Procurement Audit

1. Procedures were established to address potential conflicts of interest, confidentiality and probity issues?

2. Confidentiality and conflict of interest documents were obtained from all members of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) and details of action taken to manage any conflicts of interest were recorded? All matters were referred to the Council General Manager for a determination of action.

3. A Tender Evaluation Committee was established and a Probity and Evaluation Plan was signed by all members?

4. Evaluation and Probity Plan has been completed containing mandatory participation criteria, evaluation criteria, weightings and an evaluation methodology has been defined and documented?

5. The evaluation criteria in the Evaluation Plan match the evaluation criteria as outlined in the Tender documents?

6. Was the scope of works developed by the council?

7. Details of the evaluation criteria to be used in the assessment of EOI/RFx, and any weightings to be used in the assessment

8. Details of the closing time, date and place of lodgement <br>*LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL) REGULATION 2005 - REG 167*<br>

9. Conditions of tender conditions of contract including a DRAFT contract

10. Returnable Schedules or Tenderlink Evaluation Form

11. Tenderer contact details

12. Advice on the treatment of late tenders<br>*LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL) REGULATION 2005 - REG 177*

13. Advice on any tender briefing sessions

14. Details of the date, time and place for the opening of EOI/RFx where there is to be a public opening of EOI/RFx <br>*LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL) REGULATION 2005 - REG 175*

15. Pricing requirements (e.g. price to be exclusive of GST)

16. An indication as to whether alternative tenders will be considered.

17. If addendums were issued, copies were issued to all participating suppliers via Tenderlink?

18. All tenderers to whom addendums were issued were requested to confirm receipt of the addenda?

19. If addendums were issued, sufficient time was provided to allow tenderers to amend and/or resubmit their tender?

20. Any extension of the closing for tenderers to respond was offered to all tenderers?<br>*LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL) REGULATION 2005 - REG 172*

21. Forum questions were responded to promptly and completely (maximum 2 days)?

22. If any tenderer has been provided with an opportunity to correct unintentional errors of form between the opening of submissions and any decision, the same opportunity has been provided to all tenderers?<br> *LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL) REGULATION 2005 - REG 176 (3)*

23. Mandatory tender schedules have been submitted by tenderers and checked for compliance?

24. The evaluation criteria and weightings as set out in the tender documents and the evaluation plan have been used to evaluate the tenders?

25. Recalculate all pricing/weighting calculations and cross check all calculations against the assessment sheets and quotes submitted by tenderers. Did you complete this?

26. Any tenderer’s qualifications, documentation departures, commercial conditions, or comments requiring clarification have been noted for resolution?

27. Individual assessment matrices is signed and dated by each member of the TEC?

28. The basis for not accepting any tender have been documented and are clear and justifiable (e.g. tender substantially non-conforming; specified QA requirements not met; tenderer has insufficient expertise etc.)

29. The recommended tenderer is a legal entity?

30. The recommended tender conforms to the essential requirements of all notices issued during the course of a procurement or the RFT?

31. A Recommendation Report has been completed, and signed by all members of the TEC?

32. Meetings of the TEC have been appropriately minuted?