6. Evaluation of proposals—Assessor Guidance Document—Supply Arrangement Requirements
On this page
- 6.01 Evaluation reports—documentation
- 6.02 Evaluation report—mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part A)
- 6.03 Evaluation report—mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part B)
- 6.04 Evaluation report—point rated technical evaluation criteria (part A)
- 6.05 Evaluation report—point rated technical evaluation criteria (part B)
- 6.06 Evaluation report—point rated technical evaluation criteria (part C)
6.01 Evaluation reports—documentation
Evaluation report(s), covering the review of Supplier, all resources proposed and the minimum requirement indicated within each MoS for the category and level required, including any clarifications requested and all notes taken during the evaluation, must be on file.
- Treasury Board (TB) Contracting Policy (sub-section 10.7.27, 12.3.1)
- Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) Supply Manual (sub-section 5.105)
Assessment guidance and notes
The technical evaluation report forms the basis for the contract(s) issued. Without it, there is no way to verify whether or not all resources offered were evaluated and whether or not the resource(s) offered were evaluated in accordance with the terms set out in the bid solicitation document. The evaluation report must cover all Suppliers who submitted a proposal as well as all resources offered.
Note
- Evaluation reports on file can be individual or consensus or both. There is no requirement that both need to be on file. A consensus evaluation report on file is ideal as the consensus evaluation report would resolve any differences between individual evaluation reports
- Mandatory requirements beyond those identified in the flexible grid represent additional mandatory requirements
- In cases where the Contracting Authority invokes the "does not exceed $40k" rule and directs the requirement to a Supplier, there will still be mandatory criteria including, if applicable, the Flexible Grid. Therefore, the requirements stated in this element apply
| Type | Description | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Major non-conformance—policy (documentation) | Complete evaluation report or other supporting documentation (clarifications requested including Supplier response and notes taken by evaluators) for all Suppliers (refer Assessor Guidance and Notes section above) or all resources offered or both is not on file and the Contracting Authority is unable to provide it. | Failure to confirm compliance against the requirements described in the bid solicitation document may result in the issuance of a contract to the wrong Supplier and potentially a Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) complaint or court challenge. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-sections 10.7.27 and 12.3.1) |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. | If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. | If the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
6.02 Evaluation report—mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part A)
Evaluation report must confirm whether or not resource(s) were evaluated against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and/or the minimum indicated within each MoS for the category and level required and the mandatory technical evaluation criteria.
- TB Contracting Policy (sub-section 10.7.27)
- PSPC Supply Manual (sub-section 5.105)
Assessment guidance and notes
- Confirm that each resource was evaluated against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements
- State the score achieved by each resource offered as a result of the evaluation conducted against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable), and
- Confirm whether or not compliance was determined against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements for each resource offered
The "Flexible Grid" applies to procurements using the Task and Solutions Professional Services (TSPS) Supply Arrangement (SA) and non-IT categories in the ProServices SA. The "Flexible Grid" must be completed for each resource offered and once completed, the "Flexible Grid" provides a total score for each resource offered. This score is used to determine whether or not each resource offered meets the minimum score required for the category and level required. Assessors shall refer to the example provided in the Supply Arrangement for Task-Based Professional Services Annex "A" Streams and Categories or ProServices—Flexible Grid for further guidance.
Please note the following scenarios:
- Scenario #1:
- The sole mandatory requirement is compliance to the Flexible Grid. A statement that the resource(s) offered meet the requirements of the Flexible Grid is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must state, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., the total number of points assigned to each resource, how the total number of points was achieved, and whether or not each resource offered complies with the requirements of the Flexible Grid applicable to the category and level required.
- Scenario #2:
- The sole mandatory requirement is a minimum amount experience specific to the level and category selected and the Flexible Grid does not apply. The evaluator(s) must state, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each resource offered complies with the minimum experience requirement applicable to the category and level required. A statement that the resource(s) meet the minimum experience requirements is sufficient in this case.
- Scenario #3:
- The Flexible Grid does not apply to the requirement and there are multiple mandatory requirements. A blanket statement that the resource(s) offered meet all the mandatory requirements is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must address, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each resource offered complies with each mandatory criterion.
- Scenario #4:
- The Flexible Grid applies to the requirement and there are multiple mandatory requirements. A blanket statement that the requirements of the Flexible Grid have been met or not met; or that all mandatory requirements have been met or not met; or both is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must address, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each resource offered complies with requirements of the Flexible Grid applicable to the category and level required and each mandatory criterion.
Note
- The requirements stated in this element apply to competitive requirements and requirements where the "does not exceed $40k" rule has been invoked
- If the evaluation conducted indicates that one or more resources fail to meet a mandatory requirement, the evaluation process may, at the discretion of the Contracting Authority, stop at that point
- Scenario #1—The bid solicitation has 5 mandatory evaluation criteria. The resource offered by Bidder A is deemed to be non-compliant with the first mandatory criterion. Evaluation of the remaining 4 mandatory criteria is not required because the resource offered by Bidder A must comply with all mandatory criterion.
- Scenario #2—The bid solicitation requires two resources (e.g. Procurement Specialist—Intermediate level and Procurement Specialist—Senior level) and states that only one contract will be issued. There are 5 mandatory evaluation criteria associated with each resource. The resource offered by Bidder A for the category Procurement Specialist (Intermediate level) is deemed to be non-compliant with the first mandatory criterion. Evaluation of the remaining 4 mandatory criteria for the category Procurement Specialist (Intermediate level) is not required nor is evaluation of the resource offered for the category Procurement Specialist (Senior level) required because Bidder A must comply with the mandatory criteria applicable to both resources required.
- In cases where the Flexible Grid applies, the Contracting Authority should determine if the minimum score required in the Flexible Grid for the category and level required is met. If the minimum points required is not met, the bid must be deemed non-compliant and the Contracting Authority may stop the evaluation at that point
- In cases where the Contracting Authority invokes the "does not exceed $40k" rule and directs the requirement to a Supplier, a formal evaluation report is not required. An email that provides the information noted in this section is sufficient
| Type | Description | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | The evaluation report on file does not address compliance to the requirements of the Flexible Grid for each category and level required. | The absence of this information could affect the outcome of the bid evaluation process. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27) |
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | The evaluation report on file does not clearly indicate that all resources offered were evaluated against all mandatory requirements referenced in the bid solicitation document. The absence of which could affect the outcome of the bid solicitation process. | Refer rationale above. |
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | Resource(s) offered by Supplier(s) were evaluated against mandatory requirements that were not referenced in the bid solicitation document. | TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27) |
| Minor non-conformance | Evaluation report identifies the wrong Supplier name. However, information contained within the evaluation report is identical to that found in the correct Supplier's bid solicitation response. | Finding does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Minor non-conformance | Evaluation report indicates the name of each Supplier being evaluated but fails to identify the name of the resource being evaluated. However, each Supplier offered a single resource. | Finding does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of one or more evaluation reports are not on file. | If one or more evaluation reports are not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 6.01: Evaluation Reports—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. | If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. | If the bid solicitation document was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
6.03 Evaluation report—mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part B)
The rationale for the compliance or non-compliance of each mandatory technical evaluation criterion must be documented and supportable.
- TB Contracting Policy (sub-section 10.7.27)
- PSPC Supply Manual (sub-section 5.30 5.40.1, 5.105)
Assessment guidance and notes
Evaluation reports must document the rationale used to determine compliance or non-compliance of each mandatory technical evaluation criterion. In files where the Flexible Grid is used, the evaluation report must provide the rationale for the points assigned to education, certifications and experience. Where minimum amounts of experience or minimum number of projects are required, the evaluation report must provide the rationale (e.g. page ref numbers, project ref numbers, etc.) used to determine compliance. In some cases, such as education and professional designations or certificates, the rationale is self-evident (e.g. copy of the certificate confirming the level of education achieved). Simply stating that one or more mandatory technical evaluation criterion have been met or not met is insufficient. In all cases, the rationale used must be supportable.
Assessors shall not question the rationale provided by the evaluator regarding the mandatory criteria except in the following circumstances:
- If the rationale is based on a mandatory technical evaluation criterion that is not consistent with the category or level selected, or
- If there is an obvious error made by the evaluato, or
- Other circumstances that cause the Assessor to be concerned that the decision made was done so in error.
Under such circumstances, the Assessor should review only those resumes where the evaluation of the resource is being questioned.
Note
- There may be cases where the rationale for determining compliance of a resource was based on a requirement that was unclear. For example the minimum education level required was an undergraduate degree in business, accounting or "related field". The supplier offered a resource offered with an undergraduate degree in engineering. The decision made by the evaluator was based on the evaluator's opinion as to what was considered to be a related field. However, what was meant by a "related field" was not clear
- Compliance to mandatory work experience or other information contained in the resume of the resource(s) submitted may be validated through either an interview or by contacting the references provided in the resume(s) submitted. There may be cases where the résumé submitted by the supplier indicates compliance but the interview confirmed that the minimum amount of experience required was not met. This must be documented in the evaluation report
- If the bid document contains the certification clause for education, unless stipulated otherwise in the bid solicitation document, a statement in the technical proposal or the resume of the resource(s) offered that the resource(s) have obtained a specific level of education, professional designation or certificate is sufficient. Bidders are not required to provide a copy of the diploma, professional designation or certificate
- Unless stipulated otherwise in the bid solicitation document, if the bid solicitation document required that Suppliers provide proof of education, certifications, professional designation, etc. with their bid, the Contracting Authority cannot request that the Supplier provide missing information after bid closing
| Type | Description | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | The rationale for compliance of the resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements stated in the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements, was not documented. | TB 6.0 requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27) |
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | The rationale for compliance of the resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements stated in the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements, was documented but not supportable. | TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to. Therefore, determinations that a mandatory requirement was met or not met must be supportable. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27) |
| Minor non-conformance | The decision regarding the compliance of the resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements stated in the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements, was done in error. However, the error(s) would not have affected the outcome of the bid evaluation process as, overall, the resource(s) offered failed to comply with at least one mandatory criterion. | Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (other) | The decision regarding the compliance of the resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements (other than the Flexible Grid), was based on criteria described in the requirement that was unclear. | There was insufficient information available to the Assessor to raise a minor or major non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of one or more evaluation reports are not on file. | If one or more evaluation reports are not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 6.01: Evaluation Reports—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. | If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation is not on file. | If the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
6.04 Evaluation report—point rated technical evaluation criteria (part A)
Evaluation report must indicate the points assigned to each point-rated technical evaluation criterion, sub-total score (if applicable) and the total score (if applicable) for each resource evaluated.
- TB Contracting Policy (sub-section 10.7.27)
- PSPC Supply Manual (sub-section 5.40.5)
Assessment guidance and notes
In order for the Contracting Authority or client to select the Supplier and resource(s) in accordance with the selection methodology specified in the bid solicitation document, the points assigned to each point rated technical evaluation criterion must be stated. Where determination of compliance is based on a minimum sub-total score or minimum total score or both for each resource evaluated, the minimum score (sub-total or total as applicable) must be stated. Any party reviewing a contract awarded as a result of a bid solicitation, must be able to re-create the circumstances that led to the selection made.
Note
If there is a minimum score required for each point rated criterion, and the evaluation conducted indicates that a resource fails to meet the minimum score for any point rated criterion, the evaluation process may, at the discretion of the Contracting Authority, stop at that point. For example, the bid solicitation has 5 point rated evaluation criteria. Bidder A fails to meet the minimum score required for the first point rated criterion and is deemed to be non-compliant. Evaluation of the remaining 4 point rated evaluation criteria is not required because Bidder A must comply with the minimum score required for all point rated criterion.
| Type | Description | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | Points were not assigned to one or more point rated technical evaluation criteria for resource(s) evaluated. | Failure to assign points to any point rated technical criterion, except in cases where each point rated evaluation criteria requires a minimum score (refer comments in Assessor Guidance and Notes section above), calls into question the validity of the evaluation conducted. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27) |
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | A sub-total or total score for one or more resources evaluated was stated but, based on the score assigned to each point rated technical criterion, either the sub-total score or the total score or both could not be recreated. | Failure to determine the sub-total or total score calls into question the validity of the evaluation conducted. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Note: This finding does not apply in situations where the total score could not be recreated because a score has not been assigned to one or more point rated technical criterion. In such cases, a Major non-conformance (specifically the one above) would already have been raised. |
| Minor non-conformance | There is no indication in the evaluation report that the resource(s) offered by Supplier(s) were evaluated against all point-rated technical evaluation criterion. The evaluation report confirms that the resource(s) evaluated failed to comply with the minimum score required for at least one point rated technical criterion. In this case, failure to evaluate all point rated technical evaluation criterion would not affect the outcome of the bid solicitation process. | Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Minor non-conformance | The total score for resource(s) evaluated was not stated in the evaluation report but a score was assigned to each point rated technical evaluation criterion. Additional documentation on file confirmed the total score arrived at, which was verified by the Assessor. | Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of one or more evaluation reports are not on file. | If one or more evaluation reports are not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 6.01: Evaluation Reports—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. | If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation is not on file. | If the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
6.05 Evaluation report—point rated technical evaluation criteria (part B)
Points assigned to each point-rated technical evaluation criterion must be done so in accordance with the scoring guide stated in the bid solicitation document.
- TB Contracting Policy (sub-section 10.7.27)
- PSPC Supply Manual (sub-section 5.40.5)
Assessment guidance and notes
Each point rated technical evaluation criterion will describe how points are to be assigned. Various methods for assigning points include, but are not restricted to, the following:
- Points per project or assignment—Points are typically assigned based on each project or assignment. Unless specified otherwise, partial points cannot be assigned
- Points for experience—Points are typically assigned for ranges of experience levels. For example, 5 points for 5-7 years of experience, 10 points for 7+ to 10 years of experience, 20 points for 10+ years of experience
- Points for a professional designation or certification—Points may be assigned for a relevant certification. For example, 15 points may be assigned for a PMP (Project Management Professional) certification
- Points for education—Points can be assigned based on the degree. For example, 10 points may be assigned for a graduate degree, 25 points for a doctoral degree
In all cases, evaluators must follow the guide provided. For example, under a) and b) above, if 10 points are assigned per project, then an evaluator can only assign values of 0 or 10 (nothing in between). Under b) above, the evaluator can only assign 5, 10 or 20 points.
Note
There may be situations where points were assigned based on a scoring guide that is unclear. For example, scoring guide assigns points for 1 to less than 2 years of experience and points for more than 2 years of experience. In this example, it is not clear how many points would be assigned for exactly 2 years of experience. In such cases, an Observation only would be raised.
| Type | Description | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Major non-conformance—policy (other) | Points assigned to one or more point rated technical evaluation criterion were not done so in accordance with the scoring guide stated in the bid solicitation document. | Failure to assign points in accordance with the scoring guide described in the bid solicitation document calls into question the validity of the evaluation conducted. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27) |
| Observation (other) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because the scoring guide was unclear. | There is insufficient information for the Assessor to assign a Major or Minor non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of one or more evaluation reports are not on file. | If one or more evaluation reports are not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 6.01: Evaluation Reports—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. | If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation is not on file. | If the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
6.06 Evaluation report—point rated technical evaluation criteria (part C)
Evaluation report must state the rationale for the points assigned to each specific point rated technical evaluation criterion and determine compliance to the minimum total score or minimum score for each point rated requirement as applicable.
- TB Contracting Policy (sub-section 10.7.27, sub-section 12.3.1)
- PSPC Supply Manual (sub-section 5.105)
Assessment guidance and notes
Under the selection methodologies involving point rated requirements, the manner in which the points are assigned can cause:
- A resource to be declared non-responsive (i.e. response referring to that resource could not be considered for contract award) as a result of failing to meet the minimum total score or sub-total required, or
- A resource to be declared non-responsive for failure to meet the minimum score for each point rated criterion, or
- A Supplier to not be issued a contract because the total score assigned to the resource(s) evaluated was too low resulting in a higher cost per point, lower total score based on a combination of technical merit and price, or lower total score based solely on technical merit
Therefore, evaluation reports must document the rationale used to determine the number of points assigned to each point-rated technical evaluation criterion. Simply stating the number of points assigned to each point-rated evaluation criterion is insufficient. In all cases, the rationale used to determine the score assigned must be documented and supportable. In some cases, the rationale for the points assigned (or not assigned as the case may be) is evident even though there is no documented rationale. For example, if points are assigned based on level of education (five (5) points for high school diploma, ten (10) points for undergraduate degree, twenty (20) points for Masters degree), and twenty (20) points are assigned to a resource who has proven that he/she holds a Masters degree, then the rationale is evident. Assessors shall not question the evaluator's rationale for the points assigned except in the following circumstances:
- If the rationale is based on a point-rated technical evaluation criterion that is not consistent with the category or level selected, or
- If there is an obvious error made by the evaluator, or
- Other circumstances that cause the Assessor to be concerned that the decision made was done so in error
The Assessor shall review only those resumes that meet the above criteria.
Note
- There may be cases where the résumé describes experience gained that is applied to specific point rated technical evaluation criterion but the interview confirmed that the experience, described in the resume, did not meet the requirements required for points to be assigned. This must be documented in the evaluation report
- There may be cases where the rationale for points assigned was based on a requirement that was unclear. For example the minimum education level required to achieve a specific number of points was an undergraduate degree in business, accounting or "related field". A resource was assigned zero points because their undergraduate degree was in marketing, which was considered by the evaluator to not be a related field. However, what was meant by an undergraduate degree in a "related field" was not clear. In such cases, an Observation shall be raised
| Type | Description | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Major non-conformance—policy (Other) | The documented rationale for the points assigned to point rated technical evaluation criterion for resource(s) was not supportable. | TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27) |
| Major non-conformance—policy (Other) | The evaluation report, for resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), did not include a rationale for the points assigned to point rated technical evaluation criterion. | Failure to document the rationale makes it impossible for the Assessor to determine whether or not the evaluation criteria were strictly adhered to. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27 and 12.3.1) |
| Minor non-conformance | Rationale in support of the points assigned to point rated technical evaluation criterion was in error. However, the error was minor in nature and would not have affected the score assigned. | Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance. |
| Observation (other) | The documented rationale for the points assigned was based on criteria described in the requirement that was unclear. | There is insufficient information for the Assessor to assign a non-conformance.
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of one or more evaluation reports are not on file. | If one or more evaluation reports are not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 6.01: Evaluation Reports—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. | If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
| Observation (documentation) | Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation is not on file. | If the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).
Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance. |
- Date modified: