It is critical that the mathematical integrity of an assessment model is maintained and this can be difficult when one or more assessors have the skills, time or inclination to complete only a partial assessment. This article describes various methods that can be used to ensure the integrity of the model is maintained when assessors carry out incomplete assessments.
The Problem Statement
Let’s look at an example. The BUSDOX Technical Assessment Model caters for 1,000 individual selection criteria broken down into 10 Groups with each Group containing 10 Sub-groups and each Sub-group containing 10 Items. Of course, in most situations less than the full complement of 10 Groups will be used as will be the case for Sub-groups and Items. The following figure makes this clear.
One of the very important validation activities used by savvy procurement managers during the evaluation process is the matching of the bidders’ responses to the technical and commercial requirements schedules and the bidders’ responses to the financial schedule.
In a nut shell, the idea behind technical and commercial to financial matching, shortened to “matching”, is to ensure all bids are evaluated fairly and on a like-for-like basis. To use the common jargon: “We need to ensure we are comparing apples with apples”.
The following diagram shows the process which is described in the text below.
I have been involved a most aspects
of procurement management and have spent a substantial part of the past 25
years working and learning the business. My most recent client was Australia
Post where I successfully managed, on their behalf, a large Procurement Event
for a replacement of Australia Post’s mid-range computing platform.