All public institutions must require their tire suppliers to present the Solid Waste Management Plan, duly approved by the Ministry of Health, in accordance with this regulation. Tire suppliers to public institutions must receive at least an equal number of tires as offered, in accordance with the provisions of article 5 of this regulation.
3. The sustainable criteria for which points are assigned must be linked to the contractual object13.
13"In this way, it is guaranteed that said system is an efficient, safe, useful, and, moreover, fair instrument and not a mechanism to create undue advantages in favor of a specific contractor. In this regard, article 5.1 of the General Regulation of Administrative Contracting clearly states: '... no provision may be introduced in the competition conditions or in the qualification parameters that places one party in a position of advantage over other competitors.' (the highlighting does not correspond to the original) It is obvious that any bid qualification system tends to create and score qualitative and quantitative differences among eligible proposals, so the aforementioned rule must be interpreted in such a way that the Administration is prevented from incorporating qualification factors that create unjustified differences in favor of a specific bidder." Taken from the resolution of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, RC-524-2002 at three o'clock in the afternoon on the twelfth day of August of two thousand two.
4. The sustainable criteria must be adjusted to the preliminary market study that supports the initial decision.
In this way, it is guaranteed that the requested criteria can be satisfied in the studied market.
5. Because technical specifications are mandatory, an additional score should not be granted for their compliance, unless it refers to specific improvements over said technical specifications.
For example, a minimum energy efficiency can be requested, and then a better performance than the requested minimum can be scored.
6. Requirements imposed by the legal system cannot be subject to additional scoring, as they are mandatory (they are admissibility criteria [criterios de admisibilidad]). The existence of regulations governing the contractual object must be consulted prior to the establishment of sustainable criteria. By way of example, in a procurement for the acquisition of tires, the provisions of the Regulation on Waste Tires No. 33745 must be observed. (See box 2) 7. Sustainability criteria (whether as admissibility criteria or evaluation criteria [criterios de evaluación]) must be specific and objectively verifiable. In this regard, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic has noted the following:
"To apply the bidding document rule on an equal footing, the Administration must use objective criteria on aspects referenced in the bids, a solution that finds support in the principle of efficiency regulated in numeral 4 of the Administrative Contracting Law, which among other things prescribes: 'The acts and actions of the parties shall be interpreted in such a way as to allow their conservation and facilitate the adoption of the final decision, under conditions beneficial to the general interest.'"14 14Resolution No. R-DCA-037-2013 of nine o'clock on January 22, 2013, Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic.
In relation to this numeral, you may consult Annex 1 of this document.
8. If the criteria (whether admissibility or evaluation) are only verifiable during contract execution, the respective sanction in case of non-compliance must be defined in the bidding document, considering the seriousness of the fault.
In the following figure, the analysis to define in which section of the bidding document each sustainable criterion will be placed is illustrated.
Figure 3: Analysis to define the appropriate mechanism (and correct section of the bidding document) for each sustainable criterion.
When it is decided to incorporate sustainable criteria into the evaluation system, the procedure established in the following section must be carried out.
5.4 Mechanism for defining priority of criteria In order to work in terms of sustainable public procurement, it is necessary to indicate in the bidding terms that the award will be made based on the most economically advantageous bid. In this way, not only the lowest cost will be valued, but also other factors of interest to the contracting administration that add value to the procurement, making it more efficient. To determine which bid should be considered most advantageous from an economic point of view, the administration must previously indicate in the terms and conditions the criteria that will be applied, so that bidders can prepare their bids. These criteria can be posed at a qualitative level (for example, presence of hazardous substances) or quantitative level (for example, energy consumption).
That is why, first of all, the phases of a product's life cycle (ciclo de vida) must be analyzed, including the supply of raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, transportation, distribution, marketing, use of the product, and its management when it is no longer needed (through reuse, repair, upgrading, recycling, or safe disposal). Therefore, the NTACS is intended to promote the application of sustainable criteria under the life cycle concept.
Reliable information must be available that identifies the performance of a product based on its environmental, social, economic, and innovative attributes, taking into account the stages of its life cycle. This must be accredited from the preliminary market study, which supports the initial decision.
The categories of criteria to be incorporated into the bidding documents are divided into four: environmental, social, economic, and innovation considerations. They have significance both in the actions prior to contracting and in the processing of the procedure, in contractual execution, and, finally, in the final disposal of the good.
For the above purposes, it is recommended to have an interdisciplinary group of experts or the necessary advisory services to establish, prioritize, and evaluate the criteria regarding the categories mentioned in the NTACS, which will be applied in the contracting procedure. Both in the "Guía de Compras Sustentables del Ministerio de Hacienda" and in the "Guía de Criterios Sociales en los Procesos de Contratación Pública en Costa Rica", some examples of sustainable criteria for the different product categories can be found.
To define the priority of the criteria according to the category to which they belong, the criteria selection matrix from the "Guía de Compras Sustentables del Ministerio de Hacienda"15 will be used, which is detailed below. Once these criteria are defined, a matrix is completed for each of the categories, so that the priority of the criteria for each thematic axis can be established.
15Available on the website: http://www.hacienda.go.cr/contenido/13023-compras-publicas-sustentables.
It is important to mention that there is no limit to the criteria to be included in the matrix. Below is the mechanism for completing the matrix for the prioritization of sustainable criteria:
1. The following matrix is used to determine the specific weight that each of the respective criteria will have:
2. The area shaded in yellow is completed with the following premises: C1,1, C2,2, C3,3, . have a value equal to 0.
3. The remaining cells represent a value of 0 or 1 according to the following methodology:
i. Ca,b= If criterion "a" is more important to the contracting administration than criterion "b", then the value to include in the cell is 1.
ii. Otherwise, that is, if criterion "b" is the one that is more important than criterion "a", the value to include in the cell is 0.
4. Once the entire area shaded in yellow is completed, the value of the last column is included:
i.TCa = The value is obtained by adding all the values (zeros and ones) in its same row (e.g., TC1 = C1,1 + C1,2 + C1,3 + C1,.)
Once the score has been assigned to each of the criteria, the criteria are classified according to their level of impact, in accordance with the prior analysis of these, that is, ordering their impact (or weight) into three levels: high, medium, and low. The level of impact of the criteria is the first element necessary to proceed to complete the MECS. The weight of these impacts within the valuation of each category is: 60% for high-impact criteria, 30% for medium-impact criteria, and 10% for low-impact criteria.
5.4.1 Definition of the weight of the categories within the evaluation The weight assigned to each of the evaluated categories may vary depending on the contractual object; for example, the environmental category should not be given the same weight in an acquisition of cleaning products as in one for software. As a starting point, the weight of the categories with respect to the 20 points to be awarded must be: 30% for environmental criteria, 30% for social criteria, 30% for economic criteria, and 10% for innovation criteria; however, it is reiterated that these weights may be modified according to the specific conditions of the contractual object, following the preliminary study and the initial decision.
For the purposes of applying the MECS, in the event that market conditions or the contractual object make it impossible to determine criteria in any of the categories, this situation must be amply justified; and in the allocation of scores in the MECS, a "zero" must be entered for that category (in such a way that for the remaining categories, the sum of the established percentages is 100%); therefore, no points will be assigned for that dimension.
Once the weights for each of the categories and the number of criteria to be evaluated according to their level of impact have been determined, the MECS will be completed.
5.5 Application of the MECS in the spreadsheet The MECS allows for the allocation of the determined weights for each of the evaluated categories, in addition to setting the number of criteria evaluated for each of these, according to their level of impact. With this instrument, the value of a criterion for each dimension can be determined according to its level of impact; likewise, the points obtained can be assigned according to the criteria met at the time of evaluation.
The instructions for using this instrument are specified in the document: Instructions for Completing the MECS, Annex IV to this technical regulation. This document will be available on the website of the official electronic system for public procurement of the Central Government.
6. Monitoring of the application of the NTACS The development of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms is fundamental to ensure that the NTACS is effective and that, therefore, its implementation translates into verifiable results regarding sustainable acquisitions. Given the above, monitoring by the DGABCA in its capacity as governing body is necessary; therefore, it will be a requirement for each agency to submit reports through the means, with the periodicity and content defined by said institution via circular.
These reports must include results demonstrating the use of sustainability criteria for each of the four categories. At least the following indicators must be presented:
. Specification of the products that have been requested with sustainable criteria as well as the criteria used for each category.
. The percentage of contracting procedures developed with sustainable criteria, relative to the total procedures carried out by the institution.
. The number of suppliers that have met the criteria, and the percentage they represent among all suppliers that submitted bids, clarifying whether these are suppliers with SME status.
. The amount awarded in sustainable procurements and the total amount of purchases made by the institution.
. Additional observations on the experience of implementing sustainable procurement in their institutions.
For the above, the "Monitoring Report" table, Annex 3 of this document, must be used.
7. Guidelines for the implementation of the NTACS As a complement to the NTACS, this section presents guidelines to support its implementation. The decision on how to include sustainability criteria in the bidding documents is discretionary for each institution and will depend on the nature of the contractual object, so it is not possible to provide a single solution. For example, the decision will be different if purchasing disinfectant for an office floor versus purchasing it for a surgical room, and the budget available to the contracting institution also affects the decision.
If a criterion is related to compliance with current regulations, it must be included as an eligibility criterion, not as part of the bid evaluation system. In other words, no score should be awarded for compliance with regulations that are mandatory.
The following chart illustrates the type of aspects, with a life-cycle approach, that guides the identification of sustainability criteria:
Chart 2: Examples of considerations for the definition of sustainability criteria with a life-cycle approach 16Understood as productive work carried out in conditions of freedom, equity, safety, and human dignity. At all stages, the contracting and subcontracting policy, working conditions and social protection, occupational health and safety, human development and training in the workplace, as well as the promotion of opportunities, must be valued.
When defining sustainability criteria, it is important to ask:
. Does the market offer products with the required sustainable criteria?
. Are there innovative technical solutions, processes, or contractual agreements to implement the required sustainable criteria?
. What is the price difference between products that incorporate the required sustainable criteria and similar products that do not?
. What additional costs beyond the price will the administration incur for the use and enjoyment of the purchased product? (e.g., maintenance, consumables, among others).
. How will it be demonstrated that the offered products meet the required criteria? (use of certifications, labels, among others).
The administration can hold prior hearings with potential bidders, with the intention of clarifying the above questions. In this regard, the RLCA is explicit regarding the possibility of holding such hearings:
"Artículo 53.-Audiencias previas al cartel. La Administración, podrá celebrar audiencias públicas con potenciales oferentes antes de elaborar el cartel definitivo. Para ello, deberá mediar invitación publicada en algún diario de circulación nacional en la que se indique, al menos, el lugar, la hora y la fecha de la audiencia, así como el objeto de la contratación. La no asistencia de un potencial oferente no le generará ninguna consecuencia de frente al eventual procedimiento.
Por parte de la Administración, deberán asistir a dichas audiencias, el Jefe de la Unidad solicitante o su representante, los técnicos de la materia del objeto de la contratación, así como quien asesore en materia legal y un funcionario de la proveeduría institucional.
De la asistencia, lo actuado y de las sugerencias recibidas, se levantará un acta que firmarán los asistentes que quisieren hacerlo. Las manifestaciones que se formulen por escrito, así como el acta se agregarán al expediente.
La Administración, no se encuentra obligada a aceptar ninguna de las iniciativas que se le formulen" An effective and carefully organized dialogue with the respective market actors is key to knowing what it can provide in response to the administration's needs. However, it should be kept in mind that the prior hearing does not replace the market study but rather complements it.
Prior to the prior hearing, it is very useful to conduct basic market research to become familiar with the potential products and identify potential bidders; in this way, the prior hearing will be more fruitful, as it can be oriented toward specific inquiries from the Administration, which will have a better understanding of the arguments presented by the companies.
Sources of information that may be useful:
. Company brochures, web pages, and phone calls . Participation in trade fairs . Consultation with business chambers . Consultation with universities and research centers Some success factors for the prior hearing:
. Establish communication with the appropriate companies, that is, those that demonstrate they have a solution for the need that the institution requires to satisfy.
. Establish communication with the appropriate people; the objective of the hearing should be communicated to the participating companies so that they send technical personnel who can resolve relevant queries that may add value to the procurement to be carried out.
. Carefully analyze the information provided by the companies and, if necessary, seek additional information to verify what was stated by them17.
17As an example, technical experts at universities can be consulted.
. Ensure that the hearing participants have the necessary technical experience.
. Keep in mind that some data is considered confidential by companies; when this type of information must be requested, a written request may be made to analyze said information with strict confidentiality.
The following sections present specific recommendations by type of criterion.
7.1 Environmental criteria From a comprehensive perspective, as a response to incorporating environmental impacts into sustainable criteria for public procurement, the industry is compelled to offer products that meet them.
As an example, one can cite vehicles with better fuel efficiency (km/l), low-consumption electronic equipment, biodegradable cleaning products, reams of paper from certified sustainable forests, among others. It is clear that the industry will strictly offer what is requested; therein lies the importance of knowing how to request by incorporating appropriate environmental criteria, allowing for greater satisfaction of the public interest and the administration's needs.
The application of environmental criteria can be carried out in each phase of the public procurement process, transforming environmental aspects (whether related to the product, its use, or its final disposal) into procurement criteria. Below, some considerations are provided.
. Planning: During the planning phase, the purchase of environmentally sustainable goods or services can be ensured, and how to acquire, use, maintain, and finally dispose of the good or service can be managed. Planning and defining requirements provide the best opportunity to include environmental aspects in the stages of the product's life cycle. This will allow higher prices to be justified if it can be demonstrated that there will be long-term savings or environmental benefits.
. Acquisition: Once the need to be satisfied has been determined, the appropriate environmental criteria must be defined, establishing evaluation criteria for the acquisition of the product. It is very important to consider the capacity of bidders to meet the new environmental requirements, in order to avoid unfruitful tenders; this can be done through preliminary studies.
Examples of the above may be: goods that use the least amount of packaging material, reusable/recyclable goods, among others.
. Use and maintenance: The use of the good or service must be the same as that considered during the planning stage to achieve the best results both in its useful life and in its effect of minimizing environmental impacts. Whenever economically viable, the product should be maintained to extend its useful life.
. Disposal: The environmentally responsible disposal of the product can have high costs depending on its nature. These costs must be taken into account from the planning phase to obtain the best value for money. Consideration should be given to whether the good is reusable, recoverable, recyclable, or if it can be improved.
If, due to regulations, it is not possible to require the bidder to dispose of the waste from its product, one option to consider is giving a score in the evaluation system to those bidders who commit to doing so, through the establishment of commitment agreements linked to the contract, whose non-compliance may entail liability for the contractor.
7.2 Social Criteria It must be understood that compliance with labor obligations contemplated in the legality framework constitutes eligibility requirements to contract with the administration; for this reason, the following clause or equivalent must be indicated in all sets of conditions:
"It is the unavoidable duty of the contractor(s) to comply with the labor and social security obligations contemplated in the legality framework, as well as any social commitment they sign with respect to this procurement. Non-compliance constitutes a serious fault and liability attributable to the contractor(s), potentially leading even to contractual termination without liability for the Administration, after observing due process." It is important to detail the most significant labor and social security obligations in the bidding documents, especially in cases where services involving the subcontracting of manual workers are contracted, as they are more exposed to working conditions outside the legality framework. For greater detail on the application of social criteria in public procurement, the document "Guía de criterios sociales en los procesos de contratación pública en Costa Rica"18, which is available on the Ministry of Finance portal, can be consulted.
18Which can be consulted at the address: http://www.hacienda.go.cr/contenido/13023-compras-publicas-sustentables or requested at the DGABCA headquarters.
7.2.1 Other social considerations In addition to promoting compliance with labor rights, which—as mentioned above—must be considered as an eligibility criterion, administrative contracting procedures can also support the promotion of employment opportunities. This support includes:
- Promotion of youth employment - Policies on diversity and employment opportunities for people from disadvantaged groups (e.g., ethnic minorities, people with low levels of education, among others) - Promotion of employment opportunities for people with disabilities - Among others.
Thus, it is possible to include clauses that support compliance with specific regulations. For example, adding those that address aspects regulated in the following regulatory bodies:
Chart 3. Example of regulations related to specific social aspects.
These types of clauses can be included in the bid evaluation system to reward the participation of bidders who meet such criteria.
For example, a score can be assigned to the bidding company that has persons with disabilities on its payroll; for such purposes, certification proving the employee's disability and a copy of the company's payrolls from the last few months may be required to confirm that the person was not hired exclusively to meet the requirement (at least 3 months of seniority is recommended).
7.3 Economic criteria Economic criteria vary depending on the contractual object in question. The contracting administration must carry out an opportunity analysis to determine which criteria are most convenient and provide greater value to the procurement.
For example, in the case of equipment and machinery that require inputs for their use (fuel, electricity, or others), costs must be evaluated comprehensively and not only the acquisition cost; that is, consider the acquisition cost, plus assembly/installation costs, maintenance costs, operating costs (inputs and other associated costs), as well as final disposal costs. Below, a comprehensive valuation for the acquisition of printers is analyzed, considering that:
Comparing the print volume of the three options, one could conclude that option "C" is the one that implies the best value for the organization. However, when acquiring a printer, the price paid for the equipment is only a part of what the organization invests: to use the equipment, it must also incur operating and maintenance costs (repair, technical support, asset management, updates, licenses, among others), as well as consumables (ink, toner, cartridges, among others).
When comparing the devices under equal conditions (4 years of use), the following chart shows that option B is the one that represents the best value for the organization because, although the equipment acquisition cost is higher, the consumable costs are lower.
Remember that the criterion that will be used to compare bids must be indicated in the corresponding bidding documents.
As illustrated in the following figure, device C would have represented a greater expenditure for the institution. Therefore, by awarding a score for better performance, companies are encouraged to bid the best available technology.
7.4 Innovation Criteria One way to promote innovation is to rethink how products are requested. Instead of listing the characteristics they must have, the need can be identified in terms of functionality and/or performance. This will allow bidders to propose diverse innovative solutions to the identified needs.
For example, if the goal is to change the lighting system, instead of listing the characteristics of the new light bulbs, the initial need motivating the change can be identified. Is it a problem of light quantity, light color, or electricity consumption? By rethinking the purchase toward the search for innovative solutions to the problem, alternatives from bidders could arise that integrate the use of translucent sheeting on the roof, LED lighting, automatic dimmers, or any other efficient solution to the need; in this way, they might not be limited solely to a traditional replacement of light bulbs.
While purchase specifications must allow room for innovation, care must also be taken not to reach the extreme of losing the direction of the purchase due to excessive flexibility. Just as innovation requires few specifications for the product or service as such, the identified need must be characterized in detail in terms of functionality and/or performance. Again, this characterization should not be limited to the qualitative level but must reach the quantitative.Continuing with the example of the lighting system, while traditional specifications might state the need in terms of "purchase and installation of light bulbs," specifications based on functionality and performance would seek to reframe it as follows: "solutions to achieve office spaces with a specific luminous intensity during specific hours of the day, maintaining determined maximum levels of energy consumption." As with environmental, social, and economic criteria, the incorporation of innovation can occur from the technical specifications of the tender documents. Another option is to incorporate it through extra scores when weighting the admissible bids (the objective way to provide such a score is based on terms of functionality and/or performance).
While innovative solutions are generally more effective and efficient, their novel nature may entail an associated additional risk. Therefore, it is advisable to carry out a risk assessment before choosing a cutting-edge option. The assessment must consider technical risks (e.g., pioneering and poorly tested technologies), organizational risks (such as resistance to change), and financial risks (e.g., that final costs end up being higher than expected). The risk assessment will also allow for the design of more optimal performance guarantees.
When possible, contracts can incorporate incentives to continually seek innovation during their execution period. This is especially feasible in service procurement. Again, the key is to identify and characterize the need, rather than specifying the service as such. For example, instead of specifying the type of vehicle necessary to transport merchandise, if the contract characterizes the need to have the merchandise transported, the bidder will be able to make its service increasingly more efficient and innovative as new technologies emerge.
7.5 Example of evaluation systems In this section, an example of evaluation systems that applies the previously outlined guidelines is presented.
To this end, the evaluation system incorporating sustainable criteria for the case of purchasing vehicles and their respective maintenance is set out below:
Public institutions must promote sustainable procurement. In accordance with administrative discretion, it is discretionary for each institution the weight they deem appropriate for each sustainable criterion, provided that their sum is at least 20%.
19Note that the second most preponderant factor, only surpassed by price, corresponds to sustainable criteria.
Breakdown of the percentage of Sustainable Criteria (20%) 1.Environmental Management:................................................................................ ...............................5% a. Provide a copy of the current ISO 14001 certification for the workshop process........2% b. Recognition recognized by the SIREA in eco-efficiency or cleaner production (Bandera Azul, for example).......................................................................................2% c.Copy of the Bidder's Environmental Management Plan................................................1% 2. Promotion of equal opportunities at work...................................5% a. Inclusion of people with disabilities: the person or entity bidding must demonstrate that they have at least one collaborator on their payroll with a disability and that said person has been working with the bidder for a minimum period of 3 months prior to the bid. In addition, they must demonstrate that their position is directly or indirectly related to the contractual object....................................3% b. Gender equality: certification of the INTE INAMU standard on gender equality....................................2% 3. Economic performance..................................................................................10% a. Must certify the fuel efficiency of the vehicle in its kilometers-per-liter-of-fuel ratio, in accordance with the vehicle performance table of the bidding documents................................................................................................10% 8 References This section provides consultation options that can help with the implementation of sustainable criteria in public procurement:
. CEGESTI, Ministerio de Hacienda, y Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social (2014). Guía de criterios sociales en los procesos de contratación pública en Costa Rica. Available at http://www.comprasresponsables.org/manuales.html . CEGESTI. (2008). Manual para la implementación de Compras Verdes en el sector público de Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica. Available at https://www. hacienda.go.cr/scripts/criiiext.dll?UTILREQ=COMPRARED . Instituto de Normas Técnicas de Costa Rica (INTECO). Normalización Técnica: Herramienta para la Competitividad. San José, Costa Rica. (2010). http://inteco.or.cr/esp/ . Ministerio de Hacienda. (n.d.). Compras Públicas Sustentables. Available at: https://www.hacienda.go.cr/scripts/criiiext.dll?UTILREQ=COMPRARED . PNUMA. (2012). Implementando Compras Públicas Sostenibles. Introducción al enfoque del PNUMA. Available at http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/ Portals/24147/scp/10yfp/document/SPPguidelines_ SP_27.07.12.pdf . Naciones Unidas. (n.d.). Greening the blue. Available at http://www.greeningtheblue.org/resources/procurement . Gobierno del Reino de los Países Bajos. (n.d.) Criteria [Criterios]. Available at http://english.rvo.nl/topics/sustainability/sustainable-procurement/criteria/ . Gobierno del Reino Unido. (n.d.) Sustainable procurement tools [Herramientas para compras sustentables]. Available at https://www.gov.uk/sustainable-procurement- tools/ ICLEI. (n.d.). Sustainable Procuremente resource centre. Available at http://www.sustainable- procurement.org/resources/good-practice/ . Unión Europea. (n.d.). Green Public Procurement Examples. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ gpp/case_en.htm 9 Annex 1. Verification mechanisms for sustainability criteria Whether sustainability criteria are requested as a technical specification or as part of the bid evaluation system, every characteristic must be objectively verifiable. That is, it must be able to be corroborated by means of: a sample, a specific test performed by a laboratory, certification, manufacturer's declaration, or any other valid means that allows the criterion to be verified.
In the case of certifications, it is important to consider that a product could meet the technical specifications required by a standard yet not have a certification. For such cases, it might be viable to award a score to the certified product if the administration considers that this provides greater confidence. However, in addition to certification, other ways of evidencing compliance with technical criteria could be used, such as providing a sample or a manufacturer's/vendor's declaration.
Definitively, as certification implies a third-party attestation, it becomes much more reliable evidence, but it is also more demanding and requires greater resources from potential suppliers. These are factors that the contracting administration must assess when requesting a certified requirement.
Like the certification process, some means of proof (evidence) requested will imply a cost for bidders and, eventually, a cost for the administration, as these costs are reflected in the bids. In any case, the choice of evidence must take into account the risk to human health, occupational safety, the environment, and others deemed relevant to assess, associated with a potential failure in the technical characteristics. Even though in some cases the administration may use the performance bond (garantía de cumplimiento), it must be remembered that there are impacts that could become evident in the medium or long term. The greater the risk, the stricter the evidence of conformity with the technical characteristics must be.
The following table shows an example of a risk assessment matrix20. It assesses the impact of the risk that a product does not meet the required technical characteristics in terms of the consequence for the institution and the frequency with which it happens that the product does not meet the required technical characteristics.
20.For more information on risk quantification, you can consult INTE standard 31-06-07:2011, Guide for the identification of hazards and the assessment of occupational health and safety risks, at INTECO, or consult the officials in charge of the Institutional Specific Risk Assessment System (Sistema Específico de Valoración de Riesgo Institucional, SEVRI) of your institution (General Law on Internal Control No. 8292).
Risk Assessment Matrix Source: Prepared by CEGESTI for use in the NTACS.
In this way, the mechanisms that evidence compliance with technical specifications may vary depending on the impact that non-compliance would cause.
The following table shows examples of mechanism selection for illustrative purposes. (For each specific case, the administration must assess which mechanism is appropriate, according to the contractual object).
Examples of mechanisms to demonstrate compliance with technical specifications:
Source: Prepared by CEGESTI for use in the NTACS.
Regarding the mechanisms that may be requested in the bidding document (cartel), it is important to take into account:
. Request for samples: Article 57 of the RLCA indicates that:
"The request for samples must conform to criteria of reasonableness and proportionality and shall be requested, to the extent deemed essential, to verify compliance with the specifications of the bidding document and ensure compliance with the proposed purpose.
The omission of samples at the time of submitting the bid shall be considered a remediable aspect, as long as it does not generate an undue advantage for the non-compliant bidder.
The bidding document must indicate the intended use of the samples, specifying the type of tests, verifications, and assessments to be applied, as well as the authority responsible for the study." (Emphasis added) Requesting a sample and performing the tests, verifications, and assessments deemed relevant will allow the administration to verify the technical characteristics of the product offered; however, it must be taken into account that this is precisely a sample, so the bidding document must also establish how the product will be inspected during the execution stage and the consequences of eventual non-compliance.
. Laboratory reports: In accordance with Article 34 of the National Quality System Law21:
21.P Law No. 8279 of May 2, 2002 "Article 34.-Services to Public Entities. All public institutions that, for the fulfillment of their functions, require services from testing laboratories, calibration laboratories, inspection bodies, and certification bodies, must use those accredited or recognized by mutual recognition agreements between the ECA and equivalent international entities." Thus, the laboratory issuing the report must be accredited before the Costa Rican Accreditation Entity (Ente Costarricense de Acreditación)22 (hereinafter ECA) or accredited by bodies from other countries with which the ECA has established mutual recognition agreements, which implies that reports issued by laboratories accredited by such bodies are valid in Costa Rica (when in doubt, consult with the ECA). Although it is customary to say "accredited laboratory," in reality what is accredited are specific tests performed by the laboratory; for example, it would be questionable for a laboratory that has accredited microbiological tests related to wastewater to issue a report on electrical variables; it is therefore necessary to specify in the specifications (pliego de condiciones) the type of laboratory test required to be accredited.
22.The page http://www.eca.or.cr/ lists accredited laboratories, as well as their scope (i.e., which tests they have accredited, including sampling activities). Said page also lists other accredited bodies, such as inspection bodies and certification bodies.
On this subject, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic has stated the following:
Resolution of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic on laboratory accreditation "In relation to the issue of laboratory accreditation before the ECA, this comptroller body has already indicated (see among others R-DCA-459-2007 and R-DCA-534-2007) that in accordance with the National Quality System Law, Law No. 8279, all public institutions that, for the fulfillment of their functions, require services from testing, calibration laboratories, inspection bodies, and certification bodies, must use those accredited by the Costa Rican Accreditation Entity (ECA) or recognized by mutual recognition agreements between the ECA and equivalent international entities. Now, in relation to the obligation that companies doing business with the State have, in turn, to contract laboratories accredited by the ECA, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, in Opinion C-355-2005 indicated: «In that sense, CONAVI may well dispose in the bidding document or contract the obligation of the builder to contract accredited laboratories for the purposes of tests or trials that demonstrate the quality of the works performed, and therefore, the appropriateness of the payments that have been agreed upon based on quality.», an aspect on which this comptroller body has sustained a similar criterion (see Resolutions R-DCA-214-2007 and R-DCA-459-2007). Therefore, it is concluded that the accreditation of laboratories before the ECA is given by legal mandate, and in this sense said requirement cannot be ignored. In this case, this Office of the Comptroller General has verified that accreditation by the ECA was required by the tendering Administration as an admissibility requirement (proven fact 5), so all potential bidders had to comply with such requirement." Source: Resolution R-DCA-039-2008. Retrieved from www.cgr.go.cr . Product certification: In the matter of certifications, an important aspect to consider is that these certifications must not limit the participation of potential bidders. When the requirement for certification can be justified by the high impact of the risk, it may be requested as an admissibility requirement; otherwise, it should be considered as an object of evaluation. In this latter case, bidders must demonstrate that they meet the technical characteristics requested in the standard, and those offering the product certified by third parties would obtain the points.
Resolution of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic on product certification "Regarding certifications, the type of certification required must be specified, and the 'etc.' stated in the indicated clause must be eliminated, as this would give rise to indeterminacy regarding the type of suitable certification which, in any case, must be previously set by the Administration. This is because the Administration must know by whom and what it desires to be certified, and not leave to the bidder's discretion what type of certification to provide. On the other hand, certifications related to the radiofrequency emission of equipment aimed at protecting people's health may be required as an admissibility requirement, and those related to the functioning of the equipment must be an object of evaluation. Therefore, the proposed modification must be varied in this regard, prior assessment of what the Administration desires to be certified." Source: Resolution R-DAGJ-557-2003. Retrieved from www.cgr.go.cr In addition to requesting that the product be certified, which would typically imply that the product bears a mark of conformity granted by the body that certified it (after evaluating the product's technical characteristics and the company's management system and testing capability), one could also opt for particular certification schemes (in which only the technical characteristics of specific samples are evaluated):
. Sample certification: A third party certifies, through execution of tests, the compliance of a product sample with respect to normative documents or specifications previously agreed upon between the supplier and the customer (in this case, the technical specifications included in the bidding document). The results obtained do not imply judgment on samples other than those analyzed, nor on batches of the same product that the company subsequently manufactures.
Batch certification: A third party certifies, through execution of tests performed on samples extracted from the batch to be inspected, the compliance of one or several batches of product with respect to one or more technical standard(s) or specifications previously agreed upon between the supplier and the customer, according to an established sampling plan (in this case, the technical specifications indicated in the bidding document, as well as the sampling plan, which must be specified in the bidding document or agreed upon between the parties).
The bodies that grant these certifications must be accredited for product certification before the ECA or before a body from another country with which the ECA has signed a mutual recognition agreement.
Sample certification could be useful as part of the bid evaluation process. Meanwhile, batch certification (as well as sample certification, as deemed appropriate) could be useful during the product delivery stage by the contractor.
. Management system certification: If a relevant criterion is that the company has an environmental management system, it is important to consider that these refer to the way a company operates (the system, that is, the processes it has implemented to establish environmental policy and objectives, and to achieve those objectives), but does NOT correspond to specific technical characteristics of a product.
For example, if the remodeling of an office is to be contracted and the company is required to demonstrate that it will minimize environmental impacts, it could be stated: "To minimize the impact of the remodeling, as well as on the experience of the users of the place, the bidder must demonstrate the monitoring system it will implement to minimize the environmental impact of the remodeling (at a minimum sound, chemical management, waste management, water consumption). A valid ISO 14001 certificate for construction processes may be used as proof or, failing that, other mechanisms that the bidder demonstrates." If the ISO 14001 were required, it would constitute discrimination against companies that can meet the requirement but do not have the system certified (by granting additional points to companies that have the system certified, the possibility for those that do not have it to participate in the competition is not limited).
The bodies that grant these management system certifications must be accredited for system certification, before the ECA or before an body from another country with which the ECA has signed a mutual recognition agreement. Verify that the certificate presented by the company is valid and that the scope of the certification (i.e., the processes that the company included in the system) corresponds to what the Administration will contract.
Other examples of certifiable management systems, related to sustainability, are:
. INTE 35-01-01, Social Responsibility Management System . INTE-ISO 50001, Energy Management System . INTE 18001, Occupational Health and Safety Management System Likewise, within the National Quality System, the requirements for companies wishing to demonstrate the carbon neutrality of their organization have been defined through standard INTE 12-01-06, National Standard to Demonstrate C-Neutrality. It should be noted that in addition to management system certificates, there are also environmental recognitions that a company can obtain due to its environmental performance. In this regard, only those incorporated in the National System of Environmental Recognitions (Sistema Nacional de Reconocimientos Ambientales, SIREA) should be recognized, such as the Blue Flag Ecological Program (Programa Bandera Azul Ecológica) and others that are recognized23.
23.Regarding the recognitions incorporated in SIREA, you can consult http://www.sirea.minae.go.cr/ The range of verification mechanisms by type of sustainability criterion related to product characteristics is as broad as the diverse types of products that the administration might require. Some examples thereof are presented below:
. Exclusion of chemical substances: In the case of cleaning products or other chemical products, the safety data sheet (MSDS), which is used to register the product with the Ministry of Health, can be requested as a verification measure. It is advisable to indicate that the Institution reserves the right to perform laboratory tests on the product (as well as the corresponding action should said substance be found).
. Biodegradability: If this characteristic is important for the Institution, for example in cleaning products where it is very common, a test of the "Biodegradability Percentage (immediate biodegradation test OECD at 28 days)" by an accredited laboratory can be indicated as a verification method, wherein it must be regulated who must take the sample.
. Recyclable: It will only make sense to accept this characteristic if there are recovery centers in the country that can responsibly handle including this product in a recycling program. In this case, request the bidder to indicate which these sites are where one can go.
. Energy efficiency (office equipment): The most commonly used rating is Energy Star, so it could be stated that "The product offered must be rated as Energy Star for efficient energy use." On the official page of this program24, the products that have been rated can be verified. Apart from this requirement, the institution could opt to reward the bid with the lowest energy consumption (since even though all are Energy Star, they may have different consumptions), for which it would have to request bidders to deliver certifications on the energy consumption of the equipment (which must be backed by the consumption data published on the Energy Star program page for each product).
24http://www.energystar.gov/ . Seals and other voluntary certifications: There are specific seals for products that, combined with environmental considerations, also verify social conditions. For example, EPEAT for electronic products25, FSC for wood and paper26, among others.
25http://www.epeat.net/about-epeat/ 26https://ic.fsc.org/ Consult the "Sustainable Procurement Guide of the Ministry of Finance27" for examples related to products prioritized for the application of sustainable procurement.
27Available at http://www.hacienda.go.cr/contenido/12504-compras-publicas-y-administracion-de-bienes 10. Annex 2. Location of guides on the Ministry of Finance page The DGABCA, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 99 subsection a) of the Financial Administration Law of the Republic and Public Budgets28, which establishes for this Directorate the power to execute the necessary actions to determine policies in matters specific to the system governed by it, makes available to institutions a series of guides and manuals to support the implementation of Sustainable Public Procurement. These documents are available on the website: http://www.hacienda.go.cr/contenido/13023-compras-publicas-sustentables. They may also be requested directly at the DGABCA headquarters.
28Law No. 8131 of September 18, 2001.
11 Annex 3 "Monitoring Report" The table presented below must be sent semi-annually to those in charge of the Institutional Environmental Management Program, who must in turn inform the General Directorate of Environmental Quality of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, in order to keep track of the sustainable procurement contracts carried out by each institution.
12 Annex 4 "Instructions for Completing the MECS" To complete the MECS, it is necessary to perform 3 steps, namely:
. Step 1: Define Sustainable Criteria . Step 2: Prioritize Sustainable Criteria . Step 3: Define the weight of the categories and Complete the MECS Step 1: Define sustainable criteria . First, the sustainable criteria are selected, under the product life-cycle concept, conceptualized as the different phases of a product, namely: extraction and supply of raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, transportation, distribution, marketing, product use, and integrated waste management (reuse, repair, updating, recycling, safe disposal).
. The criteria to be incorporated into the bidding documents are divided into 4 important categories:
. Environmental . Social . Economic . Innovation . These criteria must have significance in relation to the contractual object, which will be determined from the pre-contracting activities (market and price studies), for their application both in the procedure processing, contractual execution, and disposal of the asset.
. It is recommended to have an institutional interdisciplinary group to establish, prioritize, and evaluate sustainable criteria for each contracting process, a group that must follow the guidelines issued by the governing bodies on the matter.
Step 2: Prioritize Sustainable Criteria Once the criteria for each of the categories have been defined, their level of impact must be established. For this, the criteria prioritization table contained in the sustainable procurement guide, issued by the General Directorate of Asset Management and Administrative Contracting in 2010, is used; and, a table is completed for each of the categories. (There is no limit to the number of criteria to include in the matrix).
Prioritization of Criteria:
. The following table is used to prioritize the criteria in each of the categories. That is, a prioritization table is used for each of the categories (environmental, social, economic, and innovation). It is important to emphasize how necessary it will be to have an interdisciplinary group that knows the contractual object and market conditions.
. The table is organized by rows and columns; it can be observed that in the first row, starting from the second column, the criteria to be evaluated are arranged by columns (in this case: a, b, and c); likewise, in the first column, starting from the second row, the criteria are placed in the same previous order (a, b, and c). Therefore, as expected, the size of said table depends on the quantity of criteria to evaluate.
. Additionally, the table must have an additional column at the end thereof. This is called "Total Criterion (TC)", as shown in the table.
Below, the prioritization table is shown:
Once the table has been created with the number of rows and columns corresponding to the number of criteria to evaluate, prioritization proceeds. The following explains how it is performed:
1. The dark blue cells: Ca,a, Cb,b, Cc,c, have a value equal to 0. That is, the diagonal would have values equal to zero.
2. Next, the light blue cells, inside the table, are completed as follows:
a. In cell Ca,b, if criterion "a" has a greater impact than criterion "b", we place a value equal to 1. (If "a" > "b" → value equal to 1).
b. If, on the contrary, criterion "b" has a greater impact than criterion "a", we place a value equal to 0. (If "b" > "a" → value equal to 0).
For example: If it is known that:
. Criterion a > criterion b; . Criterion c > criterion a; . Criterion c > criterion b We first evaluate criterion "a" with respect to criterion "b". In this case, as criterion "a" has a greater impact than criterion "b", we place in cell AB a value equal to 1; and in cell BA a value equal to 0.
Next, we evaluate criterion "c" with respect to criterion "a". As criterion "c" has a greater impact than criterion "a", we place in cell AC a value equal to 0; and in cell CA a value equal to 1.
And finally, we evaluate criterion "c", with respect to criterion "b". As criterion "c" has a greater impact than criterion "a", we place in cell BC a value equal to 0; and in cell CB a value equal to 1.
3. At the end, in the last column, called "Total Criterion (TC)", we place the sum of each of the rows, i.e.:
a. Column TC → TC a = Ca,a + Ca,b + Ca,c + Ca,.
In the previous example, the rows would be summed as follows:
A = 0 + 1 + 0 = 1 B = 0 + 0 + 0 = 0 C = 1 + 1 + 0 = 2 Therefore, the prioritization table for the example would look as follows:
Classification of criteria according to impact level:
. Once the prioritization of the criteria has been performed, and with its help, the sustainable criteria for each of the categories are classified according to their impact level. For this step, the interdisciplinary group, which knows the contractual object and the commercial reality, is also required.
. The impact level is classified into:
. High impact . Medium impact . Low impact . For the purposes of the relative weight assigned to each of the impact levels, it was designated that criteria with a high impact level will have a weight of 60%, criteria with a medium impact level a weight of 30%, and criteria with a low impact level a weight of 10%, for a total of 100%. The impact level is understood as the set of consequences caused by an event or action during the product life cycle that affects the environment from the environmental, social, economic, or innovation perspective.
. These percentages are integrated into the Evaluation Matrix (MECS), so no calculation is needed in this regard, other than classifying said criteria.
Example:
In the previous example of criteria a, b, and c: we would have, for example, the following classification according to the data obtained in the prioritization table:
As criterion C is the highest score, having a total value of 2, it is the criterion with the highest impact, so we can classify it as high impact. Criterion A is the second in score, with a total value equal to 1, so we can classify it as medium impact.
Finally, criterion B obtained no score, so we could classify it as low impact.
Criterion C → high impact Criterion A → medium impact Criterion B → low impact . The classification of the same, by their impact level, depends on the expert judgment of the group performing the classification task. That is, according to the study carried out, and the judgment of the interdisciplinary group, there may be more than one criterion with a high, medium, or low impact.
. Given the above, the number of criteria for each of the impact levels will depend on the evaluation carried out in this regard, and the possibility exists that there is no criterion for some of the impact levels.
. For example, out of three criteria, it may be considered that two are high impact, and one is low impact; and therefore, there are no medium impact criteria.
. It is important to mention that, when entering the data into the MECS, the matrix is programmed so that the weights always total 100%, regardless of whether or not there are criteria for each of the impact classifications.
Step 3: Define the weight of the categories and Complete the MECS Define the weight of the categories:
. It was previously established that the criteria that can be evaluated are classified into four categories: environmental, economic, social, and innovation. To define their weight, it is important for the interdisciplinary group to perform the assessment, in relation to the contractual object.
. Therefore, the weight of these categories may vary according to the contractual object. It is suggested that out of the 20 points to be awarded, 30% be given to the environmental category, 30% to the economic, 30% to the social, and 10% to Innovation.
. However, as indicated above, the weight of these may vary according to expert judgment and the object to be contracted. For this reason, even one of the categories might not have any criterion to evaluate and, therefore, would have a weight with a value of zero. Some examples of how the weights could be assigned are presented below.
Complete the MECS:
. The MECS is located in an Excel file, and serves precisely to:
1. Assign the score to each of the criteria according to the category and its impact level, for purposes of their incorporation into the bidding document (pliego cartelario).
2. Calculate the score obtained for each of the bids, once the opening and evaluation of bids have been performed.
Below, an image of how it looks is presented:
. In said image, first, a box with the name of the MECS is observed, and next a box indicating the total points to evaluate; in this case, a zero is observed, because no points have yet been assigned to any of the categories.
. In the lower part of the image, two boxes are observed.
The one on the left corresponds to the impact classification. As can be observed, it already has the weights assigned. In the box on the right, the classification of the categories is observed; and, in the cells corresponding to the points and the percentage, a zero is observed, because the points for each of them have not yet been assigned.
. Once the weights of the categories have been previously defined, the gray cells are filled in with the number of points assigned to each of the categories. For example, if we assign 30% to each of the environmental, social, and economic categories, and 10% to innovation, as indicated above: we place 6 points for environmental, 6 points for social, 6 points for economic, and 2 points for Innovation.
. In the following image, it is shown that once the points have been assigned to each of the categories, a total of 20 points to evaluate is obtained, which are shown in the upper box.
Next, if we scroll down the Excel sheet, we find another box, in which each of the categories is found again, divided by impact level.
As shown, in the first column the categories are found; in the second column, the impact level for each of the categories appears; and the third column is enabled so that in the gray cells, the number of criteria that will be evaluated for each of the categories is placed, according to their impact level.
. For example, in the following image, one can observe the case where 3 criteria will be evaluated for each of the categories, distributed as one criterion for each impact level. Therefore, in each gray cell a value equal to 1 was assigned.
. Subsequently, if we scroll down the Excel sheet, we find another box. Here, the categories are found again, divided by impact level.
. Once one criterion for each of the impact levels has been entered in the previous box, the data on the value of each of the criteria in that box is generated, to establish the points that will be assigned to each of the criteria (for purposes of assigning points in the evaluation of the bidding document).
. In the following image, part of said box can be seen, specifically the environmental category, in which the data have already been generated. As previously mentioned, the environmental category had a relative weight of 30%, corresponding to 6 points; this can be observed in the row corresponding to the totals of each column, namely: points per impact and percentage per impact.
. In the points per impact column, the points are divided for each of the impact levels, according to the weights assigned at the outset. As had been indicated, the high impact level had a weight of 60%, the medium level 30% and the low level 10%. This means that of the 6 points; 3.6 points correspond to a high impact level; 1.8 points correspond to a medium level; and 0.6 points correspond to a low level.
. Likewise, we can observe in the percentage per impact column that, of the 30% total for the environmental category, 18% corresponds to a high impact level, 9% to a medium impact and 3% to a low impact.
. Continuing with the columns, there is the column corresponding to the points per criterion. It is thus observed that each criterion of the high impact level of the environmental category has a value of 3.60 points; each criterion of medium impact of the same category has a value of 1.80 points and finally each criterion of low impact of the indicated category has a value of 0.6 points. It should be noted that, since only one criterion was included for each of the levels, said scores are equivalent to the points in the points per impact column.
Given this, if the number of criteria is modified, the value per criterion for each of the impact levels will correspond to a lower number.
. In the same way, the next column indicates the percentage per criterion, that is, the number of percentage points that each of the criteria is worth according to its impact level for each category. Therefore, in the example: each high-level criterion contributes 18%; each medium-level criterion 9%; and each low-level criterion 3%. In the same manner as in the previous column, since only one criterion per impact level was included for each of the categories, said percentages are equivalent to the percentage per impact column. However, if the number of criteria in any of the impact levels is increased, the percentage corresponding to each of the criteria will be lower.
. Once the above data are generated, the points to be awarded for each sustainable evaluation criterion met by the bid are then entered into the evaluation system of the tender documents (pliego cartelario).
Bid evaluation:
. When the bids are opened and the number of sustainable criteria met by the bid is determined, they are entered into the MECS. And, at the bottom of the box from the previous step, there is a similar table that indicates: evaluation; the following image shows how it appears in the file.
. In said box, the same initial columns as in the previous table can be observed: the categories and the impact levels for each of them. The next column is enabled for entering in the cells with a gray color the number of criteria that the bid does meet, according to its impact level and the category to which it belongs.
. The following two columns correspond to the points per criterion and the percentage obtained for each of the criteria that the bid meets. Said data are generated automatically once the number of criteria is entered in the gray cells.
. The following image shows an example in which all the criteria were met by the bid under study. Therefore, in the column of number of criteria met, a value equal to 1 is entered for each of the impact levels of each of the categories.
. In this case, for the environmental category, in the points obtained column the bid obtained 6 points in total, of which: 3.6 points are awarded for meeting the high impact criteria; 1.80 points are for meeting the medium impact criteria; and 0.6 points for meeting the low impact criteria. In the same way, in the percentage per criterion column, the bid obtained the 30% corresponding to the environmental category, of which, 18% corresponds to the percentage met for high impact, 9% to that for medium impact and 3% to that for low impact.
. Next, in the same Excel file, the result is generated according to the number of criteria met by the bid. In the following image, the first box shows the number of points obtained by the bid. In this example, of the 20 points evaluated, the bid obtained 20 points, because it met all the sustainable criteria evaluated.
. At the bottom of the image, two boxes can be observed: the one for the points obtained per impact level and the one for the points obtained for each of the categories. As observed, both have a total of 20 points, since the bid met all the criteria for each category and for each impact level.
. Furthermore, if each of the categories is observed in detail, one can verify the points obtained in each of them: 6 for environmental, 6 for social, 6 for economic and 2 for innovation. They correspond precisely to the points originally assigned. In the same way, one can verify the points obtained and assigned for each impact level.
. Likewise, the result is generated in percentage terms.
In the following image, it can be observed that the first box indicates that, according to the specified example, the bid obtained a 100% score, given that it meets all the sustainable criteria evaluated.
. In the lower part, likewise, two boxes are presented: one for the percentage obtained by impact level and another for the percentage obtained according to the evaluated category. In the indicated example, it is observed that the bid obtained 100% for the total of the categories, and 100% for the total of the impact level.
. As in the previous case, if each of the categories is observed in detail, it is verified that the percentages obtained in each of the categories (30% for environmental, 30% for social, 30% for economic and 10% for innovation) correspond precisely to the percentages originally assigned. In the same way, one can verify the percentage obtained and assigned for each impact level.
MATRIZ EVALUACIÓN DE COMPRAS SUSTENTABLES