GOVERNMENT OF ST.

LUCIA
Ministry of Infrastructure, Ports, Energy and Labour
Department of Infrastructure, Ports and Energy

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR

Consultancy Services for the Development and

Implementation of a GIS based Road Maintenance
Management System for Saint Lucia.

JUNE 2017

1 | P a g e
 GOVERNMENT OF ST. LUCIA
Ministry of Infrastructure, Ports, Energy and Labour
Department of Infrastructure, Ports and Energy
Castries, St. Lucia West Indies
Communication on this subject should be
communicated to
THE PERMANENT SECRETARY

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Consultancy Services for Development and Implementation of a GIS based Road
Maintenance Management System for Saint Lucia.

1. We are pleased to invite you to submit technical and financial proposals for the above
captioned assignment. We attach the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the services required.
We have received the necessary financing to undertake the above captioned.

2. For further information on the assignment and the local conditions can be obtained at the
address below during the office hours of 8:00 am to 4:30 pm (0800 to 1630 hours) from
Monday to Friday.

Chief Engineer
Department of Infrastructure, Ports and Energy
Union, Castries
Tel: 1 (758) 468-4307/8
Fax: 1 (758) 453-2769
Email: ajnbaptiste@gosl.gov.lc

3. Evaluation of proposals will be in two stages; the technical portion being completed
before any financial proposals are opened. The criteria for the technical proposals will be:

a) Specific experience of the Consultant (20 points)

b) Proposed Methodology (25 points)

c) Management Plan/Work Plan (20 Points)

d) The qualification and experience of the personnel proposed (35 points)

Please note that where alternative staff members are proposed, the marks of the lower ranked
will be used in arriving at the total. However, if substitutions are proposed at the time of
invitation to negotiate, their qualifications will be evaluated before such invitation is
confirmed, in case the order of merit is thereby changed.

Evaluators of Technical Proposals shall have no access to the Financial Proposals until the
2 | P a g e
 technical evaluation is concluded.

Each responsive proposal will be given a technical score (St). A proposal shall be rejected at
this stage if it does not respond to important aspects of the Terms of Reference or if it fails to
achieve the minimum qualifying technical score for the consideration of the financial
proposal (70 points).

4. Curricula Vitae of all professional staff should be included. They will be rated in
accordance with:

a) General qualifications education, leadership positions, publications etc. (15

points)
b) Special qualifications for the assignment similar work undertaken (10 points) and
c) Special regional/country experience (10 points)

5. After the technical evaluation, price will be taken into account in the following manner:
All financial proposals must be submitted in US$ AND EC$ equivalent. The evaluation
committee will determine whether the Financial Proposals are complete (i.e. whether they
have cost all items of the corresponding Technical Proposals, if not, the Client will cost
them and add their cost to the initial price), and correct any computational errors. The
official selling rates used, provided by the Central Bank of St. Lucia, will be the
prevailing exchange rate 28 days before the date of receipt of proposals. The evaluation
shall exclude all taxes, duties, fees, levies and other charges imposed under the applicable
law.

The lowest Financial Proposal will be given a financial score (Sf) of 100 points.
The formula for determining the financial scores is the following: Sf= (Pmin/Pfirm)*100

Sf= Financial Score; Pfirm Evaluated Price, Pmin = Minimum Evaluated Price

Proposals will be ranked according to their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf)
scores using the weights 80/20: S= St*0.8+Sf*0.2.

The firm achieving the highest combined technical and financial score will be invited
for negotiations.

Firms believing that the TOR contains unnecessary items should indicate this in their
technical response, but the financial proposal should nonetheless be based on the full
requirements. The results of the evaluation exercise will be presented to a
selection committee (Central Tenders Board) for confirmation, which could be withheld if
the winning firm scored too low on a predetermined critical component.

3 | P a g e
 6. The financial envelopes will contain, in addition to the total price, a detail breakdown of
the various costs. Please note that, at the time of negotiations, the selected firm will be
required to justify the level of staff costs on the basis of the breakdown of the cost of
professional services and reimbursable expenses proposed.

7. Your proposals should be delivered in one package, marked Proposals Consultancy

Services for the development of Development and Implementation of a GIS based
Road Maintenance Management System for Saint Lucia [name of firm] addressed to:

The Secretary
Central Tenders Board
Finance Administrative Center
Pointe Seraphine,
CASTRIES
SAINT LUCIA, WEST INDIES
+(758) 468 5520

on or before 12:00 hours, [September 1st,2017]. Your envelope of proposals shall contain
the following separate packages of information as described below.

1. Package of: Technical Proposals by [name of firm] shall contain:

a) An original signed letter of transmittal, agreeing to the terms of

the competition.
b) An original Technical Proposal, clearly marked Original Technical
Proposal which will rule in case of discrepancies; and
c) A copy of your Technical proposal, clearly marked Copy of
Technical Proposal

2. Second Package of Fee Proposals by. [name of firm] shall contain:

a) A copy of your signed letter of transmittal, agreeing to the terms of

the competition;
b) An original Fee Proposal, clearly marked Original Fee Proposal, which
will rule in case of discrepancies; and
c) A copy of your Fee Proposal, clearly marked, Copy of Fee Proposal

8. Your proposal shall be held valid for 90 days from the latest time for submission, during
which time the personnel proposed will be maintained without change. Work is expected
to commence on or before [1st, November,2017] and personnel should be selected on that
basis.

9. You may associate with other firms for the purpose of this assignment, but you should note:

a) such other firms may only associate with one invited firm; and all firms associating
for purposes of a proposal must be prepared to be held jointly and severally liable
4 | P a g e
 for satisfactory completion of the assignment. In all other cases the associated
firm will appear as a sub-contractor, and the form of the sub-contractor must be
submitted with the proposal.

b) Please note that if you consider that your firm does not have all the expertise for
the assignment, there is no objection to your firm associating with another firm to
enable a full range of expertise to be presented. The request for joint venture
should be accompanied with full details of the proposed association.

10. The cost of preparing a proposal and of negotiating a contract, including trips to St. Lucia
are not reimbursable as a direct cost of the assignment. Furthermore, the Government of
St. Lucia (GOSL) is not bound to accept the winning or any other proposal submitted.

Yours faithfully,

Ivor Daniel (Mr.)

Permanent Secretary

cc: Chief Engineer, DIPE

Deputy Chief Engineer, DIPE
Chairperson, Central Tenders Board

5 | P a g e
DEVELOPING A GIS BASED ROAD MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Terms of Reference for the Development and Implementation of a GIS based Road
Maintenance Management System for Saint Lucia.

Background
The Saint Lucia road network has for many years suffered from lack of adequate maintenance,
which has resulted in pronounced deterioration of the network. The situation has grown worse due
to underfunded maintenance and it is therefore of utmost importance that those available funds are
put to optimum use.

In the light of this the Government of Saint Lucia seeks to implement a comprehensive Road
Maintenance Management System and Road Asset Management System. The project will run from
2017 to 2021 and covers the 700km of sealed roads, 300km of unsealed roads and 100 bridges and
major culverts under MIPS&T jurisdiction.

For this purpose, improvement in the planning, programming and budgeting process for
preservation of the existing road and bridge networks have been identified as an urgent need.
The task is to adapt technical standards to levels that are economically sustainable in the long run,
and to identify and prioritize preservation works in a way that minimizes the social cost of transport
within applicable budgetary constraints. Specifically, the tool should analyze the pavement and
traffic data, evaluate technical options and develop annual and rolling programs of works and
expenditures that optimize the net social benefits under whatever funding constraints may be
applied. There are also needs for tools for planning long-term policies and expenditure plans for the
preservation and expansion of the network, for programming bridge expenditures, evaluating and
designing construction projects, managing maintenance operations, and for enhancing the safety
performance of the network.

It is intended that the operation of the system, including data updating shall be undertaken with the
assistance of staff from a consultancy firm for an initial period of four years. The full system will
have to be built up step by step over a two-year period. Because of the heavy costs of systems
development and programming the Technical Department wants to make use of an existing system,
proven successful elsewhere, but customized and adapted for its use in Saint Lucia.

General Framework for Development of the GIS based Road Maintenance Management
System.
The GIS road information management system and pavement management system are to be
designed in the context of a general framework for a comprehensive Roads Maintenance
Management System (RMMS). The RMMS would be centered around a GIS roads information
management system and eventually comprise all of the following subsystems:

Roads information subsystem, comprising the collection, storage and reporting of data on the road
inventory, pavement, structures, traffic, accidents, costs and projects;

Planning and policy development subsystem, central tools for evaluating long-term expenditure
plans and policies and their impacts on the performance of the network in respect of pavements,
structures, safety and traffic capacity.

6 | P a g e
Pavement management subsystem, tools for annual and multi-year programming and design works
for maintaining, rehabilitating and improving paved and unpaved roads, in accordance with
economic optimization and budgetary constraints;

Bridge and structures management subsystem, tools for programming designing works for
maintaining, rehabilitating and reconstructing bridges and other road structures;

Capacity expansion subsystem, tools for the planning, feasibility evaluation and design of new
roads, bridges and road improvements;

Maintenance and project operations management, comprising the monitoring and administration of
routine maintenance operations and supervision of rehabilitation and construction projects.

Whether a safety management subsystem shall be included will be decided at a later stage. The
subsystems to be developed are to be modular parts of a linked or integrated total GIS based
RMMS within a compatible, efficient and user-friendly computer environment.

Objectives
The objectives of this project are:

To provide a sustainable source of relevant and valid information for managing the road system
through a system of road monitoring and a road data base;

To enhance the programming and budgeting of periodic maintenance and rehabilitation of road
pavements using economic efficiency criteria.

To reduce the economic challenges posed by natural disasters and climate change by using Risk
Assessment Data to prioritize public infrastructure spending.

The Project in Summary

Outline of the Integrated System

The complete system is an integrated bridge/road routine maintenance system and pavement
management system, sharing inventory and database and making use of a geographical
information system (GIS), initially as an output interface. The network condition is measured in
terms of roughness (IRI) and a visual condition rating, plus carriageway strength. A right-of-
way (ROW) video recording is to be made of the entire network. Traffic data is obtained from
permanent traffic count stations at determined locations.

Computer Configuration
The system is to be established on a centrally based Local Area Network (LAN), supplemented
by standalone work stations at Vieux Fort, Dennery and Soufriere Offices if deemed necessary.
The sub office installations will consist of a workstation, including backup and a high quality
colour printer.
Software Systems

The project shall include supply of all software including office productivity
applications. ArcView or similar is recommended as the GIS software.
The Bridge Maintenance System.

7 | P a g e
 The bridge maintenance management system encompasses two processes:
A routine maintenance process, to ensure that all bridges are visited on a
monthly cycle and are subjected to the routine maintenance procedures
(mostly cleaning and debris removal) on a regular basis by road maintenance
gangs and;
A bridge inspection process, for inspection and grading of specific bridge
components by qualified personnel every 1 to 2 years. The gradings
contribute to an overall renewal priority rating for the bridge and may also
generate work orders for repairs.

Any components which show significant deterioration will automatically generate work orders,
whose degree of urgency, ranging from action within one week to action within six months is the
basis for the grading.

The priority for bridge renewal shall be established by a weighted sum score of individual
components. Weighting shall be heaviest on the key structural/safety components. The overall
rating process will be further evolved as experience is gained with the Saint Lucia bridges.

The Road Asset Management System

- The terms of reference require the use of HDM IV modeling in evaluation road
upgrading and maintenance strategies that maximize the economic returns from
road maintenance expenditure.
The Geographical Information System (GIS)
The RMMS as to be supplied is interfaced with GIS which will operate on existing
hardware. GIS will be installed on both the Head Office LAN and Division workstations.

While the GIS has been initially conceived as a specialist output system for the RMMS,
it is highly likely that as skills increase and the database is extended, GIS applications
will assume much greater importance as a separate and distinct tool in the overall road
information system.

Implementation and Training Issues

The RMMS will be handed over to MIPEL staff as a going concern after 3 to 5 years. A full
time counterpart who will eventually assume responsibility for the management of the
system and all data collection shall be done by local staff after initial training and
supervision by the Consultant.

Scope of Work
The following tasks shall be undertaken:

Establishment of a computer-based GIS road management information subsystem, including road

data base, data entry facilities, data access and reporting facilities, administrative procedures for
updating, maintenance and operation of the subsystem and staff training;

Establishment of road monitoring procedures, including selection of methods, survey sampling rates
and survey frequencies, recommendations on equipment and contracting options, the initial surveys
of each type and the training of staff for subsequent surveys;

8 | P a g e
Adaptation, installation and initial application of a model for central preparation of rolling annual
programs and budgets of road works, comprising periodic maintenance, rehabilitation and
reconstruction and routine maintenance;

Adaptation, installation and initial application of a model for the central preparation of a long-term
plan of all road expenditures, works and system trends.

Nature of the Services Required

The consultant shall provide a team of specialists, including highway planner, highway engineer,
GIS specialist, economist and systems analysts to undertake the following:

Data Requirements and Dictionary

A review is to be made of all road-related information required for planning, programming and
budgeting of road and bridge works and of the data currently available in the department. The data
items to be collected are to be identified and defined, based on the review and consistent with
current World Bank Highway Design and Maintenance Model (HDM IV) guidelines. Data should
be identified for the following information groups: road inventory, pavements, structures, traffic,
finance and operations. The information quality levels required shall be decided upon in
consultation with the Technical Department. A data dictionary is to be prepared, defining each item,
specifying the units, format and precision of the data, and identifying the method of collection.

Road Information System Database

The design of the information system database shall comprise the hardware, software,
administration and documentation to provide a computing environment and operation which is
sustainable and appropriate to the size, structure and personnel resources of Technical Department.
The database structure shall be relational and permit future expansion to include other data not
included in the initial data dictionary developed in this project. The system shall be able to support
the applications software for the decision-support models adapted in this project and also other
application models to be used regularly by the department, such as mapping and graphics etc.
System Software: The operating system shall support the chosen database management and
application software. The database management system (DBMS) shall be relational, preferably
adapted to transport applications but in any case, satisfying the requirements of all functional
applications, with a high surety of continuing software support and compatibility with future
developments. A comprehensive transport-oriented Geographic Information System (GIS-T) should
be considered. Due comparison should be made with alternatives of conventional DBMS plus
graphic and mapping facilities.

Hardware: The configuration should accommodate a centralized database with microcomputer

terminal access. The configuration should take account of estimates of eventual capacity required
for the database and applications within a seven-year horizon. Data entry devices should
accommodate both manual and electronic entry compatible with the format of the collected data.
Output devices shall include graphic display and printing, and mapping capabilities.

Administration: Recommendations shall be presented on the administration and operation of

the information system with the aims of effective coordination and consultation among the relevant
staff members, efficient service, clearly defined responsibilities and rules for maintaining and
updating each data file, and allocation of system security levels.

Data Processing and User Interface: Applications software for entering, auditing, preprocessing and
storing the data from the various surveys, and for maintaining the data files, is to be adapted,

9 | P a g e
including provisions for ensuring data integrity and security of access. Modules for standard and ad
hoc reporting and mapping are to be adapted, using user-friendly query formats. The scope of the
reports and maps should satisfy the primary information requirements identified in the review, and
permit flexible subsetting and grouping of data.

User's Documentation: All written presentations should be easily understandable to the users and
include a data dictionary, user's manual, technical manual and administrative manual.

Road Monitoring Procedures

Standardized procedures are to be developed for the collection of data of road inventory, pavement
structure and condition bridge inventory and condition bridge inventory and condition, traffic
volume and loading, and unit costs. The procedures are to be in accordance with the chosen
information quality level, and should include the method, equipment, sampling plan, and survey
frequency to be applied. The choices of procedure should be based on consideration of continued
sustainability, efficiency of the whole collection and entry process (e.g. use of electronic field data
logging), affordability (total collection costs should aim for a target of 0.3 percent and not exceed
0.5 percent of annual total highway expenditures), and an accuracy consistent with the IQL.

Particular considerations should include:

Road Inventory: The existing location reference method should be revised and one system adopted
for all roadway items. The inventory shall comprise all physical elements within the road reserve at
a specified level of detail. Curvature and gradient are to be measured continuously by instrument
and stored at intervals not greater than 30 m;

Pavement Roughness: Measurements are to be mechanical or electronic on all primary and

secondary roads, and calibrated to the International Roughness Index (IRI), and may on other roads
be controlled ratings expressed in terms of IRI;

Pavement Condition: On primary and secondary roads this shall include at least separate measures
of cracking, raveling, potholes, rutting, patching, edge state and surface texture on paved roads, and
rutting, potholes, corrugations and crown on unpaved roads. On tertiary roads single value measures
of condition related to an objectively defined scale may be used. Measurements should be
repeatable, with clear guidelines that permit reproducibility by different surveyors within a standard
variation of less than 10 percent for primary and secondary roads or 25 percent for tertiary roads.
The Ministry has in its possession a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD). This shall be serviced
and calibrated by the Consultant for use in gathering key pavement data related to pavement
strength and residual life for the RMMS.

Pavement Strength: Measurements are to be made by non-destructive methods on paved roads, and
two survey procedures are to be developed: 1) a stratified sample survey of the entire network to
provide initial pavement inventory information, and 2) a detailed survey for the preparation of
rehabilitation design projects. For unpaved roads, gravel thickness and subgrade soil classification
are to be classified using a sample technique;

Bridges: Basic inventory survey and routine condition inspections are to be made following an
established method;

Traffic: Monitoring procedures and locations should be reviewed. Control counts should be
automated; coverage and vehicle classification counts may be manual, and adjustments for seasonal

10 | P a g e
and daily fluctuations should be revised at least every three years by sample counts. Heavy vehicle
and axle load factors should be determined from sample axle load surveys, updated at least every
five years;

Unit Costs: Costs are to be a rolling average determined from an analysis of recent and current road
works contracts, in both financial and economic (without taxes and duties) terms, and vehicle
operating costs are to be determined by components suitable for use in the HDM-IV model.

Decision Model for Roads Works Programming

The model shall analyze data directly from the road data base and be capable of comparing
alternative maintenance strategies for all homogeneous pavement segments of the network on the
basis of a life-cycle technical-economic evaluation and generating a yearly program (of at least a
five years period) of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation and routine maintenance that
optimizes the net benefits within annual budget constraints. The model should utilize the principles
of life-cycle simulation and economic analysis embodied in the HDM-IV model, and may be
implemented by customizing available software or be custom-developed. The model should have
the following particular capabilities:

Technical analysis: A full life-cycle prediction of physical pavement deterioration and maintenance
effects under applicable environmental conditions, of traffic volume and loadings, of pavement
strength, and of vehicle speeds and operating costs as effected by road condition and characteristics
for bituminous-paved and unpaved roads;

Validation:
Where foreign technical models are used, their validity to local conditions is to be established, the
basic calibration is to be made using local field data, and recommendations are to be given on
further steps that are needed to complete the adaptation of the models;

Segmentation: Preliminary identification of road sections that are homogenous for analytical
purposes, and subsequent review to rationalize treatments of adjacent sections into segments that
are viable for implementation and into viable contract packages;

Economic Evaluation: Determination of cost streams over the analysis period for road works and
vehicle operating costs, and of standard economic criteria including present value of costs at
applicable discount rates, internal rate of return and first year benefits;

Optimization: A multi-year (of flexible period but at least five years), multi-section, multi option
optimization of net economic benefits with annual constraints on total budget, taking account of
committed and continuing projects;

Interaction: Facility for interactive refinement of the works program and budget by the user,
indicating the impact of individual adjustments on the costs, benefits and rate of return.

Routine Maintenance Management Sub-system

A maintenance management system for routine and periodic maintenance activities should be
developed/adapted to interface with the road programming model and to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of its operation. In particular, the reporting requirements, data processing and
feedback to implementation and budgeting should be enhanced.

Decision Model for Long-term Planning and Policy Development

11 | P a g e
The system shall include an option for the development/adaptation of a Planning and Policy model
to evaluate alternative policies and optimize the net economic benefits of all road expenditures over
a 10-year period for capital development and preservation of the network, including new
construction, road improvements and upgrading, road maintenance and rehabilitation, bridge
rehabilitation and replacement, and safety enhancement.

Implementation and Technology Transfer

The work is to be undertaken in four phases as follows:

Preliminary Phase: Review information needs, existing systems and data collection options, make
recommendations on a management and information system configuration, information quality
levels, data collection procedures and equipment, system capital and operating costs, and a
proposed implementation schedule.

Development/Adaptation Phase: Development/adaptation and inception of information subsystem,

road monitoring procedures, and decision models, comprising pilot demonstration and a completion
of systems to operational status.

Implementation Phase: Full-scale implementation for the primary, secondary and tertiary road
networks.

Operation Phase: Providing staff for the operation and updating the RMMS for a period of probably
five years, in two phases of three and two years, respectively. This part of the consultancy services
shall include physical updating of road performance data. It is anticipated that four man-months
plus casual field staff per annum can be allowed for this service; hence a carefully planned program
will be required. During these periods training of staff from the Technical Department in operating
the RMMS shall take place.

In each phase the consultant is to work closely with the Technical Department to ensure that the
system design meets Technical Department's requirements and that Technical Department will be
able to operate and maintain the system smoothly and effectively with its available resources.

Equipment
Procurement of equipment shall be discussed with and agreed by Technical Department beforehand.
Presently the Technical department has in its possession an unserviced FWD.

Obligations of the Consultant

The consultant shall include in his proposal the numbers and types of personnel and their periods of
employment, together with curricula vitae, that he needs to carry out the services required.
The consultant shall make his own arrangements for all living accommodation, transportation,
supplies, surveys, investigations, testing, secretarial services etc. in connection with the works.
The consultant shall include in his proposal a comprehensive description of the GIS based road
information management system and RMMS which he proposes to implement.

Obligations of the Department of Infrastructure, Ports and Energy (DIPE).

The Government will make available to the consultant all relevant reports and data in its possession,
but the consultant shall be fully responsible for the interpretation and use of the material in question
as well as for the conversion of available data into a form that can be used in the system he/she sets
up.

12 | P a g e
The Government will provide an office which shall serve as the future computer room and which
can be used by the consultant's staff.

The Government will liaise with other government offices as required in order to facilitate the
consultant's work.

Reports and Tentative Time Schedule

The consultant shall:

Commence his work within 30 days of the award of the contract (effective date of contract).

Within 120 days of the effective date of contract produce:

A completely Serviced and Functional FWD

A Data Collecting Rating Guide and Manual
Training Manual for Field Collection Staff
Quality Assurance Procedures
Data Collection Sheets and Equipment
Prioritize works based on set criteria and detailed network analysis
Detailed condition reports of all bridges
A prioritized work program for the bridge inventory
Prioritize bridge works based on set criteria
Submit a comprehensive report and a tentative program for the progressive development of
the full road management system.

Within 180 days of the effective date of contract ensure:

Implementation of software facilities to store the pavement condition survey data and
other related data in computerized files
Implementation of data validation and updating procedures and routines
Implementation of a GIS based road information management system which can:
- Produce detailed condition reports for the road network
- Produce and print statistical analyses (presented in both graphical and tabular form)
comparing the condition of selected roads with the overall road network
- Calculate costs of various maintenance strategies for improving the condition of roads
- Produce a map of the road network and display road segments in poor condition on the
Map
That a user manual for operating the segments of the highway management system
indicated above is in place.
Arc GIS installed at Central Unit and customized GIS at Divisions
Link with RMMS and BMMS data for visualization

Within 240 days ensure

Staff fully trained in the use of the FWD and inventory

13 | P a g e
 EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

Main Considerations

Technical proposals for consulting services are an intellectual product. Their evaluation
must be based on the professional judgment of the evaluators. A major consideration is to
ensure that this judgment is not exercised in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner.
Therefore, it is important that subjectivity be minimized to achieve the transparency,
consistency and fairness that should inform the exercise. One way of doing this is by
adopting a suitable rating system for the evaluation of technical proposals under the
criteria and sub criteria established in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
The information below provides detailed recommendations on good practices for rating
evaluation criteria (and sub criteria) and scoring various sections of the technical
proposal.

Rating System

The RFP specifies four general criteria to be used in the evaluation of the technical
proposals and the points (or weights) given to each of them. The responsiveness of a
proposal to the Terms of Reference (TOR) is determined by its responsiveness to the
criteria and sub criteria adopted for the evaluation indicated in the RFP.

The RFP should specify the sub criteria for the proposed professional staff, as well as
other adopted sub criteria, together with the points to be allocated to each of them for the
evaluation exercise. This approach has been adopted in the CVs of the professional staff.
The sub criteria to be used are General Qualifications, Specific Qualifications for the
Assignment/Similar Work undertaken, and Special Regional/Country experience.

In the RFP and, the points assigned to a particular criterion (or sub criterion) indicate the
maximum score (maximum number of points) that can be allocated to it when evaluating
a proposal. The actual score given represents the degree to which the proposal being
evaluated under that particular criterion (or sub criterion) meets the requirements, that is,
its level of responsiveness. The level of responsiveness for each criterion (and sub
criterion) is rated on a scale of 1 to 100.

Each committee member scores the technical proposals in two steps. First, the level of
responsiveness of the proposals to each of the criteria or sub criteria is rated on a
percentage scale. Second, each percentage rating is multiplied by the maximum number
of points assigned to the relevant criterion (or sub criterion) in the RFP to obtain the score
(% rating x maximum number of points = score). For example, the criterion Specific
experience of the consultant in the field of the assignment may have been allocated a
maximum of 10 points in the RFP. A proposal with a good level of responsiveness to this
criterion is given a 90 percent rating and therefore receives a score of 9 points.

14 | P a g e
To make the scoring easier and transparent, the rating scale of the level of responsiveness is usually
divided into a number of discrete grades. It is a good practice to give scores based on the following
grades: poor, satisfactory, good and very good. Prior to receiving the technical proposals, the
Evaluation Committee should agree on the definition of each grade for each criteria or (sub
criterion). That is, the committee should establish what will be considered poor, satisfactory, good
and very good. Since each of the criteria (or sub criteria) refers to a different aspect of the proposal,
the definition of grades will differ from one criterion to another.

Scoring technical proposals by this method offers the following advantages:

It provides the Evaluation Committee with a shared definition of the grades, thus
making the evaluation easier and comparable (this is particularly helpful for less
experienced evaluators)
It minimizes the risk of scoring inconsistencies and shows discretion.
It binds each committee member to justify his or her evaluation on the basis of a
common definition of grades, thus discouraging intentionally biased evaluations.
It adds transparency and fairness to the evaluation process.

Defining the grades is a difficult exercise that requires a thorough knowledge of the Terms of
Reference, the main technical issues to be covered by the consultancy assignment, and the
qualifications expected from the consultants. However, it is worth going to such trouble because it
may substantially improve the quality of the evaluation. Rating proposals without using agreed
upon predefined grades of responsiveness leaves the definition of the grades to each evaluator,
very likely making the scoring subjective and difficult to compare.

The following paragraphs illustrate how to select the rating grades and their definition. The
following chart represents a sample evaluation for one of the five main criteria specified in the
Standard RFP.

15 | P a g e
 EVALUATION OF QUALITY

RFP CRITERIA SUBCRITERIA GRADES % SCORE OF ADEQUACY

RATING OF METHODOLOGY &
WORK PLAN

Specific Experience Poor 40
of the Consultant
20 Points Technical Approach Satisfactory 70 10 x 70% 7
& Methodology
10 points Good 90

Adequacy of Metho- Very Good 100
dology & Work Plan
25 Points Poor 40

Satisfactory 70
Management Plan/ Work Plan
Work Plan 8 Points Good 90 8 x 90% 7.2
20 Points
Very Good 100

Qualification and Poor 40 7 x 40% 2.8
Experience of personnel
proposed Organisation & Satisfactory 70
35 points Staffing
10 Points Good 90

Very Good 100
17

16 | P a g e
Page 17 of 25

Specific Experience of the Consultant

Rating Scale

The RFP allows a maximum of 20 points to be allocated to the specific experience of

the firm. The grades indicated in Table 1 are recommended for percentage ratings
related to the evaluation of this criterion.

Table 1

Typical percentage rating for Firms Experience

Grade (level of Rating

responsiveness)
Satisfactory 70%
Good 90%
Very Good 100%

Aspects to Consider for the Evaluation

The Committee should consider the following aspects in evaluating the

relevant experience of the engineering consultants: -

Experience in Similar Projects: Evidence of having successfully carried out similar

assignments.

Experience in Similar Areas and Conditions: The consultants have worked in

regions or countries with physical, cultural, social and institutional characteristics
comparable to those of the country of the assignment.

Size, Size, Organization, and Management: The consultants have the capacity, e.g.,
staff, organization and managerial skills, to carry out the assignment. For some
assignments, consider how long the consultants have been established.

Defining the Grades

Since sub criteria have not been provided for the specific experience of the
engineering consultants, the specific experience shall be evaluated as a whole using
the grades set out in Table 1. An example of the definition of these grades based on
the specifics listed in para.

17 | P a g e
Page 18 of 25

1.2.2 is given below (definitions may differ from case to case depending on the
characteristics of the assignment).

Satisfactory: The consultants have relevant experience in the field of the

assignment but have not dealt with critical issues specific to the assignment.
The consultants are fully experienced in the use of standard approaches and
methodologies required for the assignment. The consultants permanent staff is
adequate.

Good: The consultants have extensive experience in the field of the assignment
and have worked in countries with similar physical and institutional
conditions, including similar critical issues. Permanent staff is adequate and
highly specialized to cover the needs of the assignment. The consultants have
experience with advanced approaches and methodologies for dealing with the
specific requirements of the assignment.

Very Good: The consultants have outstanding, state-of-the-art expertise in

assignments similar to the one being considered. Quality and composition of
the consultants staff easily cover the needs of the assignment and ensure an
excellent level of backstopping, and consultants staff includes top experts in
the field of the assignment. The consultants are considered specialists in the
approaches and methodologies dealing with specific issues of the assignment.
The consultants operate according to well-established QM procedures.

Ratings should not be too rigid. In the likely event that a firm does not satisfy
all the conditions set forth in one of the grade definitions, but that particular
grade appears to reflect the overall specific experience of the firm better than
the lower grade, the upper grade may be assigned.

If in exceptional circumstances, the Evaluating Committee wants to take into

account the possibility that a firm with less than satisfactory specific experience
is short listed, it may decide to include in Table 1 an additional grade (poor)
with a rating of or about 40%. Such decision should be made at the time of
definition of the rating system and in any case before the opening of the
proposals.

Adequacy of Methodology
Rating Scale

The RFP allocates 25 points to this criterion. The grades indicated in Table 2
are recommended for percentage ratings related to the evaluation of this
criterion.

18 | P a g e
Page 19 of 25

Table 2

Typical percentage rating for

Methodology
Grade (level of responsiveness) Rating
Poor 40%
Satisfactory 70%
Good 90%
Very Good 100%

The lowest grade is 40% instead of zero because: -

A zero rating is not realistic, since it would imply that the consultant has
not responded at all to the proposal under this criterion;

A zero rating given to a poor methodology may hardly be compensated even by

high scores in the remaining criteria. This could lead to the rejection of a proposal
that is attractive under all its other aspects.

In a case that the proposal appears to be unacceptable under this criterion,

i.e. it doesnt deserve to be rated poor, it may be non responsive.
Aspects to Consider for the Evaluation

The committee evaluates the quality and the adequacy of the proposed methodology
by considering such aspects as:-
Understanding of the Objectives of the Assignment: The extent to which the
consultants technical approach respond to the objectives indicated in the
TOR.
Completeness and Responsiveness: Does the proposal respond exhaustively to all
the requirements of the TOR.
Clarity: Are the various elements coherent and decision points well defined?
Flexibility and Adaptability: Is the methodology flexible and easy to adapt to
changes that might occur during implementation of the assignment? This aspect is
especially relevant when the assignment takes place in potentially changing
environments.
Technology: Does the methodology propose the use of appropriate technologies
and the adoption of innovative solutions?
Logistics: If the consultants have to work at remote sites, the consultants approach
to logistics could also be considered.

An example of the definition of the four grades in Table 2 for the criterion listed
above may include the following (definitions may differ from case to case
depending on the characteristics of the assignment).

19 | P a g e
Page 20 of 25

Adequacy of Methodology

Poor: The method of approach to carry out important activities indicated in the TOR
are inappropriate or very poorly presented, indicating that the consultant has
misunderstood important aspects of the scope of work.

Satisfactory: The way to carry out the different activities of the TOR is discussed
generically. The approach is standard and not specifically tailored to the assignment.
Although the method of approach is suitable, it does not include a discussion on how the
consultant proposes to deal with critical characteristics of the assignment.

Good: The proposed method of approach is discussed in lull detail, and is specifically
tailored to the characteristics of the assignment and flexible enough to allow its adaptation
to changes that may occur during execution of the services.

Very Good: In addition to the definition given above in good, important issues are
approached in an efficient way, indicating that the consultants have understood the main
issues of the project and have outstanding knowledge of new solutions. The proposal
discusses in detail ways to improve the results and the quality of the assignment by using
state-of-the-art approaches, methodologies and knowledge.

Management Plan/Work Plan

This includes the implementation schedule/bar chart of activities as these relate to the
TOR, and the organization & staffing to support the implementation schedule.

Rating Scale

The RFP allows a maximum of 20 points to be allocated to the management plan.

The grades indicated in Table 3 are recommended for percentage ratings related to
the evaluation of this criterion.

20 | P a g e
Page 21 of 25

Table 3
Typical percentage rating for Management Plan/
Work Plan
Grade (level of responsiveness) Rating
Poor 40%
Satisfactory 70%
Good 90%
Very Good 100%

The lowest grade is 40 percent instead of zero for reasons similar to those described
in subpara.1.3.1.

Aspects to Consider for the Evaluation

Efficiency and Resource Utilization: Is the staff schedule appropriate?

Timeliness of Output: Does the propose implementation schedule provide the requested
outputs in a timely manner?
Will the activities be implemented in a timely manner?
Is there a specific start and a specific end point? Or is the implementation schedule open-
ended?
Is the timing and duration of each activity well portrayed and in sequence?

Defining the Grades

Since sub criteria have not been provided for the management plan/work plan, this
criterion shall be evaluated as a whole using the grades set out in Table 3. An example
of the definition of these grades based on the specifics listed in para. 1.4.2 is given
below (definitions may differ from case to case depending on the characteristics of the
assignment).

a) Management Plan

Poor: The organization chart is sketchy; the staffing plan is weak in important areas;
and the staffing schedule is inconsistent with the timing of the most important outputs of
the assignment. There is no clarity in allocation of tasks and responsibilities. The proposed
specialists have never worked together as a team. The implementation schedule is not well
defined. The timing of the outputs is open-ended.

Satisfactory: The organization chart is complete and detailed; the technical level
and
composition of the staffing arrangements are adequate; and staffing is consistent with both

21 | P a g e
Page 22 of 25

timing and assignment outputs. The implementation schedule is reasonably well defined.

Good: In addition to the definition above in satisfactory, staff is very- well

balanced,, that is, showing good coordination, clear and detailed definition of duties and
responsibilities, not too many short-term experts, not too many generalists, precise
matching of staff skills and needs, and efficient logistic support. The members of the
project team have worked together before to some extent. The implementation schedule is
well defined.

Very Good: l3esides meeting all the features for a good rating, the proposed team is
integrated and the members have worked together extensively in the past. The proposal
contains a detailed discussion demonstrating that the consultants have optimized the use
and deployment of staff from the point of view of efficiency and economy, based on the
proposed logistics. The implementation schedule indicates that the requested outputs will
be provided in a timely manner.

b) Work Plan

Poor: The work plan omits important tasks; the timing of activities find correlation
among them is inconsistent with the proposed method of approach. There is lack of clarity
and logic in the sequencing.

Satisfactory: All key activities are included in the work plan, but they are not detailed,
there are minor inconsistencies between timing, assignment outputs and proposed
approach.

Good: The work plan fits the TOR well; all important activities are indicated in the
work plan, their timing is appropriate and consistent with the assignment outputs; and the
interrelation between the various activities is realistic and consistent with the proposed
approach. There is a fair degree of detail that facilitates understanding of the proposed
work plan.

Very Good: In addition to the definition given above in good, decision points are
well defined and the sequence and timing of activities are very well-defined, indicating
that the consultants have optimized the use of resources. A specific chapter of the proposal
explains the work plan in relation to the proposed approach. The work plan permits
flexibility to accommodate contingencies.

Qualifications and Experience of the personnel proposed

Rating Scale

22 | P a g e
Page 23 of 25

The RFP allocates 35 points to the Qualifications and Experience of Professional

Staff. The grades indicated in Table 4 are recommended for percentage ratings
related to the evaluation of the proposed Professional Staff.
Table 4

Typical percentage rating for

Qualifications and Experience of Personnel Proposed

Grade (level of responsiveness) Rating

Poor 40%
Satisfactory 70%
Good 90%
Very Good 100%

The lowest grade is 40 percent instead of zero for reasons similar to those described in
subpara. 1.3.1.
Grades in Table 4 apply to both individual staff members and to members grouped by
discipline (or activity) when interdisciplinary weighting is required. When evaluating staff; it is
recommended that only those proposed for key positions should be considered. Junior or
clerical staff shall not be evaluated.

Aspects to Consider for the Evaluation

The committee should evaluate key staff by considering the following aspects:-

General Qualifications. It is important to consider the number of years of professional

experience of the consultants in the field to which they are assigned. For evaluation
purposes, the value of previous university education diminishes with age. Experts with
more than 10 years experience should be evaluated on their current position and the
level of responsibility entrusted to them in previous projects, rather than on their
acquired university degrees. Since experience accumulates with age, staff members
who are 60 years or older are often satisfactorily employed on complex or sensitive
assignments. Long-term experience in consulting assignments may be advantageous
but evaluators should not give points, to older candidates when age is not especially
relevant for the assignment. When knowledge of recent approaches, methodologies,
and technologies is critical, younger experts may be preferable.

Specific Qualifications for the Assignment/Similar Work Undertaken. Is the expert

suitable for the job and has he or she recently held similar positions? Has the
proposed team leader been a successful team leader before, and has the team leader
been proposed mainly because of leadership or professional skills? How well do the
knowledge and skills of the staff offered meet the needs of the assignment?
Appropriate capabilities, adequate professional skills and experience should always be

23 | P a g e
Page 24 of 25

the key evaluation aspects.

Evaluation Using the Four Sub criteria specified in the RFP

The qualifications and experience of key staff shall be evaluated using the following
four sub criteria specified in the RFP:

a) General Qualifications
b) Specific Qualifications for the Assignment/Similar Work Undertaken
c) Special Regional/Country Experience

Under each of these sub criteria, individual staff members are evaluated using the
grades in Table 4. The Evaluation Committee shall determine for each of the three sub
criteria the definition of each of the grades indicated. Such definitions should be based
on the qualifications listed in subpara. 1.5.2.
An example of the definition of the four grades in Table 4 for each of the three sub criteria
listed above may include the following:-
a) General Qualifications

Poor: The proposed expert has less experience than that specified in the RFP or less than
5 years of relevant experience.

Satisfactory: The proposed expert has 5 years or more of overall working experience
relevant to the assignment, with relevant academic education and training.

Good: The proposed expert has more than 10 years of overall working experience; a
substantial part of that experience relates to consulting assignments similar to the one in
question; the experts professional achievements, e.g., position within the firm and level
of responsibility, have steadily increased over time.

Very Good: The proposed specialist has more than 15 years of specialized experience in
the field of the assignment and is recognized as a top expert in his/her specialty. He/she is
filly up to date in the state of the art of the concerned discipline.

b) Adequacy for the Assignment

Poor: The proposed expert has never or only occasionally worked in a position
similar. To the one required under the assignment. His/her qualifications do not
match closely the assigned position, e.g., the position requires a highly experienced
project manager, whereas a relatively junior professional with brief experience is
proposed.

24 | P a g e
Page 25 of 25

Satisfactory: The experience of the proposed expert fits the assigned position; in the
past 5 years or more he/she has successfully held positions similar to the one
proposed for the assignment in at least one project of a similar nature. His/her skills
(either professional or managerial as the proposed position may require) are adequate
for the job.

Good: The qualifications of the expert are suitable for the proposed position; over
the past 5 years he she has held several similar positions in similar assignments;
his/her skills (either professional or managerial) are fully consistent with the
position and characteristics of the assignment.

Very Good: In addition to the definition under good, the expert has qualifications
and experience that exceed substantially the requirements for positions similar to the
one being considered.

c) Special Regional/Country Experience

Poor: The proposed expert has never or only occasionally worked in countries similar
to the one of the assignment, and his/her knowledge of English is insufficient to
properly communicate orally and in writing.

Satisfactory: The expert has worked in countries with cultural, administrative and
governmental organizations similar to the one of the assignment; his/her knowledge of
English is adequate.

Good: In recent years, the expert has worked in countries similar to the one of the
assignment; and he/she is fluent in English.

Very Good: In addition to the above definition of good, the expert has detailed direct
knowledge of the country and the language through years of professional work in that
country.

25 | P a g e