Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LUCIA
Ministry of Infrastructure, Ports, Energy and Labour
Department of Infrastructure, Ports and Energy
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR
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:
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:
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
Scope of Work
The following tasks shall be undertaken:
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Commence his work within 30 days of the award of the contract (effective date of contract).
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
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.
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
16 | P a g e
Page 17 of 25
Rating Scale
Table 1
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
22 | P a g e
Page 23 of 25
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.
The committee should evaluate key staff by considering the following aspects:-
23 | P a g e
Page 24 of 25
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.
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.
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