Add skills/tender-bid-evaluation/SKILL.md

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).