...Oq!

1·/~ DPwH
Republic of the Philippines
07·.OlP.21J2'l
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
CENTRAL OFFICE
Manila

.uN 2 :3 2022
DEPARTMENT ORDER ) SUBJECT: Amending Department Order No. 05
Series o~ 2021 to Adopt New Guidelines,

No. 143 l
)
Criteria and Rating System for
Shortlisting and Technical Evaluation of
Bids for Locally-Funded Consulting
., 1"/" 202.2.
Series of 2022 h
Services Projects of the Department

To provide a more competitive and transparent process in the procurement of consulting

services projects, the Department hereby adopts a new and comprehensive guidelines,
criteria, and rating system for shortlisting and technical evaluation of bids for locally-funded
consulting services projects amending Department Order No. 05 series of 2021. The Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC) for Consulting Services, Technical Working Group (TWG), BAC
Secretariat and all other concerned offices of this Department shall use the revised criteria
and rating system for shortlisting and technical evaluation of bids attached hereto which are
in accordance with the provisions of Section 24.5.3 and Section 33.2.2 of the 2016 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) 9184 respectively.

The Procurement Service (PrS) is hereby authorized to issue updates, as needed, and
republish said updates with notification through Memorandum only.

This Order shall take effect immediately and shall supersede other issuances inconsistent
herewith.

ROGER G. MERCADO
Acting Secretary

Attachment: Annex A- Criteria and Rating System for the Shortlisting of Eligible Bidders
Annex B- Criteria and Rating System for the Technical Evaluation of Bids of Shortlisted Bidders.

12.1.2 MGNOjMVSG
Department of Public Works and Highways
Office of the Secretary

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
WIN2AB00083
 ..
D.O. No. ID- Series of 2022: Amending Department Order No. 05 series of 2021 to Adopt New Guidelines, Criteria
, and Rating System for Shortlisting and Technical Evaluation of Bids for Locally-
Funded Consulting Services Projects of the Department
Page 2 of 3

Amending Department Order No. OS series of 2021 to Adopt New Guidelines,

Criteria and Rating System for Shortlisting and Technical Evaluation of Bids for
Locally-Funded Consulting Services Projects of the Department

I. Shortlisting of Eligible Bidders

1. The Implementing Unit (IU) shall prepare the Criteria for Shortlisting of Eligible
Bidders (Annex A- Detal'led Criteria and Rating System for the Shortlisting of Eligible
Bidders) along with the other documents required during the Pre-Procurement
Conference (PPC) or before the advertisement of the consulting services project. This
must be submitted to the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) for Consulting Services
Secretariat or Procurement Engineer for review.

2. Prior to the opening of eligibility documents submitted by the prospective bidders, the
BAC shall deliberate the Criteria for Shortlisting (Annex A) to be signed/approved by
the BAC Chairperson. The BAC and/or its TWG shall only commence their shortlisting
evaluation once the Criteria has been deliberated and approved by the BAC
Chairperson.

3. The following criteria and corresponding maximum points shall be used in the
shortlisting of eligible bidders:

Shortlisting Criteria Maximum Points

I Experience of the Firm 60

II Availability of Required Personnel of the 10
Firm
III Workload 30
TOTAL 100

4. Passing score and number of shortlisted bidders will be determined by the BAC during
the Pre-procurement Conference .

.
II. Technical Evaluation of Bids of Shortlisted Bidders and/or Pre-Selected Bidders

1. The IU shall Pf!~pare the Criteria for the Technical Evaluation of Bids of
Shortlisted Bidders (Annex B- Detailed Criteria and Rating System for the Technical
Evaluation of Bids of Shortlisted Bidders) along with Annex A and all other documents
required during the PPCor before the advertisement of the consulting services project.
This must be submitted to the BAC Secretariat or Procurement Engineer for review.

2. Prior to the opening of technical bids and/or eligibility documents in case of Alternative
Mode of Procurement i.e. Two Failed Bidding, Small Value Procurement etc.,
submitted by the shortlisted and/or pre-selected bidders, the BAC shall deliberate the
Criteria for Technical Evaluation of Bids (Annex B) to be signed/approved by the BAC
Chairperson. The BAC and/or its TWG shall only commence their technical evaluation
of bids once the Criteria has been deliberated and approved by the BAC Chairperson.
D.O. No. ~ Series of 2022: Amending Department Order No. 05 series of 2021 to Adopt New Guideli~es, ~riteria
and Rating System for Shortlisting and Technical Evaluation of Bids for· Locally-
Funded Consulting Services Projects of the Department
. Page 3 of 3

3. The following criteria and corresponding maximum points shall be used in the technical
evaluation of bids of shortlisted and/or pre-selected bidders:

Criteria for the Technical Evaluation of Bids Maximum Points

Without With
CONSPES CONSPES
I.a Experience of the Firm 10 5
I.b CONSPES 5
II Qualifications of Key Personnel of the 80 80
Firm
III Methodology 10 10
TOTAL 100 100

4. The minimum Technical score and weights for Technical Proposal and Financial
Proposal (in case of Quality-Cost Based Evaluation) will be determined by the BAC for
Consulting Services during the ppc.

Section 33.2.1.b (ii) of the 2016 Revised IRR of RA 9184 states that \\ The financial and
technical proposals shall be given corresponding weights with the financial proposal
given a minimum weight of fifteen percent (15%) up to a maximum of forty percent
(40%). The weight of the technical criteria shall be adjusted accordingly such that
their total weight in percent together with the weight given to the financial proposal
shall add to one hundred percent (100%)'~ Normally, the weight for quality is 80%
with 20% for the cost.

4.1 Alternative Mode of Procurement

Under Alternative Mode of Procurement, the minimum technical score will also be
determined during the ppc. The mode of Procurement is the one indicated in the APP
but in case there is a need to update the mode of procurement, the Implementing Unit
shall recommend to be approved by the BAC for Consulting Services afterwhich the
APP will then be upqated.

\
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
CENTRAL OFFICE
Manila

RATIONALE

Consulting Services are services for infrastructure projects and other types of projects or activities of
the government requiring adequate external technical and professional expertise that are beyond the
capability and/or capacity of the Government to undertake such as, but not limited to: (i) advisory
and review services; (ii) pre-investment or feasibility studies; (iii) design; (iv) construction supervision;
(v) management and related services; and (vi) other technical services or special studies (IRR-A
Section 5 [i]).

Due to the “Build, Build, Build” Program of the current administration, the demand for Consulting
Services locally - funded or foreign – assisted has grown exponentially. However, challenges still exists
especially in delivering the services in a timely and efficiently manner. Delays in the procurement
process is one of the most common reasons.

Based on the monitoring and evaluation of consulting services project procured by Procurement
Services-Central Office, provided herein is the table showing the Causes of Failure of Bidding for
Consulting Services Contracts CY 2021-Present.
Table 1: Causes of Failure of Bidding for Consulting Services Contracts CY 2021-Present

Did not pass Did not pass

No
Project No Bids Unsuccessful the required the required
Eligible
Cancelled Received Negotiation Shortlisting Technical
Bidder
Score Score

Total No. of Failed Projects 1 1 3 1 4 6

Percentage of Failed
Projects 6.25% 6.25% 18.75% 6.25% 25.00% 37.50%
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
CENTRAL OFFICE
Manila

The frequency of “Did not pass the required Technical Score” is 6 out of 16 which is 37.50% of
the total failure of bidding for Consulting Services Contracts for CY 2021-Present. Another cause is the
“Did not pass the required Shortlisting Score” which has a frequency of 4 out of 6 or 25.00%
of the total failure of bidding for Consulting Services.

Based on the result of the study it was found that the leading cause of the failure of bidding in
Consulting Services is the bidder’s failure to meet the minimum requirements of the former criteria
set by Department Order No. 5 Series of 2021.

Thus, the Procurement Service is proposing the amendment of the said D.O. to address or minimize
the above-stated situation.
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
CENTRAL OFFICE
Manila

ANNEX A

DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR SHORTLISTING OF ELIGIBLE

BIDDERS

I. EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM (60 Points)

The score for this criterion shall be based on similar work experience on completed consulting
assignments, local or overseas. Projects with the biggest consultancy cost shall be considered
in the evaluation (maximum of 10 projects)

No. of Completed Cost of Completed

Rating
Contracts Contract as % of ABC
50% or more 4
40% to <50% 3
30% to <40% 2
<30% 1

4 TS
Score (I) = [0.60 + x ( − 1)] x 60
30 10
Where:

TS - Total Score, number of similar experience of the firm, or any of its permanent
technical personnel of the bidder
- Number of Completed Contract multiplied to equivalent rating

Note:

1. If the bidder or its permanent technical personnel has not completed any similar
contract, it shall be disqualified.

2. The score for this criterion shall not exceed 60 points.

3. In case of association, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV) or Sub-consulting, all
experiences shall be considered.

4. The similar completed contract cost must be adjusted using the latest Philippine
Statistics Authority Consumer Price Index as follows:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅
=
𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑃𝐼𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅

5. In the evaluation of the applicable experience of the bidders, the procuring entity shall
observe the additional guidelines attached in Appendix 1 - Completed Similar Services
to be considered and Appendix 2 - Completed Similar Infrastructure Projects to be
considered.
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR SHORTLISTING OF ELIGIBLE BIDDERS
ANNEX A
Page 2 of 7

II. AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED PERSONNEL OF THE FIRM (10 Points)

The score in this criterion shall be equivalent to the number of Permanent Technical Personnel
of the bidders in comparison to the required Technical Personnel of the Terms of Reference
(TOR), using the following criterion:

Score II = [0.60 + 𝑃𝐹 ∗ 0.40]10

Where:

PF - Personnel Factor, Ratio of Number of Permanent Technical Personnel to the

Number of Required personnel of the TOR

- 𝑁𝑝
𝑁𝑇

NP - Number of Permanent Technical Personnel of the bidders

NT - Number of required Technical Personnel as indicated in the TOR

Note:

1. Permanent Technical personnel refers to the regular employees of the bidders and do
not have a predetermined end date of employment.

2. The value of the ratio (NP/NT) shall not exceed one (1). The maximum allowable points
for this criterion shall not exceed ten (10) points.

3. In case of JV, the total number of permanent technical personnel shall be the sum of
the permanent technical personnel of each firm comprising the JV.

III. CURRENT WORKLOAD RELATIVE TO CAPACITY (30 Points)

A. ON-GOING PROJECTS (20 Points)

The score in this criterion shall be based on the on-going workload of the bidder. In
case of associate, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV) or Sub-consulting, the
total workload shall be the sum of the present workload of each firm comprising the
associate:

No. of On-Going Contracts, Government and Rating

Private
0 100%
1-5 90%
6-10 70%
>10 50%

Score III = (%Rating) 20

Note:
Non-disclosure of on-going contracts shall be sanctioned in accordance to Section 69 of
the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9184.

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR SHORTLISTING OF ELIGIBLE BIDDERS
ANNEX A
Page 3 of 7

B. FINANCIAL CAPACITY (10 Points)

The financial capacity of the firm shall be rated as follows:

𝑎
Financial Capacity = [ ]
𝑏
Where:

a - Average of Total Net Worth within two (2)

years
b - Cost of the Approved Budget for the Contract

Score III = (Financial Capacity) x 10

Note:
1. The value of the ratio of (a/b) shall not exceed to one (1).

2. For partners of Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), the Net Worth shall be equivalent
to the Total Net Worth of both partners.

The passing score and number of shortlisted firms shall be determined by the Bids
and Awards Committee during Pre-Procurement Conference.

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR SHORTLISTING OF ELIGIBLE BIDDERS
ANNEX A
Page 4 of 7

APPENDIX 1 - COMPLETED SIMILAR SERVICES TO BE CONSIDERED

Services to be Procured Completed SIMILAR SERVICES

to be Considered
Soil Boring Explorations 1. Geotechnical Investigation/Surveys
2. Soil Exploration/Investigation (Including Sub-
surface Soil Exploration)
3. Preliminary Engineering Design (PED) if Soil
Investigations are included therein
4. Feasibility Study (FS) if Soil Investigations are
included therein
5. Detailed Engineering Design (DED) if Soil
Investigations are included therein

Parcellary Surveys 1. Detailed Engineering Design (DED) if Parcellary

Surveys are included therein
2. Preparation of Parcellary Plans
3. Geodetic Engineering Surveys if Parcellary
Surveys are included therein
Topographic Surveys 1. Feasibility Study (FS) if Topographic Surveys are
included therein
2. Detailed Engineering Design (DED) if
Topographic Surveys are included therein
3. Preparation of Topographic Maps

Master Plan Preparation 1. Feasibility Studies

2. Urban Planning
3. Comprehensive Land Use

Business Case Study 1. Pre-Investment Studies

2. Feasibility Studies

Preliminary Engineering Design (PED) 1. Feasibility Studies with PED

2. Pre-Design Services which include but are not
limited to reconnaissance, topographical and
other engineering and land surveys, soil
investigations, preparation of preliminary
architectural/engineering designs, layouts,
outline specifications, preliminary cost estimates
and specific recommendations prior to actual
design [Annex B of 2016 IRR of RA 9184]
3. Detailed Engineering Design (DED)

Structural Investigation, Analysis and/or 1. Detailed Engineering Design with Structural

Design Investigation, Analysis and/or Design
2. Special Studies/Technical Assistance and/or
Advisory Services involving Structural
Investigation, Analysis and/or Design

Detailed Architectural and Engineering 1. Detailed Engineering Design

Design (DAED) 2. Special Studies/Technical Assistance and/or
Advisory Services involving Structural and/or
Architectural Investigation, Analysis and/or
Design

Retrofitting 1. Structural and/or Architectural Rehabilitation

Works involving Investigation and Analysis
Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR SHORTLISTING OF ELIGIBLE BIDDERS
ANNEX A
Page 5 of 7

2. Special Studies/Technical Assistance and/or

Advisory Services involving Investigation,
Analysis, Preservation, Restoration and/or
Rehabilitation of Structural and/or Architectural
Works

Quality Assurance 1. Construction Supervision

For other consulting services not indicated on the first column of the table above (Services to
be Procured) the Implementing Unit (IU) shall adopt a list of similar consulting services to be
considered on shortlisting, deemed as appropriate/necessary upon the approval of the Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC).

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR SHORTLISTING OF ELIGIBLE BIDDERS
ANNEX A
Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX 2 - COMPLETED SIMILAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS TO BE

CONSIDERED

Infrastructure Projects in Completed SIMILAR INFRASTRUCTURE

Consulting Services to be PROJECTS to be Considered
Procured
Roads 1. Highway
2. Expressways
3. Toll ways
4. Airport Runway/Taxiway/Apron
5. Underpass

Bridge 1. Flyover
2. Viaduct
3. Interchange
4. Wharf/Pier
5. Elevated Railway

Tunnel 1. Subway
2. Mining Tunnel
3. Subsurface aqueducts

River works 1. Revetment/River Walls

2. Dike, Spur Dike
3. Ground Sill
4. Floodway
5. Dams
6. Dredging

Urban Drainage 1. Pumping Stations

2. Floodgates
3. Sluiceways
4. Drainage System (Canals, Culverts, Pipes)
5. Irrigation Canals and Drainage

Coastal Protection 1. Seawall

2. Groins
3. Coastal Dikes

Dams 1. Dike,
2. Water Impounding
3. Sediment Control
4. Retarding Basin
5. Irrigation Dams
6. Hydroelectric Power Dams

Buildings 1. School
2. Hospital
3. Housing Projects
4. Commercial Buildings
5. Industrial Buildings
6. Warehouse
Sewerage and Septage 1. Water Supply and/or Sanitation Projects
2. Urban Drainage and Drainage System
3. Water Treatment Plants
4. Wastewater Facilities
5. Irrigation Projects
Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR SHORTLISTING OF ELIGIBLE BIDDERS
ANNEX A
Page 7 of 7

Towers 1. Transmission Towers

2. Telecommunication Towers (Cell Sites)

For other infrastructure projects not indicated on the first column of the table above
(Infrastructure Projects in Consulting Services to be Procured) the Implementing Unit
(IU) shall adopt a list of similar infrastructure projects to be considered on shortlisting, deemed
as appropriate/necessary upon the approval of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC).

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
CENTRAL OFFICE
Manila

ANNEX B

DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF

BIDS

I. EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM (10 Points)

The score for this criterion shall be based on similar work experience on completed consulting
assignments, local or overseas. Projects with the biggest consultancy cost shall be considered
in the evaluation (maximum of 10 projects).

No. of Completed Cost of Completed

Rating
Contracts Contract as % of ABC
50% or more 4
40% to <50% 3
30% to <40% 2
<30% 1

4 TS
Score (I) = [0.60 + x ( − 1)] x 10
30 10

Where:

TS - Total Score, number of similar experiences of the firm, or any of its

permanent technical personnel of the bidder

- Number of Completed Contract multiplied to equivalent rating

Note:

1. If the bidder or its permanent technical personnel has not completed any similar
contract, it shall be disqualified.

2. The score for this criterion shall not exceed 10 points.

3. In case of association, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV) or Sub-consulting, all
experiences shall be considered.

4. The similar completed contract cost must be adjusted using the latest Philippine
Statistics Authority Consumer Price Index as follows:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅

=
𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑃𝐼𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 2 of 11

5. In the evaluation of the applicable experience of the bidders, the procuring entity shall
observe the additional guidelines attached in Appendix 1 - Completed Similar Services
to be considered and Appendix 2 - Completed Similar Infrastructure Projects to be
considered.

II. QUALIFICATION OF PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL (80 Points)

The IU shall assign weights (%) to all required key personnel that will reflect the relative
importance of their responsibilities and inputs in the consulting services contract to be procured.
The assigned weights shall be the same on the weights indicated on the Bid Data Sheet (BDS).

The respective weight percentage of the personnel are the following:

Maximum Weight
No. of Weight
Position Points per (%) per
Personnel TOTAL
Personnel Personnel

1 Key Personnel No. 1 (Team Leader)

2 Key Personnel No. 2
3 Key Personnel No. 3
4 Key Personnel No. 4
5 Key Personnel No. n
TOTAL ∑N 100%
∑N= Total Number of Key Personnel

The score for this criteria shall be computed as follows:

A. Education, Training and Publication (30 Points)

The educational qualification of the personnel shall be rated as follows:

a) Allow 80% rating if the personnel has the relevant bachelor’s degree
b) Allow additional 10% rating for relevant Master’s degree
c) Allow additional 5% rating for Doctoral degree
d) Allow additional 1% rating for every 40 aggregate hours of relevant technical
trainings within the last ten (10) years (maximum of 200 training hours) or every
Technical publication/proceedings (maximum of 5 publications) or every three (3)
units of post – graduate studies or unfinished Master’s or Doctoral degree.

The key personnel must have the following minimum educational attainment;

KEY STAFF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION

Key Personnel No. 1 (Team Leader)
Key Personnel No. 2 The same requirements indicated in the
Key Personnel No. 3 Terms of Reference (TOR) and in the Bidding
Key Personnel No. 4 Documents (BD)
Key Personnel No. n

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 3 of 11

Individual Score II.A = Rating x 30 x (Assigned Weight per Personnel)

Score II. A = ∑ Individual Score II.A

B. Experience of Key Personnel (50 Points)

The experience for this criterion shall be based on similar and related consulting services
contracts local or overseas, occupying the positions as defined below:

Definition of “Similar” and “Related” Years of Services of Key Personnel

Similar
Position
Experience Related Experience
P1. Project P1, same S and P1, same S and
Manager same I different I
or
P1, different S and
same I
P2. Senior P2, same S and P1 or P2, same S and
Infra same I different I
Position or
P1 or P2, different S
and same I
P3. Other P3, same S and P3, any S and any I
Positions any I

Note:
P - Position
S - Type of consulting services (e.g., FS, DED, CS)
I - Type of infrastructure (e.g., Road, Flood Control, etc.)
𝒀+𝟎.𝟐𝟓𝒀𝒓
Individual Score B =[ ( 𝒀𝒎𝒊𝒏
)] (𝟓𝟎)(𝑾𝒕. 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒍)

Where:

Y - Similar Years of Experience.

Yr - Related Years of Experience (shall not exceed the Ymin)

Ymin - Required Minimum Years of Experience

Note:

1. Proposed personnel who have no similar experience shall be rated zero in Experience.

𝒀+𝟎.𝟐𝟓𝒀𝒓
2. The value of the ratio ( 𝒀𝒎𝒊𝒏
) shall not exceed one (1).

3. The bidder shall be disqualified if any of the proposed personnel was found non –
complying to the requirements of the TOR and BD (Education, Professional Licensure
and/or Accreditations).

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 4 of 11

4. For non-infrastructure projects, the IU shall prepare their own set of criteria for the
qualification of key personnel subject for approval by the Bids and Awards Committee.

Score II. B = ∑ Individual Score II.B

Score II = Score II.A + Score II. B

III. METHODOLOGY (10 Points)

The plan of approach and methodology shall be rated using the following checklist criterion
and corresponding points:

III. A – Clarity, feasibility, innovativeness, and comprehensiveness of the plan

approach (8 Points)

Score III.A = A+B+C+D

A. Clarity - quality of narrative description of the methodology and work plan for
performing the services(2 points) (Score A = a+b)

a. The description discussed fully all aspects of the Services in the submitted TPF 4 -
Description of the Methodology and Work Plan for Performing the Project (1
point).
b. The work plan is described in proper order of work activities in the submitted TPF
4 – Description of the Methodology and Work Plan for Performing the Project (1
point).

B. Feasibility – capability to achieve the services (2 points)

(Score B = a+b+c+d).

a. The proposed team includes all required personnel, and the tasks of each key
personnel are clearly defined in TPF5 – Organizational Chart, Team Composition
and Tasks for the Project (0.5 point).
b. The work activities are achievable and given in logical sequence in the submitted
TPF5 – Organizational Chart, Team Composition and Tasks for the Project (0.5
point).
c. The assignment of personnel in TPF7 - Time Schedule of Professional Staff - is
consistent with the work activities in TPF5 – Organizational Chart, Team
Composition and Tasks for the Project (0.5 point).
d. Each of the key personnel has letter of commitment to work on the project
(i+ii+…n in a total of 0.5 point).
Key Personnel No. 1
Key Personnel No. 2
Key Personnel No. 3
Key Personnel No. n

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 5 of 11

C. Innovativeness - adoption of quality standard/new work approach technology/tools (2

points) (Score C=a+b+c+d).

a. There is innovation with discussion on how the methodology will enhance the
quality of work outputs and/or ensure timely completion of the Services in TPF 4 -
Description of the Methodology and Work Plan (0.5 point).
b. The methodology completely describes the technology and tools to be used in TPF
4 - Description of the Methodology and Work Plan (0.5 point).
c. Flexibility of the proposed Methodology. (0.5 point).
d. Adaptability of the proposed Methodology (0.5 point)

D. Comprehensiveness - completeness and adequate level of detail of the work plan as to

how the Services shall be carried out as outlined in the Terms of Reference (2 points)
(Score D= a+b+c+d).

a. All works required in the Services are covered in TPF7 - Time Schedule of
Professional Staff (0.5 point).
b. All the required key personnel are covered in TPF5 – Organizational Chart, Team
Composition and Tasks for the Project (0.5 point).
c. There is a clear presentation of interdependence of activities, such as bar chart, as
shown in TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology and Work Plan and TPF7 - Time
Schedule of Professional Staff (0.5 point).
d. The work plan integrates interactions of the bidder, with the concerned DPWH
Offices, LGUs, and other government agencies, in TPF 4 - Description of the
Methodology and Work Plan for performing the services and in TPF7 - Time
Schedule of Professional Staff (0.5 point).

III. B – Quality of Interpretation of project problems, risks, & suggested solutions

(2 points)

Score III.B = A+B

A. There is clear discussion on possible problems and risks based on actual site
inspection in TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology and Work Plan (1 point).

B. Appropriateness of suggested solutions - achievability of suggested solutions to

the problems and risks (1 point) (Score B = a+b)

a. The suggested solutions are logical and practicable in the submitted TPF 3.
Comments and Suggestions of Consultant on the Terms of Reference and on
data, services, and facilities to be provided by the Procuring Entity (0.5 point).

b. There is a clear discussion on how the proposed solutions shall be carried out
in the submitted TPF 3. Comments and Suggestions of Consultant on the
Terms of Reference and on data, services, and facilities to be provided by the

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 6 of 11

Procuring Entity and/or TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology and Work Plan
(0.5 point).

Score (III) = Score III.A + Score III.B

TOTAL SCORE = Score I + Score II + Score III

The weights for Technical Proposal and Financial Proposal (in case of Quality Cost Based
Evaluation) and minimum technical score shall be determined by the Bids and Awards
Committee during Pre-Procurement Conference.

Section 33.2.1.b (ii) of the 2016 Revised IRR of RA 9184 states that “The financial and technical
proposals shall be given corresponding weights with the financial proposal given a minimum
weight of fifteen percent (15%) up to a maximum of forty percent (40%). The weight of the
technical criteria shall be adjusted accordingly such that their total weight in percent together
with the weight given to the financial proposal shall add to one hundred percent (100%)”.
Normally, the weight for quality is 80% with 20% for the cost.

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 7 of 11

APPENDIX 1 - COMPLETED SIMILAR SERVICES TO BE CONSIDERED

Services to be Procured Completed SIMILAR SERVICES

to be Considered
Soil Boring Explorations 1. Geotechnical Investigation/Surveys
2. Soil Exploration/Investigation (Including Sub-
surface Soil Exploration)
3. Preliminary Engineering Design (PED) if Soil
Investigations are included therein
4. Feasibility Study (FS) if Soil Investigations are
included therein
5. Detailed Engineering Design (DED) if Soil
Investigations are included therein

Parcellary Surveys 1. Detailed Engineering Design (DED) if Parcellary

Surveys are included therein
2. Preparation of Parcellary Plans
3. Geodetic Engineering Surveys if Parcellary
Surveys are included therein
Topographic Surveys 1. Feasibility Study (FS) if Topographic Surveys are
included therein
2. Detailed Engineering Design (DED) if
Topographic Surveys are included therein
3. Preparation of Topographic Maps

Master Plan Preparation 1. Feasibility Studies

2. Urban Planning
3. Comprehensive Land Use

Business Case Study 1. Pre-Investment Studies

2. Feasibility Studies

Preliminary Engineering Design (PED) 1. Feasibility Studies with PED

2. Pre-Design Services which include but are not
limited to reconnaissance, topographical and
other engineering and land surveys, soil
investigations, preparation of preliminary
architectural/engineering designs, layouts,
outline specifications, preliminary cost estimates
and specific recommendations prior to actual
design [Annex B of 2016 IRR of RA 9184]
3. Detailed Engineering Design (DED)

Structural Investigation, Analysis and/or 1. Detailed Engineering Design with Structural

Design Investigation, Analysis and/or Design
Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 8 of 11

2. Special Studies/Technical Assistance and/or

Advisory Services involving Structural
Investigation, Analysis and/or Design

Detailed Architectural and Engineering 1. Detailed Engineering Design

Design (DAED) 2. Special Studies/Technical Assistance and/or
Advisory Services involving Structural and/or
Architectural Investigation, Analysis and/or
Design

Retrofitting 1. Structural and/or Architectural Rehabilitation

Works involving Investigation and Analysis
2. Special Studies/Technical Assistance and/or
Advisory Services involving Investigation,
Analysis, Preservation, Restoration and/or
Rehabilitation of Structural and/or Architectural
Works

Quality Assurance 1. Construction Supervision

For other consulting services not indicated on the first column of the table above (Services to
be Procured) the Implementing Unit (IU) shall adopt a list of similar consulting services to be
considered on shortlisting, deemed as appropriate/necessary upon the approval of the Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC).

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 9 of 11

APPENDIX 2 - COMPLETED SIMILAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS TO BE

CONSIDERED

Infrastructure Projects in Completed SIMILAR INFRASTRUCTURE

Consulting Services to be PROJECTS to be Considered
Procured
Roads 1. Highway
2. Expressways
3. Tollways
4. Airport Runway/Taxiway/Apron
5. Underpass

Bridge 1. Flyover
2. Viaduct
3. Interchange
4. Wharf/Pier
5. Elevated Railway

Tunnel 1. Subway
2. Mining Tunnel
3. Subsurface aqueducts

River works 1. Revetment/River Walls

2. Dike, Spur Dike
3. Ground Sill
4. Floodway
5. Dams
6. Dredging

Urban Drainage 1. Pumping Stations

2. Floodgates
3. Sluiceways
4. Drainage System (Canals, Culverts, Pipes)
5. Irrigation Canals and Drainage

Coastal Protection 1. Seawall

2. Groins
3. Coastal Dikes

Dams 1. Dike,
2. Water Impounding
3. Sediment Control
4. Retarding Basin
5. Irrigation Dams
6. Hydroelectric Power Dams

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 10 of 11

Buildings 1. School
2. Hospital
3. Housing Projects
4. Commercial Buildings
5. Industrial Buildings
6. Warehouse
Sewerage and Septage 1. Water Supply and/or Sanitation Projects
2. Urban Drainage and Drainage System
3. Water Treatment Plants
4. Wastewater Facilities
5. Irrigation Projects
Towers 1. Transmission Towers
2. Telecommunication Towers (Cell Sites)

For other infrastructure projects not indicated on the first column of the table above
(Infrastructure Projects in Consulting Services to be Procured) the Implementing Unit
(IU) shall adopt a list of similar infrastructure projects to be considered on shortlisting, deemed
as appropriate/necessary upon the approval of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC).

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 DETAILED CRITERIA AND RATING SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF BIDS
ANNEX B
Page 11 of 11

Adopting D.O. 07. Guidelines for Shortlisting and Bid Evaluation for Consultants for Locally-funded
 CRITERIA FOR SHORTLISTING

Original Criteria Proposed Criteria Rationale

I. Experience of the Firm ( 50 Points) I. Experience of the Firm ( 60 Points) - Consider the quantity
and cost of the project
The score for this criterion shall be based on the Single Largest The score for this criterion shall be based on similar work experience
Completed Similar Consulting Services Contract (SLCSCSC) of the on completed consulting assignments, local or overseas. Projects with As indicated in Section
bidder or SLCSCSC of any permanent technical personnel of the the biggest consultancy cost shall be considered in the evaluation 24.5.1 of the Revised IRR of
bidder, local or overseas, similar (Services and Infrastructure) to the (maximum of 10 projects) RA 9184, consultants shall
services to be procured: be considered as short
No. of listed if they have
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐼 = [(0.80𝐶𝐹1 + 0. 20𝐶𝐹2 )]50 Cost of Completed
Completed Rating satisfactorily completed
Contract as % of ABC
Contracts contracts, as stated in their
where:
50% or more 4 eligibility documents that
- Cost Factor 1 is the ratio of the bidder’s SLCSCSC 40% to <50% 3 are similar in nature and
CF1
(undertaken only by the bidder) relative to the 30% to <40% 2 complexity to the project.
Approved/Estimated Budget for the Contract <30% 1
(A/EBC)
4 TS
- 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑙𝑐𝑠𝑐𝑠𝑐 Score (I) = [0.60 + x ( − 1)] x 60
30 10
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎/𝑒𝑏𝑐
CF2 - Cost Factor 2 is the ratio of the bidder’s SLCSCSC Where:
(undertaken only by the bidder) relative to the
TS - Total Score, number of similar experience of the firm,
Highest Contract Cost of Similar Services
or any of its permanent technical personnel of the
undertaken by the Implementing Unit
bidder
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑙𝑐𝑠𝑐𝑠𝑐 - Number of Completed Contract multiplied to
- 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑢 equivalent rating

Costslcscsc - Single Largest Completed Similar Consulting Note:

Services Contract (SLCSCSC) of the bidder or 1. If the bidder or its permanent technical personnel has not
SLCCSC of any permanent technical personnel of completed any similar contract, it shall be disqualified.
the bidder similar (Services and Infrastructure) to
the services to be procured. 2. The score for this criterion shall not exceed 60 points.

Costiu - Largest Contract Cost of similar consulting services, 3. In case of association, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV)
including awarded but not yet started, procured by or Sub-consulting, all experiences shall be considered.
the Implementing Unit (IU). Also known as the
experience of IU.

1
 4. The similar completed contract cost must be adjusted using the
Costa/ebc - Approved/Estimated Budget for the Contract of the latest Philippine Statistics Authority Consumer Price Index as
Consulting Service being procured. follows:

Note: 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅

1. If the bidder or its permanent technical personnel has not =
𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑃𝐼𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅
completed any similar contract, it shall be disqualified.
5. In the evaluation of the applicable experience of the bidders,
2. The value of Cost Factors shall not exceed 1.00. the procuring entity shall observe the additional guidelines
attached in Appendix 1 - Completed Similar Services to be
3. In case of association, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV) considered and Appendix 2 - Completed Similar Infrastructure
or Sub-consulting, the percent share of each bidders will only be Projects to be considered.
considered in the computation of Costslcscsc.

4. If the IU has no similar consulting services contract the value of

Cost Factor 2 shall be equal to one (CF2 =1.00).

5. In the evaluation of the applicable experience of the bidders, the

procuring entity shall observe the additional guidelines attached
in Appendix 1 - Completed Similar Services to be considered
and Appendix 2 - Completed Similar Infrastructure Projects to
be considered.

2
II. AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED PERSONNEL OF THE FIRM (20 Points) II. AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED PERSONNEL OF THE FIRM (10 Points)

The score in this criterion shall be equivalent to the number of Permanent The score in this criterion shall be equivalent to the number of
Technical Personnel of the bidders in comparison to the required Permanent Technical Personnel of the bidders in comparison to the
Technical Personnel of the Terms of Reference (TOR), using the required Technical Personnel of the Terms of Reference (TOR), using
following criterion: the following criterion:

Score II = [0.60 + 𝑃𝐹 ∗ 0.40]20 Score II = [0.60 + 𝑃𝐹 ∗ 0.40]10

Where: Where:
PF - Personnel Factor, Ratio of Number of Permanent PF - Personnel Factor, Ratio of Number of Permanent
Technical Personnel to the Number of Required Technical Personnel to the Number of Required
personnel of the TOR personnel of the TOR

- 𝑁𝑝 - 𝑁𝑝
𝑁𝑇 𝑁𝑇

NP - Number of Permanent Technical Personnel of the NP - Number of Permanent Technical Personnel of the
bidders bidders
NT - Number of required Technical Personnel as indicated NT - Number of required Technical Personnel as
in the TOR indicated in the TOR

Note: Note:
1. Permanent Technical personnel refers to the regular employees 1. Permanent Technical personnel refers to the regular employees
of the bidders and do not have a predetermined end date of of the bidders and do not have a predetermined end date of
employment. employment.

2. The value of the ratio (Np/Nt) shall not exceed one (1). The 2. The value of the ratio (NP/NT) shall not exceed one (1). The
maximum allowable points for this criterion shall not exceed maximum allowable points for this criterion shall not exceed
twenty (20) points. ten (10) points.

3. In case of JV, the total number of permanent technical personnel 3. In case of JV, the total number of permanent technical
shall be the sum of the permanent technical personnel of each personnel shall be the sum of the permanent technical
firm comprising the JV. personnel of each firm comprising the JV.

3
III. WORKLOAD (30 Points) III. CURRENT WORKLOAD RELATIVE TO CAPACITY (30 Points)

The score in this criterion shall be based on the present workload of the A. ON-GOING PROJECTS (20 Points)
bidder. In case of associate, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV) or
Sub-consulting, the total workload shall be the sum of the present The score in this criterion shall be based on the on-going workload of
workload of each firm comprising the associate: the bidder. In case of associate, whether in the form of Joint Venture
(JV) or Sub-consulting, the total workload shall be the sum of the
No. of On-Going Contracts, Government and Private Rating present workload of each firm comprising the associate: - Considering the
None 100% Financial capacity of
1-5 90% No. of On-Going Contracts, Government and Private Rating the bidders
6-10 80% 0 100%
>10 70% 1-5 90%
6-10 70%
Score III = (%Rating) 30 >10 50%

Note: Score III = (%Rating) 20

Non-disclosure of on-going contracts shall be sanctioned in accordance Note:
to Section 69 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Non-disclosure of on-going contracts shall be sanctioned in accordance
Republic Act 9184. to Section 69 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act 9184.
TOTAL SCORE = Score I + Score II + Score III
B. FINANCIAL CAPACITY (10 Points)
Passing Score 80 points
The financial capacity of the firm shall be rated as follows:

𝑎
Financial Capacity = [ ]
𝑏
Where:
a - Average of Total Net Worth within two (2) years
b - Cost of the Approved Budget for the Contract

Score III = (Financial Capacity) x 10

Note:
1. The value of the ratio of (a/b) shall not exceed to one (1).
2. For partners of Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), the Net Worth
shall be equivalent to the Total Net Worth of both partners.

The passing score and number of shortlisted firms shall be

determined by the Bids and Awards Committee during
-No Passing Score
Pre-Procurement Conference.

4
5
 CRITERIA FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Original Criteria Proposed Criteria Rationale

I. Experience of the Firm ( 10 Points) I. Experience of the Firm (10 Points)

The score for this criterion shall be based on the Single Largest Completed The score for this criterion shall be based on similar work experience on
Similar Consulting Services Contract (SLCSCSC) of the bidder or SLCSCSC of completed consulting assignments, local or overseas. Projects with the - Consider the
any permanent technical personnel of the bidder, local or overseas, similar biggest consultancy cost shall be considered in the evaluation (maximum of quantity and
(Services and Infrastructure) to the services to be procured: 10 projects) cost of the
project
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐼 = [(0.80𝐶𝐹1 + 0. 20𝐶𝐹2 )]50 No. of Completed Cost of Completed
Rating
Contracts Contract as % of ABC As indicated in
where: 50% or more 4 Section 24.5.1 of
40% to <50% 3 the Revised IRR of
CF1 - Cost Factor 1 is the ratio of the bidder’s SLCSCSC 30% to <40% 2 RA 9184,
(undertaken only by the bidder) relative to the <30% 1 consultants shall
Approved/Estimated Budget for the Contract (A/EBC) be considered as
4 TS short listed if they
- 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑙𝑐𝑠𝑐𝑠𝑐 Score (I) = [0.60 + x ( − 1)] x 10 have satisfactorily
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎/𝑒𝑏𝑐 30 10
completed
CF2 - Cost Factor 2 is the ratio of the bidder’s SLCSCSC
Where: contracts, as
(undertaken only by the bidder) relative to the Highest
TS - Total Score, number of similar experiences of the firm, stated in their
Contract Cost of Similar Services undertaken by the
or any of its permanent technical personnel of the eligibility
Implementing Unit
bidder documents that
- Number of Completed Contract multiplied to are similar in
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑙𝑐𝑠𝑐𝑠𝑐
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑢
equivalent rating nature and
-
complexity to the
Note: project.
Costsl - Single Largest Completed Similar Consulting Services
1. If the bidder or its permanent technical personnel has not
cscsc Contract (SLCSCSC) of the bidder or SLCCSC of any
completed any similar contract, it shall be disqualified.
permanent technical personnel of the bidder similar
(Services and Infrastructure) to the services to be
2. The score for this criterion shall not exceed 10 points.
procured.

Costiu - Largest Contract Cost of similar consulting services, 3. In case of association, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV) or
Sub-consulting, all experiences shall be considered.
including awarded but not yet started, procured by the
Implementing Unit (IU). Also known as the experience
of IU.

1
Costa/ - Approved/Estimated Budget for the Contract of the 4. The similar completed contract cost must be adjusted using the
ebc Consulting Service being procured. latest Philippine Statistics Authority Consumer Price Index as
follows:
Note:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅
=
1. The value of Cost Factors shall not exceed 1.00. 𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅 𝑂𝐹 𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇𝑅𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝑃𝐼𝐶𝑈𝑅𝑅𝐸𝑁𝑇 𝑌𝐸𝐴𝑅

2. In case of association, whether in the form of Joint Venture (JV) or Sub- 5. In the evaluation of the applicable experience of the bidders, the
consulting, the percent share of each bidders will only be considered in procuring entity shall observe the additional guidelines attached in
the computation of Costslcscsc. Appendix 1 - Completed Similar Services to be considered and
Appendix 2 - Completed Similar Infrastructure Projects to be
3. If the IU has no similar consulting services contract the value of Cost considered.
Factor 2 shall be equal to one (CF2 =1.00).

4. In the evaluation of the applicable experience of the bidders, the

procuring entity shall observe the additional guidelines attached in
Appendix 1 - Completed Similar Services to be considered and
Appendix 2 - Completed Similar Infrastructure Projects to be
considered.

2
 II. QUALIFICATION OF PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL (80 Points) II. QUALIFICATION OF PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL (80 Points) - Revert Back to
previous
The IU shall assign weights (%) to all required key personnel that will reflect the The IU shall assign weights (%) to all required key personnel that will reflect criterion to
relative importance of their responsibilities and inputs in the consulting services the relative importance of their responsibilities and inputs in the consulting capture all
contract to be procured. The assigned weights shall be the same on the weights services contract to be procured. The assigned weights shall be the same on experience of
indicated on the Bid Data Sheet (BDS). the weights indicated on the Bid Data Sheet (BDS). the proposed
personnel
The respective weight percentage of the personnel are the following: The respective weight percentage of the personnel are the following:

No. of Maximum Weight

No. of Maximum Weight (%) Weight
Position Person Points per (%) per
Position Personn Points per per Weight TOTAL TOTAL
nel Personnel Personnel
el Personnel Personnel
Key Personnel No. 1
1
1 Key Personnel No. (Team Leader)
1 (Team Leader)
2 Key Personnel No. 2
2 Key Personnel No.
2 3 Key Personnel No. 3

3 Key Personnel No. 4 Key Personnel No. 4

3
5 Key Personnel No. n
4 Key Personnel No.
4 TOTAL ∑N 100%

5 Key Personnel No. ∑N= Total Number of Key Personnel

n
The score for this criterion shall be computed as follows:
TOTAL ∑N 100%
A. Education, Training and Publication (30 Points)
∑N= Total Number of Key Personnel
The educational qualification of the personnel shall be rated as
The score for this criteria shall be computed as follows: follows:
A. Education, Training and Publication (30 Points)
a) Allow 80% rating if the personnel have the relevant bachelor’s
The educational qualification of the personnel shall be rated as follows: degree
b) Allow additional 10% rating for relevant Master’s degree
a) Allow 80% rating if the personnel has the relevant bachelor’s degree c) Allow additional 5% rating for Doctoral degree
b) Allow additional 10% rating for relevant Master’s degree d) Allow additional 1% rating for every 40 aggregate hours of
c) Allow additional 5% rating for Doctoral degree relevant technical trainings within the last ten (10) years

3
 d) Allow additional 1% rating for every 40 aggregate hours of relevant (maximum of 200 training hours) or every Technical
technical trainings within the last ten (10) years (maximum of 200 training publication/proceedings (maximum of 5 publications) or every
hours) or every Academic Technical publication (maximum of 5 three (3) units of post – graduate studies or unfinished Master’s
publications) or every three (3) units of post – graduate studies.
or Doctoral degree.
KEY STAFF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION
Key Personnel The same requirements indicated in the Terms of KEY STAFF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION
No. 1 (Team Reference (TOR) and in the Bidding Documents (BD) Key Personnel No. 1 The same requirements indicated in the Terms
Leader) (Team Leader) of Reference (TOR) and in the Bidding
Key Personnel Key Personnel No. 2 Documents (BD)
No. 2 Key Personnel No. 3
Key Personnel Key Personnel No. 4
No. 3
Key Personnel No. n
Key Personnel
No. 4
Key Personnel The key personnel must have the following minimum educational
No. n attainment;

The key personnel must have the following minimum educational attainment; Individual Score II.A = Rating x 30 x (Assigned Weight per Personnel)

Score II. A = ∑ Individual Score II.A

Individual Score II.A = Rating x 30 x (Assigned Weight per Personnel)
B. Experience of Key Personnel (50 Points)
Score II. A = ∑ Individual Score II.A

The experience for this criterion shall be based on similar and related
B. Similar Experience of Key Personnel (50 Points) consulting services contracts local or overseas, occupying the
positions as defined below:
The experience for this criteria shall be based on similar consulting services Definition of “Similar” and “Related” Years of Services of Key Personnel
(similar services and similar infrastructure), contracts local or overseas, Related Experience
occupying the same position as proposed or higher as shown below: Position Similar Experience
P1. Project P1, same S and same I P1, same S and
Table 1. Similar Position, Similar Consulting Services, and Similar Infrastructure
Projects to be considered in the Evaluation of the Experience of Key Manager different I
Personnel or
Years of Similar Experience P1, different S and same I
Position Experience, Ymax,
Ymin P2. Senior Infra P2, same S and same I P1 or P2, same S and
Similar Consulting Services
Position different I
As Indicated in the Terms of or
Max of XX; Min of Reference (TOR) and the P1 or P2, different S and
XX Bidding Documents (BDs)
same I
P1 Key
Personnel Similar Infrastructures

4
 No. 1 (Team As Indicated in the Terms of P3. Other P3, same S and any I P3, any S and any I
Leader) Reference (TOR) and the Positions
Bidding Documents (BDs)

Similar Consulting Services

Note:
As Indicated in the Terms of P - Position
Reference (TOR) and the S - Type of consulting services (e.g., FS, DED, CS)
Bidding Documents (BDs) I - Type of infrastructure (e.g., Road, Flood Control, etc.)
P2 Key Max of XX; Min of
Personnel XX Similar Infrastructures 𝒀+𝟎.𝟐𝟓𝒀𝒓
Individual Score B = [ ( )] (𝟓𝟎)(𝑾𝒕. 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒍)
No. 2 𝒀𝒎𝒊𝒏
(Deputy As Indicated in the Terms of
Team Leader Reference (TOR) and the Where:
or Bidding Documents (BDs)
equivalent) Y - Similar Years of Experience.
Similar Consulting Services
Yr - Related Years of Experience (shall not
As Indicated in the Terms of
Reference (TOR) and the exceed the Ymin)
Bidding Documents (BDs)
Ymin - Required Minimum Years of Experience
P2 Key Similar Infrastructures
Max of XX; Min of
Personnel
XX
No. 3 As Indicated in the Terms of Note:
Reference (TOR) and the 1. Proposed personnel who have no similar experience shall be rated
Bidding Documents (BDs)
zero in Experience.
.
𝒀+𝟎.𝟐𝟓𝒀𝒓
2. The value of the ratio ( ) shall not exceed one (1).
𝒀𝒎𝒊𝒏

Similar Consulting Services

3. The bidder shall be disqualified if any of the proposed personnel
As Indicated in the Terms of
was found non – complying to the requirements of the TOR and
Reference (TOR) and the BD (Education, Professional Licensure and/or Accreditations).
Bidding Documents (BDs)
P2 Key 4. For non-infrastructure projects, the IU shall prepare their own set
Max of XX; Min of
Personnel Similar Infrastructure of criteria for the qualification of key personnel subject for
XX
No. 4 approval by the Bids and Awards Committee.
As Indicated in the Terms of
Reference (TOR) and the Score II. B = ∑ Individual Score II.B
Bidding Documents (BDs)
Score II = Score II.A + Score II. B

5
 Max of XX; Min of Similar Consulting Services
XX
P2 Key As Indicated in the Terms of
Personnel Reference (TOR) and the
No. n Bidding Documents (BDs)

Similar Infrastructure

As Indicated in the Terms of

Reference (TOR) and the
Bidding Documents (BDs)

Individual Score B =

𝒀 − 𝒀𝒎𝒊𝒏
[𝟎. 𝟖𝟎 + ( ) (𝟎. 𝟐𝟎)] (𝟓𝟎)(𝑾𝒕. 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒍)
𝒀𝒎𝒂𝒙 − 𝒀𝒎𝒊𝒏

Where:

Y - Similar Years of Experience. The Total Number of Years of Experience satisfying the three (3) condition: Similar
Position, Similar Consulting Services and Similar Infrastructure Projects.

Ymax - Maximum required years as indicated in Table 1.

Ymin - Minimum required years as indicated in Table 1.

Note:
1. Proposed personnel who did not meet the minimum experience shall be to zero.
.
𝑌−𝑌𝑚𝑖𝑛
2. The value of the ratio ( ) shall not exceed one (1).
𝑌𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑌𝑚𝑖𝑛

3. The Ymax, and Ymin shall be determined during the Pre-Procurement Conference
of the contract.

4. The bidder shall be disqualified if any of the proposed personnel was found non
– complying to the requirements of the TOR and BD (Education, Professional
Licensure and/or Accreditations).

Score II. B = ∑ Individual Score II.B

SCORE (II) = II.A + II.B

6
 III. METHODOLOGY (10 Points) III. METHODOLOGY (10 Points)

The plan of approach and methodology shall be rated using the following
The methodology shall be rated using the following checklist and checklist criterion and corresponding points:
corresponding points:
III. A – Clarity, feasibility, innovativeness, and comprehensiveness of the
plan approach
III. A – Approach and Method
Score III.A = A+B+C+D
1. The approach to carry out the activities in the TOR was
A. Clarity - quality of narrative description of the methodology and
discussed by the consultant and how the said approach
work plan for performing the services(2 points) (Score A = a+b)
will benefit the government and the project. (2points)
a. The description discussed fully all aspects of the Services in
2. The approach addressed important issues as indicated in
the submitted TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology and
the Terms of Reference. (1point)
Work Plan for Performing the Project (1 point).
Clearly shows the
b. The work plan is described in proper order of work activities in
3. The consultant proposed an innovative or modern emphasis on the
the submitted TPF 4 – Description of the Methodology and
approach to carry out the assignment. (1point) clarity, feasibility,
Work Plan for Performing the Project (1 point).
innovativeness
III. B – Work Plan and
B. Feasibility – capability to achieve the services (2 points)
comprehensivene
(Score B = a+b+c+d).
1. All important activities are indicated in the Activity ss of the plan
Schedule, and their timings are appropriate and approach and the
a. The proposed team includes all required personnel, and the
consistent with the assignment outputs. (1point) quality of
tasks of each key personnel are clearly defined in TPF5 –
interpretation of
Organizational Chart, Team Composition and Tasks for the
2. The interrelation between various activities are project problems,
Project (0.5 point).
consistent with the requirements of the TOR. (1point) risks and
b. The work activities are achievable and given in logical
suggested
sequence in the submitted TPF5 – Organizational Chart, Team
3. The consultant has broken down the work schedule to solutions
Composition and Tasks for the Project (0.5 point).
ensure the most efficient and effective way in the
c. The assignment of personnel in TPF7 - Time Schedule of
attainment of the objectives of the TOR. (1point)
Professional Staff - is consistent with the work activities in
TPF5 – Organizational Chart, Team Composition and Tasks for
the Project (0.5 point).
III. C – Organization and Staffing
d. Each of the key personnel has letter of commitment to work
on the project (i+ii+…n in a total of 0.5 point).
1. The Organizational Chart is complete and there is a
Key Personnel No. 1
detailed definition of the Duties and Responsibilities.
Key Personnel No. 2
(1point)
Key Personnel No. 3
Key Personnel No. n

7
 2. The Organizational Chart clearly shows lines of C. Innovativeness - adoption of quality standard/new work approach
responsibility and links between DPWH, Consultant and technology/tools (2 points) (Score C=a+b+c+d).
other Stakeholders. (1point)
a. There is innovation with discussion on how the methodology
3. The timing and deployment of the personnel is will enhance the quality of work outputs and/or ensure timely
consistent with the staffing schedule. (1point) completion of the Services in TPF 4 - Description of the
Methodology and Work Plan (0.5 point).
b. The methodology completely describes the technology and
Score (III) = Score III.A + Score III.B + Score III.C tools to be used in TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology and
Work Plan (0.5 point).
TOTAL SCORE = Score I + Score II + Score III c. Flexibility of the proposed Methodology. (0.5 point).
d. Adaptability of the proposed Methodology (0.5 point)

Passing Score = 80 points D. Comprehensiveness - completeness and adequate level of detail of

the work plan as to how the Services shall be carried out as outlined
in the Terms of Reference (2 points) (Score D= a+b+c+d).

a. All works required in the Services are covered in TPF7 - Time

Schedule of Professional Staff (0.5 point).
b. All the required key personnel are covered in TPF5 –
Organizational Chart, Team Composition and Tasks for the
Project (0.5 point).
c. There is a clear presentation of interdependency of the
activities, such as bar chart, as shown in TPF 4 - Description of
the Methodology and Work Plan and TPF7 - Time Schedule of
Professional Staff (0.5 point).
d. The work plan integrates interactions of the bidder, with the
concerned DPWH Offices, LGUs, and other government
agencies, in TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology and Work
Plan for performing the services and in TPF7 - Time Schedule of
Professional Staff (0.5 point).

8
III. B – Quality of Interpretation of project problems, risks, & suggested
solutions
Score III.B = A+B

A. There is clear discussion on possible problems and risks based on

actual site inspection in TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology
and Work Plan (1 point).

B. Appropriateness of suggested solutions - achievability of suggested

solutions to the problems and risks (2 points) (Score B = a+b)

a. The suggested solutions are logical and practicable in the

submitted TPF 3. Comments and Suggestions of Consultant on
the Terms of Reference and on data, services, and facilities to
be provided by the Procuring Entity (0.5 point).

b. There is a clear discussion on how the proposed solutions shall

be carried out in the submitted TPF 3. Comments and
Suggestions of Consultant on the Terms of Reference and on
data, services, and facilities to be provided by the Procuring
Entity and/or TPF 4 - Description of the Methodology and Work
Plan (0.5 point).

Score (III) = Score III.A + Score III.B

TOTAL SCORE = Score I + Score II + Score III

The weights for Technical Proposal and Financial Proposal (in case of
Quality Cost Based Evaluation) and minimum technical score shall be
determined by the Bids and Awards Committee during
Pre-Procurement Conference.