Provision of Festive Lighting

Lot awarding rule: 6. Tender Evaluation & Selection 6.1 Procurement Assessment Panel The procurement assessment panel for this tender exercise will consist of SATC officers and nominated councillors 6.2 Written Tender Evaluation The evaluation of this tender will be based on the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) with the tender weighted as follows: • Quality Response - will have an overall weighting of 40% • Cost Response - will have an overall weighting of 60% 6.3 Quality Assessment Overview All Bidders are required to submit a completed Appendix C- Questionnaire Response Template. Unless specifically instructed to do otherwise, bidders should write their responses directly into the document provided and NOT in any other format, ensuring that the document is submitted in either MS Word or PDF format. 6.4 Quality Question Overview Bidders are required to answer all questions contained within the Quality Response document. Each question carries its own individual weighting as set out in the table below. Section No. Description Weighting (%) 1 Relevant Experience 10 2 Design 10 3 Testing and Support 10 4 Environmental Sustainability 5 5 Social Value 5 Total 40% Each question will be scored and awarded a weighted score in line with the Quality Assessment Criteria. The total weighted score will be added to the Cost Assessment to arrive at a total tender score. 6.5 Quality Assessment Criteria Bidders' responses to quality questions will be assessed by the procurement panel and awarded a score between 0 and 5 in line with the criteria set out in the table below. Score Term Typical Characteristic 0 Unacceptable No response or extremely limited response. Response inconsistent and/or unworkable and/or does not address our requirements. Shows extremely limited understanding of, and/or extremely inappropriate approach to, the matter in question. 1 Poor Response is limited and is lacking in relation to a significant proportion of material elements, is unworkable and/or inconsistent and only partially meets our requirements. Shows limited understanding of, and/or inappropriate approach to, the matter in question. 2 Satisfactory Response broadly responds to our requirements at a reasonable standard. Shows reasonable understanding of, and/or acceptable approach to, the matter in question. 3 Good Response meets our requirements at a high standard and exceeds them in one or two respects. Shows very sound understanding of, and appropriate approach to, the matter in question. 4 Very Good Response meets our requirements at a very high standard and exceeds them in a number of respects. Shows extremely sound understanding of, and a highly appropriate approach to, the matter in question. 5 Excellent Exemplary response; exceeds expectations in all respects, and Bidder could not be expected to answer questions more comprehensively or appropriately. Responses to questions within the Questionnaire Response document must not exceed the word count advised and must not refer to any supplementary materials unless expressly requested. Attachments and appendices are only permitted where expressly requested. Photographs and diagrams may be included with the design (or attached) and each different design should be costed separately. 6.6 Minimum Quality Score SATC reserves the right, entirely at its own discretion, to disqualify any bidder which fails to reach a minimum quality score of 25%. 6.7 Cost Assessment Overview The design chosen with the questionnaire response template by the panel will then be scored on cost. The lowest priced tender will receive the full weighted score, with higher priced tenders receiving a lower score on a proportional sliding scale. Where SATC feels costs submitted are not complete, or where an offer will incur third party cost, SATC may estimate these costs and add them to the costs submitted to arrive at the total cost for comparison. 6.8 Unsustainably Low Tenders In addition to the conditions set out in this ITT, SATC reserves the right, entirely at its own discretion, to disqualify any bid that is considered to be unsustainably low.