Evaluation Template Vfinal Updated 11062020

Scoring
Scoring shall be based on a 0 - 4 rating scale as per the descriptions below
Score Description
The response does not address the requirement
OR
0 The Evaluation Panel is not confident that the Tenderer:
· Understands the qualitative requirement, and/or
· Will be able to satisfactorily meet the qualitative requirement(s)
The response offers minimal benefits in relation to the qualitative requirement.
OR
1 The Evaluation Panel has some reservations whether the Tenderer:
· Will be able to satisfactorily meet the qualitative requirement
The response offers a average or slightly above average level of benefits in
relation
OR to the qualitative requirement
2 The Evaluation Panel is reasonably confident that the Tenderer:
· Will be able to satisfactorily meet the qualitative requirement to a reasonable
standard
The response offers a very high level of benefits in relation to the qualitative
requirement.
OR
4 The Evaluation Panel is completely confident that the Tenderer:
· Will be able to satisfactorily meet the qualitative requirement to a very high
standard
SERCO IN CONFIDENCE
SCORECARD WEIGHTING Accenture Deloitte PWC Wunderman
Score Input Score Score Input Score Score Input Score Score Input Score
1. Operational 40% 2.0 20% 2.0 20% 2.0 20% 1.0 10%
2. Costing 30% 3.6 12% 4.3 17% 3.5 12% 3.5 12%
- TCO 25% 1.6 10% 2.3 14% 1.5 9% 1.5 9%
- Financials 5% 2.0 3% 2.0 3% 2.0 3% 2.0 3%
3.Preferential Pro 30% 1.0 8% 1.0 8% 1.0 8% 2.0 15%
- BBBEE 30% 1.0 8% 1.0 8% 1.0 8% 2.0 15%
TOTAL 100% 6.6 40% 7.3 44% 6.5 39% 6.5 37%
Decision Made that

Accenture would not be
considered further given
the recent engagements.
Lacking a relationship
and partnership view -
which is crucial given our
new WoW
Commentary
Technical Evaluation
Scoring as per Instructions Page
New Pieces of Technology Requirement Weighting
Technical Capability 40% 4
Accenture
Value Added Services 10% 1

Skills Transfer to support Future Requirements 30% 3
Prior historical performance (Based on Customer References) 10% 1
Proposed Scaling, change management and adoption strategy 10% 1
Weighted Average
Score
New Pieces of Technology Requirement % Weighting
Technical Capability 40%
Deloitte
Value Added Services 10%

Skills Transfer to support Future Requirements 30%
Prior historical performance (Based on Customer References) 10%
Proposed Scaling, change management and adoption strategy 10%
Weighted Average
Score
PWC

Weighted Average
Score
Wunderman &

Thompson

Weighted Average
Score
Score
8
7 70% - 100%
6 55% - 70%
7 30% - 55%
7 0% - 30%
7 2
2
Score (out of 10)
8
7
5
7
6
6.5 2
2
Score (out of 10)
6
6
6
6
6
6.2 2
2
Score (out of 10)
5
6
6
5
5
5.3 1
1
Salesforce RFP - Financial Stability Evaluation
Wuderman
Supplier Notes Accenture Deloitte PWC
SA
Financially Stable? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Key Indicators
Liquid? (out of 25)1 Acceptable Acceptable Yes Acceptable

Cash Management Satisfactory?
Yes(out of 10) Yes Yes Yes
Solvent? (out of 40) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Profitable? (out of 25) Yes Yes Acceptable Yes
Financially 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Score (out of 10) 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75
Weighted Score 13.1 8.8 13.1 13.1
Financial Stability Concerns

1.Liquidity
Accenture
While liquidity is not a major concern, there is a concern in the amount of time it takes for the supplier to collect on debt is a major con
Wuderman SA
Liquidity is a concern, with the current ratio being below the norm. There is also a concern in the amount of time it
takes for the supplier to pay creditors and collect on debt is a major concern, despite having high cash balances.
2. Financial Stability
Deloitte
Financial statements not submitted.
Insufficient financial information to give a comprehensive conclusion
plier to collect on debt is a major concern.
Total Resources
Element Cost Cost VAT Inc
on the Project
Accenture
Deliverable Based R 25.00 R 28.75

Outcome Based R 8.00 R 9.20 50
Value Based R 8.00 R 9.20
Total R 41.00 R 47.15
Total Resources
on the Project
Deloitte
All in cost R 15.05 R 17.31 22
Total R 15.05 R 17.31
Total Resources
on the Project
Programe Leadership R 4.50 R 5.18

PWC
Design R 2.00 R 2.30
19
PWC Architecture R 10.50 R 12.08 19
Development R 7.30 R 8.40
Change Management R 2.50 R 2.88
Total R 26.80 R 30.82
Total Resources
on the Project
Strategic Value Team R 3.75 R 4.31

Wunderman & Thompson
Operations Team R 1.97 R 2.26
Transition Team R 3.01 R 3.46

19
Local Squad R 1.24 R 1.43
Local Squad R 1.24 R 1.43

Nearshore Squad R 1.90 R 2.18
Total R 18.80 R 21.62

Timeline Details Scaling Provision Risk Provision
Establish Foundation - 16 weeks with full 26 weeks

of managing alignment and value realisation
R8m - Outcome
Scaling - 26 weeks Yes
and Value based
MVP 1 - 8 weeks Deploy; 4 Weeks Support post

PoC
MVP 2 - 16 Weeks Develop; 2 Weeks Deploy
Yes No Risk based

approach
*Note - Lack of time to appropriately address the
scaling and adoption
3 Weeks Discovery
6+ Months Deliver and Deploy (*8 months)
No Risk based
Yes
approach
No Risk based
Ongoing Support - Adoption Yes approach
25% of Resources ready in week 1 Option C
6Months with 6 months training and change

management
Yes - 10% Total

Yes fee at risk
Accenture
Assessment Assessment
Method Score Weighting Calculated Score Method
Cost 1 35% 0.35 Cost

Resources 2 10% 0.2 Resources
Timeline 2 15% 0.3 Timeline
Scaling 2 20% 0.4 Scaling
Risk Provision 1 30% 0.3 Risk Provision
Total Score 1.55 Total Score
R 17.93 Accenture
-R 11.92 Deloitte
R 1.60 PWC
-R 7.60 W&T
Avg R 29.22 Avg

1000000 1000000
Deloitte PWC
Assessment
Score Weighting Calculated Score Method Score Weighting
4 35% 1.4 Cost 2 35%

2 10% 0.2 Resources 2 10%
2 15% 0.3 Timeline 1 15%
2 20% 0.4 Scaling 2 20%
0 30% 0 Risk Provision 0 30%
2.3 Total Score
Questions for Post Appointrnent Accenture
1. What happens if design phase fails Deloitte
PWC
W&T
Avg
1000000
PWC Wunderman
Assessment
Calculated Score Method Score Weighting Calculated Score
0.7 Cost 2 35% 0.7

0.2 Resources 1 10% 0.1
0.15 Timeline 1 15% 0.15
0.4 Scaling 1 20% 0.2
0 Risk Provision 1 30% 0.3
1.45 Total Score 1.45
Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
W&T
Avg
1000000
Partner Cost (Rm)
Accenture R 47.15
Deloitte R 17.31
PWC R 30.82
W&T R 21.62
Scoring as per Instructions P
Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
Wunderman &
Thompson
New Pieces of Technology Requirement
Technical Capability
Value Added Services
Skills Transfer to support Future Requirements
Prior historical performance (Based on Customer References)
Proposed Scaling, change management and adoption strategy



% Weighting Score (out of 10) Calculated Score
40% 7 2.8
10% 5 0.5
30% 7 2.1
10% 7 0.7
10% 6 0.6
40% 7 2.8
10% 6 0.6
30% 6 1.8
10% 7 0.7
10% 6 0.6

40% 7 2.8
10% 5 0.5
30% 6 1.8
10% 6 0.6
10% 5 0.5

40% 3 1.2
10% 5 0.5
30% 4 1.2
10% 4 0.4
10% 4 0.4
I still don't see significant local Salesforce certification. Factors contributing to
me revising score: Cunning's feedback on Merise's referral from SBG. Fact that
Deloitte is number 2 SF partner globally. Reading their responses in Technical
Update.
Score revised given information received in technical update and conversations
post evaluation.
Score revised given information received in technical update and conversations
post evaluation.
Score revised based on extremely positive feedback from SBG
No local skills and plan to outsource to a small implementation partner locally.
No skills to transfer really given technical capability revised score

Not outstanding locally.
Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
Wunderman &
Thompson



40% 7 2.8
10% 7 0.7
30% 5 1.5
10% 7 0.7
10% 6 0.6

40% 8 3.2
10% 7 0.7
30% 5 1.5
10% 8 0.8
10% 6 0.6

40% 7 2.8
10% 8 0.8
30% 5 1.5
10% 7 0.7
10% 7 0.7

40% 6 2.4
10% 6 0.6
30% 5 1.5
10% 7 0.7
10% 6 0.6
Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
Wunderman &
Thompson



40% 8 3.2
10% 5 0.5
30% 6 1.8
10% 7 0.7
10% 6 0.6

40% 7 2.8
10% 7 0.7
30% 4 1.2
10% 7 0.7
10% 5 0.5

40% 7 2.8
10% 5 0.5
30% 5 1.5
10% 7 0.7
10% 7 0.7

40% 5 2
10% 6 0.6
30% 5 1.5
10% 5 0.5
10% 4 0.4
Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
Wunderman &
Thompson



40% 8 3.2
10% 9 0.9
30% 7 2.1
10% 6 0.6
10% 8 0.8 7.6

40% 8 3.2
10% 10 1
30% 6 1.8
10% 5 0.5
10% 5 0.5 7

40% 7 2.8
10% 8 0.8
30% 6 1.8
10% 6 0.6
10% 5 0.5 6.5

40% 6 2.4
10% 5 0.5
30% 5 1.5
10% 5 0.5
10% 5 0.5 5.4
Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
Wunderman &
Thompson




Score (out Calculated
% Weighting of 10) Score
40% 9 3.6
10% 8 0.8
30% 7 2.1
10% 9 0.9
10% 8 0.8
8.2

40% 8 3.2
10% 7 0.7
30% 2 0.6
10% 8 0.8
10% 7 0.7
6

40% 5 2
10% 5 0.5
30% 7 2.1
10% 4 0.4
10% 6 0.6
5.6

40% 4 1.6
10% 5 0.5
30% 6 1.8
10% 5 0.5
10% 6 0.6
5
Comments
8 SF Technical skills, global and local, Einstein skills, best interpretation of scope due to pilot knowledge
Accelerators for broker and insurance agent, Einstein smart workshop
Plan to ensure knowledge transfer included
No.1 globally Gartner Magic Quadrant, Solid local and global implementation record, success on pilot
Good change and adoptiom plan backed by global SF change management expert from Dreamforce
8 SF Technical skills, global and local, worked with SB before but not at Liberty, fair understanding of scope - more work ne
Insurance accelerators, investment in additional technical resources at their cost over pilot, exposure to global clients
No clear delivery plan on skills transfer but is mentioned a few times within the proposal
No. 2 globally Gartner magic Quadrant, Solid global and local record, SBG historical partner
Have outlined and proposed a Deloitte change and adoption model
9 SF Technical skills, mainly global with reliance on local outsource firm Tetrad IT, depth of local skills unknown, basic scop
Peer coucil with other Salesforce clients of WT for exchange of experience and ideas, some internal accelerators, CX led de
Really detailed skills transfer plan with reliance on chapter and tribe model for skills transfer to Liberty staff
No mention of BBVA experience, EU based references in retail, limited experience in SA, offshore partners The Cocktail and
Have outlined a change and adoption plan based on their methodology, experience based
8 SF Technical skills, local and global, good reputation in SA, totally missed out on the scope - left out the entire Einstein de
Salesforce Academy, accelerators
Plan outlined in proposal
Good references in SA, rated 4th globally just outside magic quadrant
Plan outlined in proposal
eded to onboard
understanding
ign approach
Dutch based partner

Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
Wunderman &
Thompson



40% 8 3.2
10% 8 0.8
30% 7 2.1
10% 8 0.8
10% 7 0.7
7.6
40% 7 2.8 Certification low among the ‘workers’
10% 8 0.8
30% 6 1.8 No visible plan
10% 7 0.7
10% 7 0.7 Some clarification given on the approach to change managem
6.8
40% 2 0.8 Excluded some of our scope
10% 6 0.6
30% 9 2.7 They run a good training academy, not clear how they operati
10% 8 0.8
10% 7 0.7
5.6
40% 5 2 Predominantly external resource base
10% 7 0.7 Approach to training is good
30% 8 2.4 Very detailed and measurable approach to skills transfer
10% 5 0.5 Very little emphasis of their role in the BBVA implementation
10% 5 0.5
6.1
roach to change management and driving adoption
not clear how they operationalise the immersion of the trainees into the client environment
oach to skills transfer

the BBVA implementation that seems to be the significant client reference
Accenture
Deloitte
PWC
Wunderman &
Thompson



*PROVISIONAL SCORECARD*
40% 7 2.8
10% 6 0.6
30% 6 1.8
10% 7 0.7
10% 7 0.7

40% 8 3.2
10% 7 0.7
30% 5 1.5
10% 7 0.7
10% 6 0.6

40% 8 3.2
10% 7 0.7
30% 6 1.8
10% 7 0.7
10% 6 0.6

40% 7 2.8
10% 6 0.6
30% 6 1.8
10% 6 0.6
10% 5 0.5
Supplier Evaluation Measure JR JL FK
Technical Capability 7 7 8
Value Added Services 5 7 5

Accenture
Skills Transfer to support Future Requirements 7 5 6
Prior historical performance (Based on Customer References) 7 7 7
Proposed Scaling, change management and adoption strategy 6 6 6
Deloitte
Deloitte
PWC

W&T

PM KC HIGH AVERAGE LOW
8 9 9 8 7
9 8 9 7 5
7 7 7 6 5
6 9 9 7 6
8 8 8 7 6
8 8 8 7 6
10 7 10 6 5
6 2 6 4 2
5 8 8 6 5
5 7 7 5 4
7 4 7 6 4
8 5 8 6 5
6 6 6 6 5
6 5 7 6 5
5 6 7 6 5
6 6 7 6 5
5 6 6 6 5
5 8 8 6 5
5 6 7 6 5
5 6 6 5 4
Notes
JR/FK - Based on the experience of the Pilot project, the value added
services were not demonstrated well. When the requirement came
through for additional SMEs, Accenture were not able to provide this.
KC - Free Einstein workshop offered, assessment based on the proposal.
Building relationships with overseas based teams
PM - Concede point on the point raised by FK and JR. Score based on
the accelerators referred to are relevant. Tie in the proposal to the
broaded activities/planned activities in the organisation based on their
knowledge and exposure in the POC.
Proposed acceptance of the 7. Agreed
KC - Leading Salesforce partner globally, have a SME panel of experts

that can be leveraged against going forward. Peer reviews indicate.
No further. Proposed acceptance of average - Accepted
JR - Rated based on the proposals. Only W&T scored lower. Activities to

support the Scaling and Change Management component. Much longer
term change mangement process. Willing to accept the average. Happy
to also move to a 6.
Proposed acceptance of average - Accepted
JR - Key aspect is the relativity to other scores. Detailed breakdown of

people proposed, the SF skills and accreditation in the higher levels, but
not with the people doing the actual work
PM - Deloitte provided responses related to the post-Covid 19 way of
working that was very detailed. Sales architecht is based in SA, and has
done work here. Change Management Skills. Process is silent around
the partnership with a Fintech.
KC - Examined technical skills, and how well they could assimilate our
scope and how realistic their proposed methodology was. 2nd to
Accenture. 8 accredited SF resources. Timeline - innovative method of
delivery (parallel run) - buys time for post support/testing, etc.
JR - Based on comments made, not scored based on the global support.
Score amended to 6.
JR - No strong sense of the VAS from Deloitte
PM - Reviewed the references and the nature of the assignments they
ran and how related are they. Benefit of accelerators is easily
undertood and relevance to the project.
KC - Over and above everyone else - large investment on skills related
*Note - Must contract for accelerators and
to SF to build up the strength of their proposal. Took the team through
some of the accelerators.
JR - Amended score to 5
CG - Scored this at an 8. Promise made and we need to tap into it.
KC - Nowhere in the document did the depict the plan/approach on this

JL - All partners given a 7 - generic skills transfer process, but we will
amend this in the process. Change all to a 5
PM - No skills transfer process mapped out, but points reflected
elsewhere
KC - Number 2 in the world. Track record in references 2nd to

accenture
KC - They had technical skills, but have missed our scope - especially
Einstein. This is not meeting our requirements. We want the value of
the AI Insights.
JL - Scored higher based on the information and tools that were

recommended
PM - Virtual thinking was innovative
PM - The solutions are not compelling, do not provide the details on the
'how'. Skills transfer process is not clear.
KC - Original doc had more detail - had a detailed plan around the skills
transfer process.
PM - Spend a lot of time, on the details that were known.
JR - Believe the structure and approach is realistic and feasible
PM - Score amended to 5
CG - Also impressed with this suggested approach. Score of a 9.
Technical capability is overseas, no clarity on looping this back to a
South African context.
ust contract for accelerators and associated benefits

Evaluation Template Vfinal Updated 11062020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation Template Vfinal Updated 11062020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scoring

Scoring shall be based on a 0 - 4 rating scale as per the descriptions below

Decision Made that

Value Added Services 10% 1

Value Added Services 10%

Skills Transfer to support Future Requirements 30%

Technical Capability 40%

Value Added Services 10%

Financially Stable? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Liquid? (out of 25)1 Acceptable Acceptable Yes Acceptable

Financially 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Score (out of 10) 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75

Weighted Score 13.1 8.8 13.1 13.1

Financial Stability Concerns

Deliverable Based R 25.00 R 28.75

All in cost R 15.05 R 17.31 22

Total R 15.05 R 17.31

Programe Leadership R 4.50 R 5.18

Design R 2.00 R 2.30

Development R 7.30 R 8.40

Change Management R 2.50 R 2.88

Total R 26.80 R 30.82

Strategic Value Team R 3.75 R 4.31

Operations Team R 1.97 R 2.26

Transition Team R 3.01 R 3.46

Local Squad R 1.24 R 1.43

Local Squad R 1.24 R 1.43

Total R 18.80 R 21.62

Timeline Details Scaling Provision Risk Provision

Establish Foundation - 16 weeks with full 26 weeks

Timeline Details Scaling Provision Risk Provision

MVP 1 - 8 weeks Deploy; 4 Weeks Support post

MVP 2 - 16 Weeks Develop; 2 Weeks Deploy

Yes No Risk based

Timeline Details Scaling Provision Risk Provision

6+ Months Deliver and Deploy (*8 months)

Timeline Details Scaling Provision Risk Provision

25% of Resources ready in week 1 Option C

6Months with 6 months training and change

Yes - 10% Total

Cost 1 35% 0.35 Cost

Avg R 29.22 Avg

4 35% 1.4 Cost 2 35%

Questions for Post Appointrnent Accenture

1. What happens if design phase fails Deloitte

0.7 Cost 2 35% 0.7

New Pieces of Technology Requirement

Value Added Services

Skills Transfer to support Future Requirements

New Pieces of Technology Requirement

New Pieces of Technology Requirement

% Weighting Score (out of 10) Calculated Score

% Weighting Score (out of 10) Calculated Score

% Weighting Score (out of 10) Calculated Score

No local skills and plan to outsource to a small implementation partner locally.

No skills to transfer really given technical capability revised score

New Pieces of Technology Requirement

New Pieces of Technology Requirement

New Pieces of Technology Requirement

% Weighting Score (out of 10) Calculated Score

% Weighting Score (out of 10) Calculated Score

% Weighting Score (out of 10) Calculated Score