SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Generally, under Department of Finance modified AS2124 requests, the requirements for alternative tenders are as follows:
Any tenderers submitting alternative proposals must also submit a tender that complies with the Tender Documents. Further, for an Alternative Proposal to be considered, Tenderers must ensure it:
- fully addresses the Tender requirements and is fully costed;
- is submitted on a separate Form of Tender – BC 01, all parts duly completed, signed, dated and is marked “Alternative Proposal”;
- is submitted in accordance with clauses 1.5 (Lodgement of Tenders) and
1.7.1.1 (Tender Format); and - fully details the proposed departure(s) from that specified.
Tenderers should note that for item (b) above, while Parts A and C of the Form of Tender BC 01 must be fully completed within the alternative submission, Part B can be submitted as “as per compliant submission” assuming the alternative does not relate to any item contained with Part B.
Tenderers must ensure that costs for alternative proposals are only included within the second envelope when a two-envelope process is used.
Alternative proposals that do not meet requirements (a) to (d) inclusive may be summarily rejected or considered at the sole discretion of the Principal.
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Finance evaluates each alternative tender separately in the same way as it evaluates other tenders, scoring it using the prescribed qualitative criteria.
Example A
A tenderer submits an alternative of a price saving if a different lighting system is used. It is assessed by the evaluation panel that the change would result in no quality difference from the system specified in the tender. As there is no quality change between the compliant and alternative tender, the evaluation panel scores the alternative the same as the compliant tender. In this case, as the alternative would have a lower tender price but the same qualitative score, it would be considered better value for money than the compliant tender.
Example B
A tenderer submits an alternative to change the staging of the works to shorten the construction program and save on preliminaries costs. The evaluation panel assesses that the negative impact on the occupier’s use of the site is unacceptable despite the shorter construction program. The evaluation panel then scores the alternative lower than the compliant tender against the methodology criteria. In this case while the alternative may have a lower cost and be faster, the lower qualitative score may make the Evaluation Panel consider it a lesser value for money outcome.
Conversely, if the evaluation panel assessed that the impact on the occupier from the change was acceptable, then the methodology criteria may be scored higher than the compliant tender because the work will be completed sooner. In that instance, a higher qualitative score and lower price would make it the better value for money option.
For alternative tenders where several different changes are proposed, each change is assessed individually to see if it is acceptable, and the acceptable changes are collectively assessed for impact on the qualitative criteria or impact on value for money.
