Retender regarding a digital wayfinding solution for The University of Southern Denmark

Eignungskriterien

• The tenderer must fulfil the following minimum requirement for economic and financial capacity, cf. section 142 of the Danish Act on Tender Procedures (Udbudsloven)

  • •The tenderer shall demonstrate:
  • •o Positive equity in the three recent approved annual financial statements.
  • •o The average equity ratio for the last three financial years must be positive.
  • • (Equity ratio = equity / total assets × 100)
  • •o The average liquidity ratio for the last three financial years must be positive.
  • • (Liquidity ratio = current assets × 100 / short-term liabilities)
  • •As final documentation of the tenderer’s compliance with the economic suitability requirements, the tenderer shall submit audited annual financial statements for the last three (3) completed financial years for which annual accounts exist, or equivalent auditor-certified documentation, such as an auditor’s declaration.

• The tenderer must demonstrate experience in delivering digital map and wayfinding solutions of a similar nature to that stated in the tender. The tenderer shall therefore provide the two (2) most relevant references for deliveries made within the last three (3) years counted from the deadline for submission of tenders. This includes both deliveries with a contract or implementation of a new solution started within the past 3 years. If more than two references are provided in the ESPD and/or in Annex 7, the contracting authority will disregard any references beyond the first two listed, when evaluating who to prequalify. If references are stated in both the ESPD and Annex 7, the contract authority will disregard the ones in the ESPD, unless there isn’t stated enough. A reference will be deemed relevant if it includes

  • •– Development and/or implementation of a digital wayfinding solution, and
  • •– The applicant being the main contractor of the solution, and
  • •– Delivery to a public or private client with a level of complexity comparable to the contract being tendered (hereby meaning e.g. universities, hospitals or other educational institutions).
  • •For each reference, the following minimum information must be provided:
  • •– Name of reference/client (contracting authority) and contact details (name of a contact person, e-mail address for and/or phone number that contact person),
  • •– Brief description of the delivery,
  • •– Time of delivery (starting date for the contract or final date of implementation of a new solution),
  • •– The total indoor area (in square meters) covered by the mapping solution under each reference,
  • •– The overall number of rooms and POIs included in the reference.
  • •The references will be used to select the most relevant applicants in accordance with section 2.4.5.
  • •See the ESPD Part IV, section C and/or the Annex 7 - references.
  • •The tenderer’s references stated in the ESPD or in the tenderers completed Annex 7 constitute the final documentation of the supplier’s fulfilment of the suitability requirement.
  • •If the number of applicants who meet the qualification requirements exceed the number of applicants which the Contracting authority wants to prequalify, a selection will be made among the qualified applicants, so that only the correct number of applicants is prequalified.
  • •This selection is based on the following criteria:
  • •The selection of tenderers will be based on an overall assessment of which candidates have provided the most relevant references.
  • •Relevance will be evaluated regarding:
  • •- the total area (in square metres) covered by the mapping solution under each reference
  • •- the overall number of rooms or premises included, where a higher number will be considered more advantageous.
  • •In the assessment of references, the overall size of the referenced solutions (measured in total area in square metres) will be considered.
  • •References demonstrating a high degree of spatial complexity — expressed as a greater density and POIs (including rooms) relative to total floor area — will be assessed more favourably.
  • •To determine the degree of spatial complexity, the following ratio is used:
  • •POI density Ratio=(Total floor area (m2))/(Total number of POI)
  • •This ratio expresses the average number of square metres per POI. A lower ratio indicates a higher density of POIs relative to the floor area, which is taken as an indication of a more complex and functionally demanding environment.
  • •On that basis, up to 5 applicants will be invited to submit a tender. The five applicants with lowest average POI density ratio will be selected.

Zuschlagskriterien

• Pris

  • •The tenderer must submit prices as requested in the Schedule of prices (Annex 2).
  • •The tender must be submitted in Danish Kroner (DKK), exclusive of VAT, but including all other fees.
  • •The price that is included in the evaluation will be the total price, cf. Annex 2.

• Quality 1

  • •User friendliness of the digital wayfinding: The schedule in the tender specifications describes several user scenarios. Tenderer must for each user scenario in its tender include a video or a description for the specific scenario in accordance with the schedule.
  • •To evaluating the criterion, the contracting authority has submitted a committee of expected users and map editors for the system. Based on committee’s experience from the videos and/or descriptions an appointed committee at SDU will assess the systems’ user friendliness and intuitiveness. Positive weighting is placed on at system being intuitive and having a clear layout.
  • •With the system being intuitive, we mean e.g. by using common visual cues (e.g. such as colors and icons), and/or the System is designed in a way that makes it easy for users to learn and remember how the system works, to ensure an experience that feels intuitive. Features and navigation should - to the highest possible extent - be self-explanatory (e.g. by having support features such as mouse-over information, for further guidance), and the design should be consistent.
  • •In the absence of a video or description the grade 0 is given for the scenario in question.

• Quality 2

  • •Functionality of the digital wayfinding: Annex 1 Specification of requirements, section 3.2. and 3.3 describes several wishes for functionality and the associated minimum requirements.
  • •The fulfilment of the requirements in sections 3.2 and 3.3 is generally evaluated by assessing whether each Wish has been met or not. If a Wish is met in the tenderer’s offer, it is awarded 10 points in accordance with section 2.5.2. If the Wish is not met, it is awarded 0 points.
  • •Where the wishes in these two sections state “It will be viewed positively if…”, the evaluation will be based on the extent to which the fulfilment is deemed to meet what is considered positive for the specific wish. The evaluation will be carried out according to the method described in section 2.6.2 or after the scale stated in the wish, if one as such is to be found in the wish.
  • •All wishes carry equal weight. This means that the average score awarded for the fulfilment of the wishes will be included in the overall evaluation of the tender with the weighting assigned to “Quality 2 …” in the table above.

• Quality 3

  • •Non functional requirements: The fulfilment of the wishes in sections 3.4 and 3.5 is generally evaluated by assessing whether each wish has been met or not. If a wish is met in the tenderer’s offer, it is awarded 10 points in accordance with section 2.5.2. If the wish is not met, it is awarded 0 points.
  • •Where the wishes in these two sections state “It will be viewed positively if…”, the evaluation will be based on the extent to which the fulfilment is deemed to meet what is considered positive for the specific wish. The evaluation will be carried out according to the method described in section 2.6.2 or after the scale stated in the wish, if one as such is to be found in the wish.
  • •All wishes carry equal weight. This means that the average score awarded for the wishes will be included in the overall evaluation of the tender with the weighting assigned to “Quality 3 …” in the table above.