Appendix 5 - Additional guidance on evaluating bids and proposals

1. Purpose
2. Context
3. Considerations for establishing evaluation criteria
4. Application of selection methodologies
5. Using this document
- Annex 1: Evaluating proposals
- Annex 2: Evaluating bids

1. Purpose

This appendix provides additional guidance on establishing evaluation criteria and applying selection methodology to support the implementation of Section 7.7 of the Policy on tendering for First Nations' federally funded capital projects (tendering policy).

2. Context

The tendering policy requires project owners to develop clear criteria and methodology for evaluating bids and proposals for capital projects funded by ISC through the Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program (CFMP) and First Nations Infrastructure Fund (FNIF) authorities, and include them in calls for tenders and calls for proposals. Section 7.7.3 of the tendering policy outlines the various selection methodologies that may be used to evaluate bids and proposals.

3. Considerations for establishing evaluation criteria

Pursuant to section 7.7 of the tendering policy, price must be evaluated for every bid and proposal. Sections 7.7.1 and 7.7.2 the tendering policy provide examples of other mandatory and technical criteria that may be used to evaluate bids and proposals and award contracts.

When establishing evaluation criteria, projects owners should:

if applicable, allocate weights to each of the selected technical evaluation criteria, according to their relative importance in meeting the project's needs
if applicable, include a rationale for the weight assigned to the technical evaluation criteria and the price, in the call for tenders or call for proposals
apply the best practices described in sections 10.1 and 19.3 of Appendix 4 – Best practices to support the implementation of the tendering policy when assembling an evaluation committee and conducting the administrative and technical review of proposals or bids, respectively.

4. Application of selection methodologies

This document contains 2 annexes that illustrate how the selection methodologies outlined in section 7.7.3 of the tendering policy can be applied to capital projects:

Annex 1 demonstrates how proposals could be evaluated using each of the 5 selection methodologies outlined in section 7.7.3 of the tendering policy, complete with sample evaluation criteria and scoring grids.
Annex 2 demonstrates how bids could be evaluated for these same methodologies.

5. Using this document

To make the most effective use of this document, project owners should first navigate to either Annex 1 or Annex 2, depending on whether they are using a call for proposals or call for tenders for solicitation. From there, they should navigate to the selection methodology they will be using to select the winning bid or proposal.

For illustrative purposes only

The information contained in these appendices are examples for illustrative purposes only. Project owners may select the most appropriate evaluation criteria and associated weightings for a given project so long as they meet the requirements of the tendering policy.

For information on conducting a pre-qualification process for their project, project owners may refer to section 7.6.1 of the tendering policy and CCDC 29 E – Guide to prequalification.

Annex 1: Evaluating proposals

Methodology A

Methodology A is used to identify the compliant proposal that has the highest combined rating of technical evaluation criteria and price. When using this methodology, the weight of price must be significant enough to impact the final combined rating.

This methodology uses a 2-envelope approach, wherein proponents submit 2 sealed envelopes: 1 containing the technical proposal and the other containing the financial proposal. The evaluation of these proposals occurs in 2 separate phases.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

In accordance with section 7.7.1 of the tendering policy, all proposals received by the closing date and time must first be evaluated to ensure that they meet the mandatory requirements established in the call for proposals. Table 1 below provides an example of what these requirements could be. These requirements are evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

Table 1: Sample mandatory proposal requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Proponents must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Certifications/licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Insurance up to X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Only those proponents who receive a "Pass" for each of the mandatory requirements listed above would be considered. Any and all proponents who receive a "Fail" on 1 or more mandatory requirements should be disqualified from further consideration. In this example, all proponents received a "Pass" on all mandatory requirements.

Step 2 – Technical evaluation

Compliant proposals are then evaluated based on their technical merit. At this stage, only the technical evaluation criteria included in the call for proposals are evaluated, using the specified weightings.

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criterion and the approach to evaluating them.

Note that the information included below is for illustrative purposes only. Project owners should select the criteria and method by which they will be evaluated in a manner that reflects the requirements of the project at hand.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate proponents' experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Proponents are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original proposal price evidence that project outcomes met client expectations. Client information may be requested for reference purposes history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate proponents' project teams' expertise	For each project team member proposed, proponents are to provide the following: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities, copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses, and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Proponents should provide references for the firm and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity.
Approach and methodology	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed approach and methodology for completing the work outlined in the call for proposals, including their plan to efficiently deliver the contract requirements through effective resourcing and workforce allocation.	Proponents are to provide the following information: demonstration of the proponent's understanding of the project scope work plan and task breakdown risk management and quality assurance plan communication and stakeholder engagement plan resource allocation plan proposed innovation and value added Proponents are also to submit a time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project, including the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked.
Project schedule	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed project schedule and/or plan for completing the work.	The proposed schedule and/or work plan should be provided and outline the sequence of events in performance of the contract and identify the necessary tasks and time frames allocated for completion.
Local content	%	To evaluate the proponent's plans to utilize local content for the delivery of the project.	Proponents are to provide the total amount of local labour services that will be utilized for the project, and any opportunities for training.

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be detailed in the call for proposals. In this example, a comparative scoring methodology is used.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criteria based on the methodology outlined in the call for proposals. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criteria, the weighted scores for each proposal are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each proposal by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

Weight \times Score

= Weighted score

The weighted scores for each rated criteria are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each proposal.

This example uses a comparative scoring methodology, whereby technical points are awarded to each proponent relative to the highest scoring proponent, using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the technical points

Technical points for all proponents are calculated by dividing each proponent's overall technical score by the highest overall technical score and multiplying the result (the quotient) by the weighting assigned to the technical proposal:

\frac{Overall technical score}{Highest overall technical score}

\times Technical proposal weighting

= Technical points

The technical points awarded to each proponent will be used to help determine the winning proposal in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Proponent A		Proponent B		Proponent C		Proponent D
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Approach and methodology	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project schedule	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Local content	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "C" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores
Technical points		"A" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical proposal weighting		"B" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical proposal weighting		"C" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical proposal weighting		"D" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical proposal weighting

Step 3 – Proposal price evaluation

Per section 7.7.3 of the tendering policy, the weight assigned to the price evaluation must be significant enough to have an impact on the final score.

This example uses a comparative scoring methodology, whereby points for proposal price are awarded to proponents relative to the proponent with the lowest price.

The compliant proposal with the lowest price will receive the maximum amount of points. All other compliant proposals will receive points proportional to the lowest-priced proposal, using the formula listed under the equation below.

Equation for awarding points for price

Price points are calculated by dividing the lowest proposal price by the proposal price and multiplying the result (the quotient) by the price weighting:

\frac{Lowest proposal price}{Proposal Price}

\times Price weighting

= Price points

Table 4: Sample proposal price score card
	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Proposal price	$	$	$	$
Price points	Lowest Proposal Price divided by "A" Proposal Price times Price weighting	Lowest Proposal Price divided by "B" Proposal Price times Price weighting	Lowest Proposal Price divided by "C" Proposal Price times Price weighting	Lowest Proposal Price divided by "D" Proposal Price times Price weighting

The scores for price for each proponent will be used to calculate the winning proposal in step 4.

Step 4 – Determining the winning proposal

The winning proposal is determined by adding the technical points to the price points that were allocated to each proponent, using the equation below:

Equation for calculating the final score

The final scores for each proponent are calculated by adding their technical points to their price points:

Technical points + Price points

= Final score

The proponent with the highest final score is awarded the contract.

Table 5: Sample final score card
	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Technical points	"A" Technical Points	"B" Technical Points	"C" Technical Points	"D" Technical Points
Price points	"A" Price Points	"B" Price Points	"C" Price Points	"D" Price Points
Final scores	"A" Technical Points + "A" Price Points	"B" Technical Points + "B" Price Points	"C" Technical Points + "C" Price Points	"D" Technical Points + "D" Price Points

Methodology B

Methodology B is used to identify the compliant proposal that scores the lowest price-per-point.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

Table 1: Sample mandatory proposal requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Proponents must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Certifications/licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Insurance up to X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Only those proponents who receive a "Pass" for each of the mandatory requirements listed above would be considered. Any and all proponents who receive a "Fail" on one or more mandatory requirements should be disqualified from further consideration. In this example, all proponents received a "Pass" on all mandatory requirements.

Step 2 – Technical evaluation

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criteria and the approach to evaluating them.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate proponents' experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Proponents are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original proposal price evidence that project outcomes met client expectations. Client information may be requested for reference purposes history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate proponents' project teams' expertise	For each project team member proposed, proponents are to provide the following: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities, copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses, and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Proponents should provide references for the firm and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity.
Approach and methodology	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed approach and methodology for completing the work outlined in the call for proposals, including their plan to efficiently deliver the contract requirements through effective resourcing and workforce allocation.	Proponents are to provide the following information: demonstration of the proponent's understanding of the project scope work plan and task breakdown risk management and quality assurance plan communication and stakeholder engagement plan resource allocation plan proposed innovation and value added Proponents are also to submit a time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project, including the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked.
Project schedule	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed project schedule and/or plan for completing the work.	The proposed schedule and/or work plan should be provided and outline the sequence of events in performance of the contract and identify the necessary tasks and time frames allocated for completion.
Local content	%	To evaluate the proponent's plans to utilize local content for the delivery of the project.	Proponents are to provide the total amount of local labour services that will be utilized for the project, and any opportunities for training.

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be detailed in the call for proposals.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criteria based on the methodology outlined in the call for proposals. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criteria, the weighted scores for each proposal are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each proposal by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

Weight \times Score

= Weighted score

The weighted scores for each rated criteria are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each proposal.

The overall technical scores will used to calculate the price-per-point, and from there, the winning proposal, in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Proponent A		Proponent B		Proponent C		Proponent D
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Approach and methodology	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project schedule	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Local content	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "C" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores

Step 3 – Price-per-point evaluation

Equal weighting is given to point-rated criteria and proposal price. The price-per-point for each proponent is calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the price-per-point

To calculate the price-per-point, divide the price of each proposal by its overall technical score:

\frac{Proposal price}{Overall technical score} = Price per point

The proponent with the lowest price-per-point will be awarded the contract.

Table 4: Sample price-per-point score card
	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Proposal price	$	$	$	$
Price-per-point	"A" Proposal price divided by "A" Overall technical score $\frac{"A" Proposal price}{"A" Overall technical score}$	"B" Proposal price divided by "B" Overall technical score $\frac{"B" Proposal price}{"B" Overall technical score}$	"C" Proposal price divided by "C" Overall technical score $\frac{"C" Proposal price}{"C" Overall technical score}$	"D" Proposal price divided by "D" Overall technical score $\frac{"D" Proposal price}{"D" Overall technical score}$

Methodology C

Methodology C is used to identify the compliant proposal with the lowest price that scores at least the specified minimum percentage or number of overall technical points, or at least the specified minimum number of points for each point rated technical criterion.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

Table 1: Sample mandatory proposal requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Proponents must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Certifications/licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Insurance up to X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Step 2 – Technical evaluation

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criteria and the approach to evaluating them.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate proponents' experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Proponents are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original proposal price evidence that project outcomes met client expectations. Client information may be requested for reference purposes history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate proponents' project teams' expertise	For each project team member proposed, proponents are to provide the following: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities, copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses, and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Proponents should provide references for the firm and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity.
Approach and methodology	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed approach and methodology for completing the work outlined in the call for proposals, including their plan to efficiently deliver the contract requirements through effective resourcing and workforce allocation.	Proponents are to provide the following information: demonstration of the proponent's understanding of the project scope work plan and task breakdown risk management and quality assurance plan communication and stakeholder engagement plan resource allocation plan proposed innovation and value added Proponents are also to submit a time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project, including the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked.
Project schedule	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed project schedule and/or plan for completing the work.	The proposed schedule and/or work plan should be provided and outline the sequence of events in performance of the contract and identify the necessary tasks and time frames allocated for completion.
Local content	%	To evaluate the proponent's plans to utilize local content for the delivery of the project.	Proponents are to provide the total amount of local labour services that will be utilized for the project, and any opportunities for training.

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be detailed in the call for proposals.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criteria based on the methodology outlined in the call for proposals. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criteria, the weighted scores for each proposal are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each proposal by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

Weight \times Score

= Weighted score

The weighted scores for each rated criteria are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each proposal.

For this methodology, the call for proposals must specify either the minimum percentage or number of overall technical points, or at least the specified minimum number of points for each point rated technical criterion that must be achieved in order for proponents' prices to be considered. In this example, the call for proposals specified that proponents must achieve at least 75% of the total possible technical score.

The percentage of the total overall technical score for each proponent is calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the percentage of the overall technical score:

\frac{Overall technical score}{Total possible technical score} \times 100 = Percentage

The percentages calculated for each proponent will be used to help determine the winning proposal in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Proponent A		Proponent B		Proponent C		Proponent D
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Approach and methodology	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project schedule	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Local content	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "C" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores
Percentage of possible technical score (Specified minimum = 75%)		"A" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100		"B" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100		"C" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100		"D" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100

Step 3 – Determining the winning proposal

The proponent who meets the specified minimum percentage of points and that has the lowest price will be awarded the contract.

Methodology D

Methodology D is used to identify the compliant proposal that has the lowest price.

This methodology uses a single envelope approach, wherein the documents to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements and the proposal price are included in the same envelope that is submitted by the proponent.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

Table 1: Sample mandatory proposal requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Proponents must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Certifications/licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Insurance up to X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Step 2 – Determining the winning proposal

Of the compliant proposals, the proponent with the lowest price will be awarded the contract.

Methodology E

Methodology E is used to identify the compliant proposal that scores the highest number of points on the technical evaluation criteria within the project owner's budget.

This methodology typically uses a 2-envelope approach, wherein proponents submit 2 sealed envelopes: 1 containing the technical proposal and the other containing the financial proposal. The evaluation of these occurs in 2 separate phases.

However, it is also possible to use a single envelope approach for this methodology, wherein the documents to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements and the proposal price are included in the same envelope that is submitted by the proponent.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

In accordance with section 7.7.1 of the tendering policy, all proposals received by the established closing date and time must first be evaluated to ensure that they meet the mandatory requirements established in the call for proposals. Table 1 below provides an example of what these requirements could be. These requirements are evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

Table 1: Sample mandatory proposal requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Proponents must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Proponent A	Proponent B	Proponent C	Proponent D
Certifications/licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Insurance up to X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Step 2 – Technical evaluation

Compliant proposals are then evaluated based on their technical merit. Only the technical evaluation criteria included in the call for proposals are evaluated, using the pre-established methodology and weightings.

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criterion and the approach to evaluating them.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate proponents' experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Proponents are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original proposal price evidence that project outcomes met client expectations. Client information may be requested for reference purposes history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate proponents' project teams' expertise	For each project team member proposed, proponents are to provide the following: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities, copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses, and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Proponents should provide references for the firm and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity.
Approach and methodology	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed approach and methodology for completing the work outlined in the call for proposals, including their plan to efficiently deliver the contract requirements through effective resourcing and workforce allocation.	Proponents are to provide the following information: demonstration of the proponent's understanding of the project scope work plan and task breakdown risk management and quality assurance plan communication and stakeholder engagement plan resource allocation plan proposed innovation and value added Proponents are also to submit a time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project, including the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked.
Project schedule	%	To evaluate the proponent's proposed project schedule and/or plan for completing the work.	The proposed schedule and/or work plan should be provided and outline the sequence of events in performance of the contract and identify the necessary tasks and time frames allocated for completion.
Local content	%	To evaluate the proponent's plans to utilize local content for the delivery of the project.	Proponents are to provide the total amount of local labour services that will be utilized for the project, and any opportunities for training.

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be detailed in the call for proposals.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criterion based on the methodology outlined in the call for proposals. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criterion, the weighted scores for each proposal are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each proposal by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

Weight \times Score

= Weighted score

The weighted scores for each rated criteria are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each proposal.

The overall technical scores will be used to help determine the winning proposal in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Proponent A		Proponent B		Proponent C		Proponent D
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Approach and methodology	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project schedule	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Local content	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "C" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores

Step 3 – Determining the winning proposal

The proponent with the highest overall technical score will have their proposal price compared against the project owner's budget. If that proponent's price is equal to or less than that budget, they will be awarded the contract.

The call for proposals should establish the process for awarding the contract in the case where the proposal price of the proponent with the highest overall technical score is higher than the project owner's budget.

Annex 2: Evaluating bids

Methodology A

Methodology A is used to identify the compliant bid that has the highest combined rating of technical evaluation criteria and price. When using this methodology, the weight of price must be significant enough to impact the final combined rating.

This methodology uses a 2-envelope approach, wherein bidders submit 2 sealed envelopes: 1 containing the technical details and the other containing the financial details. The evaluation of these occurs in 2 separate phases.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

In accordance with section 7.7.1 of the tendering policy, all bids received by the closing date and time must first be evaluated to ensure that they meet the mandatory requirements established in the call for tenders. Table 1 below provides an example of what these requirements could be. These requirements are evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

Table 1: Sample mandatory tender requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Bidders must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder C	Bidder D	Bidder E
Bid security capacity for $X	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Proof of insurance up to $X	Pass	Pass	Fail	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Possession of proper licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
All Bidder Forms have been completed correctly with proper authorization, seals and witnesses	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Minimum amount of local content X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Only those bidders who receive a "Pass" for each of the mandatory requirements listed above would be considered. Any and all bidders who receive a "Fail" on one or more mandatory requirements should be disqualified from further consideration. In this example, only Bidders A, B, D, and E received a passing mark. Bidder C would be disqualified.

Step 2 – Technical evaluation

Compliant bids are then evaluated based on their technical merit. At this stage, only the technical evaluation criteria included in the call for tenders are evaluated, using the pre-established methodology and weightings.

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criterion and the approach to evaluating them.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate the bidder's experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Bidders are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original bid price a list of subtrades that were used history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate the expertise and experience of the bidder's project team.	A time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project should be provided and include the following information: the duration of each task, from the estimated start date to completion the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked For each project team member proposed, bidders are to provide: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Bidders should also provide references for the company and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity as described in the call for tenders.
Health and safety	%	To evaluate the bidder's policy related to health and safety and regulatory compliance, as well as their "track record" in these areas.	Bidders are to provide the following information: a copy of their health and safety policy whether any Occupational Health and Safety orders have been issued in the last 3 years whether any on-site fatalities have occurred in the last 3 years examples of risk assessments carried out for similar projects

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be included in the call for tenders. In this example, a comparative scoring methodology is used.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criteria based on the methodology outlined in the call for tenders. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criterion, the weighted scores for each bid are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each proposal by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

Weight \times Score

= Weighted score

The weighted scores for each rated criterion are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each bid.

This example uses a comparative scoring methodology, whereby technical points are awarded to each bidder relative to the highest scoring bid, using the equation below.

Equation for calculating technical points

Technical points for all proponents are calculated by dividing each bid's overall technical score by the highest overall technical score and multiplying the result (the quotient) by the weighting assigned to the technical envelope:

\frac{Overall technical score}{Highest overall technical score}

\times Technical envelope weighting

= Technical points

The technical points awarded to each bid will be used to help determine the winning bid in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Bidder A		Bidder B		Bidder D		Bidder E
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Health and safety	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "C" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores
Technical points		"A" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical envelope weighting		"B" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical envelope weighting		"C" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical envelope weighting		"D" Overall technical score divided by Highest overall technical score times Technical envelope weighting

Step 3 – Bid price evaluation

Per section 7.7.3 of the tendering policy, the weight assigned to the price evaluation must be significant enough to have an impact on the final score.

This example uses a comparative scoring methodology, whereby points for bid price are awarded to bidders relative to the bidder with the lowest price.

The compliant bid with the lowest price will receive the maximum points allocated to price. All other bids will receive points proportional to the lowest-priced proposal, using the equation below:

Equation for awarding points for bid price

Price points are calculated by dividing the lowest bid price by the bid price and multiplying the result (the quotient) by the price weighting:

\frac{Lowest Bid Price}{Bid Price}

\times Price weighting

= Price points

The scores for price for each bid will be used to calculate the winning bid in step 4.

Table 4: Sample bid price score card
	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder D	Bidder E
Bid price	$	$	$	$
Total points for price	Lowest Bid Price divided by "A" Bid Price times Price weighting	Lowest Bid Price divided by "B" Bid Price times Price weighting	Lowest Bid Price divided by "C" Bid Price times Price weighting	Lowest Bid Price divided by "E" Bid Price times Price weighting

Step 4 – Determining the winning bid

The winning bid is determined by adding the technical points to the price points that were allocated to each bidder, using the equation below:

Equation for calculating the final score

The final scores for each bidder are calculated by adding their technical points to their price points:

Technical points + Price points

= Final score

The bidder with the highest final score is awarded the contract.

Table 5: Sample final score card
	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder D	Bidder E
Total points for technical proposal	"A" Total Technical Points	"B" Total Technical Points	"D" Total Technical Points	"E" Total Technical Points
Total points for price	"A" Price Points	"B" Price Points	"D" Price Points	"E" Price Points
Final scores	"A" Total Technical Points + "A" Price Points	"B" Total Technical Points + "B" Price Points	"D" Total Technical Points + "D" Price Points	"E" Total Technical Points + "E" Price Points

Methodology B

Methodology B is used to identify the compliant bid that scores the lowest price-per-point.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

Table 1: Sample mandatory tender requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Bidders must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder C	Bidder D	Bidder E
Bid security capacity for $X	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Proof of insurance up to $X	Pass	Pass	Fail	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Possession of proper licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
All Bidder Forms have been completed correctly with proper authorization, seals and witnesses	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Minimum amount of local content X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Step 2 – Technical evaluation

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criterion and the approach to evaluating them.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate the bidder's experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Bidders are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original bid price a list of subtrades that were used history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate the expertise and experience of the bidder's project team.	A time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project should be provided and include the following information: the duration of each task, from the estimated start date to completion the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked For each project team member proposed, bidders are to provide: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Bidders should also provide references for the company and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity as described in the call for tenders.
Health and safety	%	To evaluate the bidder's policy related to health and safety and regulatory compliance, as well as their "track record" in these areas.	Bidders are to provide the following information: a copy of their health and safety policy whether any Occupational Health and Safety orders have been issued in the last 3 years whether any on-site fatalities have occurred in the last 3 years examples of risk assessments carried out for similar projects

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be included in the call for tenders.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criterion based on the methodology outlined in the call for tenders. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criteria, the weighted scores for each bid are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each bid by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

Weight \times Score

= Weighted score

The weighted scores for each rated criterion are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each bid.

The overall technical scores will used to calculate the price-per-point, and from there, the winning bid, in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Bidder A		Bidder B		Bidder D		Bidder E
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Health and safety	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores		Sum of "E" weighted scores

Step 3 – Price-per-point evaluation

Equal weighting is given to the point-rated criteria and bid price. The price-per-point for each bidder is calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the price-per-point

To calculate the price-per-point, divide the price of each bid by its overall technical score:

\frac{Bid Price}{Overall technical score} = Price per point

The bidder with the lowest price-per-point will be awarded the contract.

Table 4: Sample price-per-point score card
	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder D	Bidder E
Proposal price	$	$	$	$
Price-per-point	"A" Proposal Price divided by "A" Overall technical score $\frac{"A" Proposal Price}{"A" Overall technical score}$	"B" Proposal Price divided by "B" Overall technical score $\frac{"B" Proposal Price}{"B" Overall technical score}$	"D" Proposal Price divided by "D" Overall technical score $\frac{"D" Proposal Price}{"D" Overall technical score}$	"E" Proposal Price divided by "E" Overall technical score $\frac{"E" Proposal Price}{"E" Overall technical score}$

Methodology C

Methodology C is used to identify the compliant bid with the lowest price that scores at least the specified minimum percentage or number of overall technical points, or at least the specified minimum number of points for each point rated technical criterion.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

Table 1: Sample mandatory tender requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Bidders must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder C	Bidder D	Bidder E
Bid security capacity for $X	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Proof of insurance up to $X	Pass	Pass	Fail	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Possession of proper licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
All Bidder Forms have been completed correctly with proper authorization, seals and witnesses	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Minimum amount of local content X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Step 2 – Technical evaluation

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criterion and the approach to evaluating them.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate the bidder's experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Bidders are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original bid price a list of subtrades that were used history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate the expertise and experience of the bidder's project team.	A time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project should be provided and include the following information: the duration of each task, from the estimated start date to completion the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked For each project team member proposed, bidders are to provide: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Bidders should also provide references for the company and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity as described in the call for tenders.
Health and safety	%	To evaluate the bidder's policy related to health and safety and regulatory compliance, as well as their "track record" in these areas.	Bidders are to provide the following information: a copy of their health and safety policy whether any Occupational Health and Safety orders have been issued in the last 3 years whether any on-site fatalities have occurred in the last 3 years examples of risk assessments carried out for similar projects

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be included in the call for tenders.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criterion based on the methodology outlined in the call for tenders. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criterion, the weighted scores for each bid are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each bid by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

The weighted scores for each rated criterion are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each bid.

For this methodology, the call for tenders must specify either the minimum percentage or number of overall technical points, or at least the specified minimum number of points for each point rated technical criterion that must be achieved in order for bidders' prices to be considered. In this example, the call for tenders specified that bidders must achieve at least 75% of the total possible technical score.

The percentage of the total overall technical score for each bidder is calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the percentage of the overall technical score:

\frac{Overall technical score}{Total possible technical score} \times 100 = Percentage

The percentages calculated for each bidder will be used to help determine the winning bid in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Bidder A		Bidder B		Bidder D		Bidder E
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Health and safety	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "C" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores
Percentage of possible technical score (Specified minimum = 75%)		"A" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100		"B" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100		"D" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100		"E" Overall technical score divided by Total possible technical score times 100

In this example, only those bidders that score at least the minimum percentage of overall technical points specified in the call for tenders (i.e., 75% in this example) will subsequently have their bid price considered in Step 3 below.

Step 3 – Determining the winning bid

The bidder who meets the specified minimum percentage of points and that has the lowest price will be awarded the contract.

Methodology D

Methodology D is used to identify the compliant bid that has the lowest price.

This methodology uses a single envelope approach, wherein the documents to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements and the bid price are included in the same envelope that is submitted by the bidder.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

Table 1: Sample mandatory tender requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Bidders must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder C	Bidder D	Bidder E
Bid security capacity for $X	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Proof of insurance up to $X	Pass	Pass	Fail	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Possession of proper licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
All Bidder Forms have been completed correctly with proper authorization, seals and witnesses	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Minimum amount of local content X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Step 2 – Determining the winning bid

Of the compliant bids, the one with the lowest price will be awarded the contract.

Methodology E

Methodology E is used to identify the compliant bid that scores the highest number of points on the technical evaluation criteria within the project owner’s budget.

This methodology typically uses a 2-envelope approach, wherein bidders submit 2 sealed envelopes: 1 containing the technical details and the other containing the financial details. The evaluation of these occurs in 2 separate phases.

However, it is also possible to use a single envelope approach for this methodology, wherein the documents to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements and the bid price are included in the same envelope that is submitted by the bidder.

Step 1 – Confirming compliance with mandatory requirements

Table 1: Sample mandatory tender requirements
Criteria (pass/fail) Bidders must submit all items in order to be evaluated	Bidder A	Bidder B	Bidder C	Bidder D	Bidder E
Bid security capacity for $X	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Proof of insurance up to $X	Pass	Pass	Fail	Pass	Pass
Workers' Compensation Board clearance	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Possession of proper licensing	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
All Bidder Forms have been completed correctly with proper authorization, seals and witnesses	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Minimum amount of local content X$	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass

Step 2 – Technical Evaluation

Compliant bids are then evaluated based on their technical merit. Only the technical evaluation criteria included in the call for tenders are evaluated, using the pre-established methodology and weightings.

Table 2 below gives an example of a technical evaluation grid that may be used, including an explanation of each criterion and the approach to evaluating them.

Table 2: Sample technical evaluation grid
Criteria	Weight	Purpose	Approach to evaluation
Project experience	%	To evaluate the bidder's experience in successfully completing projects of similar scope and complexity.	Bidders are to provide the following information: total years of relevant industry experience volume and scope of completed projects during that time successful execution of those projects, supported by information such as: project names details of project scope contract award date, original contract completion date, actual date of completion and its adherence to the proposed schedule alignment with original bid price a list of subtrades that were used history of claims or litigation
Project team expertise	%	To evaluate the expertise and experience of the bidder's project team.	A time-task matrix outlining the specific tasks required for a project should be provided and include the following information: the duration of each task, from the estimated start date to completion the estimated hours each employee will dedicate to these tasks and the total hours worked For each project team member proposed, bidders are to provide: descriptions of tasks, roles and responsibilities copies of resumes, current professional and/or trade licenses and other documents relevant to the project team's expertise Bidders should also provide references for the company and/or lead personnel for past projects of similar scope and complexity as described in the call for tenders.
Health and safety	%	To evaluate the bidder's policy related to health and safety and regulatory compliance, as well as their "track record" in these areas.	Bidders are to provide the following information: a copy of their health and safety policy whether any Occupational Health and Safety orders have been issued in the last 3 years whether any on-site fatalities have occurred in the last 3 years examples of risk assessments carried out for similar projects

Table 3 below provides an example of a score card that could be used to evaluate the above criteria. The scoring methodology must be included in the call for tenders.

The evaluation committee allocates scores to each rated criterion based on the methodology outlined in the call for tenders. In this example, criteria are scored on a scale of 0 – 4.

When the evaluation committee has agreed to the score to be allocated for each rated criterion, the weighted scores for each bid are calculated using the equation below.

Equation for calculating the weighted scores

Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying the scores allocated to each bid by the weighting assigned to that criterion:

Weight \times Score

= Weighted score

The weighted scores for each rated criteria are then totaled to calculate the overall technical score for each bid.

The overall technical scores will used to help determine the winning bid in Step 3.

Table 3: Sample technical score card
Criteria	Weight	Bidder A		Bidder B		Bidder D		Bidder E
Criteria	Weight	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score	Score (0 – 4)	Weighted Score
Project experience	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Project team expertise	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Health and safety	%		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score		Weight × Score
Overall technical score		Sum of "A" weighted scores		Sum of "B" weighted scores		Sum of "D" weighted scores		Sum of "E" weighted scores

Step 3 – Determining the winning bid

The bidder with the highest overall technical score will have their bid price compared against the project owner's budget for the project. If that bidder's price is equal to or less than that budget, they will be awarded the contract.

The call for tenders should establish the process for awarding the contract in the case where the bid price of the bidder with the highest overall technical score is higher than the project owner's budget.

Did you find what you were looking for?

What was wrong?

I can't find the information

The information is hard to understand

There was an error or something didn't work

Other reason

Please provide more details

You will not receive a reply. Don't include personal information (telephone, email, SIN, financial, medical, or work details).
Maximum 300 characters

Date modified:: 2026-07-15