JISC

The nature and scale of the evaluation process adopted by JISC will depend on the scale of the activity and the type of tendering approach adopted.

Evaluation Panel

In all cases where bids or project proposals have been invited, an evaluation panel will be established to review submissions. The size and composition of the evaluation panel will reflect the scale of the activity to be funded. The relevant JISC Portfolio funding manager will oversee the evaluation process and invite a subset of the Executive and/or external experts as appropriate to undertake the evaluation. Depending on the scale of the programme, a number of experts in the community and relevant external organisations may be invited to participate in the evaluation process to ensure an appropriate skills mix. JISC may advertise for volunteers with the appropriate skills to be involved in reviewing relevant bids from time to time. Where the activity and funding is on a small scale (including where the total amount being funded for the activity is large but the award to institutions is relatively small) and the nature of the activity is more straightforward, the evaluation panel will generally be made up of JISC Executive staff.

All bids received by JISC are treated as confidential during the evaluation process and only shared with evaluation panel members, unless permission is obtained otherwise. Bidders should be aware, however, that JISC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and it is therefore possible that JISC may be obliged to release some or all of the information provided to it upon receipt of a valid request for such information. Information created or received as a result of the bidding and evaluation process is not routinely disclosed until after the process has been completed. Unsuccessful bids are destroyed by the JISC Executive upon completion of the evaluation process. Successful bids may be published on the JISC web site.

Conflicts of Interest

External experts can be involved in the evaluation process for relatively large scale calls if their host institution is submitting a proposal. However, the Executive is very careful to avoid any conflicts of interest. All conflicts of interest must be declared by evaluators at an early stage.

The identity of individual panel members is available upon request.  However, in order to guard against inappropriate lobbying or influencing of panel members during the process this information will only routinely be made available once the evaluation process is complete.

One executive staff member will take responsibility for gaining an overview for all the bids received in the context of JISC’s other programmes.

Acceptance and Logging of Bids

All bids received in the requested format, within the requested page limit and by the stated deadline will be accepted. If a bid is not received as requested by the stated deadline, the bid will be rejected. Appendices should only be used if explicitly requested/permitted in the grant funding call/invitation to tender.

The JISC Executive will strictly enforce the deadline and will not be held responsible for the late arrival of bids. Where a hard copy of the bid has been requested, bidders should not rely on first class post for next day delivery.

The Executive creates a log of proposals of all accepted bids and prepares a standard marksheet and guidance for markers.

Bid Evaluation Stage

The evaluation criteria will be clearly detailed in any JISC invitation to tender or grant funding call.  Criteria will only be weighted at the evaluation stage if explicitly stated in the invitation.

All bids will be marked by at least two evaluators and by three evaluators in most cases. Where a bid is only marked by two evaluators and there is a discrepancy in the marks, a third evaluator may be invited to mark the relevant bid or particular attention is given to the bid by the evaluation panel.

A standard marksheet and guidance for markers is prepared for each evaluation process. This is to help to ensure a common approach from evaluators and to clarify the evaluation criteria, and definitions for the different marks it is possible to award. 

There are a number of sections which the evaluator is required to complete to inform decisions: a score for each evaluation criteria; detailed comments to clarify the mark awarded for each criteria; a section to describe overall impression of the bids; and a recommendation.

 

Evaluation panel members are careful to preserve equity between tenders and to fully understand and document the reasons for recommending the funding or rejection of bids, and any caveats attached to funding awards.

Analysis of marks and comments

Once bids have been evaluated and marksheets returned, the Executive prepares an analysis of marks and provides a table of marks, markers comments and overall recommendations. The analysis is also reviewed to look for inconsistencies in marking or any irregularities or errors. The analysis is then circulated to the evaluation panel along with a paper prepared by the Executive making recommendations for funding for endorsement. It is this information which will form the basis of JISC’s decisions. 

All applications receive careful scrutiny, and the eventual decision is reached in the context of competing applications and a balanced portfolio of activity. Bids that receive the highest marks will not necessarily receive funding.

Panel Meetings

A physical meeting is not usually necessary for invitations to tender where a single activity is being procured or for relatively straight forward bidding exercises. The panel is simply invited via email to endorse the recommendations made by the Executive based on the outcomes of the analysis of marks, comments and recommendations. However, if there is a divergence of views from markers a tele-conference or physical meeting may prove necessary, but often this can be discussed and resolved via email.

For large-scale or complicated bidding exercises, the evaluation panel may find there is also a need to physically meet to discuss the outcomes of the initial evaluation process, the Executive's recommendations, and to finalise decisions to ensure a balanced portfolio of activity.  Any members with conflicts of interest must leave the room when their bid is being discussed. The Executive prepares a formal record of the discussions and decisions taken at the meeting.  

In some cases, for example where a new service is being tendered for, presentations from shortlisted bidders are likely to be held to inform the selection process.  

Notifying Bidders

Once the evaluation process has been undertaken and the Executive's recommendations endorsed, the Executive will contact bidders to notify them of the decision. A formal email or letter is sent to unsuccessful bidders. Feedback is available upon request. It is the information from the analysis of marks, comments and recommendations and any subsequent panel discussion which forms the basis of the feedback provided.

In any appeal, JISC will not reconsider the judgement of the evaluation panel. The sole ground on which an appeal may normally be made is one of improper procedure.

Grant Letter/Contract Stage

The JISC Executive will issue grant letters/contract letters to successful bidders. The standard JISC terms and conditions of funding and project management guidelines will have already been shared with bidders as part of the grant funding call/invitation to tender.

The contract agreement/grant letter is simply then a confirmation that the funding is awarded on the basis of the proposal and subject to JISC’s standard terms and conditions of funding (plus any contract specific terms and conditions). Any additional specific terms and conditions outlined in the grant funding call/tender document should be included in the grant letter/contract letter. 

JISC is not in a position to commence any payments until a signed letter is returned by the bidder accepting the terms and conditions of funding.