Concept Evaluation Matrix
(Annex 1 to Bidding Conditions)
Introduction
Tenders shall be evaluated, inter alia, on the basis of the qualitative award criteria "Quality of Contingency and Replacement Concept" (Annex K1) and "Quality of Quality Assurance Concept for Candidate Selection" (Annex K2). The weighting of the award criteria is set out in Section XI.1 of the Bidding Conditions. Each concept shall be evaluated separately in accordance with the evaluation method and scoring criteria described in Sections 2 and 3 below.
For the avoidance of doubt: The award criterion 'Quality of Performance Improvements' (max. 10 points), which also forms part of the award criterion 'Quality' pursuant to Section XI.1 of the Bidding Conditions, is not evaluated on the basis of a written concept. It is assessed exclusively on the basis of the tick-box declarations made by the tenderer in item 8 of the Form 'Letter of Tender', in accordance with the scoring table set out in Section XI.4.2.1 of the Bidding Conditions. This Concept Evaluation Matrix applies exclusively to the evaluation of Annexes K1 and K2.
With regard to the formal requirements applicable to the preparation of concepts K1 and K2 (in particular the maximum page length, typeface and line spacing requirements), reference is made to Section VI.4 of the Bidding Conditions.
evaluation Method
The Contingency and Replacement Concept (Annex K1) and the Quality Assurance Concept for Candidate Selection (Annex K2) are each subdivided into the following topic areas in accordance with Section XI.3.2 of the Bidding Conditions:
Contingency and Replacement Concept (Annex K1):
| Topic Area | Subject |
| (i) | Candidate Sourcing Infrastructure and Availability Strategy |
| (ii) | Strategies for Long-Term Candidate Engagement and Development |
| (iii) | Contingency Planning for Unexpected Operational Absences |
| (iv) | Replacement Procedure following Formal Rejection or Recall |
Quality Assurance Concept for Candidate Selection (Annex K2)
| Topic Area | Subject |
| (i) | Recruiting Process and Selection Methods |
| (ii) | Verification of Qualifications and Professional Experience |
| (iii) | Ongoing Performance Monitoring and Escalation |
| (iv) | Quality Assurance in the Involvement of Subcontractors |
(Note on scope: Topic area (i) of the Quality Assurance Concept for Candidate Selection (Annex K2) addresses the operational process by which the tenderer identifies and selects individual candidates in response to a specific Call-Off Request. The strategic infrastructure and networks enabling the tenderer to access the relevant candidate market are assessed under the Contingency and Replacement Concept (Annex K1), topic area (i). Both topic areas are assessed independently; there is no double-counting.)
Each topic area defines substantive and/or qualitative requirements, the varying degrees of fulfilment of which are described in six evaluation levels (ranging from "Excellent performance expectations" to "Insufficient performance expectations") as set out in the scoring tables in Section 3 below. The substantive and/or qualitative requirements for each topic area decrease with each lower evaluation level.
The scoring is carried out separately for each individual topic area of a concept. The applicable scoring criteria are set out in the scoring tables in Section 3.
The tenderer’s submissions in the respective concept are assessed in terms of their content and quality against the requirements of the relevant evaluation level for each topic area. A concept will only achieve the score corresponding to a particular evaluation level in respect of a given topic area if it meets all substantive and qualitative requirements of that evaluation level.
Example: With regard to the Contingency and Replacement Concept, the following substantive and qualitative requirements must be met for topic area (ii) [Strategies for Long-Term Candidate Engagement and Development] in order to achieve the 100 points provided for the evaluation level "Excellent Performance Expectations":
„(ii) The measures described for the long-term engagement and development of candidates within the tenderer’s networks and pipelines are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The strategy is concrete, practical and sustainable, going well beyond general statements of intent. The described measures credibly demonstrate that the availability of qualified candidates for the tendered Personnel Profiles will be maintained and grown over the entire duration of the Framework Agreement.“
PLEASE NOTE THE CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE EVALUATION METHOD:
- Where, in the above example, the strategy described by a tenderer in its Contingency and Replacement Concept is partially concrete but shows some weaknesses in terms of sustainability or the specificity of the described measures (which would correspond to the evaluation level "Satisfactory performance expectations"), topic area (ii) as a whole – irrespective of whether the other requirements of the evaluation level have been met to a very high standard – can be assessed as satisfactory at most, and accordingly awarded 60 points. The score achieved in respect of a particular topic area is therefore always determined by reference to the score of the lowest evaluation level that the tenderer has met in respect of the requirements defined within that topic area.
- Where, in the above example, a tenderer’s concept contains no measures at all addressing the substantive requirements of the relevant topic area, topic area (ii) as a whole – irrespective of the degree of fulfilment of the other requirements of that topic area – shall be awarded 0 points.
The assessment of each individual topic area is carried out on an individual basis and not in comparison with the submissions of other tenderers.
Vague, generic, contradictory or non-verifiable statements shall only be taken into account to the extent that they allow a reliable assessment against the relevant criteria. The reasons for the score awarded for each topic area shall be documented in a manner that allows the assessment to be traced against the criteria set out in this matrix.
In a second step, the Contracting Authority shall calculate the overall score for each concept by computing the arithmetic mean of the scores awarded for all topic areas of the respective concept. The resulting mean shall be rounded to two decimal places using standard rounding rules. The overall score thus determined shall be multiplied by the weighting factor of 15% (= 0.15). The product is the weighted score for the respective concept. Accordingly, a tenderer may achieve a maximum of 15 points (100 × 0.15) for each concept.
SCORING CRITERIA
The following tables set out, for each topic area of both concepts, the varying degrees of fulfilment of the requirements applicable to each evaluation level and the corresponding scores. Each topic area may be awarded a maximum of 100 points. The unweighted overall score per concept (i.e. the arithmetic mean of all topic area scores) may accordingly reach a maximum of 100 points, which — following application of the weighting factor of 15% pursuant to Section 2 above — corresponds to a maximum weighted score of 15 points per concept:
Contingency and Replacement Concept
| Degree of Fulfilment per Evaluation Level | Points per Topic Area | |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent performance expectations | The submissions regarding the tenderer’s candidate sourcing infrastructure and availability strategy are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The tenderer demonstrates, for each tendered Personnel Profile, the existence of a demonstrably robust, multi-channel sourcing infrastructure – including, as applicable, professional networks, candidate databases, active talent pipelines and market engagement strategies – that credibly supports the reliable identification and provision of qualified candidates at the time of individual Call-Off Requests. The concept gives rise to a high degree of confidence that the tenderer will consistently be in a position to identify and propose candidates meeting the requirements of the respective Personnel Profile. | 100 |
| The measures described for the long-term engagement and development of candidates within the tenderer’s networks and pipelines are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The strategy is concrete, practical and sustainable, going well beyond general statements of intent. The described measures credibly demonstrate that the availability of qualified candidates for the tendered Personnel Profiles will be maintained and grown over the entire duration of the Framework Agreement. | 100 | |
| The measures and processes described for managing unexpected operational absences (e.g. illness, unplanned termination, force majeure) of deployed agency workers are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The contingency plan is clearly defined, coherent and demonstrates a robust and well-considered internal response mechanism that enables a swift operational response without compromising the continuity or quality of service delivery. | 100 | |
| The internal procedure described for nominating and providing a suitable replacement following receipt of a formal rejection or recall notice from the Contracting Authority pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Framework Agreement is detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The procedure is clearly structured and demonstrates that a qualified replacement can be nominated and provided without undue delay. The concept gives rise to a high degree of confidence that the tenderer will consistently fulfil its contractual replacement obligation.The concept also provides a detailed process to identify and prioritise suitable personnel with existing project-specific knowledge for the relevant project or subject area, without assuming guaranteed availability of specific individuals. | 100 | |
| Good performance expectations | The submissions regarding the sourcing infrastructure and availability strategy are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with only minor exceptions. The tenderer demonstrates, for the tendered Personnel Profiles, a largely robust and multi-channel sourcing infrastructure, with only minor gaps in the description of individual sourcing channels or market engagement strategies. There is an above-average degree of confidence that the tenderer will consistently be in a position to identify and propose qualified candidates at the time of individual Call-Off Requests. | 80 |
| The described strategy for long-term candidate engagement and development is detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with only minor exceptions. The strategy is largely concrete and sustainable, going beyond mere general statements of intent, despite minor weaknesses in the description of individual measures or their long-term applicability. There is an above-average degree of confidence that qualified candidate availability will be maintained over the duration of the Framework Agreement. | 80 | |
| The contingency planning measures for unexpected operational absences are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with only minor exceptions. The plan demonstrates an above-average capacity to respond to unexpected absences and maintain service continuity, despite minor gaps in the description of individual process steps. | 80 | |
| The internal replacement procedure is detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with only minor exceptions. The procedure demonstrates an above-average capacity to nominate and provide a qualified replacement without undue delay following a formal rejection or recall notice, despite minor weaknesses in individual steps. | 80 | |
| Satisfactory performance expectations | The submissions regarding the sourcing infrastructure and availability strategy are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with certain limitations. The described sourcing infrastructure shows some gaps in terms of breadth of sourcing channels or depth of market engagement. There is an average degree of confidence that the tenderer will be in a position to identify and propose qualified candidates at the time of individual Call-Off Requests. | 60 |
| The strategy for long-term candidate engagement and development is detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with certain limitations. The strategy is partially concrete but shows some weaknesses in terms of sustainability or the specificity of the described measures. There is an average degree of confidence that qualified candidate availability will be maintained over the duration of the Framework Agreement. | 60 | |
| The contingency planning measures are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with certain limitations. The plan demonstrates an average capacity to respond to unexpected operational absences, but shows some gaps in the description of processes or response mechanisms. A generally satisfactory continuity of service delivery can be expected. | 60 | |
| The internal replacement procedure is detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with certain limitations. The procedure demonstrates an average capacity to respond to a formal rejection or recall notice, but shows some weaknesses in terms of the described reliability or coherence of the replacement process steps. | 60 | |
| Adequate performance expectations | The submissions regarding the sourcing infrastructure and availability strategy are only partially detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms. The described infrastructure shows significant weaknesses in terms of the breadth of sourcing channels or the reliability of the described market engagement. The tenderer’s ability to identify and propose qualified candidates at the time of individual Call-Off Requests can only be expected with significant limitations | 40 |
| The strategy for long-term candidate engagement and development is only partially detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms. The strategy remains largely general and shows significant weaknesses in terms of sustainability or specificity, such that the maintenance of qualified candidate availability over the duration of the Framework Agreement can only be expected with significant limitations. | 40 | |
| The contingency planning measures are only partially detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms. Significant weaknesses exist in terms of the definition or practicability of the described response processes, such that continuity of service delivery in the event of an unexpected absence can only be expected with significant limitations. | 40 | |
| The internal replacement procedure is only partially detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms. Significant weaknesses exist in terms of the structure or practicability of the described steps, such that timely compliance with the replacement obligation following a formal rejection or recall notice can only be expected with significant limitations. | 40 | |
| Poor Performance expectations | The submissions regarding the sourcing infrastructure and availability strategy show serious weaknesses in terms of detail, comprehensibility and binding quality. The concept does not provide a credible basis for expecting the tenderer to consistently identify and propose qualified candidates for the tendered Personnel Profiles at the time of individual Call-Off Requests. | 20 |
| The strategy for long-term candidate engagement and development shows serious weaknesses in terms of detail, comprehensibility and binding quality. The concept provides no credible basis for expecting that qualified candidate availability will be maintained over the duration of the Framework Agreement. | 20 | |
| The contingency planning measures show serious weaknesses in terms of detail, comprehensibility and binding quality. The concept provides no credible basis for expecting an effective response to unexpected operational absences without significant disruption to service continuity. | 20 | |
| The internal replacement procedure shows serious weaknesses in terms of detail, comprehensibility and binding quality. The concept does not provide a credible basis for expecting timely compliance with the replacement obligation following a formal rejection or recall notice. | 20 | |
| Insufficient Performance expectations | No credible sourcing infrastructure or availability strategy is described. The tenderer’s ability to identify and propose qualified candidates for the tendered Personnel Profiles at the time of individual Call-Off Requests cannot be expected. | 0 |
| No credible strategy for the long-term engagement and development of candidates within the tenderer’s networks is described. The maintenance of qualified candidate availability over the duration of the Framework Agreement cannot be expected. | 0 | |
| No credible contingency plan for managing unexpected operational absences is described. The continuity of service delivery in the event of an unexpected absence cannot be expected. | 0 | |
| No credible internal replacement procedure is described. Timely compliance with the replacement obligation following a formal rejection or recall notice cannot be expected. | 0 |
Quality Assurance Concept for Candidate Selection
For the avoidance of doubt: Topic area (i) "Recruiting Process and Selection Methods" assesses exclusively the tenderer’s operational candidate selection process at the level of individual Call-Off Requests. The strategic sourcing infrastructure is assessed separately under Annex K1, topic area (i). See Section 2 above.
| Degree of Fulfilment per Quality Level | Points per Topic Area | |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent performance expectations | The descriptions of the operational process for identifying and selecting individual candidates in response to a specific Call-Off Request are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The selection process is multi-stage, clearly structured and underpinned by objective and verifiable assessment methods (e.g. structured interviews, competency-based assessments, reference checks) that are specifically tailored to the requirements of the tendered Personnel Profiles. The concept gives rise to a high degree of confidence that the tenderer’s selection process will consistently identify and propose candidates of the required quality and experience. | 100 |
| The procedures for verifying candidates' qualifications and professional experience are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The tenderer demonstrates a systematic, multi-layered verification approach that effectively cross-checks and validates all relevant information provided by candidates prior to deployment. There is a high degree of confidence that only candidates with the required qualifications and professional experience will be proposed for deployment. | 100 | |
| The processes for monitoring the ongoing performance of deployed agency workers are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms in all respects. The approach is proactive and structured and includes clearly defined, multi-stage escalation procedures and targeted early intervention measures to address performance issues prior to the formal initiation of recall or rejection proceedings. There is a high degree of confidence that the tenderer will effectively monitor performance and address any shortfalls promptly and without undue delay. | 100 | |
| The tenderer describes detailed, comprehensible and binding quality assurance measures for subcontractor involvement. The concept demonstrates that subcontractors, where used, are selected, instructed, monitored and escalated under standards equivalent to those applied to the tenderer’s own personnel, including clear responsibility, evidence requirements and replacement measures. | 100 | |
| Good performance expectations | The descriptions of the operational selection process are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with only minor exceptions. The process is largely structured and underpinned by objective assessment methods tailored to the tendered Personnel Profiles, with only minor gaps in the description of individual steps or methods. There is an above-average degree of confidence that the tenderer’s selection process will consistently identify and propose candidates of the required quality. | 80 |
| The verification procedures are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with only minor exceptions. The approach is largely systematic and effective, with only minor weaknesses in the description of specific verification steps or cross-checking methods. There is an above-average degree of confidence that only adequately qualified candidates will be proposed for deployment. | 80 | |
| The performance monitoring processes are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with only minor exceptions. The approach is largely proactive and structured, with only minor gaps in the description of escalation procedures or early intervention measures prior to the formal initiation of recall or rejection proceedings. | 80 | |
| The tenderer describes detailed and largely binding quality assurance measures for subcontractor involvement. Subcontractors are subject to structured selection, onboarding and performance monitoring processes that are largely equivalent to those applied to the tenderer’s own personnel. Responsibilities and escalation procedures are generally clear, although some aspects could be described in greater detail or supported by stronger evidence. The concept gives rise to a high level of confidence that subcontracted resources will generally meet the quality requirements applicable under the Framework Agreement. | 80 | |
| Satisfactory performance expectations | The descriptions of the operational selection process are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with certain limitations. The process is partially structured and refers to appropriate assessment methods, but shows some weaknesses in terms of specificity or tailoring to the requirements of the tendered Personnel Profiles. A satisfactory quality of pre-selected candidates can generally be expected. | 60 |
| The verification procedures are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with certain limitations. The approach demonstrates a generally adequate level of systematic verification, but shows some weaknesses in the thoroughness or reliability of cross-checking methods. | 60 | |
| The performance monitoring processes are detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms with certain limitations. The approach demonstrates a generally adequate level of monitoring, but shows some weaknesses in the proactivity or specificity of escalation procedures or early intervention measures. | 60 | |
| The tenderer describes quality assurance measures for subcontractor involvement that are generally comprehensible and plausible but only partially detailed or binding. Selection, onboarding or monitoring procedures are addressed, but certain elements lack specificity, measurable controls or clearly assigned responsibilities. The concept demonstrates a reasonable approach to managing subcontracted resources but leaves some uncertainty regarding the consistent achievement of the required quality standards. | 60 | |
| Adequate performance expectations | The descriptions of the operational selection process are only partially detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms. The process shows significant weaknesses in structure or the objectivity of selection methods, such that consistent quality of pre-selected candidates can only be expected with significant limitations. | 40 |
| The verification procedures are only partially detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms. Significant weaknesses exist in the systematisation or reliability of cross-checking methods, such that adequate qualification verification prior to deployment can only be expected with significant limitations. | 40 | |
| The performance monitoring processes are only partially detailed, comprehensible and formulated in binding terms. Significant weaknesses exist in the proactivity or structure of monitoring and escalation, such that effective identification and early resolution of performance issues prior to formal recall proceedings can only be expected with significant limitations. | 40 | |
| The tenderer describes only basic quality assurance measures for subcontractor involvement. The measures are partially generic, incomplete or insufficiently specified. Limited information is provided regarding selection criteria, monitoring activities, escalation procedures or replacement processes. Significant aspects of subcontractor governance remain unclear. The concept provides only limited confidence that subcontracted resources will consistently meet the quality requirements applicable under the Framework Agreement. | 40 | |
| Poor Performance expectations | The descriptions of the operational selection process show serious weaknesses in detail, comprehensibility and binding quality. The concept provides no credible basis for expecting the tenderer’s selection process to consistently identify and propose candidates of the required quality and experience. | 20 |
| The verification procedures show serious weaknesses in detail, comprehensibility and binding quality. The concept provides no credible basis for expecting systematic cross-checking and validation of candidates' qualifications and professional experience prior to deployment. | 20 | |
| The performance monitoring processes show serious weaknesses in detail, comprehensibility and binding quality. The concept provides no credible basis for expecting proactive monitoring and timely early intervention prior to the formal initiation of recall or rejection proceedings. | 20 | |
| The tenderer describes only basic quality assurance measures for subcontractor involvement. The measures are partially generic, incomplete or insufficiently specified. Limited information is provided regarding selection criteria, monitoring activities, escalation procedures or replacement processes. Significant aspects of subcontractor governance remain unclear. The concept provides only limited confidence that subcontracted resources will consistently meet the quality requirements applicable under the Framework Agreement. | 20 | |
| Insufficient Performance expectations | No credible description of a structured operational selection process or objective assessment methods is provided. The consistent quality of pre-selected candidates cannot be guaranteed. | 0 |
| No credible procedures for verifying candidates' qualifications and professional experience are described. The systematic pre-deployment verification cannot be expected. | 0 | |
| No credible processes for ongoing performance monitoring or escalation are described. Effective identification and early resolution of performance issues prior to formal recall or rejection proceedings cannot be expected. | 0 | |
| The tenderer does not address quality assurance in the involvement of subcontractors, or the information provided is wholly inadequate, contradictory or incapable of evaluation. No meaningful quality assurance measures, controls or responsibilities are described. The concept provides no confidence that subcontracted resources would meet the quality requirements applicable under the Framework Agreement. | 0 |