluation Report, drawn up by the Competent Body for
the Evaluation of Tenders in the performance of its work.
TABLE 3. DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY
1 The Tenders Review Authority may examine summarily and reject any hierarchical
recourse which it deems to be groundless, without inviting the interested party or the
Contracting Authority to appear before it.
2 The Tenders Review Authority rejects the recourse, if the submitted evidence is
incomplete or inadequate and the applicant fails or refuses to provide any further
information requested of him.
3 After the examination of the hierarchical recourse, the Tenders Review Authority, on the
basis of the evidence submitted to it, may:
1. Confirm the act or decision of the Contracting Authority.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 51 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
TABLE 3. DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY
2. Annul the act or decision of the Contracting Authority, if this violates any provision
of the applicable law and precedes the conclusion of the contract.
3. Annul or amend by reason of contravention of any provision of the applicable law,
any condition contained in the invitation to tender or in the tender documents or in
any other document which is related to the tender procedure and concerns
technical, economic and financial specifications.
Impediments to the conclusion of the contract
Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the following are definite impediments to the
conclusion of the contract:
1. The deadline of five (5) days for the notification of the Contracting Authority by the
interested party which intends to file a hierarchical recourse (item 2 of Table 1).
2. The deadline of five (5) days from notification, within which the Contracting Authority
must issue a relevant reasoned decision (item 3 of Table 1).
3. The deadline of ten (10) days (for the filing of the hierarchical recourse) from
notification of the reasoned decision to the interested party or from the idle lapse of
the deadline of five (5) days of the previous paragraph (item 4 of the Table 1).
4. The deadline of two (2) days from the date on which the hierarchical recourse was
filed to the Tenders Review Authority, within which the hierarchical recourse must be
notified to the Contracting Authority (item 1 of Table 2).
After the deadline of the paragraph (4) above elapses, the impediments to the
signature of the contract cease to exist unless, concurrently with the filing of the
hierarchical recourse, the interested party submits a unilateral application for interim
measures.
ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES
The procedure in force, as provided for in Title IV – “Tenders Review Authority” of the Award
of Public Contracts (Supplies, Works and Services) Law of 2003 (Law 101(I)/2003),
regarding the adoption of interim measures for suspension the contract award and signature
procedure after a hierarchical recourse has been filed, is summarised in the following table.
TABLE 4. ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES
1 CONDITIONS
FOR THE ADOPTION OF
INTERIM MEASURES
The Tenders Review Authority may, after a hierarchical
recourse has been filed and following a unilateral request by
the party concerned, if it is thought highly likely that the
applicable law has been violated and the adoption of interim
measures is considered necessary in order to prevent further
loss to the interests of the applicant, suspend the procedure
for awarding the contract or the execution of any other act or
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 52 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
TABLE 4. ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES
decision of the Contracting Authority in connection with the
award procedure, as well as the signature of the contract.
2 DURATION OF
SUSPENSION IN THE
CASE OF ADOPTION OF
INTERIM MEASURES
1. The Tenders Review Authority may suspend the relevant
procedures initially for a period of two (2) days, within
which the Contracting Authority is invited to appear before
the Tenders Review Authority and present its views
regarding the damages likely to be caused by the further
suspension of the relevant procedures.
2. The Tenders Review Authority may decide to suspend all
relevant procedures for a period of time up to its final
decision on the hierarchical recourse.
3 REASONS FOR
REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FOR
INTERIM MEASURES
No interim measure is adopted if, after having assessed the
loss of the applicant, the interests of third parties and the
public interest, the Tenders Review Authority considers that
the adverse effects of granting the application will be more
serious than the benefit to the applicant.
It is understood that the rejection of the application should not
impair any other rights of the applicant.
If the Contracting Authority is invited to present its views, in accordance with item (2.1)
of Table 4, it must prove to the Tenders Review Authority that the adverse
consequences in the event of a decision to adopt the interim measures, i.e. the loss,
resulting from the delay, to the interests of the Contracting Authority or of those benefited by
the implementation of the contract (who, in the case of public contracts, are as a rule a small
or larger part of the country’s population), will be more serious than the potential benefit to
the interested party. The evidence to document this claim may, for example, consist of the
references made in the tender documents to the purpose and benefits of the contract, or the
texts on the strategic choices of the Contracting Authority and its business plans, of which
the specific contract forms part.
Consequences for, and rights of, the applicants and the Contracting Authority
In the case of rejection of a hierarchical recourse in accordance with items (1) and (2) of
Table 3, or in the case of ratification of the act or decision of the Contracting Authority in
accordance with item (3.1) of the same Table:
The Tenders Review Authority may impose on the applicant the payment of all
expenses of the procedure and, additionally, a fine, as it may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
If the interested party considers the decision of the Tenders Review Authority to be
unfair for him, it may appeal to the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 146 of
the Constitution.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 53 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
In the case of annulment of the act or decision of the Contracting Authority in accordance
with items (3.2) and (3.3) of Table 3:
taking place after the conclusion of the relevant contract, the interested party may, if
it has sustained loss as a result of the specific act or decision, seek compensation
from the Contracting Authority by means of an action filed before the District Court.
Irrespective of the time it takes place, if the Contracting Authority considers, on the
basis of appropriate documentation, that the relevant decision of the Tenders Review
Authority is unfair, it may appeal to the Supreme Court, in accordance to Article 146
of the Constitution.
If the Tenders Review Authority annuls an act or decision of the Contracting Authority
after the conclusion of the relevant contract, the latter is not affected, unless the
award procedure had been suspended and interim measures had been adopted prior to its
conclusion. Therefore, if no application for interim measures is filed concurrently with the
hierarchical recourse, or if the application to be filed is rejected, the Contracting Authority
may proceed to sign the contract without bearing the risk of its cancellation, even if the
Tenders Review Authority rules in favour of the interested party. However, within the
framework of the transaction ethics which must govern the functioning of administrative
authorities and as a gesture of goodwill, the Contracting Authority should consider delaying
the signature of the contract, if this does not create serious problems for it, until the final
decision of the Tenders Review Authority is issued.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the deadline of five (5) days under item (2) in
Table 1, within which the interested party must disclose its intention to file a
hierarchical recourse, starts from the time when the party becomes aware, in any manner
whatsoever, of the act or decision of the Contracting Authority which violates any provision of
the applicable law, as a result of which the interested party has sustained or is likely to
sustain loss.
In order to limit the period of time during which hierarchical recourses are likely to be
filed (also in accordance with the foregoing) but also for reasons of transparency and
equity, it is advisable and recommended to the Contracting Authority to consider, in all cases,
the possibility to mention, in the initial informational letter to the economic operators
participating in the procedure, the reasons for the exclusion or rejection of a tender.
The case of decisions favourable for the applicant prior to the signature of the
contract
If the Tenders Review Authority decides, prior to the signature of the contract, to annul or
amend an act or decision of the Contracting Authority, recognising that such act or decision
violates any provision of the applicable law, the Contracting Authority must comply with this
decision and take all appropriate actions in order to remedy the violation.
The method of remedy is not always obvious and, in certain cases, the remedy may prove
unfeasible. In all cases, the Contracting Authority must exhaust all the available possibilities
for completing the procedure and concluding the contract, taking into account that after the
issue of the new decision –replacing the one cancelled– the period of time during which an
interested party has the right to file a hierarchical recourse is renewed.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 54 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The Table below contains the most common examples of cases involving decisions of
the Tenders Review Authority which are favourable for the applicant, together with
guidelines on how to handle these in each case:
DEALING WITH CANCELLATION DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY
CONTENT OF RECOURSE PROPOSED RESPONSE
The recourse was filed against the
tender documents, claiming that
they contained terms or
specifications which violate the
provisions of applicable law.
The Tenders Review Authority
decided to cancel the invitation to
tender and amend all or some of
the points indicated in the recourse.
The Contracting Authority must:
1. Cancel the previous tender procedure.
2. Call a meeting of the Procurement Team responsible for the
preparation of the tender documents, which it shall inform of the
decision taken by the Tenders Review Authority, for adapting
the contents in accordance with the suggestions made.
3. Verify the correctness of the tender documents after their
adaptation.
4. Take all necessary actions to repeat the invitation to the tender,
in the same manner as that of the initial invitation, i.e. using the
same advertising means and the same deadlines as the initial
ones.
The recourse was filed against the
act whereby an economic operator
was excluded during the qualitative
selection phase.
The Tenders Review Authority
decided to cancel the exclusion act
and reinstate the applicant.
The Contracting Authority must:
1. Call a meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders, which it shall inform of the decision taken by the
Tenders Review Authority.
2. The Competent Body shall repeat the evaluation procedure for
the specific economic operator and, in particular:
It shall complete the qualitative evaluation of the economic
operator.
It shall proceed to evaluate its technical offer in relation to
the contents of the tender documents.
Provided that the technical offer shall not be deemed
eliminable during the general technical evaluation, it shall
mark it on the basis of the Table of Evaluation Criteria
contained in the tender documents, in the case of a
contract for which the award criterion is the most
economically advantageous tender.
It shall proceed to evaluate its financial offer and, provided
this shall not be deemed eliminable during the general
evaluation, shall mark it comparatively, in the case of a
contract for which the award criterion is the most
economically advantageous tender. It is understood that in
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 55 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
DEALING WITH CANCELLATION DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY
CONTENT OF RECOURSE PROPOSED RESPONSE
this case, if the specific tender proves to be the one with
the lowest price, it shall proceed to comparatively mark
again all offers which have already been evaluated.
It shall redraft the table of final ranking of the tenders and
shall deliver it for approval to the competent body of the
Contracting Authority, together with a Special Evaluation
Report where the procedure followed shall be described
and the relevant decisions shall be mentioned and
documented.
3. After the examination and approval of the Special Evaluation
Report, the competent body of the Contracting Authority, shall
issue a new award decision and shall inform the interested
economic operators accordingly.
The recourse was filed against an
act whereby a tender was rejected
during the technical evaluation
procedure.
The Tenders Review Authority
decided to cancel the rejection act
and reinstate the applicant.
The Contracting Authority must:
1. Call a meeting of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of
Tenders, which it shall inform of the decision taken by the
Tenders Review Authority.
2. The Competent Body shall repeat the evaluation procedure for
the specific economic operator and, in particular:
It shall complete the evaluation of the technical offer of the
economic operator in relation to the contents of the tender
documents.
Provided that the technical offer shall not be deemed
eliminable for any other reasons during the general
technical evaluation, it shall mark it on the basis of the
Table of Evaluation Criteria contained in the tender
documents, in the case of a contract for which the award
criterion is the most economically advantageous tender.
It shall proceed to evaluate its financial offer and
comparatively mark it, in the case of a contract for which
the award criterion is the most economically advantageous
tender. It is understood that in this case, if the specific
tender proves to be the one with the lowest price, it shall
proceed to comparatively mark again all offers which have
already been evaluated.
It shall redraft the table of final ranking of the tenders and
shall deliver it for approval to the competent body of the
Contracting Authority, together with a Special Evaluation
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 56 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
DEALING WITH CANCELLATION DECISIONS OF THE TENDERS REVIEW AUTHORITY
CONTENT OF RECOURSE PROPOSED RESPONSE
Report where the procedure followed shall be described
and the relevant decisions shall be mentioned and
documented.
3. After the examination and approval of the Special Evaluation
Report, the competent body of the Contracting Authority, shall
issue a new award decision and shall inform the interested
economic operators accordingly.
Dealing with the issues arising because of cancellation decisions of the Tenders Review
Authority is usually difficult and time-consuming. Regarding the second and third cases of the
above table, where the award criterion is the most economically advantageous tender, the
difficulty lies primarily in the fact that the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders
should act in line with the principle of equal treatment, although during the marking of the
economic operator in favour of which the decision of the Tenders Review Authority was
issued the financial offers and comparative ranking of its competitors shall be known. The
position of the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders becomes even more difficult if
the object of the recourse which led to the cancellation decision was the marking of the
economic operator in favour of which the decision of the Tenders Review Authority was
issued, as in this case the Competent Body for the Evaluation of Tenders will know in
advance if and how the new marking affects the final ranking.
If the established bodies participating in the tender procedure and in the contract
award procedure observe all terms of the tender documents, the Laws applicable in the
Republic of Cyprus and the Regulations applicable in each case, and act within the
framework of the principles of the Treaty, the likelihood of hierarchical recourses being filed
is reduced and the risk of cancellation decisions being issued, should hierarchical recourses
be eventually filed, is minimised.
4.6 CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT
After it has notified the economic operators who participated in the tender procedure and
after the deadline for the filing of hierarchical recourses elapses, and provided that the award
and signature of the contract is not suspended by interim measures, and that the procedure
for the examination of hierarchical recourses, if any, is completed as described in Section
4.5.4 of the present Chapter, the Contracting Authority may proceed to complete the
procedure for the conclusion of the Contract, as described below.
Content of the Contract
The Contract between the Contracting Authority and the Contractor consists of the following
uniform and integral parts:
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 57 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
a. The Agreement, which is signed by the interested parties and includes the key
information and the special conditions of the contract (Part B of the model tender
documents, which must be completed, where required, with the actual data from the
Contractor's tender).
b. Any relevant correspondence exchanged between the Contracting Authority and the
Contractor for clarifying any points in the tender.
c. The Technical and Financial Offer of the Contractor.
d. The tender documents, except for the part referring to the conduct of the tender
procedure (in the model tender documents, these are Annex I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS, and Annex II. TERMS OF REFERENCE – TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS).
In the case of a difference between the contracting parties regarding the performance
of the Contractor’s obligations, the provisions of the constituent parts of the Contract
shall apply in the same order as above during the period of validity of the Contract.
Inviting the candidate Contractor to sign the Agreement
After the text of the Agreement has been completed as appropriate and finalised, , the
Contracting Authority invites the Contractor to sign the Contract.
The Contractor is obliged to present himself within a specified period of time or on a specific
date set by the Contracting Authority, bringing with him the credentials required in the tender
documents for each particular case, which usually include:
a. The Performance Guarantee for the Contract.
b. The certificates, certifications or other evidence confirming that the requirements for
participation in the tender procedure have been met, for which the Contractor had
submitted together with his tender the solemn declaration contained in the Appendix to
the tender documents.
c. The authorisation documents for the person who shall sign the Agreement, if the
Contractor is a legal person or a consortium,.
d. Additionally, in the case of a consortium of natural and/or legal persons:
The final Cooperation Agreement determining the participation rate of each member
in the consortium, the legal representative of the consortium and the consortium
member to act as the leader of the consortium. It is understood that this information
must be the same with that stated in the tender and evaluated.
If a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, the act of
establishment of a legal person with the specific legal form as provided for in the
tender documents.
The contents of the written invitation to the candidate Contractor to present himself for
signing the relevant agreement may be identical or similar to the relevant Template
No. 4, contained in Annex 4-2 of the present Chapter.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 58 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
Failure of the Contractor to present himself for the signature of the Contract
If the Contractor who has been awarded the contract fails to present himself to sign the
Agreement within the specified period of time and at the place specified by the Contracting
Authority, then he shall be declared in default of the award made in his name and of all rights
deriving from it, and the Tender Guarantee shall simultaneously be forfeited in favour of the
Contracting Authority.
In such a case, if a relevant provision has been made in the tender documents, the
Competent Body for the Award of the Contract may decide to award the Contract to the
tenderer ranked second in the ranking of the Final Evaluation Report, provided that the
tender and the guarantee of such tenderer are in force. Otherwise the Competent Body for
the Award of the Contract must cancel the tender procedure.
Notification of tender procedure results to the European Commission
A Contracting Authority which has concluded a public contract of an estimated value which is
higher than the thresholds specified in article 19 of Law 12(Ι)/2006, shall dispatch to the
European Commission a contract award notice no later than 48 days from the conclusion of
the contract.
Similarly, a Contracting Entity which has awarded a contract of an estimated value which is
higher than the thresholds specified in article 15 of Law 11(Ι)/2006, shall dispatch to the
European Commission a contract award notice within a period of two months from the award
of the contract.
This specific notice is drawn up and dispatched in the manner and in accordance with the
procedure described in the Law, using the specified standardised forms. In addition to the
information requested in the standardised forms, the Contracting Authority may include any
additional information which it may consider useful.
Certain information may not be published, when their notification may prevent the application
of the laws, be contrary to the public interest or harm the legitimate commercial interests of
public or private economic operators or the conditions of fair competition between them.
In addition to the above obligation, Cyprus, as a Member State of the European Union, is
obliged to inform the European Commission of its activities regarding the contracts awarded
by the public and wider public sector:
Either by supplying statistical information about the contracts awarded by each
Contracting Authority and overall in the Republic of Cyprus,
Or by supplying specific information, upon request by the European Commission,
about likely acts or omissions of the Contracting Authority in connection with a
particular contract award procedure.
The European Commission may demand the provision of specific information about a
particular contract, following a relevant report or complaint by an offended economic
operator who, pursuant to Community Law, may appeal to this procedure in order to
safeguard his interests.
Public Procurement Directorate
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE GUIDE Page 59 of 59
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD Version: 1.1
1-01-2008
The obligation to inform the European Commission is reflected in the harmonising laws of
2006 on the Coordination of Procedures for the Award of Public Works Contracts, Public
Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts and for Related Matters, and more
specifically in articles 49, 86 and 87 of Law 12(Ι)/2006, and articles 52 and 71 or Law
11(Ι)/2006.
In all cases, the provision of information to the European Commission is carried out by the
Contracting Authority, through the Competent Authority of Public Procurement.