Economic sciences/3. Financial relations

 

student Germakhanov Sh.A., Romanyuk V.B.

Tomsk State University, Russia

 

Modern methods of carrying out expert examination of tenderers’ economic performance on the acquisition of right of subsoil usage.

 

One of the most sensitive issues connected with the acquisition of right of subsoil usage is the procedure transparency during the tendering process on the right of subsoil usage. Conditions of the tender provide the execution of examination of the submitted tenderers’ economic performance. Let us consider one of such methods of execution of an examination. Usually, the sequence of carrying out expert examination is traditional and is as follows:

1.     Familiarization with submitted materials and technical and economic proposals of tenderers.

2.     Selection of methods and methodology of designs evaluation.

3.     Development of evaluation criteria according to the procedure and conditions of tender specified by the Office of subsoil usage.

4.     Designs’ evaluation and ranking of tenderers.

5.     Submission of tender committee’s  reports (examination) 

The most important stage of examination is of course, the selection of a method and methodology of its execution. First of all, it is necessary to define the requirements, applied to the calculation method and methodology during the execution of the examination. The following requirements could be referred to the defined ones: conformity of design evaluation criteria to the conditions and procedures of the tender, public hearing of experts’ opinion, evaluation of quantitative and qualitative indices, unlimited amount of indices and etc. Also from the examination results, all the tenderers should be ranked by means of comparison of indices.  These requirements might be realized through the application of rating system. Today, ratings are widely used and there are many methods and approaches for description of rating: credit ratings, credit banks’ and insurance companies’ ratings, rating of corporation branches’ performance and etc.

 Based on studied experience of foreign and domestic rating agencies in the given issue (Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, IBCA< SERM, Fitch), let’s consider the following rating evaluation method. (1). Two approaches are being highlighted in ratings’ evaluation: expert and accounting approaches. Accounting approach of ratings’ evaluation implies the usage of quantitative indices only, confirmed by the forms of financial reporting and other official documents. Expert approach is based on complex record of quantitative and qualitative indices (2). In our case, it is advisable to use the expert method.

Accuracy and quality of acquired results is in many ways defined by the competence of expert, which performs the examination.

Main stages of summary integral index of designs’ evaluation include:

-                           development of criteria, that conform to the “Procedure and conditions of tendering process on the right of subsoil usage at block N”;

-                           definition of the significance of the chosen indices (specific weight). Every index is evaluated on the 10 point scale with the help of several specialists by expert means. The weight of every index is calculated as the weighted average value of all presented points:

 

Ji = (∑ (Áik/ Á ko) /k) +1,                                                                  (1)

where Ji – the weight of I-index;

Áik- is the point of k- expert for the I –index;

Áko- is the sum of all the points assigned by k-expert to all the evaluated indices.

-                           calculation of the integral rating:
R= ∑Ïri *Ji,                                                                        (2)

            where Ïri- is the comparative index of i-index. The comparative index characterizes the delay of the evaluated design (company) on the i-index from the best value for the given index among all the companies, that is:

Ïri= Ïg/Ïf,                                                                      (3)

where Ïg- is the best index value among all the companies; Ïf- is the index value of the evaluated design.

  Let’s give an example of calculation of such rating, based on the examination of designs’ economic performance on the right of subsoil usage at block N. The expert committee of five specialists selected the following criteria group (indices): conformity to the general provisions and conditions of the tender; adherence to subsoil usage conditions; evaluation of methods of prospecting execution; main process solutions on the development of hydrocarbon material accumulation; levels, rates, hydrocarbon production performance; environmental protection; evaluation of design’s ecological efficiency; participation in social and economic development of the region. Seven economic agents participated in the tender on the right of subsoil usage with the purpose of protection of commercial secret, let’s mark them with conventional values as A, B, C, D, N, F and G.

 Let’s display the main results of the examination of tenderers’ economic performance in the table 1 and figure 1.

Table 1

Definition of integral complex designs’ rating assessment and ranking of tenderers

Integral rating

Index value (criteria)

1

A

B

C

D

N

F

G

1st criteria group: conformity to the general provisions and conditions of the tender

3.14

3.58

3.77

3.77

3.69

3.74

2.09

2nd criteria group: adherence to subsoil usage conditions

3.68

3.68

5.11

5.11

4.19

4.70

2.45

3rd criteria group: evaluation of methods of prospecting execution

1.54

2.35

2.05

3.07

2.05

3.07

1.84

4th criteria group: main process solutions on the development of hydrocarbon material accumulation

5.81

6.02

6.12

7.14

6.02

7.14

0.61

5th group: levels, rates, hydrocarbon production performance

0.87

1.02

0.82

0.87

1.02

0.97

0.51

6th criteria group: environmental protection

6.13

6.13

6.13

6.13

6.13

6.13

0.20

7th criteria group: evaluation of design’s ecological efficiency

3.61

2.81

5.34

4.43

4.16

4.51

2.31

8th criteria group: participation in social and economic development of the region

0.48

1.02

1.10

0.30

0.40

1.08

0.00

TOTAL rating

25.26

26.61

30.44

30.82

27.65

31.36

10.02

RANKING OF TENDERERS

6

5

3

2

4

1

7

         Having investigated the quantitative and qualitative indices of submitted designs by criteria, which correspond the rules and conditions of tender, one can make the following conclusions: best designs were presented by the companies: C, D, N, F; companies C, D were in the group of indices, which characterized the fulfillment of general conditions of the design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig.1 Results of expert evaluation of the design

 

according to the criteria - adherence to subsoil usage conditions, companies C, D area leading; in the group of criteria, that characterize the evaluation of methods of prospecting execution, one can mark companies: D, F; according to the criteria of main process solutions on the development of hydrocarbon material accumulation won the companies: C, D, N, B; on levels, rates, hydrocarbon production performance – the best companies were D, B; environmental protection is presented in all designs in accordance with requirements and norms, except G; the justification of the economic efficiency of the design is better represented with the companies C, D, N, F; on the criterion of the participation in social and economic development of the region – the top position belongs to F.

Hence, one can recommend the introduction of the design from the following companies: 1st place- F; 2nd place – D; 3rd place- C.

 

References

1.     V.V.Galasyuk. The problems of making the theory of economical decisions. – Dnepropetrovsk: Novaya ideologya, 2002- 304 pp.

2.     A. Tregub. Rating of collective investments’ tools: civilized approach. http://www.cic.ru/ci/tregub