As you might have seen in the other Insights, getting your requirements straight maybe tiresome, you
might need to organise and conduct an Open Market Consultation and might even get frustrated on
the way because you most likely will come to a point where you have the imminent urge to cancel the
entire procedure and just do something fun instead. We’ve all been there. So, today, let’s talk about a
time when a huge chunk of work has been done: The evaluation of your tenders.
If we had to name five key aspects that you assess during a PCP tender evaluation, we would go for the
following list:
- Relevance to the objectives: Evaluate how well the tender addresses the specific goals and
challenges outlined in your PCP call. The applicant should demonstrate a clear understanding
of the problem and offer solutions that are directly aligned with your PCP’s needs. - Technical feasibility and quality: Assess the technical soundness of the proposed solution. This
includes the feasibility of the approach, the robustness of the methodology, and the likelihood
of achieving the desired outcomes within the project timeline. - Innovation and quality: Determine the level of innovation presented in the tender. The tenderer
should offer novel ideas and/or approaches that go beyond the current state of the art,
providing added value and potential breakthroughs in the field. - Capability and expertise: Examine the qualifications, experience, and competencies of the
team behind the tender. - Value for money: Consider the cost-effectiveness of the proposal. Evaluate whether the
proposed budget is reasonable and provides good value in relation to the benefits and
outcomes expected.
We think it’s safe to end here; there is nothing more to say. Or is there?
Of course there is:
Keep the evaluation in mind when writing tender documents
When crafting your tender documents, it’s essential to consider the evaluation process from the outset.
That usually helps you to set requirements that are not only clear and reasonably concise but also in
some way measurable, making life easier for both evaluators and potential suppliers.
Decide on the granularity and weighting of your evaluation criteria
Eventually, you’ll have to translate your requirements into a set of clear evaluation criteria to include in
the tender documents. You will have choices to make regarding the granularity of your evaluation
criteria: Does every single requirement get assigned a weight, or does it make more sense to group
requirements and assign weights per group?
Consider the complexity of your requirements and the objectives of your evaluation process to decide
which method – or combination of methods – will provide the most effective and fair assessment of the
tenders. Often, a blended approach works best.
Assemble an evaluation committee with relevant expertise in due time before the evaluation starts
Internal evaluation committee vs. external evaluation committee
Why choose an internal evaluation committee? Internal evaluation committee members might be more
familiar with the procurement objectives – and the context within which the PCP operates. They can
provide a sort of continuity throughout the procurement process, especially if they’ve been involved in
earlier stages, e.g., in drafting the tender documents or being part of the requirements engineering
group (which you did have, right?). Costs are lower since internal staff are already on the payroll.
However, internal staff usually have other duties, which may limit their capacity to dedicate sufficient
time to the evaluation.
An intermediate model is an internal evaluation committee with an added expert board or technical
panel supporting the evaluation committee.
There is one important thing to make sure before you start into the evaluation, regardless of the approach you choose: make sure that no member of your evaluation committee or any supplementary board has a conflict of interest – none whatsoever. In most cases potential conflicts become apparent only after the tenders have been opened. Discovering even a potential conflict too late can seriously affect the timeline of your evaluations.
Document everything thoroughly!
Documenting everything thoroughly during the tender phase and evaluation is crucial for several
reasons. In a PCP, where lessons learnt from previous phases (and evaluations!) can help shape the call-off tender documents, documenting what worked (and, obviously, what didn’t) helped us in making the tendering procedures smoother, more efficient, and less prone to issues.
It helps to think of thorough documentation less as a bureaucratic burden and more of a survival tool –
it will be your safety net, your evidence and, to introduce a whopping bit of pathos, your saving grace.
Consistent communication
One aspect of transparency is to communicate consistently. What exactly do we have in mind?
- Provide a clear explanation of the evaluation process in the tender documents.
- If you made changes to your tender documents, let users know about the changes.
- Provide clear contact information for queries throughout the process.
- Allow a period for tenderers to submit questions and share response with all participants.
- Keep records of all communications – between tenderers ( and later suppliers) and procurers and make all information equally available to all tenderers / suppliers to prevent misinformation.
Scoring is only half the work
After each round of evaluation, it’s good practice to offer evaluation summaries explaining to
unsuccessful tenderers why their proposals were not selected. Prepare your evaluation committee to not only assign scores but also to provide one or two sentences explaining what led them to these scores.
The same applies to successful tenderers: by providing meaningful insights into the strengths and
weaknesses of their proposals, you help them to improve their offers for the next phases.
Quality and innovation in a proposal
Innovation should always directly address the challenges outlined in the tender documents and not
overcomplicate the solution. Innovation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. Full stop.
Evaluation IPR is not always an easy task
To simplify the evaluation process, think about using an IPR framework template, taking into account
foreground IP ownership (they basically need to confirm the PCP rule that the supplier retains all IPR),
usage rights for procurers, clearly defined terms for licensing rights (e.g. internal use, testing, pilot
deployments, sublicensing), and access to background IPR.
Typically, IPR aspects can feel a bit shadowy in the beginning stages of PCP, largely because no product
exists yet. In our experience, tools like an IPR framework template or escrow agreements can add a bit of
clarity and confidence to the process.
Closing remarks
While PCPs come with unique challenges, they also unlock opportunities to drive innovation in public procurement, particularly within healthcare. By learning from past experiences and tailoring approaches to the nuances of PCPs, we can collectively enhance procurement strategies, yielding better outcomes for both procurers and end-users — patients whose lives these innovations are ultimately meant to improve.
If you liked this article and want to know more, don’t miss the Procure4Health Insight #7. Key aspects to consider when evaluating the offers in your PCP tender. It can be found on the Procure4Health Community platform.
Join our Community and enjoy the reading!
