ADB Loan/Grant No. & Project Name Contract No. & Description Consulting Firm/Consultant Name Contract Amount Prepared By Date Reviewed/Noted By Date Guidance: The responsibility for the implementation of the project, and for the award and administration of contracts under the project financed or supported by ADB, rests with the borrower. The executing agency, implementing agency, project management unit, and project implementation unit have the responsibility to maintain the trust of the vendor community and ADB in the procurement system, by conducting procurement in an accountable, objective, impartial and transparent manner. The purpose of this checklist is (i) to establish whether procurement of consulting services under Quality- and Cost-Based Selection method followed the salient requirements of ADB s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants; and (ii) to ensure that measures are being taken to mitigate opportunities for fraud, corruption, and abuse of resources in ADB-financed and administered/-supported projects. Ideally, this checklist should be accomplished for each QCBS contract by the key project procurement staff of the executing agency, implementing agency or the project management unit. A. Establishment of the Consultant Selection Committee 1 Did we establish a Consultant Screening Committee (or equivalent) within the EA to handle the recruitment of consultants? Indicate date of establishment of CSC and list down its members. B. Longlisting 2 Did we prepare the long list based on all EOIs submitted? Did we furnish ADB a copy of the longlist? Indicate number of EOIs received and names of consulting firms which submitted EOIs. Indicate date long list was provided to ADB. C. Shortlisting 3 Did we identify shortlisting criteria? List shortlisting criteria. 1
Was there an evaluation guide prepared for the CSC? Did we objectively and consistently rate consultants based on the established qualification criteria? In addition to shortlisting criteria, were there other considerations during evaluation and were these properly documented and agreed upon by the CSC? 4 Did we conduct due diligence on EOIs and credentials provided by all participating consulting firms? 5 Was the shortlist amended after ADB issued a "no objection"? Assess whether or not shortlist is fully supported and consistent with the qualification criteria. Assess fairness and propriety of evaluation results based on the impact of other considerations. Indicate inconsistencies and adverse information gathered, if any, and describe how these were incorporated in the evaluation of proposals. Indicate amendments made, if any. D. Request for Proposals, and Evaluation of Shortlisted Consultants Technical & Financial Proposals 6 Was the RFP issued to shortlisted firms reviewed and approved by ADB? Indicate date of ADB s approval of the RFP. 7 Did we send the RFP to all shortlisted consultants? Indicate dates when the RFP was sent to shortlisted consultants. 8 Were there requests for clarification, additional information and/or correction of errors in the RFP from shortlisted consultants? Were these requests from consultants made in writing? Were our consolidated responses to requests for clarification, additional information and/or correction of errors from consultants made in writing? Do we have evidence that our consolidated responses or changes to RFP were sent out and received by all shortlisted consultants? 9 Did consulting firms submit technical and financial proposals in separate sealed envelopes within the prescribed deadline? 2
10 Did we return proposals received after the deadline for submission to the consultant(s) unopened? 11 Did we conduct due diligence on the credentials provided by shortlisted consulting firms? Identify potentially false experience. Did we check if the shortlisted consultants have any conflict with the EA/PMU/PIU? Did we identify the same experts proposed by different consulting firms and check consistency of the information provided? Identify inconsistencies noted. Did we verify proposed individual experts qualifications (e.g., professional attainment, eligibility) for the winning firm and experts proposed by more than one bidder? Were the curriculum vitae (CV) of experts submitted with the proposals signed and properly dated? Based on our review of technical proposals, did we find any indication of collusion and/or phantom bidders? 12 Were the criteria and scoring guide defined in the instructions to consultants and used in the evaluation of proposals? Did we objectively and consistently apply the criteria and appropriately score the proposals? Did we inform all non-responsive firms (those rated below 750 points out of possible 1,000 points) and return their financial proposals unopened? Did we advise technically responsive firms (meeting the minimum qualifying score of 750 points) advised of the location, date and time for the public opening of financial proposals? Indicate date the non-responsive firms were informed. Indicate date the non-responsive firms were informed, and location, date, and time of opening of financial proposals. 3
o Did we prepare a record of financial proposals opening listing down the names of the firms, technical quality scores, proposed prices, and signatures of the CSC? 13 Did we check the reasonableness of the financial proposals vis-à-vis the scope of works and qualifications of proposed consultants in the technical proposal? Did we check if the commercial terms in the proposal comply with the RFP requirements? Did we correct arithmetical errors and ensured the proposal includes all service costs that are fairly estimated? Did we ensure that the provisional sums and contingency amount are clearly and separately identified in the proposal, and such amounts are consistent with those in the data sheet? Did we convert any non-us dollar denominated prices to US dollars using the source for the exchange rates in the RFP? Did we ensure that the proposal identifies or excludes tax elements in the RFP? 14 Did we base the over-all ranking of the proposals on the total scores obtained by weighting and adding both the technical and financial scores? Was the weight for the "cost" set at 20%? 15 Did we obtain ADB s no objection for the technical evaluation report and overall ranking of proposals? If not, state the justification(s) and basis of the percentage used. Indicate date of receipt of ADB s noobjection. 4
E. Contract Negotiation and Award 16 Did we negotiate with the first rankedfirm? Indicate name of first ranked firm and date of negotiations. Before the start of contract negotiations, did we reconfirm the availability of all team members nominated in its technical proposal? Did we require the firm invited to negotiate to submit: o a letter of authority identifying the firm s representative who shall be authorized to negotiate and sign the contract, and o a copy of the firm s legal certificate of incorporation or establishment? Were the TOR and proposed unit rates dicussed during negotiations the same? Were the proposed experts still available after negotiation? o o If there was substitution, were we satisfied as to the reasonableness of justifications provided by the negotiating firm? Did we ensure that the proposed other experts were at least the same level of qualifications for approval by the borrower? Indicate justification(s) provided by the consulting firm. Did we clarify tax liability (if any) and reflected this in the contract? 17 Did we give the negotiating consultant a copy of the performance evaluation form, and the post-assignment questionnaire to be completed by the consultant, and the procedures for processing the performance evaluation report and the post-assignment questionnaire were explained? 18 Was the negotiation successful and did it result in the signing of both the EA and consultant of the contract? Document how tax liability was reflected in the contract. Depending on the contract duration, evaluation may be conducted during, as well as on the completion of, the assignment. Through a post-assignment questionnaire, the consultant has the opportunity to comment on the evaluation report and on the performance of the borrower. Indicate date of contract signing. 5
For Joint Venture, did we require all members of the joint venture sign the contract? 19 In case the negotiations were unsuccessful, did we obtain ADB's prior agreement before terminating negotiations with the firm, and before starting negotiations with the next ranked firm? 20 Did we notify the losing firms that submitted proposals about the award of contract? F. Publication of the Award of Contract 21 Did we provide ADB with the following for publication on ADB s website? names of all consultants who submitted proposals technical points assigned to each consultant offered prices of each consultant over-all ranking of the consultants name of the winning consultant and the contract sum Indicate date of notification of losing firms. Indicate date information was provided to ADB. 22 In the publication of award of contract, did we specify that if any consultant who submitted a proposal wishes to ascertain the reasons why its proposal was not selected, such consultant should request an explanation from the borrower? G. Rejection of all Proposals and Reinvitation 23 Did we encounter a case of rejecting all proposals? If yes, did we notify ADB and obtain its no-objection before proceeding with the rejection and the new process? Prior to undertaking the new process after rejecting all proposals, which may include revising the RFP, did we obtain ADB s no objection? Indicate justification for rejecting all proposals. Indicate dates ADB was notified and receipt of its no-objection. Indicate date of ADB s no objection. 6
H. Contract Management 24 Did the winning bidder provide significantly low price than the cost estimate? Indicate contract price vis-à-vis cost estimate. In case of substantially low price, were contract variations/change orders submitted? Indicate if change order/variation orders increased the scope of services and justifications therefore. 7