Audit RFP Evaluation Process

1
Audit RFPEvaluation Process

• City of Vancouver
• Esther Lee

2
Evaluation Committee

• GM of Corporate Services/Director of Finance
• Director of Financial Services
• Manager of Accounting Services
• Director of Financial Planning
• Director of Business Support
• Director of Corporate Services, VPL
• (Director of Corporate Services, VPB)
• (Manager of Finance, VPD)

3
Timeline

• Week 1 Aug 26
• Week 2 Sept 4
• Week 3 Sept 9
• Week 4 Sept 25
• Week 7 Oct 8
• Week 9 Oct 21-23
• Week 14 Nov 22
• Week 16 Dec 10

• Issue RFP
• Written questions submission
• Pre-Submission meeting
• RFP Closing
• Evaluation
• Interview
• Final Selection
• Council Report

4
Evaluation Sections

• Proponent Qualifications 26
• Technical Requirements 46
• Value Added Services 1
• Quality of Proposal 2
• Pricing 25

5
Scoring

• Scale of 0 to 5
• 0 Unsatisfactory failed to meet essential
  criteria
• 1 Poor barely satisfies criteria, significant
  risk
• 2 Average satisfies criteria but further
  evidence required
• 3 Good demonstrated criteria satisfied,
  understand the requirements
• 4 Very Good demonstrated criteria clearly
  satisfied, substantiated by experience
• 5 Excellent clearly satisfy or exceed criteria
  by proposing superior solution.

6
Proponent Qualifications

• Company profile
• Experience
• Key personnel
• References

7
Technical Requirements

• Workplan
• Proposed segmentation of audit
• Level of staff and estimated audit hours
• Extent of statistical sampling and use of CAATs
• Review of systems and internal controls
• Approaches to communication, process reviews,
  dealing with Citys decentralized structure
• Information Technology Auditing

8
Technical Requirements

• Development Support
• Coordination of Internal Audit
• Staff Education Succession
• Conflict of Interest
• Anticipated Audit Issues

• City Assistance
• Risk Assessment Additional Services
• Transition Plan
• Vancouver Public Housing Corporation
• Separate Board Audits

9
Other Requirements

• Value Added Services
• Quality of Proposal
• Compliance with submission instructions
• Completeness, detailed solutions explanations,
  organization, readability and general appearance.

10
Scoring Evaluation

• Weighting assigned prior to evaluation
• Consensus scoring
• Scores averaged
• FOI issues

11
Scoring Evaluation - Pricing

• Completed after evaluation of non-financial
  components (25)
• Analysis of differentials hours and mix of
  staff complement partner vs. field staff, IT
  specialists

12
Scoring Evaluation - Pricing

• Lowest Bid X Total Marks for Price
• Bid
• If Lowest Bid was 100 and
• Total marks for Price was 25.
• A bid of 140 would score
• (100 X 25)/ 140 17.85
• The low bid would score 25

13
Interview Process

• Format and time limit (2 hrs)
• Maximum delegation of 4 including engagement
  partner/ principal and manager
• Not a presentation
• Specific questions from proposal prepared
  questions and spontaneous discussion

14
References

• Current and past clients
• List of specific questions
• Probing areas of concern or further clarification

15
RFP Results

• Five year contract with option to renew for
  additional year (to coincide with Council terms)
  commencing in 2003
• Firm price indexed to CPI clearer parameters
  with respect to extra billings.
• Better understanding of service expectations
  service level agreement.

16
Important Considerations

• Clear definition of criteria tied to RFP
• Evaluation model and easy to use forms
• Structured interview process
• Time commitment and knowledge base of evaluation
  team members