The process to evaluate bids will require procurers to confirm that bidders are able to supply food and catering services that meet the defined technical specifications. Bidders will also be to provide evidence against the Award Criteria for each issue. In order to evaluate bids against the Award Criteria procurers will be provided with a rating scale, or ‘evaluation matrix’. Our aim is to make the rating as objective as it can be, but without being so prescriptive that it constrains innovation, or results in the exclusion of valid means of producing the desired outcomes. The structure of the evaluation matrix used for a particular issue will depend on the nature of the criteria. If the criteria are in the form of a list of simple, objective factors then performance can be rated using a simple checklist. This form is easy for procurers, but if the checklist is not exhaustive it may exclude alternative means of achieving the same desired outcome. Table 2 is an example of a rating scale could be presented for criteria suited to a checklist. Table 2: Approach 1, rating scale suited to a checklist Rating % Score Evaluation Excellent 100 8 to 10 of a list of ten Criteria are met Good 65 5 to 7 of a list of ten Award Criteria are met Adequate 30 4 to 6 of a list of ten Award Criteria are met No 0 0 to 3 of a list of ten Award Criteria are met Another approach is to provide detailed guidance against each rating level but without setting out an exhaustive list. This may provide a solution that allows contractors to develop their own ideas and supports innovation, but it will also require more effort on the part of the procurer who will have to weigh up what could be very different proposals against each other. The key to this more flexible approach is to ensure that the guidance can be interpreted and applied consistently by all competent procurers and tenderers. An example of this approach is outlined in table 3, through the evaluation of the management system used to manage a particular issue (e.g. energy, water, waste).
Mandatory Criteria (technical specifications or contract performance conditions) Labelling of pre-packaged and loose foods shall meet requirements of EU Regulation No. 1169/2011 on provision of food information to consumers (EU FIC). Criteria FSA and/or DH to advise on best practice nutritional labelling. Award Question(s) Please describe how your organisation communicates nutritional information to its customers. Other potential Award Criteria N/A Contract Management KPIs TBC 2.4 Food safety & hygiene Mandatory Criteria (technical specifications or contract performance conditions) FSA to advise on technical specifications Award Criteria (s) Award Question N/A N/A Other potential Award Criteria N/A Contract Management KPIs TBC
B: Costs and benefits of implementing the balanced scorecard Annex B summarises some potential costs and benefits which are likely to arise from the implementation of the balanced scorecard. They are broken down between economic, environmental and social. The purpose of this document is to provide insight into the magnitude of the costs and benefits of each of the criteria and sub-criteria, with a view to inform the weightings for the balanced scorecard. We appreciate stakeholder feedback relating to the magnitude of each of these, and whether the costs and benefits listed here are broadly correct. Please let us know if you have any comments on this, and if there are additional costs and benefits not listed here which you think should be included. Moreover, if you are aware of any evidence or data which will help us verify (and if possible, quantify) these costs and benefits please let us know. Production Standards Economic (Business, Government, Labour market, consumers) Costs Supply chain management There may be an extra cost to suppliers of implementing a reporting system for supply chain management, but we expect this is not significant considering existing rules on traceability, UK production standards and reputational issues for caterers. Animal welfare/biodiversity/pollution/land management There may be an extra cost to government of complying, as food that meets these standards can be more expensive. Provisional Defra calculations indicate that there would be an increase in overall costs to taxpayers and private sector (consumers and caterers) of between undiscounted £69m and £125m over Benefits We would expect there to be a higher proportion of food that actually meets UK standards of production as a result. This will mean a lower risk of farmers who meet those standards being undercut by those who don’t meet them. We expect that this will be of benefit to the UK food and farming sector which is largely subject to assurance schemes, and may stimulate some rural growth. There will also be a decreased risk of crises of provenance such as horsemeat fraud (and consequent repercussions). By having higher levels of confidence in production standards and supply chains, we would expect a level of increased demand and therefore revenues in central government canteens and other customer-funded catering in the wider public sector.