2(a) Describe a supplier evaluation approach that HFS could use to select a bidder using the table provided, including a proposal for an appropriate weighting method for scoring the bidders. (10 marks)
HFS should use a weighted scoring supplier evaluation approach . This method is suitable because there are several award criteria, not just price, and HFS has already experienced poor cleaning quality under the previous contract. Therefore, HFS should assess both cost and quality-related factors before selecting the successful bidder.
A sensible approach would be:
Step 1: Set evaluation criteria
Using the tender table, HFS can evaluate bidders against:
bid price
ISO 9000 certification
Investors in People (IIP) certification
labour standards criterion linked to ILO requirements
ISO 14000 certification.
ISO says the ISO 9000 family supports quality management and consistent delivery, while ISO 14001 is the recognised framework for environmental management. Investors in People is an externally recognised accreditation for people management.
Step 2: Apply weightings
Because HFS was not satisfied with the quality of the previous cleaning service, quality and service assurance should carry more weight than price alone. A suitable weighting could be:
Price = 40%
ISO 9000 = 25%
IIP = 15%
ILO criterion = 10%
ISO 14000 = 10%
This totals 100%. The reason for this weighting is that price is important, but service quality should be prioritised for a five-year contract. ISO 9001 is especially relevant because it is the best-known quality management standard and is intended to support consistent products and services. ISO 14001 is also relevant because it gives assurance on environmental management.
Step 3: Score the bidders
For price , HFS could award the full 40 marks to the lowest bid and score the others proportionately using the formula:
Lowest bid ÷ bidder’s price × price weighting
Using €120,000 as the lowest bid:
A = 120,000 / 120,000 × 40 = 40.00
B = 120,000 / 135,000 × 40 = 35.56
C = 120,000 / 132,000 × 40 = 36.36
D = 120,000 / 142,000 × 40 = 33.80
For the certification criteria, a simple method would be:
Yes = full marks
No = zero
So the total weighted scores would be:
A = 40 + 0 + 15 + 0 + 0 = 55.00
B = 35.56 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.56
C = 36.36 + 25 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 96.36
D = 33.80 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 33.80
Overall, this weighted evaluation method is appropriate because it gives HFS a transparent and objective way to compare bids while reflecting the importance of service quality, people management and environmental standards, not just lowest price.
2(b) Recommend and justify which ONE of the bidders should be awarded the contract and why each of the three other bids should be rejected. (15 marks)
Based on the weighted scoring analysis, CleenKwik (C) should be awarded the contract.
Recommended bidder: CleenKwik (C)
CleenKwik should be selected because it offers the best overall value rather than just the lowest price. Its bid of €132,000 is only slightly above the lowest bid, but it is the only bidder with all four listed accreditations or compliance indicators in the table: ISO 9000, IIP, ILO criterion and ISO 14000 . This is important because HFS has already had poor service quality from the previous contractor, so quality assurance should be a major factor in the decision. ISO 9001 is specifically designed to support consistent service quality, while ISO 14001 supports structured environmental management. Investors in People also gives assurance on workforce management, which is relevant in a labour-intensive cleaning contract.
CleenKwik therefore represents the strongest balance between price, quality, staff management and environmental responsibility . For a five-year service contract, that makes it the most suitable choice.
Why Associated Cleaning (A) should be rejected
Associated Cleaning has the lowest price at €120,000 , but it only has IIP certification and lacks the other three criteria. This means it gives weaker assurance on quality systems, labour standards and environmental management. Since HFS’s main problem in the last contract was poor cleaning quality, selecting the cheapest bidder without strong quality evidence would be risky. Therefore, A should be rejected because the low price does not compensate for the lack of broader service assurance.
Why Bright’N’Clean (B) should be rejected
Bright’N’Clean is a stronger bid than A because it has IIP and the ILO-related criterion , but it still lacks ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 . This is significant because ISO 9001 is the strongest direct indicator in the table for quality management, and HFS is specifically trying to avoid another poor-quality contract. B is also more expensive than both A and C. Therefore, B should be rejected because it offers less assurance than C while not being the cheapest option.
Why Doubleshine (D) should be rejected
Doubleshine should be rejected because it is the highest-priced bid at €142,000 and has none of the listed certifications or indicators. This means HFS would be paying the highest price for the weakest quality and compliance evidence. There is no justification for awarding the contract to D when it scores lowest on overall value.
Conclusion
In conclusion, CleenKwik (C) should be awarded the contract because it achieves the highest weighted score and provides the strongest evidence of quality, people management, labour-related assurance and environmental management. The other three bids should be rejected because they either provide insufficient quality assurance, poorer overall value, or both. This recommendation is justified because HFS needs to improve service quality, not simply reduce cost.
