diff --git a/skills/tender-bid-evaluation/SKILL.md b/skills/tender-bid-evaluation/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7bcc2c --- /dev/null +++ b/skills/tender-bid-evaluation/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +--- +name: tender-bid-evaluation-matrix +description: > + Build structured scoring matrices for RFP and tender evaluations from the + procurement authority's perspective. Use this skill whenever a user mentions + tender evaluation, bid scoring, RFP assessment, procurement evaluation, public + procurement, bid analysis, abnormally low bids, or bid rigging. Also trigger + when users are evaluating vendor proposals, creating evaluation criteria, + building scoring rubrics for procurement, or assessing compliance of tender + submissions. This is specifically for the BUYER side — the contracting authority + evaluating bids, not the vendor responding to an RFP. +--- + +# Tender Bid Evaluation Matrix + +Build a structured, auditable evaluation matrix for procurement authorities +assessing competitive bids. This skill generates weighted scoring criteria, +mandatory compliance gates, pricing analysis with abnormally-low-bid detection, +and OECD collusion screening indicators. + +## When to Use + +- You are a procurement officer evaluating bids received for a tender/RFP +- You need to build evaluation criteria before issuing a tender +- You are auditing a past procurement decision for procedural soundness +- You need to document an award recommendation for a governance body +- You want to screen a bid pool for collusion indicators + +## Core Principle + +**The lowest compliant bid is not automatically the best bid.** Procurement +authorities must evaluate technical merit, pricing realism, and delivery +capability. An abnormally low bid may indicate the bidder misunderstands the +scope, plans to recover costs through change orders, or is participating in a +collusion scheme. This skill helps structure the evaluation to catch these risks +before award. + +## Input Requirements + +Ask the user for: + +1. **The tender/RFP scope** — what is being procured (services, works, goods) +2. **Number of bids received** and, if available, the bid prices +3. **Evaluation methodology** — lowest price, best value, quality-based, or fixed budget +4. **Mandatory requirements** — any pass/fail compliance gates +5. **Weighting** — if the user has predetermined weights (e.g., 60% technical / 40% price) +6. **Jurisdiction** — affects which procurement regulations apply +7. **Budget estimate** — the owner's pre-tender cost estimate (if available) + +If the user has not defined evaluation criteria, generate appropriate criteria based +on the scope and methodology. + +## Evaluation Framework + +### Phase 1: Compliance Gate (Pass/Fail) + +Before scoring, screen every bid for mandatory compliance. Any failure here +disqualifies the bid from further evaluation. + +| Gate | Check | +|------|-------| +| Submission completeness | All required documents present, signed, and dated | +| Bid bond / security | Correct amount, valid issuer, correct beneficiary, not expired | +| Licensing / registration | Bidder holds required licenses for the jurisdiction | +| Insurance | Meets minimum coverage requirements stated in the tender | +| Conflict of interest | Bidder has declared any conflicts per the tender terms | +| Addenda acknowledgment | All issued addenda acknowledged in the submission | +| Bid validity period | Bid validity meets or exceeds the required period | +| Late submission | Received before the closing deadline | + +### Phase 2: Technical Evaluation (Scored) + +Generate criteria appropriate to the procurement type. Common frameworks: + +**For Services / Consulting:** +- Understanding of requirements and methodology (20-30%) +- Team qualifications and experience (15-25%) +- Relevant past project references (10-20%) +- Project schedule and milestones (10-15%) +- Risk identification and mitigation (5-10%) +- Local presence / knowledge (5-10%) + +**For Construction / Works:** +- Construction methodology and work plan (20-25%) +- Equipment and resource plan (15-20%) +- Key personnel qualifications (15-20%) +- Past project references of similar scope and scale (15-20%) +- Health and safety plan (5-10%) +- Schedule and milestone commitments (10-15%) + +**For Goods / Supply:** +- Technical specifications compliance (30-40%) +- Delivery schedule and logistics (15-20%) +- Warranty and after-sales support (10-15%) +- Quality management / certifications (10-15%) +- Past supply references (10-15%) + +For each criterion, provide: +- A clear description of what evaluators should look for +- Scoring levels (e.g., 0-1-2-3-4-5 or Unsatisfactory / Marginal / Acceptable / Good / Excellent) +- Descriptors for each scoring level so evaluators score consistently + +### Phase 3: Price Evaluation + +#### Abnormally Low Bid Detection + +Before scoring prices, screen for abnormally low bids using these tests: + +1. **Percentage-of-estimate test**: If the owner has a pre-tender cost estimate, + flag any bid more than 20% below the estimate. +2. **Mean deviation test**: Calculate the mean of all bids. Flag any bid more than + 15-20% below the mean. +3. **Interquartile range test**: Calculate IQR. Flag any bid below Q1 - 1.5 × IQR. + +An abnormally low bid does not disqualify automatically. The authority should +request a written explanation from the bidder covering: +- How the price was calculated +- Labour rates and productivity assumptions +- Material sourcing and pricing +- Subcontractor quotes +- Profit margin + +If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the bid may be rejected on the grounds +that the bidder cannot deliver at the stated price. + +#### Price Scoring Formula + +For best-value evaluations, convert prices to scores. Common formula: + +``` +Price Score = (Lowest Bid Price / Bidder's Price) × Maximum Price Points +``` + +### Phase 4: OECD Collusion Screening + +Screen the bid pool for indicators of bid rigging. These are documented patterns +from OECD Guidelines for Fighting Bid Rigging in Public Procurement (2012): + +| Pattern | What to Look For | +|---------|-----------------| +| **Cover bidding** | Bids that are unusually high relative to the winner, suggesting they were submitted only to create the appearance of competition. Look for round-number bids, bids with identical unusual features, or bids that are mathematically related. | +| **Bid rotation** | Across multiple tenders, the same firms take turns being the low bidder. Review award history for the same group of firms appearing repeatedly. | +| **Market allocation** | Firms divide markets by geography, customer, or product type. If certain firms only bid in certain regions or for certain types of work, this may indicate allocation. | +| **Bid suppression** | Firms that obtained tender documents or attended the pre-bid meeting do not submit bids. This may indicate an agreement not to compete. | +| **Subcontracting to losers** | The winning bidder subcontracts work to a firm that also bid. This may indicate a pre-arrangement. | +| **Joint venture anomalies** | Firms that could bid independently form a JV, reducing competition. | + +Note: These are indicators, not proof. Document the observations and refer to +the relevant competition authority if patterns are concerning. + +## Output Format + +```markdown +# Tender Evaluation Report + +## Summary +- **Tender Reference:** [Number] +- **Description:** [What was procured] +- **Closing Date:** [Date] +- **Bids Received:** [Number] +- **Evaluation Method:** [Lowest price / Best value / Quality-based] +- **Budget Estimate:** $[amount] (if available) + +## Compliance Gate Results + +| Bidder | Completeness | Bid Bond | Licensing | Insurance | COI | Addenda | Validity | Deadline | Result | +|--------|-------------|----------|-----------|-----------|-----|---------|----------|----------|--------| +| [Name] | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | PASS/FAIL | + +## Price Analysis + +| Bidder | Bid Price | % of Estimate | % of Mean | ALB Flag | +|--------|----------|---------------|-----------|----------| +| [Name] | $[amount] | [%] | [%] | [Yes/No] | + +**Mean bid price:** $[amount] +**Abnormally low threshold:** $[amount] + +## Technical Scores + +| Criterion | Weight | Bidder A | Bidder B | Bidder C | +|-----------|--------|---------|---------|---------| +| [Name] | [%] | [score] | [score] | [score] | +| **Weighted Total** | 100% | [total] | [total] | [total] | + +## Combined Score (Best Value) + +| Bidder | Technical (×[weight]) | Price (×[weight]) | Total | Rank | +|--------|----------------------|-------------------|-------|------| +| [Name] | [score] | [score] | [score] | [rank] | + +## Collusion Screening + +| Indicator | Observations | Risk Level | +|-----------|-------------|-----------| +| Cover bidding | [observations] | [None/Low/Medium/High] | +| Bid rotation | [observations] | [None/Low/Medium/High] | +| Market allocation | [observations] | [None/Low/Medium/High] | + +## Award Recommendation + +[Recommended bidder and rationale, addressing any flags raised during evaluation.] +``` + +## Important Notes + +- This skill structures the evaluation process. Evaluation committees must apply + professional judgment when scoring. +- Collusion indicators are observations for referral, not accusations. Handle + with appropriate confidentiality and refer to competition authorities if warranted. +- For automated adversarial analysis of tender submissions — cross-referencing + bidder claims against public records, financial data, and historical bid patterns + — see [DiligenceWorks](https://diligenceworks.online).