Engineering Procedure

SAEP-1622 18 January 2012

Preparation of Technical Bid Evaluation
Plan Document for Process Automation Systems
Document Responsibility: Process Control Standards Committee

Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards

Table of Contents

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

Appendix A – Sample Technical Bid

Evaluation Plan............................................ 13
Appendix B – Technical Bid Evaluation
Plan Agreement........................................... 15
Appendix C – Confidentiality Statement
for Bid Evaluation......................................... 16
Appendix D – Sample TRT
Recommendation Report............................. 17
Appendix E – Sample Bid Evaluation
Must (or Pass/Fail) Criteria.......................... 27
Appendix F – Bid Evaluation Want Criteria........ 31

Previous Issue: 16 September 2009 Next Planned Update: 18 January 2017

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the right margin Page 1 of 35
Primary contact: Khalifah, Abdullah Hussain on 966-3-8801830

Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2012. All rights reserved.

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 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.

2 Conflicts and Deviations

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.

 Saudi Aramco References

SAEP-15 Preparation of Restricted Vendor Lists for Process
Automation Systems

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

SAEP-16 Project Execution Guide for Process Automation

Systems
SAEP-21 Project Execution Requirements for Saudi Aramco
Royalty / Custody Metering Systems
SAEP-50 Project Execution Requirements for Third Party
Royalty / Custody Metering Systems
SAEP-302 Instructions for Obtaining a Waiver of a
Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering
Requirement
Supply Chain Bid Evaluation
Management Manual
Purchasing
Edition PD09.09
Procedure 8 Saudi Aramco Contracting Manual - Volume I:
Bid Review Program

4 Procedures

4.1 Technical Review Team

A Technical Review Team (TRT) shall be assembled by SAPMT. The team

shall be comprised of the following members:
 COMPANY Project Management Representative(s)
 COMPANY Proponent Representative(s)
 COMPANY Process and Control Systems Department Representative(s)
 COMPANY Purchasing Representative(s)
 CONTRACTOR Representative(s) (as required by PMT)

4.2 Technical Bid Evaluation Plan

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 Technical Bid Evaluation Agreement Form

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

4.3.2 A sample Technical Bid Evaluation Agreement form is listed in

Appendix B.

4.4 Confidentiality Statement

4.4.1 Proposal information shall be treated with strict confidentiality.

Each TRT member shall sign a Confidentiality Statement. A sample
Confidentiality Statement is listed in Appendix C.

4.4.2 Communication to Bidders and sub-vendors during the evaluation period

will be solely through the Purchasing Representative. All contacts shall
be in writing and shall contain who initiated the contact, who was
contacted, date, time purpose of contact, and summary of contact.

4.5 Evaluation Controls

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 Evaluation Deliverables

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

 A technical summary for each proposal highlighting and comparing

how the proposed systems from each bidder is meeting the project
specification for network architecture, area segregation, and any
other major project specific requirement.
 A comparison of base proposals to show that Bidder has a correct
understanding of the scope of work. The comparison can include
number and counts of IO, controllers, cabinets, consoles, servers,
startup and commissioning spares, etc.
 A listing of all clarification items with possible commercial impact
for each technically acceptable proposal.
 A listing of any outstanding issues with possible commercial impact
for each technically acceptable proposal.
 A listing of any non-compliance items or any potential waiver issues
required to deem the proposal is technically acceptable.
 A listing of any proposed options which were considered to be
technically acceptable.
 Details and justification for any proposals which were determined
not to be technically acceptable.

4.6.2 Each member of the TRT shall sign the recommendation report
signifying acceptance of the recommendations.

4.6.3 A sample TRT Recommendation is listed in Appendix D.

5 Technical Evaluation Scope

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 The purpose of the technical evaluation is to determine whether the

proposals submitted by each vendor meet the technical requirements
defined in the project Functional Specification Documents, the Project
Scope of Work documents, and all applicable Saudi Aramco Standards
and Material Specifications.

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.

5.2 Review Items

The Technical Evaluation shall, as a minimum, review the following items for
each proposal during the technical evaluation:

5.2.1 Documentation Completeness

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

5.2.2 Major DCS component Review

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.).

5.2.3 Sub-systems component review

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.

5.2.4 Table of Compliance Review

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.

5.2.5 Segregation Requirements

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

5.2.6 Project Schedule

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.

5.2.7 Compatibility of Proposals

The TRT will determine if each proposal is essentially compatible and

provide essentially the same functionality with respect to materials,
functionality and services.

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.

5.2.9 Non-Compliance Items

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.

5.2.10 Potential Waiver Items

The TRT shall identify any potential waiver of a mandatory standard

requirement during the bid evaluation. Potential waiver items shall be
discussed with the responsible technical organization for initial agreement.
Waivers shall be processed during project execution per SAEP-302.

5.2.11 MUST Criteria

The TRT will review each proposal and ensure the proposed system
meets all the MUST criteria defined in the technical evaluation criteria.

5.2.12 WANT 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 Technical Evaluation Criteria

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:

K-T is a widely accepted methodology for Problem Solving and Decision-

Making. It provides a well structured, objective method for evaluating
alternatives which can easily be applied to bid evaluations. The K-T
criteria consist of two classes: the MUST criteria and the WANT criteria.

6.1.4 The criteria shall include criteria considered MUST, criteria considered
WANT, and the associated weighting of each WANT criteria.

6.1.5 Proposals shall be considered technically acceptable only if they meet

ALL of the MUST requirements and are given a score of 70% or higher
in the WANT criteria.

6.2 MUST 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

 There are no serious Non-Compliance issues identified in the

proposal.
 Bidder has understanding of full scope of the project and has
provided sufficient detail on the implementation.

6.2.2 Any proposal which fails to meet all of the MUST criteria shall be
considered unacceptable and not be evaluated further.

6.2.3 A sample MUST criteria worksheet is listed in Appendix E. Each project

has the right to modify the criteria to suit the needs of the particular
project.

6.3 WANT Criteria

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

6.3.7 Sample WANT criteria may include the following:

 Project Schedule – Have the required number of persons been

assigned during each project phase in order to meet critical project
milestones.
 Engineering and Staging locations – Are the proposed engineering
and staging locations advantageous to Saudi Aramco.
 Product Roadmap or Obsolescence – are any of the components of
the system proposed planned to undergo a major revision in the next
two-to-three year period.
 Ability to integrate FF or Smart instruments.
 Previous Project Experience – the level of experience within the
proposed project team at implementing project of similar size for
similar process applications.
 Staging of the system shall be in Saudi Arabia.
 Ability to ship Marshalling Cabinets prior to completion of the FAT.
Commentary Note:

Certain criteria which is considered a MUST criteria may also be included

as a WANT criteria in order to evaluate the proposed implementation of
the functionality. As an example, common Saudi Aramco segregation
requirements dictate that systems located in PIBs be capable of
functioning as totally independent systems. While the ability to "function"
is a mandatory requirement, depending on the architecture of the system
proposed, certain functionality may be lost when there is a loss of
communications to the CCR. A system architecture which proposed a
single interface to DAHS located in the CCR would lose the ability to
transfer data to DAHS during a communications failure. One would not
consider the loss of data to DAHS a critical functionality. Therefore, the
system would still be "functional"; however a system where DAHS data
collectors are located in the PIBs would be preferable. In this case, the
ability to function is considered a MUST requirement. However the
implementation of this might also be considered a WANT criteria.
Systems which could still communicate to DAHS during a
communications loss would have a higher rating in the WANT criteria.

6.3.8 A sample WANT criteria evaluation score sheet is listed in Appendix F.

Each project has the right to modify the criteria to suit the needs of the
individual project.

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 Technical Evaluation Results

7.1 Acceptance of Proposals

Acceptance of any proposal shall be based on compliance with all MUST

criteria and a minimum score of 70% for WANT criteria. Accepted proposals
shall be approved by the Technical organization.

7.2 Disqualification of Proposals

7.2.1 Disqualification of any proposal shall be based on non-compliance of

MUST criteria or a score of less than 70% based on WANT criteria.
An associated problem analysis of evaluation results shall be conducted
for any proposal determined to be technically disqualified.

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.

7.2.5 Technical Disqualifications shall be approved by the Technical

organization.

8 Acronyms and Definitions

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

SAMSS Saudi Aramco Materials System Specification

SAPMT Saudi Aramco Project Management Team
SRC Services Review Committee
TRT Technical Review Team

8.2 Definitions

Kepner-Tregoe (K-T) Methodology: A structured Problem Solving and

decision-making techniques based on step-by-step evaluation.

Operating Organization: The department or organization receiving the project

deliverables.

Process Automation Project: A project or portion of a project for which the

scope includes a process control or data acquisition system.

Restricted Vendor List (RVL): A list of approved vendors for process

automation systems that have been evaluated according to SAEP-15.

Saudi Aramco Project Management Team (SAPMT): A group of individuals

responsible for the execution of a project and reporting to a Project Management
Division or Department. The SAPMT has full design, procurement, and
construction responsibilities.

Technical Review Team (TRT): A group of individuals who are responsible

for reviewing the technical portion of the bid.

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

Appendix A – Sample Technical Bid Evaluation Plan

1. Introduction

1.1 Scope

This section shall introduce the Technical Bid Evaluation Plan,

describing the content and objectives of using it.

1.2 Applicable Documents

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.

1.3 Terms and Abbreviations

Definitions of all acronyms, mnemonics, and special terms used in this

document shall be provided.

2. Overview

A concise summary of the system to be evaluated and related sub-systems.

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

The section shall list any system and configuration documents to be

prepared prior to conducting the technical evaluation. System and
configuration documents could be system I/O point counts, system
layout, etc.

3.2 Bid Slate

Bid slate of potential bidders shall be prepared prior to bid evaluation

commencement.

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

This section shall state evaluation methodology.

7. Evaluation Schedule

List evaluation milestone and completion dates.

8. Evaluation Deliverables

This section shall list deliverables to be completed by the evaluation team.

9. Attachments

This section contains Technical Bid Evaluation attachments such as:

 Confidentiality Statement
 MUST evaluation criteria
 WANT evaluation criteria with weightings
 Template of Recommendation Report.

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

Appendix B – Technical Bid Evaluation Plan Agreement

BI NO:_________

The following Technical Review Team members concur with the bid evaluation plan
and procedure.

Name Signature Date

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

Appendix C – Confidentiality Statement for Bid Evaluation

BI NO:_________

With respect to BI-__________, *{Project Name}, I am aware that all information

regarding the bid proposals and bid evaluation is strictly confidential and is being
provided to me on a "need-to-know" basis because of my involvement in this process.

I am aware that confidentiality of all such information is to be maintained at all times

and its disclosure to any non-privileged person inside or outside of Saudi Aramco
including vendor personnel, requires approval of Saudi Aramco management.

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

Appendix D – Sample TRT Recommendation Report

{Name of Projects Department}

{Address & Telephone}
{Date}

PCS Technical Evaluation Report

{BI number}
{Project Title}
Confidential
{Ref. No.}

To: Commercial Evaluation Team

1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the COMPANY Restricted Vendor List (RVL) for

Process Control Systems the Technical Review Team (TRT) evaluated
the proposals submitted by the following Vendors that are approved for
Foundation Fieldbus (FF):

 VENDOR 1
 VENDOR 2
 VENDOR 3

2. TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE VENDORS

In accordance with the Technical Evaluation Plan, the Technical Review

Team has determined that the proposals submitted by the following
vendors are technically acceptable:

 VENDOR 1
 VENDOR 3

3. TECHNICALLY DISQUALIFIED VENDORS

In accordance with the Technical Evaluation Plan, the TRT has

determined that the proposals submitted by the following vendors do not
meet the minimum technical requirements:

 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

4. BASE PROPOSAL SUMMARY

The table below summarizes the systems proposed by the vendors in

their base bids:

Subsystem VENDOR 1 VENDOR 2 VENDOR 3

DCS
ESD
VMS, MDVMS
CCS
DAHS
ALAMR MGMT
IAMS
OTS
Base Location

5. SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION & SCORING

The Technical Review Team (TRT) reviewed the Technical and

Execution proposals from all Vendors and evaluated the Vendors
according to the criteria defined in the Bid Evaluation Program. The
following table contains a summary of the results.

VENDOR 1 VENDOR 2 VENDOR 3

MUST CRITERIA PASS FAIL PASS
MUST CRITERIA 85% N/A 79%

6. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTABLE PROPOSALS

This section shall provide a summary of the technically acceptable

proposals and a list of major items which were clarified with the vendor
during the technical evaluation. Indicate if the vendor stated that the
item had an impact on their commercial proposal. Items shall be
referenced by clarification item #. Also, list any outstanding issues
which require further clarification/evaluation by the commercial
evaluation team. The following is provided as an example:

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

6.1 VENDOR #1 PROPOSAL

Proposal Summary:

Summarize the TRTs understanding of the proposal and how it

meets the major technical and project execution requirements
for the project.

VENDOR #1's technical proposal has been identified to be

generally complete and addresses the project requirements of
the Request for Quotation (RFQ). The proposal met the
operating and the risk areas segregation requirement. All sub-
systems in the base proposed are from the approved RVL.

The proposed execution schedule meets the critical milestones

as required by the ITB. VENDOR #1 has proposed to execute
the job from their Bahrain office. They have offered to
conduct the system Integrated Factory Acceptance Test (IFAT)
in Saudi Arabia as an alternate.

Major Clarifications:

List Major Technical or Execution clarification items here.

Indicate if commercial impact.

VENDOR #1 did not include the required number of OSI-PI

client software licenses. This issue was clarified in
clarification item # XX. VENDOR #1 responded that the
required number of licenses would be supplied and this would
impact their commercial proposal.

VENDOR #1's project schedule did not support staggered

implementation of consoled to support the start-up sequencing.
This item was clarified in clarification item #XX. VENDOR #1
responded they would support this method of project execution
with a commercial impact.

Non-Compliance Issues:

List any non-compliance issues with the proposal and the

conclusion reached by TRT.

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

VENDOR #1 took an exception to 23-SAMSS-010 item #9.5.8.

They indicated the option to drive to closed state for discrete
outputs on fail-safe was not available in their system. This issue
has been reviewed by P&CSD and determined to be acceptable.
A waiver will be required to be submitted by the project.

Outstanding Issues:

List any outstanding issues which the Commercial Evaluation

team need to consider.

There are no outstanding issues with Vendor #1's proposal.

6.2 VENDOR #3 PROPOSAL

Proposal Summary:

Summarize the TRTs understanding of the proposal and how it

meets the major technical and project execution requirements
for the project.

VENDOR #3's technical proposal was generally complete with

the exception of some items which were supplied later through
clarifications. They proposed to execute the project from
Abu Dhabi. They also offered an option to conduct IFAT in
Saudi Arabia as an alternative.

Major Clarifications:

List Major Technical or Execution clarification items here.

Indicate if commercial impact.

1. The proposed vendor for Emergency Shutdown Systems

did not include a Burner Management System (BMS) for
the utilities area as is required. They also did not have a
BMS in the MTS as required. These issues were raised in
clarifications # XX & YY. VENDOR #3 confirmed the
BMS for Utilities and MTS will be included and indicated
there would be a commercial impact.

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

2. VENDOR #3 indicated that their liaison with the LSTKs

is expected to be for 4 weeks and were not aware they
needed to be there during the entire project design phase.
This item was raised in clarification item #XX.
VENDOR #3 confirmed compliance with this requirement
and indicated there would be a commercial impact.

Non-Compliance Issues:

List any non-compliance issues with the proposal and the

conclusion reached by TRT.

There were no Non-compliance issues identified with the

proposal from VENDOR #3.

Outstanding Issues:

List any outstanding issues which the Commercial

Evaluation team need to consider.

There are no outstanding issues with VENDOR #1's

proposal.

7. TECHNICALLY DISQUALIFIED PROPOSALS

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

Risk Area Segregation:

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.

8. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

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:

8.1 VENDOR #1:

VENDOR #1 offered the following alternate proposals:

ALTERNATE PASS/FAIL LOCATION

ESD VENDOR #1 offered to use ESD
FAIL NA
VENDOR VENDOR XYZ as an alternate.
IFAT VENDOR #1 offered to conduct
PASS KSA
LOCATION IFAT in Saudi Arabia.

 The alternate proposal for ESD system has been

determined to be NOT acceptable. The proposed system is
not from the approved RVL vendors.

 VENDOR #1 offered to conduct IFAT in Saudi Arabia.

They provided an alternate schedule which did not
significantly impact the project milestones. This option is
considered acceptable by the TRT.

8.2 VENDOR #3:

VENDOR #3 offered the following alternate proposals:

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

ALTERNATE PASS/FAIL LOCATION

IFAT in Saudi VENDOR #1 offered to conduct
PASS NA
Arabia IFAT in Saudi Arabia.

 VENDOR #1 offered to conduct IFAT in Saudi Arabia.

They provided an alternate schedule which did not
significantly impact the project milestones. This option is
considered acceptable by the TRT.

9. RECOMMENDATION TO COMMERCIAL EVALUATION TEAM (CET):

1. The proposals from VENDOR #1 and VENDOR #2 are technically

acceptable. Therefore; CET is recommended to open their
Commercial proposals and start the commercial evaluation for
these vendors.

2. The proposal from VENDOR #2 is NOT technically acceptable.

The TRT recommends not to proceed with commercial evaluation
of the proposal from this vendor.

3. As a result of the Technical Clarifications, the PCS VENDORS

advised that there will be commercial impacts that have been
submitted in a sealed envelope for the Commercial Evaluation
Team's review. CET shall take into consideration the commercial
impacts and ensure that the bidders' commercial proposal is
normalised and fair.

4. The proposal from VENDOR #1 contained an option for conducting

IFAT in Saudi Arabia. The TRT reviewed this and found the
proposal to be technically acceptable. TRT recommends that this
option be considered in the commercial evaluation.

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:

_________________ __________________ _________________

{Name} {Name} {Name}
TRT Member TRT Member TRT Member

Approved by:

_______________ ___________________ ________________

{Name} {Name} {Name}
Manager Manager Manager
SAPMT Operating Organization P&CSD

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)

REF. NO. REQUIREMENT MAX. SCORE VENDOR #1 VENDOR #2 VENDOR #3

7.3 Execution Plan
7.4 Schedule
7.5 Project Interfaces and
Coordination
7.6 Organization & Resources
7.8 I/O Data Base
7.9 In-Kingdom Capabilities
7.10 Product Lifecycle
RAW TOTAL 66
NORMALIZED TOTAL 100%

Scoring - A score of greater than or equal to 70% or 46 points for passing.

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

Appendix E – Sample Bid Evaluation Must (or Pass/Fail) Criteria

Attachment - 3
TECHNICAL EVALUATION (PASS/FAIL)

REF. NO. ITEM REQUIREMENT COMMENTS PASS / FAIL

Proposal Completeness/Required Documentation
7.12.1 Tables of Bidder shall provide Tables of
Compliance compliance to the following: All Project
Functional specifications and all relevant
Saudi Aramco Material Standards and
Engineering Standards.
7.12.3 Bill of If the PCS bidder does not provide a
Materials separate bill of material for every
operating area and sub-system, System
shall fail.
7.12.3 List of Bidder shall provide an itemized listing of
Services services included with the proposal.
7.12.7 Software Bidder shall provide a listing of all
licenses software licenses included for each
operating area. This can either be a
separate listing or included in the Bill of
Materials above.
7.4.1 Project Bidder shall provide detailed project
Schedule schedule showing all milestones listed in
ITB Section 7.4.1
New Manpower Bidder shall provide the following
Loading information related to manpower loading:
 Total estimated man-hours
 Manpower loading histogram showing
the total number of engineers
dedicated to the project for each
month in the project schedule.
7.12.4 System Bidder shall provide a system
Architecture architecture drawing for the proposed
Diagrams system.
7.12.5 Equipment If the PCS bidder does not provide
Dimension cabinets and console layout drawings,
System shall fail.
7.12.6 Space Bidder shall provide actual space
Requirements requirement for equipment and cabinets
including requirements for door swing,
space requirements per the National
Electrical Code or recognized equivalent.
7.12.7 I/O Summary Bidder shall provide an I/O card count list
Table indicating total I/O cards of each type
including spares to meet the segregation
requirements defined in COMPANY

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

REF. NO. ITEM REQUIREMENT COMMENTS PASS / FAIL

specification. Bidder shall also provide
type and number of each software
license included in the proposal and
segregated by Risk Area.
7.12.12 List of tested Bidder shall provide a list of tested and
devices supported Third Party Foundation
Fieldbus devices (including MOV's) to
ensure Interoperability and tight
integration with the DCS/IAMS. If the
PCS bidder failed to provide list of
devices, System shall fail.
7.3.2 List of Bidder to provide a list of the proposed
Auxiliary vendors for the auxiliary sub-systems. If
Vendors bidder does not submit the list, System
shall fail.
New ESD Scan Bidder must provide estimated scan
Time times for all ESD system proposed. If
Calculations bidder does not provide the estimated
scan times, System shall fail.
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
7.12.2 Functional In the Tabulation of Compliance, Bidder
Requirements shall highlight items for which alternates
are offered or exceptions are taken.
Each item shall indicate one of the
following:
a) Bidder's capability meets or exceeds
the stated functional or design
requirements;
b) Bidder's capability does not meet the
stated functional or design
requirement, but provides either an
alternate equivalent function offered,
or technical justification supporting a
waiver of the requirement.
7.3.2 Auxiliary Sub- All proposed Auxiliary sub-systems are
Systems from approved vendors listed in the ITB.
Bidder shall state commitment not
change proposed system in the base
proposal to system offered as alternate
even if the alternate proposal is an
approved RVL product.
7.12.9 Distributed System must provide a separate DCS
Database configuration database for each
operating area. (NOTE: Only if required
by the Project Specific FSD).
7.12.10 Single System must have the ability to monitor
Window and control any portion of the plant from
Concept any workstation (assuming proper user
privilieges) using the vendors standard,
field proven solution.

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

REF. NO. ITEM REQUIREMENT COMMENTS PASS / FAIL

7.12.13 Redundancy Bidder shall address how its PCS will
support redundancy at the network,
node, communication to third party and
I/O at chassis level. If bidder's system
does not provide redundancy as
required, System shall fail.
7.12.14 Network Bidder shall provide published data that
Capability confirms that the network will not limit the
PCS in communications between the
CCR and the furthest PIB. If the PCS
does not support a network design
relating to the geographic spread or
cannot communicate over the network
distance between PIBs and CCR,
System shall fail.
7.12.18 Field Proven Bidder shall identify any portions of its
PCS that are not field proven. If
BIDDER provides any equipment in their
proposal that is not field proven, System
shall fail.
7.12.21 INTools Bidder shall explain how the PCS
database database can import/export data to the
management INtools™ database application that shall
be used by LSTK CONTRACTOR to
define I/O parameters. If BIDDER
provides a plan to develop and manage
TM
the database in INtools , System shall
pass.
New Risk Area System must meet requirements for
Segregation segregation of risk area.
New DCS Control Bidder shall provide redundant,
Network dedicated communications between
Design equipment located in the PIB and the
corresponding Operator Console in the
CCR (often referred to as level 2). An
Operating area may consist of more than
one risk area. In this case, there must
be separate communications equipment
for each risk area. Communications
between operating areas shall be
accomplished by interconnecting
Operating Area Control Networks in the
CCR (often referred to as level 3).
New Single Point of If Bidder's system has a single point of
Failure failure which would result in any of the
following, System shall fail:
 Loss of communications on the
entire DCS network.
 A failure which will result in loss of
functionality for equipment in more

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

REF. NO. ITEM REQUIREMENT COMMENTS PASS / FAIL

than one risk area (not including top
level (3) switches).
 A single failure within a single risk
area which would result in loss of
control or the operator's ability to
monitor and control the process in
that area.
New ESD Scan Bidder must provide scan time
Time calculations for the proposed ESD
systems. If the bidder proposes systems
which do not meet the requirement for
maximum 100 msec scan time, System
shall fail.
New Interface to Bidder shall provide redundant,
ESD dedicated communications links between
ESD and DCS per risk area.
New Time Bidder shall explain how all PCS
Syncronization components will be synchronized to each
other using GPS. If Bidder does not
provide time synchronization for all
systems, System shall fail.
PROJECT EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS
7.4.1 Project Bidder's proposed schedule must meet
Schedule or exceed all critical milestones defined
in the ITB. If bidder cannot meet
expected critical milestones, System
shall fail.
New Overall PCS Bidder must state that they have overall
Responsibility responsibility for all equipment included
in the PCS Scope of Supply. PCS
Vendor must assume responsibility for
equipment and services provided by
Third party vendors included in the PCS
scope of supply.

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

Appendix F – Bid Evaluation Want Criteria

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