Ordnance Survey – Great Britain's national mapping agency
![Ordnance Survey home page [logo]](/images/gui/logo-os.gif){kind=logo}
We would like to know and (where applicable) receive copies of the following:
- How was the evaluation conducted, including the number of people involved in the evaluation and their roles
- Copies of all detailed evaluation criteria used to assess individual questions in all sections of the tender
- Details of the dates on which of these evaluation criteria were defined and agreed
- Details of when the marking scheme for the pricing evaluation was defined and agreed
Thank you for your e-mail dated 18th October 2010, in relation to OJEU tender ref: 2009/S208-xxxxxx.We are pleased to provide you with the following and attached information, and respond to each of your questions in turn.
We would like to know and (where applicable) receive copies of the following:
a) How was the evaluation conducted, including the number of people involved in the evaluation and their roles.
The evaluation was conducted according to Section 7 of the Invitation to Tender, which is attached to this e-mail for your reference, (Cary - INFORMATION a - FOI10103). This contained information setting out Ordnance Survey’s approach to evaluating the tenders received.
An evaluation team of nine people individually assessed the bids received and recorded the scores on an evaluation spreadsheet. Their roles at Ordnance Survey and therefore within this process were as follows:
Project Manager
Strategic Sourcing Manager
IS Testing Services Designer
Operations Development Manager
Photogrammetric Services Technical Adviser
Contracts Manager, Data Collection and Management
Programme Management, Data Collection and Management
Programme Management, Data Collection and Management
Service Delivery Manager, Photogrammetric Services
b) Copies of all detailed evaluation criteria used to assess individual questions in all sections of the tender
Below is the ITT scoring matrix, used to assess individual questions in the tender.
Scoring Matrix |
|
Not answered the question or fails to meet the requirement | 0 |
A poor response with insufficient detail | 1 |
A fair response | 3 |
A fully reasoned and detailed response that meet all our requirements | 5 |
One off marks allocation of 250 marks in respect of Object Editor (Lot 3) | |
Weighting Matrix |
|
Critical | 5 |
Important | 3 |
Information | 1 |
In addition, the breakdown and maximum marks available in relation to each question were set out in the ITT Response document, a copy of which is attached (Cary - INFORMATION - FOI10103).
c) Details of the dates on which of these evaluation criteria were defined and agreed
The evaluation criteria was defined during December 2009, and approved on the 25th January 2010 at a joint Governance and Project Board.
d) Details of when the marking scheme for the pricing evaluation was defined and agreed’
The marking scheme for the pricing evaluation was defined during December 2009, and approved on the 25th January 2010 at a joint Governance and Project Board.
Please note that your enquiry has been processed according to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000. As all requested information has been provided, we have determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.
If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our Appeals Officer at:
FOI Appeals Officer
Customer Service Centre
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
SOUTHAMPTON
SO16 4GU
Please include the reference number below. The Appeals Officer will ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of additional information if appropriate.
Thank you for your enquiry.
Reference number: FOI10103 / October 2010
