Original source · versioned page text
2015-10-22 Ordinary Meeting Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 22 OCTOBER 2015
Page 18 of 20
Final Evaluation
Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet
f & 6 =6 ex / 2 oe 7 7 Ba Ae ‘. Le a Og
Portion B - Mill and Fill Pavement Repairs - Road Resurfacing and Rehabilitation
[Contract No: | 15167035
Contract Title: Road Resurfacing and Rehabilitation
No. |NAME OF TENDERER excl of GS fo ff
2 Pp S78 naccnyta Very Poor oo Goes Very Quod excosional
3 [Australian Paving Services ee) ‘The ratings:
4 [Downer Infrastructure 88 * 0 (zero) = Unacceptable ~ a fail for that criteria and extreme risk
5 PS * 20 (twenty) = Very Poor — the content of the submission for that criteria is of a low standard and high risk
6 + 40 (forty) = Poor — the content of the submission for that criteria is unimpressive and poses a moderate risk
a a + 60 (sixty) = Good — the content of the submission for that criteria is meritable and will need to be monitored if awarded
Bp + 80 (eighty) = Very Good — the content of the submission for that criteria is of a high standard and advantageous
Oe + 100 (one-hundred) = Exceptional — the content of the submission for that criteria is flawless / outstanding and most advantageous
a
WM Once all the data is entered the resultant scores based on the price and non price elements are automatically calculated for you
12
13
14
i a
DID NOT TENDER FOR PORTION Number of Tenders Evaluated = [5]
RPQ Spray Sealand Road Surfaces Group didnottenderof#
Pp
1 2 3 4 5
— lee
- Australian Paving
DESCRIPTION Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant
INB. Amend the below to match your oo scorex | © - ‘on score x so score x oo score x sooo score x
|Probity Plan Criteria exactly + weighting weighting ‘weighting weighting weighting
Capabitty & Resourcing | om |e | we | so [eo : eye
GontractExperience aCapacity | 10% [eo] > feo] > | aw | so | om | oe | om | e |
Metnodotony | tome ws ss | | +s | oo | 2 | wo | e |
a |e | o | 2 || e |
CS | s | | e |
| Sustainability | > | eo | > [ie] + (ey = ey ss
[|
[ew | Tes Law | se | Pa
Total Technical Score 70% 38.05 p26 0 |G
Normalised Technical Score (Tn) Lo
rvice
Total Fees (Pc) 30% $96 $78 $69 $82 $84
Average Fees (Pav) §...........-..---0+e00 $82
Price Score 83 105 116 100 97
Normalised Price Score (Pn) 71 90 100 86 84
|Weighted Price Score (Pw,
Total Score of price and non price
elements
OTHER DETAILS
Assesment panel member 1 ‘Cameron Shields
Assesment panel member 2 Allan Hull
Assesment panel member 3 John McCarron
Assesment panel member 4 David Shing The Contract Administrator confirms the above weightings
QBSA LICENCE CHECKED (if applicable) Contract Administrator's signature:
Copy of Portion B - 201516T038 Evaluation Workbook.xisx Page 1 20/10/2015See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.