UfAB 2018 Evaluation Scheme¶

As an alternative to the standard rating scheme, the bill of quantities can also be used to create a valuation scheme using the simple or extended guideline value method in accordance with UfAB 2018.

Basic Principles and Calculation Formulas¶

With this evaluation method, the criteria groups and individual criteria receive different weighting points depending on their importance.

As part of the tender evaluation, evaluation points in the range from 0 to 10 are awarded for the individual criteria.

The points awarded according to the formula

calculated performance points are used to determine the key figure for the performance-price ratio using the following formula:

• Z: Key figure for the performance-price ratio

• L: Total sum of service points (across all groups in the bill of quantity)

• P: Price (in euros)

This key figure (Z) is decisive for the most economical offer according to the Simple Reference Value Method.

In the case of the extended indicative value method, a pre-selection of tenders is made within a range of fluctuation and the most economical tender is determined from this with the help of an additionally defined decision criterion.

Further details on the evaluation according to UfAB can be found on the Internet at http://www.kbst.bund.de/.

Inserting a UfAB 2018 Evaluation Scheme into the BQ¶

Follow the instructions below to insert a scoring scheme according to UfAB 2018 into your bill of quantity:

• Delete the default rating scheme of your bill of quantities via the context menu Remove or with the Remove button (black X) on the toolbar (1) of the bill of quantities.

• Click on the bill of quantities icon in the outline. The New toolbar now contains the Standard evaluation scheme button.

• If you point the mouse at this button without clicking, the selection list will expand downwards. Select the entry UfAB-2018 scoring scheme . An empty scoring scheme according to UfAB 2018 will be inserted into your bill of quantity.

The following input fields are available for completion in this scoring scheme:

Create UfAB Main Criteria Groups¶

Add one or more new main criteria groups as described in the chapter Create criteria group.

The following input fields for groups are available for you to fill in:

Enter any number of criteria groups within the main groups.

Create UfAB Criteria¶

Enter any number of criteria elements within the groups. Please also refer to the chapter Create criteria.

When inserting individual criteria, you can choose between A and B criteria.

A criteria are exclusion criteria, i.e. the requirement is either fulfilled (yes) or not fulfilled (no). These criteria are not weighted. As part of the tender evaluation, the fulfillment of all A-criteria is checked in a preliminary review. Tenders that do not meet an A criterion cannot be awarded a contract.

B criteria are evaluation criteria, i.e. they are given weighting points depending on their importance. The sum of the weighting points of all criteria in a group is displayed at group level, see display field Sum of weighting points (GP) in the table above.

The following input fields are available for B criteria:

Field	Description
No.	Number of the criterion in the evaluation scheme. Is assigned automatically.
Description	** Mandatory field:** Short description/title of the criterion.
Criteria text	Indicate how many evaluation points (BP) are awarded for which criteria fulfillment.
File attachment for explanations by the awarding authority	Click on the paperclip symbol to add a file attachment that contains further information on the criterion and becomes part of the award documents.
Publish element?	The radio button is preset with Yes: Indicates whether the criterion is to be published.
Publish weighting?	radio button with Yes prefilled: Specifies whether the weighting of the criterion is published if the criterion is also published.
Weighting points (GP)	Mandatory field:** Number reflecting the value and importance of the criterion.
Reason for weighting	For reasons of traceability, enter an internal reason for the award procedure of the weighting points here.

Error Messages¶

When validating the bill of quantity, the sum of all weighting points at the top level of the UfAB 2018 scoring scheme is compared with the entry in the Allocatable weighting points field.

An error message is displayed in the event of deviations.

At criteria group level, the system checks whether the specified minimum number of points (MP) exceeds the maximum achievable credit points (CP) for this group.

In the example below, a warning message is displayed because

LP = weighting points (GP) * maximum assessment points (BP) \< MP

Example in numbers:

LP = 100 GP * 10 BP =1000 LP \< 1001 MP\s

Numbering in the UfAB Scoring Scheme¶

The numbering of the elements in the UfAB scoring scheme is standardized to facilitate orientation.

Main groups always have the abbreviation KHG and a letter in alphabetical order, e.g. KHG A, KHG B etc.

Criteria groups have the abbreviation KG and are numbered from top to bottom within the evaluation scheme. If criteria groups are subsequently added or deleted, the numbering is automatically adjusted.

Criteria are abbreviated with the letter A = exclusion criterion or B = evaluation criterion. Individual criteria can also be created within the main groups and then receive a consecutive number after the letter. You can change the order of the individual elements within the main group by dragging them with the mouse (drag & drop method). This changes the number after the letter, e.g. B 6 and A 7 in the example above becomes A 6 and B 7 after moving.

The criteria within the criteria groups differ from the individual criteria from the main groups by the double numbering, e.g. A 1.1 or B 1.1. The first digit represents the group membership and the second stands for the order within the criteria type, i.e. the numbering of the criteria elements of type A and B is separate within the group. Therefore, there can be both criterion A 1.1 and criterion B 1.1 in a group.

Evaluation Methods in the UfAB 2018 Evaluation Scheme¶

Simple Guideline Value Method¶

Bills of quantity with precise, standardized specifications, with numerous A criteria and few B criteria are suitable for this evaluation, as in this case the inaccuracies to be assumed are small and the fluctuation range can be neglected.

To determine the most economical tender, only the ratio between the performance points and the price is calculated here using the following formula

Extended Standard Value Method¶

In complex procurement processes with predominantly functional specifications and numerous B-criteria, the presumed inaccuracy in the evaluation can reach a relevant size, resulting in a fluctuation range that must be taken into account due to its size.

To determine the most economical tender, a further decision criterion is used here in addition to the performance/price ratio (Z) for tenders that are close to each other.

This method comprises several steps:

• Determining the key figure Z for the performance-price ratio using the same formula as already described for the Simple Indicative Value Method.

• Pre-selection of bids within the defined varying range.

• Compare this selection of offers on the basis of a previously defined decision criterion.

Example of figures for the extended indicative value method

The Simple Indicative Value Method would have determined Bid 3 as the most economical bid based on the Code (Z).

Weighted Indicative Value Method with Median (not part of UfAB 2018)¶

The weighted indicative value methods are recommended if the performance and price are to be weighted differently when determining the most economical tender. The two methods differ in the way in which the reference points (reference values) required in the formulas are determined for the performance points or for the price.

With the median method, the reference value is calculated by determining the median value (median) of all performance points used for the evaluation and the median of all prices used for the evaluation.

Example for 5 numbers:

MEDIAN(number1=29; number2=13; number3=81; number4=53; number5=77) = 53

The medians are determined after the receipt of bids. To determine the median of all performance points and the median of all prices, only those tenders that remain after completion of evaluation stages 1 to 3 may be taken into account.

The median method can be represented by the following formula

Abbreviations

Example of figures for the median method

Weighted Reference Value Method with Reference Value (not part of UfAB 2018)¶

With the reference value method, the reference value for the price and the performance points is determined by the awarding authority on the basis of the information on the market situation that was collected during the preparation of the award procedure.

As the previously determined reference values can have a direct influence on the ranking when determining the most economically advantageous tender, this method should only be used if there is a sufficient degree of certainty regarding the accuracy or market appropriateness of the determined reference values.

The reference value for the service must not be set unreasonably high, but also not too low, and must be based on the procurement object. As a rule of thumb, the reference value could generally be set at around 75% of the maximum achievable performance points (e.g. 7,500 points with a maximum score of 10,000 points).

The reference value method can be represented by the following formula

Abbreviations

Numerical example for the reference value method