Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली सरकार

GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
FINANCE DEPARTMENT: POLICY DIVISION 4TH LEVEL, 'A WING ' DELHI
SECRETARIAT: I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-02

ENDORSEMENT
The copies of under mentioned Office Memorandums are for warded
herewith for information and necessary action to the following:-
1. All Head of Departments, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
2. All Pay & Accounts Officers through Principal Accounts Office, Vikas Bhawan,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. All Head of Autonomous Bodies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi.
5. Chairperson, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi.
6. Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Cantonment Board, Delhi.
7. CEO, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
8. Assistant Director (IT) with the request to upload the same on Website of
Finance Department
9. Guard File.

( Manoj kumar V M)
Joint Secretary (Policy)

Details of O.Ms forwarded

Sl.
No.
Name of the
Ministry/Deptt.
Office
Memorandum
No. & date
Subject

1. Government of India Ministry of
Finance Department of
Expenditure Procurement Policy
Division, 709, Chanderlok
Building, Janpath, New Delhi
F.No. 1/5/2026-
PPD
Dated the 13
th
July, 2026.
Adoption of Producer Price
Indices (PPIs) in place of
Wholesale Price Index (WPI) in
price escalation/ price
adjustment clauses of future
Government procurement
contracts.
2. Government of India Ministry of
Finance Department of
Expenditure Procurement Policy
Division, 709, Chanderlok
Building, Janpath, New Delhi
F.No. 1/3/2026-
PPD
Dated the 22
th
July, 2026.
Advisory regarding
prescription of qualification
and evaluation criteria in
procurement of consultancy
services.
FIN-POL034/40/2026-Policy-FINANCE DEPARTMENT I/171235/2026

Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services, Second Edition, 2025
113
evaluation shall be on a “pass” or “fail” basis. A Consultant must achieve a “pass” on all the
criteria to proceed to the next step. Any Consultant not achieving a ‘pass' in any of the eligibility
criteria shall be rejected as nonresponsive.
7.3.3 Evaluation of Qualification
1. Procuring entity shall determine whether the Consultants are qualified and capable in
all respects to be shortlisted to provide the ‘Services’. The Procuring Entity shall evaluate the
consultants for shortlisting, inter-alia, based on their past experience of handling general and
similar consultancy assignments, and financial capability of the firm.
2. The determination shall not consider the qualifications of other firms, such as the
consultant's subsidiaries, parent entities, affiliates, or any other entity different from the
consultant. Assignments completed by the Consultant’s individual experts working privately or
through other consulting firms cannot be claimed as the relevant experience of the Consultant
or that of the Consultant’s partners or sub-consultants.
3. The Procuring Entity reserves the right to waive minor deviations in the qualification
criteria if they do not materially affect the capability of a Consultant to perform the contract.
4. The qualification and Experience of Key Experts are not included in the shortlisting
criteria but shall be evaluated at the RFP stage. Since the bidders who meet the REoI
qualification, can well manage to attract right Key experts during RfP.
5. In case a particular certification/ licence is required to perform the assignment, that
may also be included in eligibility or qualification criteria.
6. Each criterion may be sub-divided into sub-criteria, if called for. Table 2 below gives
an indicative criterion. The criteria and their weightage may be changed as per the need of
Procuring Entity.
Table 2. Suggested Qualification criteria and their weightages
Criteria/ Sub-criteria Suggested
Values
Sub-criteria Criteria
Criteria 1 General and Similar Experience: Bidders providing Consultancy
services for at least the specified period and have completed the specified
volume of general and similar consultancy assignments during the specified
period.
70%
Similar assignments Define based on value, general and specific
sector of work, region, Key activities/
methodologies/ technologies etc.
Consultants must have at least α years'
experience in Consultancy Services
α = 7 20%
During the last α years, Consultancy
Assignments completed or substantially
completed (at least γ payments received)
should be at least β
α = 7
γ = 80%
β = 7
50%
Out of the Consultancy Assignments
mentioned above, δ should be similar
assignments
δ = 2 30%
A n n e x u r e - I

Chapter 7: Shortlisting of Consultants, Expression of Interest (EoI)
114
7. Qualification Criteria shall be based entirely upon the capability and resources required
to perform the particular contract satisfactorily, considering bidders’ experience and past
performance, capabilities with respect to personnel, equipment and manufacturing facilities,
financial standing and relevant compliance with environmental protection regulations/
Environment Management System. There should be no qualification criteria that would be
advantageous to foreign consultants at the cost of domestically provided consultancy.
8. Qualification of demerged entities
69
(by virtue of a corporate restructuring
exercise etc.): Tender documents must clearly mention if (and under what conditions) the
demerged entity will be permitted to use credentials of original/parent entity (for initial five
years from the incorporation of the demerged entities) to satisfy the qualification criteria or not
(Refer para 5.2.2-6-d).
9. It is also noted that while shortlisting/ selecting consultants, some procuring entities
are keeping the minimum qualifying financial turnover at the level of 5-10 times of the
estimated cost of the consultancy work. This, prima facie, appears high. Higher qualification
criteria increase the likelihood of adequate experience/ capacity but reduce the competition; if
_______________________
69
As per DoE’s OM No. No. F .8/78/2023-PPD dated 12.10.2023, in suitable cases procuring entity may consider
the credentials based on the merit and circumstances of the cases like type of procurement, nature of demerger,
number of eligible bidders available etc.
Criteria/ Sub-criteria Suggested
Values
Sub-criteria Criteria
Criteria 2 - Financial Capability: Overall financial strength of the consultant in
terms of turnover, profitability, and cash flow (liquid assets) situation
30%
Turnover: Minimum average annual
turnover of at least Rs. θ Crores, at least κ
of which should be from Consultancy
Service Contracts, (total payments
received for contracts in progress or
completed) within the last α years
θ = 200% of the
value of
assignment
κ = 50%
α = 7
70%
Financial Viability - Net Worth: The Net
Worth of Bidder firm should not be negative
on ‘The Relevant Date’ and should not have
eroded by more than ξ in the last 3 years.
ξ = 30% 30%
Relaxation for Start-ups: Qualification
criteria can be relaxed upto λ % for startups
subject to meeting the quality and technical
specifications during the RFP. (Please refer
to paras 1.10.1-4-b), 5.2.2-6-d) and 1.10.4-
2-b))
λ = [20% (twenty
percent)]

Note: During RFP Process Consultant shall be asked to furnish documentary evidence to
demonstrate his compliance to Criteria 1 and Criteria 2.
Relevant Date when the specified period ends for different criteria shall be:
1) For all annual reports, periods mentioned are ending with the financial year of the
company [say 2023-24].
2) For other statements, latest statement available on the last date of bid submission.

Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services, Second Edition, 2025
115
set unduly high they may increase the cost without any improvement in quality. It is suggested
that the criteria should be fixed on a reasonable basis while drafting tender documents and
such higher minimum qualifying turnover should be kept only, if adequately justified
70
. In
higher value procurements, the minimum annual turnover should not be blindly a multiplier of
the assignment value, but there may be an upper cap on demanded turnover, so as not to
restrict competition only to the big four or five Consultancy Firms.
10. In EoI, simplified evaluation criteria should be used, instead of marking schemes. A
fail-pass, minimum benchmark in each criteria/ sub-criteria can be specified e.g., must have
past experience of at least two similar projects; firm must have a turnover of at least Rs 10
(Rupees Ten) Crores and so on. Any firm which passes these benchmarks is declared as
qualified.
11. However, in complex situation, marks/ scores may be assigned to the response of
each consultant based on weightages assigned to each of the criteria in the EoI. For example,
in case of number of assignments in last 7 years, out of maximum 35 marks for the sub-criteria,
scoring can be
a) 3 marks per assignment upto 7 assignments (benchmark); and
b) 3.5 marks for additional assignments, subject to maximum of 35.
12. This exercise of scoring is not merely for disqualification of firms below a threshold,
but to establish the relative strengths and weaknesses of the applicants, in order to arrive at
a robust short list of qualified consultants who have the required experience and qualifications
to deliver the required services at the desired level of quality. Please refer to para 8.4.3 also.
13. The Procuring Entity shall short list all the consultants who secure the minimum
required marks [normally 75% (seventy five percent)]. The minimum qualifying requirement
shall be specified in the EoI document.
7.3.4 The EoI Evaluation Report
1. The short list of firms is required for the selection of consultancy services in a
competitive process with a minimum of three (Rule 184 of GFR 2017) and generally not more
than eight (to avoid inordinate delays in evaluation of subsequent RfP). If there are a larger
number of consultants meeting the evaluation criteria, the shortlist shall be restricted to a
specified number of Consultants (if not specified, eight (8) consultants) based on higher
Average Turnover (or any other criteria, if so, stipulated therein).
2. The short list may comprise only national consultants (firms registered or incorporated
in the country and having registered office in India), for small assignments and indicated in the
EoI. This situation is applicable where qualified national firms are available at a competitive
cost or if the nature of the assignment is such that a foreign consultant’s inclusion is not
justified (for example, a training or outreach to be carried out in local language) or if foreign
consultants have not expressed any interest.
3. If the same firm is considered for concurrent assignments (for example, a construction
supervision consultant for different stretches/ packages of rehabilitation/ reconstruction of a
road contract), the Procuring Entity shall assess the firm’s overall capacity to perform multiple
contracts before including it in more than one short list. However, this needs to be pre-declared
in the EoI documents.
_______________________
70
Notified vide OM No.F.18/13/2020-PPD issued by Department of Expenditure dated 13.07.2020

Chapter 8: RfP Evaluation and Award of Contract
126
considered further. No change in prices or substance of the bid, which may grant any undue
advantage to such bidder, shall be sought, offered, or permitted. No post-bid clarification at
the initiative of the bidder shall be entertained.
2. The Procuring Entity reserves its right to, but without any obligation to do so, to seek
any shortfall information/ documents only in case of historical documents which pre-existed at
the time of the Bid Opening, and which have not undergone change since then. Provision may
be made by eProcurement portals to allow shortfall documents to be asked for (specifying a
target date for submission, as in sub-para above) and taken from any bidders after the
technical bid opening. (Example: if the Permanent Account Number, registration with GST has
been asked to be submitted and the bidder has not provided them, these documents may be
asked for with a target date as above). As far as the submission of documents is concerned
regarding qualification criteria, after submission of the tender, only related shortfall documents
should be asked for and considered. For example, if the bidder has submitted a supply order
without its completion/performance certificate, the certificate can be asked for and considered.
However, no new supply order should be asked for to qualify the bidder.
3. Ministries/ Departments/ CPSEs with a significant volume of procurement may develop
a data-base of QR data of different bidders to minimize the time taken to ascertain QR
compliance. Bidders may also be given viewing rights for its own data. In such case, over and
above the documents submitted by the bidder in its bid, the above data-base may also be
considered irrespective of the fact whether or not such data/details have been declared by the
bidder in its bid.
8.3.6 Evaluation of Eligibility:
Procuring Entity shall determine, to its satisfaction, whether the Bidders are eligible as per the
eligibility criteria in the Tender Document to participate in the Tender Process. Tenders that
do not meet the required eligibility criteria prescribed shall be rejected as unresponsive.
8.4 Evaluation of the Quality – Technical Proposals
1. Only substantively responsive bids shall be evaluated for further evaluation.
2. Please refer to the paras 8.4.3, 8.4.4 and 8.4.5 below for Rating/ Grading Schemes,
Individual/ Joint Review, and mitigation of subjectivity in evaluation of quality by the CEC.
8.4.1 Responsiveness to ToR
CEC shall evaluate each proposal on the basis of its responsiveness to the ToR. Proposals
not responding to the ToR fully and properly will be summarily rejected as being non-
responsive, before taking up the appraisal of the technical proposal for evaluation of quality.
A technical proposal pre-disclosing any material pricing information shall also be rejected.
8.4.2 Criteria and Sub-criteria
1. CEC shall evaluate quality of the technical proposal by awarding marks so as to make
the total maximum technical score of 100 (one hundred) for the criteria and sub-criteria for
Quality/ Technical Proposals - (a) the consultant's relevant experience for the assignment; (b)
the quality of the methodology proposed; (c) the qualifications of the key staff proposed; and
(d) capability for transfer of knowledge (if relevant). Each proposal should be judged on its
own merits and assigned an absolute - not comparative -grade against predefined criteria and
sub-criteria. A comparative evaluation would single out the best proposal on a relative scale,
but still could leave the Procuring Entity with a poor proposal.
Annexure-II

Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services, Second Edition, 2025
127
2. The criteria and weightage to each criterion or sub-criterion would depend on the
requirements of each case and may be fixed objectively. A model scheme of
maximum/minimum marks in terms of percentage is, however, proposed in Table 4.
Table 4. A model scheme of maximum/minimum marks in terms of percentage
Rated Criteria Range of Percentage for Score
1.Consultantcy firm’s Experience relevant to
assignment
5-10%
2. Proposed approach Methodology, work plan, and
understanding of requirements
20-50%
3. Qualification and adequacy of experience of Key
Staff
30-60%
4.Transfer of Knowledge, if relevant* 0-10%
Overall 100 %
Note: * If this criterion is not required, the marks can be adjusted against some other criteria.
The weight given to the firm’s experience can be relatively modest since this criterion has
already been considered when short listing the consultant. More weight shall be given to the
methodology in the case of more complex assignments (for example, multidisciplinary
feasibility or management studies). Evaluation of only the key personnel is recommended.
Since key personnel ultimately determine the quality of performance, more weight shall be
assigned to this criterion if the proposed assignment is complex. The CEC shall review the
qualifications and experience of proposed key personnel in their curricula vitae, which must
be accurate, complete, and signed by an authorized official of the consultant and the individual
proposed. The experience criteria mentioned in point 1 in the table above holds true for
Consultancy Firm and not for an individual consultant.
3. The CEC shall normally divide the above criteria mentioned in Table 4 into sub-criteria.
However, the number of sub criteria should be kept to the minimum that is considered
essential. For example, methodology Criteria can be sub-divided into sub-criteria as:
a) understanding of ToR (30% weightage);
b) acceptability and detailing of methodology and work plan (50% weight);
c) innovation, if it is important (20% weightage);
4. The criteria for suitability of the key professionals for the assignment can also be
divided into:
a) Educational qualifications (20% weightage),
b) Professional experience in the required area of assignment (80% weight).
Similar to in LCS (para 4.2.1) and EoI (para 7.3.3-10), a simplified evaluation criteria laying
down minimum qualifying fail-pass benchmarks for each criteria/ sub criteria (instead of
marking schemes) may also be used in appropriate cases. All offers that pass the qualifying
benchmarks are declared as technically qualified and their financial bids are opened.
8.4.3 Rating/ Grading Schemes to Mitigate Subjectivity
1. Technical proposals for consultancy services are an intellectual product. Their
evaluation must be based on individual professional judgement of competent evaluators and
should not be reduced to a purely arithmetical exercise. The difficulty is to ensure that this
judgement is not exercised in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner. It is important that