THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

[Indicate name of Procuring Entity]

SAMPLE FORM OF EVALUATION REPORT

SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS

Subject of Procurement:

Procurement Reference Number:

Procurement Method:

Date of Issue: October, 2007

 iii

This evaluation report includes five sections:

Section I. A Short Report Summarizing the Findings of the Technical Evaluation;

Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms;
Section III. A Short Report Summarizing the Findings of the Financial Evaluation;
Section IV. Financial Evaluation Report—Forms;
Section V. Annexes:
Annex I. Individual Evaluations;
Annex II. Information Data Monitoring;
Annex III. Minutes of the Public Opening of the Financial Proposals;
Annex IV. Copy of the Request for Proposals;
Annex V. Miscellaneous Annexes—Ad Hoc.

The report can be used for all methods of selection described in the Manual of
Procedure. Though it mainly addresses Quality- and Cost-Based Selection, each section
contains a note indicating the data and forms that are to be provided for the other methods of
selection.
 v

Contents

Section I. Technical Evaluation Report—Text ..........................................................................1

Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms .......................................................................3
Form IIA. Technical Evaluation - Basic Data .............................................................4
Form IIB. Evaluation Summary ..................................................................................8
Form IIC. Individual Evaluations—Comparison ........................................................9
Section III. Financial Evaluation Report—Award Recommendation—Text............................11
Section IV. Financial Evaluation Report—Award Recommendation—Forms ........................13
Form IVA. Financial Evaluation—Basic Data ...........................................................14
Form IVB. Adjustments—Currency Conversion—Evaluated Prices.........................16
Form IVC. QCBS—Combined Technical/Financial Evaluation—Award
Recommendation......................................................................................17
Form IVD. Fixed-Budget and Least-Cost Selection—Award Recommendation .......18
Section V. Annexes ..................................................................................................................19
Annex I(i). Individual Evaluations .............................................................................20
Annex I(ii). Individual Evaluations—Key Personnel ..................................................21
Annex II. Information Data Monitoring ...................................................................22
Annex III. Minutes of Public Opening of Financial Proposals ..................................23
Annex IV. Request for Proposals ...............................................................................24
Annex V. Miscellaneous Annexes—Ad Hoc ...........................................................24
 1

Section I. Technical Evaluation Report—Text1

1. Background Include a brief description, context, scope, and objectives of the

services. Use about a quarter of a page.

2. The Selection Elaborate on information provided in Form IIA.

Process (Prior to
Technical Describe briefly the selection process, beginning with the advertising
Evaluation) (if required), the establishment of the shortlist, expressions of
interest, and withdrawals of firms before proposal submissions.
Describe major events that may have affected the timing (delays,
complaints from consultants, key correspondence with the Bank,
Request for Proposals (RFP), extension of proposal submission date,
and so on).

Use about one-half to one page.

3. Technical Describe briefly the meetings and actions taken by the evaluation
Evaluation committee: formation of a technical evaluation team, outside
assistance, evaluation guidelines, justification of subcriteria and
associated weightings as indicated in the Standard Request for
Proposals; relevant correspondence with any concerned funding
International Development Institution; and compliance of evaluation
with the provisions of the Request For Proposals.

Present results of the technical evaluation: scores and the award

recommendation.

Highlight strengths and weaknesses of each proposal (most important

part of the report).

(a) Strengths: Experience in very similar projects in the

country; quality of the methodology, proving a clear
understanding of the scope of the assignment; strengths
of the local partner; and experience of proposed staff in
similar assignments.

(b) Weaknesses: Of a particular component of the proposal;

of a lack of experience in the country; of a low level of
participation by the local partner; of a lack of practical

1
Section I applies to Quality- and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS), Quality-Based Selection (Quality-Based),
Fixed-Budget Selection (Fixed-Budget), and Least-Cost Selection (Least-Cost). Provide appropriate
information in the case of Selection Based on Qualifications (Qualifications) and Single-Source Selection
(SS).
2 Section I. Technical Evaluation Report—Text

experience (experience in studies rather than in

implementation); of staff experience compared to the
firm’s experience; of a key staffer (e.g., the team leader);
of a lack of responsiveness; and of disqualifications
(conflict of interest).

Comment on individual evaluators’ scores (discrepancies).

Items requiring further negotiations.

Use up to three pages.

 3

Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms2

Form IIA. Technical Evaluation—Basic Data

Form IIB. Evaluation Summary—Technical Scores/Ranking

Form IIC. Individual Evaluations—Comparison (Average Scores)

2
Section II applies to Quality- and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS), Quality-Based Selection (Quality-Based),
Fixed-Budget Selection (Fixed-Budget), and Least-Cost Selection (Least-Cost). Supply appropriate data in
cases of Selection Based on Qualifications (Qualifications) and Single-Source Selection (Single-Source) in
Form IIA.
4 Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms

Form IIA. Technical Evaluation - Basic Data

2.1 Name of country THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

Name of Project
Source of funding

2.2 The Procuring entity:

(a) name
(b) address, phone, facsimile
(c) Name of the key person in
charge of the procedure

2.3 Type of assignment (brief

description):

2.4 Method of selection3: QCBS ___ Quality-Based ___

Fixed-Budget ___ Least-Cost ___
Qualifications ___ Single-Source ___

2.5 Request for expressions of interest4:

(a) publication: mention the media, ____________________________________
newspaper.

(b) number of responses

2.6 Shortlist:
(a) names/nationality and legal 1.
status of firms/associations 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

2.7 Amendments and clarifications to

the Request For Proposals (describe)

3
See Manual of Procedures.
4
Required for large contracts (see Manual of Procedures).
Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms 5

2.10 Type of Contract:

(a) Standard Time-Based Yes ____
Price adjustment: Yes_____ No ______
(b) Standard Lump Sum Yes____
Price adjustment: Yes_____ No ______
(c) other (describe)

2.11 Pre-proposal conference: Yes No

(a) minutes issued Yes No

2.12 Proposal submission:

(a) two envelopes (technical and
financial proposals) Yes
(b) one envelope (technical) Yes
(c) original submission Date Time
(d) extensions(s) Date Time

2.13 Submission of Financial Proposal Location

2.14 Opening of Technical Proposals by

selection committee Date Time

2.15 Number of proposals submitted

2.16 Evaluation committee5:

Members’ names and titles 1.
(normally three to five) 2.
3.
4.
5.

2.17 Proposal validity period (days):

(a) original expiration date Date Time
(b) extension(s), if any Date Time

2.18 Evaluation Criteria/subcriteria6:

(a) Consultants’ experience
(i) Weight

5
It is important that evaluators be qualified.
6
Maximum of three subcriteria per criterion.
6 Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms

(ii) Weight

(b) methodology
(i) Weight
(ii) Weight

(c) key staff

(i) individual(s)
(A) _____________ Weight
(B) _____________ Weight
(C) _____________ Weight
(ii) group(s)
(A) _____________ Weight
(B) _____________ Weight
(C) _____________ Weight

(d) training (optional)

(i) Weight
(ii) Weight

(e) local input (optional)

(i) Weight
(ii) Weight
Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms 7

2.19 Technical scores by Consultant Minimum qualifying score

Consultants’ names and legal status Technical scores

1.
2.
3.
4.
 Form IIB. Evaluation Summary

Technical Scores/Ranking
[Insert name of [Insert name of [Insert name of [Insert name of
Consultants’ names Consultant 1] Consultant 2] Consultant 3] Consultant 4]

Criteria Scores Scores Scores Scores

Experience

Methodology

Proposed staff

Training

Local input

Total scorea

Rank

a. Proposals scoring below the minimum qualifying score of [number] points have been rejected.
 Form IIC. Individual Evaluations—Comparison

[Insert name of [Insert name of [Insert name of [Insert name of

Consultants’ Names Consultant 1] Consultant 2] Consultant 3] Consultant 4]
Criteria
Experience

Methodology

Key staff

Training

Local input

Total

a. A, B, C, and D = scores given by evaluators; AV = average score, see Annex I(i).

10 Section II. Technical Evaluation Report—Forms
 11

Section III. Financial Evaluation Report—Award

Recommendation—Text7

[The text will indicate:

(a) any issues faced during the evaluation, such as difficulty in obtaining the
exchange rates to convert the prices into the common currency used for
evaluation purposes;

(b) adjustments made to the prices of the proposal(s) (mainly to ensure consistency
with the technical proposal) and determination of the evaluated price (does not
apply to Quality-Based (Quality-Based), Selection Based on Qualifications
(Qualifications), and Single-Source Selection (Single-Source));

(c) tax-related problems;

(d) award recommendation; and

(e) any other important information.

Taxes are not taken into account in the financial evaluation whereas reimbursables are.]

7
Applies to QCBS, Fixed-Budget, and Least-Cost. For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source
provide relevant information as indicated.
 13

Section IV. Financial Evaluation Report—Award

Recommendation—Forms8

Form IVA. Financial Evaluation—Basic Data

Form IVB. Adjustments—Currency Conversion—Evaluated Prices

Form IVC. QCBS—Combined Technical/Financial Evaluation—Award Recommendation

Form IVD. Fixed-Budget and Least-Cost Selection—Award Recommendation

8
Applies to QCBS, Fixed-Budget, and Least-Cost. For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source,
provide relevant information as indicated.
14 Section IV. Financial Evaluation Report—Award Recommendation—Forms

Form IVA. Financial Evaluation—Basic Data

4.1 Public opening of financial

proposals Date Time
(a) Names and proposal prices 1.
(mark Consultants that 2.
attended public opening) 3.
4.

4.2 Evaluation committee: members’

names and titles (if not the same as
in the technical evaluation - Quality-
Based, Qualifications, Single-
Source)

4.3 Methodology (formula) for

evaluation of cost

4.4 QCBS Consultant’ Technical Financial Final

(a) Technical, financial and final Name scores scores scores
scores (Quality-Based:
technical scores only)

(b) Award recommendation

4.5 Fixed Budget and Least-Cost Consultant’ Technical Proposal Evaluated

(a) Technical scores, proposal and Name scores prices prices
evaluated prices
Section VI. Financial Evaluation—Award Recommendation—Forms 15

(b) Award recommendation

(c) Fixed-Budget: best technical
proposal within the budget
(evaluated price) Name
(d) Least-Cost: lowest evaluated
price proposal above
minimum qualifying score Name
 Form IVB. Adjustments—Currency Conversion—Evaluated Prices9

Evaluated Conversion to currency of evaluationc Financial

a b
Proposals’ prices Adjustments price(s) scoresd
e
Consultants’ Amounts Exchange rate(s) Proposals’ prices
Names Currency (1) (2) (3) = (1) + (2) (4) (5) = (3)(4) (6)

a. Comments, if any (e.g., exchange rates); three foreign currencies maximum, plus local currency.
b. Arithmetical errors and omissions of items included in the technical proposals. Adjustments may be positive or negative.
c. As per RFP.
d. 100 points to the lowest evaluated proposal; other scores to be determined in accordance with provisions of RFP.
e. Value of one currency unit in the common currency used for evaluation purposes, normally the local currency (e.g., US$1 = 30 rupees).
Indicate source as per RFP.

9
For Quality-Based, Qualifications, and Single-Source, fill out only up to column 3.
 Form IVC. QCBS—Combined Technical/Financial Evaluation—Award Recommendation

Technical Financial
Evaluation Evaluation Combined Evaluation
Technical Weighted Financial Weighted
scoresa scores Technical scoresc scores Scores
Consultants’ names S(t) S(t)  Tb rank S(f) S(f)  Fd S(t) T + S(f) F Rank

Award recommendation To highest combined technical/financial score.

Consultant’s name: _____________________________________

a. See Form IIB.

b. T = As per RFP.
c. See Form IVB.
d. F = as per RFP.
 Form IVD. Fixed-Budget and Least-Cost Selection—Award Recommendation10

Fixed-Budget Selection Least-Cost Selection

Consultants’ names Technical scoresa Evaluated pricesb Technical scores Evaluated prices

Award recommendation To best technical score with evaluated price within To lowest evaluated price above minimum qualifying
budget. score.
Consultant’s name: Consultant’s name:

a. See Form IIB.

b. See Form IVB.

10
Fill in appropriate part of form.
 19

Section V. Annexes11

Annex I. Individual Evaluations

Form V Annex I(i). Individual Evaluations

Form V Annex I(ii). Individual Evaluations—Key Personnel

Annex II. Information Data Monitoring

Annex III. Minutes of Public Opening of Financial Proposals

Annex IV. Request for Proposals

Annex V. Miscellaneous Annexes—Ad Hoc

11
Annex I applies to Quality-Based, Fixed-Budget and Least-Cost. For Qualifications and Single-Source, it is
replaced by a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, which may be amended by one or
several evaluators.
20 Section V. Annexes

Annex I (i). Individual Evaluations

Consultant’s name: _________________________

Evaluators
Criteria/Sub-Criteria Maximum 1 2 3 4 5 Average
Scores Scores
Experience
-
-
-

Methodology
-
-
-

Key Staff
-
-
-

Transfer of Knowledge (Traininga)

-
-
-

Participation by Nationalsa
-
-
-

Total 100
a. If specified in the RFP

1. Evaluator’s Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: _________

2. Evaluator’s Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: _________
3. Evaluator’s Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: _________
4. Evaluator’s Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: _________
5. Evaluator’s Name: ______________________ Signature: __________________ Date: _________
Section V. Annexes 21

Annex I(ii) Individual Evaluations—Key Personnel

Consultant’s Name: ____________________________

Key Staff Namesa Maximum General Adequacy Experience Total Scores

Scores Qualifications for the in Region Marks
Assignment
( )b ( )b ( )b (100)

Total

a. Sometimes evaluations are made by groups instead of individuals. Each group (e.g. financial group) has a
weight. The group score is obtained by the weighted scores of the members of the group. For example, the
score of a group of three individuals scoring a, b, and c would be ax + by + cz with x, y, and z representing
the respective weights of the members (x + y + z = 1) in this group.
b. Maximum marks as per RFP

Name of Evaluator: _______________ Signature: _________________ Date: ___________

22 Section V. Annexes

Annex II. Information Data Monitoring

5.1 Loan/credit/grant
(a) number
(b) date of effectiveness
(c) closing date
(i) original
(ii) revised

5.2 General Procurement Notice

(a) first issue date
(b) latest update

5.3 Request for expressions of

interest12:
(a) publication in United Nations Date
Development Business (UNDB)
(b) publication in national local Name of newspaper(s) and date(s)
newspaper(s)

5.4 Did the use of price as a factor of

selection change the final ranking?13 Yes No

5.5 Did the use of “local input” as a

factor of selection change the
technical ranking?14 Yes No

12
Required for large contracts (see Manual of Procedures).
13
Compare technical rank with rank in Form IVC.
14
Figure out technical scores with and without “local input” (Form IIB).
Section V. Annexes 23

Annex III. Minutes of Public Opening of Financial Proposals15

MINUTES

[The minutes should indicate the names of the participants in the proposal opening session,
the proposal prices, discounts, technical scores, and any details that the Procuring entity, at
its discretion, may consider appropriate.

All attendees must sign the Minutes.]

15
Annex III applies to QCBS, Fixed-Budget, and Least-Cost.
24 Section V. Annexes

Annex IV. Miscellaneous Annexes—Ad Hoc