Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Saep 11
Saep 11
1 Scope............................................................. 2
2 Conflicts and Deviations................................. 2
3 Applicable Documents.................................... 2
4 Procedures..................................................... 3
5 Technical Evaluation Scope........................... 5
6 Technical Evaluation Criteria......................... 8
7 Technical Evaluation Results....................... 11
8 Acronyms and Definitions............................ 11
1 Scope
1.1 This Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure provides guidelines to prepare and
approve Technical Bid Technical Evaluation Plan document for Process
Automation System (PAS). The Technical Bid Evaluation Plan is required for
all procurements of PAS executed under SAEP-16, Project Execution Guide for
Process Automation Systems.
1.2 The Technical Bid Evaluation Plan document outlines the objectives,
responsibilities, procedures and schedules to technically evaluate PAS bid
proposals. The plan defines the review criteria and the analytical steps to be
taken to identify which bid proposals are technically acceptable and which are
the most attractive to Saudi Aramco.
1.3 The Technical Bid Evaluation Plan is a document required before opening
bidder's proposal. The plan contents will be based on the functionality listed in
the Project Functional Specification, Project Job Specification and applicable
standard contracting and purchasing terms and conditions.
1.4 This procedure does not apply to technical bid evaluations of custody metering
systems. Evaluations of custody metering systems are conducted in accordance
with SAEP-21, Project Execution Requirements for Saudi Aramco Royalty /
Custody Metering Systems and SAEP-50, Project Execution Requirements for
Third Party Royalty / Custody Metering Systems.
Any conflicts between this Procedure and other applicable Saudi Aramco Engineering
Procedures (SAEPs), Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards (SAESs), Saudi Aramco
Materials System Specifications (SAMSSs), Saudi Aramco Standard Drawings
(SASDs), or industry standards, codes, and forms shall be resolved in writing by the
Company or Buyer Representative through the Manager, P&CSD of Saudi Aramco,
Dhahran.
3 Applicable Documents
The requirements contained in the following documents apply to the extent specified in
this procedure.
Page 2 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
4 Procedures
4.2.1 The SAPMT is responsible for the preparation of the Technical Bid
Evaluation Plan.
4.2.2 The plan document shall include as a minimum all items listed in the
Sample Technical Evaluation Plan Document listed in Appendix A of
this document.
4.2.3 The plan document shall define the MUST and WANT criteria which
will be used as the basis for the technical evaluation.
Page 3 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
4.3.1 The following organizations shall sign-off on the Plan prior to the
commencement of the Technical Bid Evaluation:
SAPMT
Proponent Operating Organization
Process & Control Systems Department (P&CSD) as the Technical
organization
Contracting Department or Purchasing Department as applicable
4.5.1 Controlled copies will be made of each Bidder proposal for each member
of the TRT.
4.5.2 Each TRT member will be responsible for maintaining the controlled
copy in their possession and for maintaining their responsibilities to
ensure Confidentiality of the proposals.
4.6.1 The TRT shall prepare a TRT Recommendation Report. The report shall
include the following:
A recommendation to the commercial evaluation team stating which
proposals were determined to be technically acceptable by the TRT.
A Bid Tab showing the summarized team result for each vendor.
Page 4 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
4.6.2 Each member of the TRT shall sign the recommendation report
signifying acceptance of the recommendations.
5.1 Overview
5.1.2 Clarifications will be requested from bidders where the TRT have
determined that either important functionality has not been included,
functionality or components have been included where not required, or
where the TRT is unclear how a particular functionality will be met.
Page 5 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
5.1.3 The intention is to ensure that each proposal contains all required
functionality to both minimize the possibility of change orders at a later
stage of the project and to ensure that proposals determined to be
technically acceptable can be evaluated on an equivalent basis during the
commercial evaluation.
The Technical Evaluation shall, as a minimum, review the following items for
each proposal during the technical evaluation:
The TRT will ensure that all required documentation has been supplied
for each proposal. These shall include as a minimum:
Responses to items included in the Instructions to Bidders
Detailed technical proposal
System Architecture Drawing
Project Schedule and Manpower Loading
The TRT will ensure each proposal contains all major components of the
DCS system and that the correct numbers have been supplied (i.e.,
correct number of consoles, workstations, controllers, software, etc.).
The TRT will ensure that each proposal contains all major sub-systems
required, that only sub-systems from the Recommended Vendors List
have been proposed, and that the correct numbers of sub-systems have
been proposed.
The TRT will review the table of compliance for each proposal and
review any stated non-compliance issues. TRT will decide if stated non-
compliance issues are grounds for disqualification of proposals.
The TRT will review the proposed system architecture for each proposal
to determine if the system meets project requirements for risk area
segregation.
Page 6 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
The TRT will review the project schedule provided by each vendor to
ensure the proposed schedule meets project requirements. All major
milestones shall be included in each proposed schedule.
5.2.8 Clarifications
The TRT will develop a list of clarifications required from each proposal
and submit the items to bidders through Saudi Aramco purchasing
representative for responses. The TRT will review the responses and
ensure all clarifications have been cleared. The final TET report shall
include a section which identifies all technical clarification that will/may
result in a commercial impact.
The TRT shall identify any Non-compliance items related to the Project
FSD, the Scope of work and Scope of supply for each proposal. The TRT
shall determine whether these items are significant enough to justify
technical disqualification.
The TRT will review each proposal and ensure the proposed system
meets all the MUST criteria defined in the technical evaluation criteria.
The TRT will rate each proposal based on the WANT criteria defined in
the technical evaluation criteria. TRT shall provide recommendations
suggesting how the want criteria scoring can be incorporated during the
commercial evaluation for the CRT consideration.
Page 7 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
6.1 Overview
6.1.1 The criteria used for technical evaluation of proposals shall be based on
the project functional specification documents (FSD), the project specific
scope of work documents (SOW), and all applicable Saudi Aramco
Standards and Material Specifications.
6.1.2 The criteria used to evaluate proposals shall be developed and concurred
to by all members of the TRT prior to starting the evaluation. The criteria
used shall be documented in the Technical Evaluation Plan and agreed to
by all parties via signature of the Plan document.
6.1.3 The technical evaluation criteria shall be developed using the Kepner-
Tregoe (K-T) methodology.
Commentary Note:
6.1.4 The criteria shall include criteria considered MUST, criteria considered
WANT, and the associated weighting of each WANT criteria.
6.2.1 In general, bidders are required to submit proposals which meet all of the
requirements defined in the project FSD and applicable standards. A list
of those considered most critical to the functionality of the system or
success of the project shall be developed to be included as MUST
criteria. Possible MUST requirements include the following:
PCS vendor has assumed overall responsibility for integration of all
sub-systems.
All proposed equipment are field proven and from suppliers
identified as acceptable in the RFQ.
System Architecture meets segregation requirements.
Project schedule meets milestone dates identified in the RFQ.
Page 8 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
6.2.2 Any proposal which fails to meet all of the MUST criteria shall be
considered unacceptable and not be evaluated further.
6.3.1 The WANT criteria evaluation score sheets list requirements that rank
proposals against each other to identify the most attractive to Saudi
Aramco for the CRT consideration.
6.3.2 Each member of the TRT shall score each proposal based on want
criteria.
6.3.3 The score assigned by each TRT member for each individual WANT
criteria shall be displayed to the entire TRT during the evaluation.
6.3.4 Any score which deviates significantly from the group shall be
discussed. The intention is to ensure that the entire TRT reaches a
consensus on the actual result.
Commentary Note:
The intention of this is not for entire TRT to assign the same score for
each criteria. However, if the entire TRT assigns a score of 4 for a
particular proposal in a WANT criterion and one member scores the
same proposal criterion a 2, the person who scored a 2 shall be asked to
discuss the reasons behind the score. That particular member may have
some insight which other TRT members are not aware of and should
therefore make that information available to the other TRT members for
consideration. The reasoning behind a score which significantly deviate
from the rest of the group must be understood by the group.
6.3.5 Scores for each criteria shall be averaged for all team members and
normalized to 100 %. The final scoring shall be included the evaluation
results.
6.3.6 Any proposal which is given less than a 70% normalized scoring based
on WANT criteria shall be considered technically unacceptable and shall
be disqualified.
Page 9 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Page 10 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
7.2.2 The TRT shall ensure that the issues resulting in disqualification are
clearly identified and constitute sufficient justification for disqualification.
7.2.3 TRT shall ensure that bidders have been given opportunity to resolve
issues identified as cause for disqualification and have declined or failed
to do so appropriately.
7.2.4 TRT shall ensure that any decision to disqualify has been reached by
consensus of the TRT. Detailed justification for any disqualification shall
be documented in the Technical Evaluation Recommendation Report.
8.1 Acronyms
CR&CCD Contract Review and Cost Compliance Department
DCS Distributed Control System
FSD Functional Specification Document
IPAS Integrated Process Automation System
K-T Kepner-Tregoe
P&CSD Process & Control Systems Department
PAS Process Automation System
RVL Restricted Vendor List
SAEP Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure
Page 11 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
8.2 Definitions
Revision Summary
18 January 2012 Revised the “Next Planned Update.” Reaffirmed the content of the document, and reissued
with minor revision.
Page 12 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope
All documents referenced in the plan shall be listed. The list shall
include the governing Functional Specifications Document (FSD), Job
Specification and applicable Saudi Aramco Standards and Material
Specifications.
2. Overview
3. Prerequisites
All conditions and requirements that must be met or completed before initiation
of bid evaluation shall be listed and described. Examples of such prerequisites
could be:
3.1 Documentation
Page 13 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
4. Personnel Requirements
All personnel required to conduct the evaluation shall be listed in this section.
This section shall list the TRT members and represented organizations. The TRT
members shall include the following:
Contractor personnel requirements and responsibilities.
Company personnel requirements and responsibilities.
Special personnel qualifications (network, systems, etc.).
5. Evaluation Controls
This section shall list and describe review controls. Typical review control
includes:
Review Confidentiality
Methods for handling bid documentation and transmittals
Communication with bidders
6. Evaluation Procedures
7. Evaluation Schedule
8. Evaluation Deliverables
9. Attachments
Page 14 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
BI NO:_________
The following Technical Review Team members concur with the bid evaluation plan
and procedure.
Page 15 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
BI NO:_________
The obligation of confidentiality shall come into effect on the date hereof and shall
continue in force for a period of Five (5) years from this date.
Signature: ____________________
Name: {Name}
Date: {Date}
Page 16 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
1. INTRODUCTION
VENDOR 1
VENDOR 2
VENDOR 3
VENDOR 1
VENDOR 3
VENDOR 2
Page 17 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Page 18 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Proposal Summary:
Major Clarifications:
Non-Compliance Issues:
Page 19 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Outstanding Issues:
Proposal Summary:
Major Clarifications:
Page 20 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Non-Compliance Issues:
Outstanding Issues:
This section shall list any technically disqualified proposals and basis or
reasons of disqualification. The following is an example:
VENDOR #2 PROPOSAL:
There were several issues with VENDOR #2's technical proposal which
formed the basis for disqualification. These items are listed below with
further details on each to follow:
Proposal did not meet segregation requirements for risk areas 2A & 2B.
Page 21 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
VENDOR #2's proposal did not contain separate systems for risk areas
2A & 2B. PIB #2 is a split PIB which contains two risk areas: 2A & 2B.
VENDOR #2 proposed a single console for PIB #2. This issue was raised
in clarification items XX and YY. VENDOR #2 failed to confirm that
independent systems would be provided for risk areas 2A and 2B.
They also did not provide an updated system architecture drawing and
updated Bill of Materials confirming separate systems were provided as
requested in the clarification.
This section shall list any alternate proposals from vendors whose base
proposal was determined to be technically acceptable. TRT shall
indicate whether each alternate was considered technically acceptable.
The following is provided as an example:
Page 22 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
10. ATTACHMENTS
1. MUST Criteria Scoring Summary
2. WANT Criteria Scoring Summary
Page 23 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Recommended by:
Approved by:
Page 24 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Attachment - 1
TECHNICAL EVALUATION MUST CRITERIA SUMMARY
Reference is made to the ITB requirements
REF. NO. REQUIREMENT VENDOR #1 VENDOR #2 VENDOR #3
Proposal Completeness
7.12.1 Tables of Compliance
7.12.3 Bill of Materials
7.12.3 List of Services
7.12.7 Software Licenses
7.4.1 Project Schedule
New Manpower Loading
7.12.4 System Architecture Drawings
7.12.5 Equipment Dimensions
7.12.6 Space Requirements
7.12.7 I/O Summary Table
7.12.12 List of Tested Devices
7.3.2 List of Auxiliary Vendors
New ESD Scan Time Calculations
Functional Requirements
7.12.2 Exceptions to Tables of Compliance
7.3.2 Auxiliary Systems Vendors
7.12.9 Distributed Database
7.12.10 Single Window Concept
7.12.13 Redundancy
7.12.14 Network Capability
7.12.18 Field Proven
7.12.21 INTools database Mgmt.
New Risk Area Segregation
New DCS Control Network Design
New Single Point of Failure
New ESD Scan Time
New Interface to ESD
New Time Synchronization
Project Execution
7.4.1 Project Schedule
New Overall PCS Responsibility
OVERALL
Page 25 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Attachment - 2
TECHNICAL EVALUATION WANT CRITERIA SUMMARY (Typical)
Page 26 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Attachment - 3
TECHNICAL EVALUATION (PASS/FAIL)
Page 27 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Page 28 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Page 29 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Page 30 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Attachment - 4
WANT CRITERIA EVALUATION SCORING
MAX. VENDOR
REF. NO. REQUIREMENT COMMENT
SCORE SCORE
7.3 – Execution Plan: Total = 12 pts. 12
7.2 Bidder shall provide an executive If PCS VENDOR confirms their 2
summary, (not to exceed two (2) understanding of the scope of
pages) describing its understanding of work, assign 2 point.
the scope of WORK and
acknowledging that the WORK will be
carried out in line with the Operating
Plan and Project's Schedule.
7.3.1 Bidder shall provide a brief execution If PCS VENDOR states that 2
plan narrative which addresses all of they will mobilize and place a
the WORK to be performed to representative in the LSTK
complete this WORK. Contractor's office, assign 2
A summary of the WORK that the points.
PCS VENDOR will perform during the If PCS VENDOR provides a 2
first 60 days following award of the statement of work items which
Purchase Order (PO). they will begin working on,
such as working on the
Configuration Guideline,
assign 2 points.
7.3.3 The division of responsibilities If PCS VENDOR confirms that 3
between the PCS VENDOR and the Auxiliary Vendors will be
Auxiliary System Vendors of major sub-contractor to the PCS
scope elements such as: ESD, CCS, VENDOR and that the Auxiliary
Multi-Drop Vibration Monitoring Vendors will perform the
System, Vibration Monitoring System, design work for their systems
MTS and OTS. as per the specifications,
assign 3 points.
7.3.4 Bidder shall summarize its If PCS VENDOR confirms its 3
understanding of the relationship with understanding of three (3)
the Contractor(s) and provide realistic Contractors, confirm that they
ways under the contract to enhance will provide a representative in
the success of the Project. each Contractor's offices, and
suggest realistic ways to
enhance the relationship,
assign 3 points.
7.4 - Schedule: Total = 12 pts 12
7.4.1 Bidder shall provide a preliminary If PCS VENDOR sequences 3
schedule for the proposed PCS the milestones in the correct
showing the following milestone order and allows a minimum of
dates: 3 months between PDR and
PO placement CDR, and a minimum of 3
Page 31 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
MAX. VENDOR
REF. NO. REQUIREMENT COMMENT
SCORE SCORE
Kick-off meeting months between CDR and
System design period SRR, assign 3 points.
System Design Document Review If PCS VENDOR allows for at
Instrument Database transmittals lease two months for the 3
from/to Contractors manufacturing period, assign 3
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) points.
Critical Design Review (CDR)
System manufacturing period
Factory Staging
Pre and Actual Factory
Acceptance Test (FAT)
System Readiness Review (SRR)
Integrated FAT period
Certification and packing
Shipping, release from customs
and delivery to site
Installation period
Site Acceptance Test (SAT)
Bidder shall provide a narrative with
the schedule which describes in detail
the sequence of events
7.4.2 The schedule shall clearly indicate all If PCS VENDOR identifies a 3
of the following: period of 28 days from issue of
a) Any float time together with any design review packages to
freeze dates and major milestone design review, and a period of
for equipment design and 10 days for notification prior to
delivery. beginning of FAT, assign 3
b) All PCS VENDOR, Contractor and points.
COMPANY activities critical to
proper management of the work
including all data deliverables
from/to Contractor including
related auxiliary equipment
systems to be integrated with the
DCS.
c) Bidder's best estimate of the
achievable major project
milestones.
d) Identification of the need and
duration for Contractor /
COMPANY personnel visits to
assist in developing the PCS
design. The destination of
proposed visits should be
identified as to the manufacturing
facilities, integration facilities
and/or project offices.
e) The schedule must reflect a
period of 28 days from issue of
Page 32 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
MAX. VENDOR
REF. NO. REQUIREMENT COMMENT
SCORE SCORE
design review packages to the
date of design review and ten (10)
days notification from completion
of all exception items to when the
FAT will be held.
7.4.3 The schedule shall be detailed If PCS VENDOR splits the PCS 3
enough to address stages of tests by into logical test phases that
Operating Areas and by Risk Areas support the start up, Assign 3
since it will be unlikely that the pts.
complete system can be staged and
tested at one time. Bidder shall detail
the stages of FAT by combinations of
consoles, systems, and/or Risk
Areas. No more than two (2) similar
tests can be conducted at one time.
7.5 – Project Interfaces and Coordination: Total = 9 pts. 9
7.5.1 The key interfaces and coordination If PCS VENDOR confirms that 3
areas within the Bidders organization, they will liaison with the
with auxiliary system vendors, with Contractor's and identify the
Contractor(s), with COMPANY and list of deliverables required
any other projects and areas that are from LSTK's (i.e., IFC P&ID,
considered significant. Bidder shall Logic Drawings, Instrument
address Bidder's vision of working Database), assign 3 points.
with Contractor.
7.5.3 As one centralized design, If PCS VENDOR provides one 3
integration, configuration, pre-FAT location, assign 3 points.
and FAT location is required, confirm
and specify this location. Bidder shall
list alternative location(s) including
Saudi Arabia available Staging Areas.
Bidder shall identify the proposed
floor area of the staging location.
Bidder shall demonstrate (by use of
reference to previous projects, for
example) that the proposed staging
area is adequate in space, power and
HVAC. Bidders shall also provide an
optional bid considering the
performing of the overall PCS staging
activities in Saudi Arabia.
7.5.4 It is essential that PCS VENDOR pro- If PCS VENDOR confirms and 3
actively work with the Contractors and suggests a workable approach
auxiliary system vendors to expedite showing that they will manage
and clarify the exchange of the sub-vendors, assign 3
information to enhance timely design points.
completion. Bidder shall address what
resources will be implemented to
expedite the exchange of information
with the contractor(s). Further, the
Page 33 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
MAX. VENDOR
REF. NO. REQUIREMENT COMMENT
SCORE SCORE
Vendor Services Specification states
that PCS VENDOR shall place a
representative in the Contractor's
offices – Bidder shall confirm that this
will be included.
7.6 - Organization and Resources: Total = 12 pts 12
7.6.1 CORPORATE ORGANIZATION If PCS VENDOR shows on the 1
A description of the Bidders overall Corporate Organization where
corporate organization, as distinct the Project Team of the PCS
from project organization, and VENDOR will report to
describe Bidder's functional and including Man-Power Loading
financial relationships with any parent, Chart for the duration of the
affiliated and non-affiliated company Project, Assign 1 point.
with whom Bidder is associated that is
proposed to participate in the WORK.
Specifically define the services that
each company will contribute towards
Bidder's performance of the WORK.
7.6.2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION If PCS VENDOR confirms that 2
A description of the proposed they will assign a Company
organization that will demonstrate that Official to work with the PMT,
it will contribute towards Bidder's Assign 2 Point.
performance of the WORK.
7.6.2.1 Details of how many of the PCS If PCS VENDOR states the 3
VENDOR staff are dedicated to DCS number of people dedicated to
project work. DCS work is within 20% of the
company estimate, assign 3
points.
7.6.2.2 Complete Attachment II of Section 2 If PCS VENDOR estimated 3
of the Instructions to Bidders man-hours is within 20% of the
providing the number of man hours company estimated 150,000
estimated to complete the WORK man-hours, assign 3 points.
from PO placement through FAT/IFAT
completion and shipment of the
system.
7.6.2.3 A table number of people required to If PCS VENDOR shows a peak 3
complete the WORK. This table shall manpower loading which is
summarize the classifications of within 20% of the company
people that will used to complete the estimate for peak manpower
work, i.e., number of Project required, assign 3 points.
Engineers, System Engineers,
Software Engineers, etc.
7.8 – I/O Database: Total = 3 pts. 3
7.8 Bidder shall explain the data formats If PCS VENDOR provides 3
that will be used for importing details on their ability to
computer supplied Instrument Index. integrate INTools database,
Bidder shall provide a sample assign 3 points.
Instrument Index identifying the
following:
Page 34 of 35
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee SAEP-1622
Issue Date: 18 January 2012 Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017 Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
MAX. VENDOR
REF. NO. REQUIREMENT COMMENT
SCORE SCORE
Fields required to complete its
WORK
Fields provided by Contractor
Fields to be completed by PCS
VENDOR
Bidder shall specify when each field is
required to support the PDR, CDR,
staging, FAT and IFAT.
7.9 – In-Kingdom Capabilities: Total = 6 pts. 6
7.9.1 Bidder shall provide its plan for If PCS VENDOR confirms that 3
executing portions of the project In- they will perform configuration,
Kingdom. staging and FAT In-Kingdom,
assign 3 points.
If PCS VENDOR confirms that
they will perform the Integrated 3
FAT In-Kingdom, assign 3
points.
7.10 – Product Lifecycle: Total = 12 pts. 12
7.10.1 Bidder shall provide the release dates Assign the appropriate points 6
for the controllers proposed to be from the table below based on
used for the project. the amount of time from the
On average, vendors introduce new release date till the RFQ date:
controllers every 8 yrs. Based on the 0 - 2 yrs since introduction
release date of the controllers being =
proposed, one can estimate when 6 pts
they will be superseded with a newer +2 – 5 yrs since introduction
version. Those systems whose = 4 pts
components have been released +5 – 8 yrs since introduction
more recently will tend to have a = 2 pts
longer lifespan and therefore should Greater than 8 yrs = 0 pts
be given a higher scoring.
7.10.2 Bidder shall provide the release dates Assign the appropriate points 6
for the I/O modules proposed to be from the table below based on
used for the project. the amount of time from the
On average, vendors introduce new release date till the RFQ date:
I/O modules are introduced every 0 - 4 yrs since introduction =
12 yrs. Based on the release date of 6 pts
the I/O being proposed, one can +4 – 8 yrs since introduction
estimate when they will be = 4 pts
superseded with a newer version. +8 – 12 yrs since
Those systems whose components introduction = 2 pts
have been released more recently will Greater than 12 yrs = 0 pts.
tend to have a longer lifespan and
therefore should be given a higher
scoring.
Page 35 of 35