RFQ for BIAL Academy Digital Learning Platform and Capability Building Services

Experience of the Company - Should have minimum turnover of 1cr in the previous 3 years. - Experience in Retail & F&B Industry with case studies.

Less than 2 Point of Sale

The bidder did not present anything

No details presented

Not details presented

The Committee will consider the Bidder’s experience and qualification based on an assessment of its experience with other Retail & F&B worldwide and in India.

Audit Coverage and Design - Develop airport-specific audit scenarios aligned to passenger journeys, service expectations and operating conditions

Dedicated on-site SPOC for the overall program and its deliverables

User Engagement Strategy

Technology in Operations Management.Ex:Leadership & partner wise dashboard, Digital Data analytics, Trend monitoring, feedback systems

Quality,Clarity and Coverage of all the subjects in the presentation

Scoring Criteria

How many years of retail experience does the company have? How many outlets does the company currently operate? Does the company have relevant experience in the proposed category (airport/high-traffic retail)? What is the size/scale of the business (turnover or growth potential)? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points (Excellent) – 10+ years in business, 15+ outlets. 3 points (Good) – 7–9 years in business, 10–14 outlets 2 points (Average) – 4–6 years in business, 5–10 outlets 1 point (Basic) – 2–3 years in business, 1–5 outlets

*Has the bidder presented a clearly defined structure of their management team? *Does the corporate structure comprises of independent directors for respective departments? *Does it seem that far too many responsibilities are clustered under one job role? *The bidder's corporate structure has the capabilities to drive the highest levels of customer service and sales at unit level? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear structure, strong leadership, relevant experience. 3 – Defined roles, some relevant experience. 2 – Partial structure, limited details, moderate capacity. 1 – Vague structure, little experience, few leaders. 0 – No details on structure/leadership.

*What accreditations, certifications, or industry recognitions has the bidder received in the retail or service domain? *Has the bidder been awarded any honours or star ratings for excellence in operations, customer service, or innovation? *Are there any recommendations, testimonials, or endorsements from airports, industry bodies, or reputed institutions that highlight the bidder’s credibility? *Does the bidder hold quality or compliance certifications (e.g., ISO, HACCP, LEED, or equivalent) relevant to retail operations? *How recent and consistent are the awards and recognitions received by the bidder over the past 5–10 years? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Multiple national/international awards, strong certifications, consistent recognition. 3 – Several awards/certifications, some industry recognition, at least one compliance certification. 2 – Limited or occasional awards/certifications, basic compliance certification, few endorsements. 1 – Minimal awards/certifications, little consistency, limited endorsements. 0 – No awards, certifications, or endorsements.

How well does the bidder analyze consumer behavior in travel retail? How well does the bidder understand demand for exclusive products and experiential retail? How well does the bidder address sustainability, changing demographics, and regional expansion? How well does the bidder understand airport transformation and emerging industry/consumer trends? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Excellent understanding of consumer behavior, trends, sustainability, and airport transformation. 3 – Good understanding of most areas and industry trends. 2 – Partial understanding with limited insights. 1 – Minimal understanding, weak insights. 0 – No meaningful insights provided.

What CSR and sustainability initiatives has the company currently implemented? How strong and relevant are the company’s green initiatives? What are the company’s proposed CSR initiatives specifically for Bangalore/Karnataka? How aligned are the proposed initiatives with social and environmental impact goals? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Strong current CSR initiatives; clear, relevant proposed initiatives. 3 – Good CSR initiatives; reasonably relevant proposed initiatives. 2 – Some CSR initiatives; basic or partially relevant proposed initiatives. 1 – Minimal CSR initiatives; weak or unclear proposed initiatives. 0 – No CSR initiatives or proposals provided.

Is the organizational hierarchy clearly defined for the outlet? Are roles and responsibilities for key functions (Design, Finance, Legal, Projects, Operations) clearly assigned? Is there a clear escalation matrix for decision-making and issue resolution? Does the hierarchy and escalation matrix demonstrate the capacity to manage operations effectively? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear hierarchy and escalation matrix; all key roles well-defined; shows strong operational capacity. 3 – Defined hierarchy; most roles and escalation paths clear; fairly strong operational capacity. 2 – Partial hierarchy; some roles or escalation paths unclear; moderate operational capacity. 1 – Minimal hierarchy; unclear roles and escalation; weak operational capacity. 0 – No hierarchy or escalation matrix provided.

What ERCR/ESG policies and frameworks does the bidder have in place? How are ERCR/ESG principles integrated into operations, especially in high-traffic retail environments? What sustainability initiatives has the bidder implemented, and are they measured/reported? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Strong policies, multiple initiatives, clear ESG integration. 3 – Good policies, some initiatives, visible ESG integration. 2 – Basic policies, limited initiatives, weak ESG integration. 1 – Minimal policies, symbolic initiatives, poor ESG integration. 0 – No policies or initiatives.

How clearly does the bidder explain the methodology for calculating Average Transaction Value (ATV)? How robust are the assumptions and methodology for estimating Penetration Rate? How well does the bidder justify the Estimated Number of Daily Transactions? Are the overall methodologies and assumptions consistent, logical, and data-driven? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 9–10 – Clear, logical, fully data-driven methodology and assumptions for all parameters. 7–8 – Mostly clear methodology; assumptions reasonable; minor gaps. 5–6 – Partial methodology; assumptions limited or partially justified. 3–4 – Minimal methodology; assumptions weak or unclear. 1–2 – Very limited methodology or assumptions; major gaps. 0 – No methodology or assumptions provided.

Scoring Criteria

Is the organisational structure clear? Are key roles and personnel defined? Is the reporting hierarchy and responsibilities clear? Does the staffing plan allow for scaling with operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear structure, all roles defined, hierarchy and responsibilities detailed, scalable plan. 3 – Mostly clear, most roles defined, some hierarchy/responsibilities, partially scalable. 2 – Partial clarity, some roles/responsibilities unclear, limited scalability. 1 – Minimal clarity, roles/responsibilities vague, no scaling plan. 0 – No structure or staffing plan provided.

How does the bidder manage peak hour customer load effectively? Are there clear strategies for queue management and minimizing wait times? How well does the bidder plan for crises or unexpected disruptions? Is there a business continuity plan to maintain operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive strategies for peak hours, queues, crises, and continuity. 3 – Good strategies; most areas covered with minor gaps. 2 – Partial strategies; limited coverage of peak hours, queues, or crises. 1 – Minimal strategies; weak planning for peak hours or crises. 0 – No strategies or plans provided.

How comprehensive is the strategy for reducing packaging waste? How effective are the initiatives to minimize food waste? Are sustainable practices (e.g., recyclable, biodegradable, reusable materials) clearly implemented? Does the strategy demonstrate measurable impact or results? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive strategy; strong initiatives for packaging and food waste; measurable impact. 3 – Good strategy; most initiatives in place; some measurable results. 2 – Partial strategy; limited initiatives; minimal measurable impact. 1 – Minimal strategy; few initiatives; unclear impact. 0 – No strategy or initiatives provided.

Does the bidder outline short-term initiatives to increase revenue? Are there clear long-term strategies for sustainable financial growth? How innovative or practical are the proposed revenue enhancement measures? Are the strategies backed by data or measurable targets? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive short- and long-term strategies; innovative measures; clear targets. 3 – Good strategies; most measures practical; some targets defined. 2 – Partial strategies; limited measures; few measurable targets. 1 – Minimal strategies; vague measures; unclear targets. 0 – No strategies or measures provided.

Are food hygiene and safety SOPs clearly defined and implemented? Are audits conducted regularly with effective monitoring practices? What certifications (food, supply chain, hygiene, manufacturing) are obtained or targeted? Are staff training and continuous improvement measures in place? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive QC and audit strategies; all relevant certifications; strong staff training and continuous improvement. 3 – Good strategies; some certifications; staff training and improvement measures present. 2 – Partial strategies; limited certifications; minimal training or improvement measures. 1 – Minimal strategies; few certifications; weak staff training or compliance. 0 – No QC or audit strategies, certifications, or training measures provided.

Are processes defined to ensure SLA compliance? Are resources allocated effectively to meet performance, quality, and delivery targets? Are monitoring mechanisms in place to track SLA adherence? Does the strategy demonstrate ability to meet or exceed SLA commitments? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear processes, resources, and monitoring; strong SLA compliance. 3 – Mostly defined processes and resources; SLA compliance likely. 2 – Partial processes/resources; SLA compliance uncertain. 1 – Minimal processes/resources; weak SLA compliance. 0 – No processes or mechanisms provided.

Are protocols clearly defined to handle crises and emergencies? Are resources and roles adequately assigned for crisis response? Are communication channels and recovery strategies well-established? Does the plan ensure minimal downtime and quick restoration of operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive plan; clear protocols, resources, communication, and recovery strategies. 3 – Good plan; most elements defined; minor gaps in coverage. 2 – Partial plan; some elements unclear or limited. 1 – Minimal plan; weak protocols and resources. 0 – No plan provided.

Are uniform designs, colour schemes, and specifications clearly defined? Are illustrations or images provided to support the policy? Are grooming and presentation requirements clearly outlined? Does the policy ensure professional and brand-consistent appearance across staff? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear designs and grooming; fully brand-aligned. 3 – Mostly clear; fairly brand-aligned. 2 – Partially clear; some brand alignment. 1 – Minimal details; weak brand alignment. 0 – No policy provided.

Is the training content comprehensive and role-specific? Are interactive methods or e-learning modules included? Is the training frequency and process clearly defined? Does the strategy enhance employee knowledge, compliance, and productivity? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive content, clear process, strong impact. 3 – Good content and process, moderate impact. 2 – Partial content/process, limited impact. 1 – Minimal content/process, little impact. 0 – No training strategy provided.

Are HR policies comprehensive and focused on employee welfare? Are staff incentives, perks, and recognition programs clearly defined? Are health, well-being, and development initiatives included? Do the policies demonstrate efforts to enhance engagement and performance? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive policies, incentives, and development; strong engagement. 3 – Good policies and incentives; moderate engagement. 2 – Partial policies; limited incentives or development; some engagement. 1 – Minimal policies; few incentives; weak engagement. 0 – No policies or initiatives provided.

Does the outlet maintain a male-to-female ratio close to 60:40? Are diversity and inclusion (D&I) objectives implemented in staffing? Are equal opportunity policies followed for recruitment and promotions? Does the workforce composition reflect commitment to inclusivity? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Ratio near 60:40; strong D&I practices; equal opportunity evident. 3–4 – Ratio slightly off; D&I measures present; mostly fair opportunity. 1–2 – Ratio poorly balanced; limited D&I measures; some opportunity gaps. 0 – No diversity or inclusivity measures provided.

Scoring Criteria

Are initiatives designed to drive walk-ins and attract customers? Are communication channels effectively used for engagement? Do the strategies foster brand loyalty and meaningful connections? Is there a mechanism to gather feedback and improve customer experience? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Strong engagement strategy; drives walk-ins and loyalty. 3 – Good strategy; mostly effective engagement. 2 – Partial strategy; limited engagement. 1 – Minimal strategy; weak engagement. 0 – No strategy provided.

Does the bidder provide a 12-month marketing/event calendar? Are planned in-store promotions and brand activations clearly outlined? Is the calendar aligned with BIAL’s event schedule? Are initiatives designed to maximize customer engagement and footfall? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Complete calendar; clear promotions; aligned with BIAL events. 3 – Mostly complete; most promotions outlined; partially aligned. 2 – Partial calendar; limited promotions; some alignment. 1 – Minimal calendar; few promotions; poor alignment. 0 – No calendar or strategy provided.

Does the bidder provide a clear digital and social media marketing plan? Are channels, content, and campaigns well-defined and relevant? Is the strategy aligned with BLR social media handles and overall branding? Are initiatives designed to drive engagement, reach, and visibility? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive digital/social media plan; fully aligned; strong engagement potential. 3 – Good plan; mostly aligned; moderate engagement potential. 2 – Partial plan; some alignment; limited engagement potential. 1 – Minimal plan; poor alignment; weak engagement. 0 – No digital/social media plan provided.

Is there a clear visual merchandising strategy for the outlet? Are brand environment and in-store presentation well-defined and aligned with brand identity? Are displays, signage, and layout designed to enhance customer experience and engagement? Does the strategy demonstrate creativity and innovation in brand presentation? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear strategy; brand-aligned; creative displays; strong customer engagement. 3 – Good strategy; mostly brand-aligned; moderately creative and engaging. 2 – Partial strategy; limited brand alignment; some engagement. 1 – Minimal strategy; weak brand alignment; low engagement. 0 – No visual merchandising or brand environment strategy provided.

Is there a detailed pre-launch planning strategy? Are location readiness and operational setup clearly addressed? Are marketing, promotions, and launch day activities well-planned? Are post-launch activities defined to ensure sustained engagement and performance? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive plan covering pre-launch, launch, and post-launch activities; well-coordinated. 3 – Good plan; most elements covered; moderately coordinated. 2 – Partial plan; some elements missing or unclear. 1 – Minimal plan; few elements addressed. 0 – No store launch plan provided.

Are customer surveys and feedback mechanisms clearly defined? Are monitoring processes in place to track customer satisfaction and issues? Is there a structured service recovery strategy to address customer concerns? Does the strategy use insights to improve service quality and customer experience? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive feedback and monitoring strategy; effective service recovery; strong improvement of service. 3 – Good strategy; most feedback and monitoring mechanisms in place; moderate service improvement. 2 – Partial strategy; limited feedback or recovery measures; some improvement. 1 – Minimal strategy; weak feedback or recovery; little improvement. 0 – No strategy provided.

Does the bidder map the customer journey and key touchpoints effectively? Are mechanisms in place to collect feedback (e.g., surveys, reviews, NPS)? Is there a process to act on insights and resolve customer issues quickly? Does the strategy improve service quality and personalization based on feedback? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive insight strategy; effective feedback collection; strong service recovery and personalization. 3 – Good strategy; most feedback mechanisms in place; moderate service improvement. 2 – Partial strategy; limited feedback or action; some service improvement. 1 – Minimal strategy; weak feedback/action; little improvement. 0 – No consumer insight or service recovery strategy provided.

Scoring Criteria

Are digital tools used for invoicing and transactional processes? Are data analytics and trend monitoring systems implemented? Are customer feedback and operational monitoring systems in place? Does technology improve efficiency, decision-making, and service quality? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Comprehensive use of technology; strong impact on operations and service quality. 3 – Good use of technology; moderate impact on operations. 2 – Partial use of technology; limited impact. 1 – Minimal technology adoption; weak operational impact. 0 – No technology used in operations.

Does the bidder have a clear plan to integrate store operations with BIAL’s digital platforms such as EPOS, BLR Pay, and FSTR? How will the bidder ensure seamless adoption of BLR Pulse and Pulse Rewards for enhanced customer engagement and loyalty tracking? Are there staff training and technical support measures in place to maintain smooth operations across all BIAL digital platforms? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear integration methodology; full technical capability; robust data management; seamless operations. 3 – Good methodology; most platforms integrated; moderate data/process clarity. 2 – Partial methodology; limited platform integration; some data/process gaps. 1 – Minimal methodology; weak integration; unclear data handling. 0 – No integration strategy provided.

Does the bidder use AI or innovative tech for personalized recommendations? Is data analytics leveraged to improve the customer experience? Are there processes to measure the effectiveness of AI-driven recommendations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Strong AI use; fully integrated with analytics; measurable impact on engagement, loyalty, and sales. 3 – Good AI strategy; moderate analytics; noticeable impact. 2 – Limited AI use; minimal analytics; limited impact. 1 – Minimal or vague AI use; no measurement; negligible impact. 0 – No AI or innovative tech used.

Scoring Criteria

Does the brand positioning align with airport passenger demographics? Are strategies proposed for domestic and international travelers? Are products, promotions, or store ambiance tailored for the airport environment? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Strong alignment; clear strategies; tailored offerings. 4 – Good alignment; most strategies; some tailoring. 3 – Partial alignment; limited strategies; minimal tailoring. 2 – Vague alignment; few strategies; little tailoring. 1 – Poor alignment; no clear strategies; negligible tailoring. 0 – No alignment or strategies.

Does the bidder have a proven track record of leadership or strong market presence in the relevant retail category? What strategies does the bidder propose to maintain or strengthen category leadership within the airport environment? How does the bidder plan to differentiate its offerings from competitors to sustain a leadership position in the category? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Strong category leadership; clear strategies; differentiated; relevant to airport/high-traffic retail. 4 – Good presence; defined strategies; some differentiation; moderately relevant. 3 – Moderate presence; partial strategies; limited differentiation; some relevance. 2 – Limited presence; minimal strategies; weak differentiation; limited relevance. 1 – Very minor presence; no clear strategies; minimal relevance. 0 – No presence, strategies, or relevance.

Has the bidder received any industry awards or recognition that demonstrate excellence in retail, customer service, or operational performance? How do the bidder’s awards and recognitions reflect their credibility and reliability in managing high-traffic or airport retail operations? Are there any recent achievements that highlight the bidder’s innovation, sustainability, or customer experience initiatives? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Multiple prestigious awards; strong credibility, performance, and recent achievements. 4 – Several notable awards; good performance and at least one recent relevant achievement. 3 – Some awards; evidence of credibility; achievements older or partially relevant. 2 – Limited awards; minimal operational or service evidence; achievements not recent. 1 – Very few or obscure awards; weak credibility or relevance. 0 – No awards or recognitions; no evidence of credibility or performance.

Does the bidder have mechanisms in place to collect and analyze consumer feedback regarding products, services, and overall store experience? How does the bidder use consumer feedback to adapt offerings, improve service, and increase customer satisfaction? Are there documented examples or case studies demonstrating high consumer acceptance of the bidder’s products or services in similar retail environments? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Strong feedback systems; proactively used; multiple examples of high consumer satisfaction. 4 – Good feedback collection and use; at least one example of consumer acceptance. 3 – Moderate feedback systems; some improvements; limited examples. 2 – Minimal feedback collection; rarely used; no clear examples. 1 – Poorly defined feedback; no improvements; no examples. 0 – No feedback mechanisms or evidence of consumer acceptance.

How does the bidder define and quantify the total addressable market for their products or services within the airport environment? Does the bidder have a clear understanding of the target consumer profile, including demographics, travel patterns, and spending behavior? What strategies does the bidder propose to effectively capture and serve the identified TAM in alignment with passenger needs and preferences? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Clear TAM; detailed consumer profiling; strategies well-aligned with passenger needs. 4 – Good TAM; clear profiling; strategies mostly aligned. 3 – Moderate TAM; basic profiling; generic strategies. 2 – Minimal TAM; weak profiling; vague strategies. 1 – Poor TAM; little profiling; unclear strategies. 0 – No TAM or consumer understanding; no strategies.

Scoring Criteria

Does the bidder have a clear pricing strategy that balances competitiveness, profitability, and perceived value for airport consumers? How does the bidder differentiate its product offerings to create a compelling value proposition for travelers? Are there mechanisms in place to review and adjust pricing based on market trends, consumer demand, and competitive landscape? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear, competitive pricing; strong differentiation; robust monitoring and adjustment. 3 – Clear pricing; some differentiation; basic review mechanisms. 2 – Basic pricing; limited differentiation; ad hoc reviews. 1 – Unclear pricing; minimal differentiation; no adjustment mechanisms. 0 – No pricing strategy or differentiation.

Does the bidder offer a well-defined range of products and services that cater to the needs and preferences of airport travelers? How does the bidder ensure the product and service mix remains relevant, innovative, and competitive in a high-traffic airport environment? Are there plans to introduce new products or services periodically to enhance customer engagement and drive sales? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear, relevant, and innovative product/service range; plan for updates. 3 – Good range; some innovation; partial update plan. 2 – Basic range; limited innovation; minimal update plan. 1 – Narrow or unclear range; little innovation; no update plan. 0 – No product/service strategy; not relevant or competitive.

Does the bidder offer products or packaging that are exclusive to airport travelers or specifically designed for BLR Airport? How does the bidder plan to differentiate travel-exclusive offerings from standard retail products to enhance customer appeal? Are there strategies in place to update or rotate airport-exclusive products regularly to maintain novelty and drive repeat purchases? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Clear travel-exclusive products; highly differentiated; plan for updates/rotation. 3 – Mostly defined travel-exclusive products; moderate differentiation; some update plan. 2 – Limited travel-exclusive products; minimal differentiation; few updates planned. 1 – Very few or unclear travel-exclusive products; little differentiation; no update plan. 0 – No travel-exclusive products; standard offerings only; no differentiation.

How does the bidder ensure product differentiation to stand out in the airport retail environment? What strategies are in place to maintain merchandise freshness and ensure high-quality products at all times? How does the bidder approach menu engineering, including product mix, rotation frequency, and optimization to maximize sales and customer satisfaction? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Strong differentiation; merchandise always fresh; clear menu rotation and optimization. 3 – Good differentiation; freshness maintained; some rotation/optimization. 2 – Limited differentiation; basic freshness; minimal rotation/optimization. 1 – Very little differentiation; weak freshness strategy; poorly defined rotation. 0 – No differentiation; no freshness measures; no menu optimization.

Does the bidder provide nutritional information such as Atwater factors to help consumers make informed choices? Are accessibility measures like Braille menus included to ensure inclusivity for all customers? How does the bidder ensure compliance with fair trade practices and BIS certification standards in their products and operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 – Full nutritional info; Braille menus; fair trade followed; BIS compliant. 3 – Mostly provided info; some Braille menus; fair trade mostly followed; majority BIS compliant. 2 – Limited info; minimal accessibility; partial fair trade; partial BIS compliance. 1 – Poor info; no accessibility; weak fair trade; poor BIS compliance. 0 – No info; no accessibility; no fair trade; not BIS compliant.

Does the bidder offer certified organic products or dishes in the menu, and how is certification verified? Are there processes in place to maintain the quality and authenticity of organic offerings throughout the supply chain? How does the bidder leverage B Corp certification to demonstrate sustainability, social responsibility, and ethical business practices? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Full organic range; strong quality/authenticity processes; B Corp practices demonstrated. 4 – Majority organic; mostly strong processes; B Corp practices with minor gaps. 3 – Some organic; partial quality processes; limited B Corp application. 2 – Few organic; weak quality processes; minimal B Corp/sustainability practices. 1 – Unclear or unverifiable organic; no quality processes; no B Corp demonstration. 0 – No organic offerings; no quality processes; no B Corp or sustainability practices.

Scoring Criteria

How original and innovative is the overall concept proposed by the bidder, and does it demonstrate creative excellence consistent with the project vision? How well does the design concept align with the brand’s story, values, and identity while adapting to the airport/high-traffic environment? Does the bidder incorporate distinctive features or value-add elements that differentiate the outlet and enhance customer experience beyond the brief? How does the bidder justify any deviations from the design brief, and what benefits do these deviations bring to the overall concept? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Highly original; aligns with brand; distinctive features; deviations justified. 4 – Original; mostly aligned; some distinctive features; deviations mostly justified. 3 – Good concept; generally aligned; limited distinctive features; minor deviations justified. 2 – Moderate originality; partial alignment; few distinctive features; deviations unclear. 0–1 – Minimal or no originality; weak alignment; no differentiation; deviations unjustified.

How effectively does the proposed concept design translate the brand story into the store environment? Are the design elements tailored to the lifestyle, preferences, and needs of the identified target customer segment? Does the use of brand-specific colour palettes, materials, and finishes reinforce brand recognition and identity? How does the design demonstrate modularity and flexibility, allowing for future reconfiguration without major disruption to operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong brand translation; tailored to customers; clear identity; flexible design. 4 – Good brand translation; mostly tailored; some identity; moderate flexibility. 3 – Adequate translation; partially tailored; limited identity; some flexibility. 2 – Minimal translation; weak tailoring; weak identity; limited flexibility. 0–1 – Poor translation; not tailored; no identity; inflexible.

Does the bidder provide detailed plans for modular display fixtures, shelving systems, and furniture, including off-site fabrication details? How does the proposed design allow for flexible reconfiguration of the layout to accommodate seasonal collections or operational changes? Are the modular and adaptable elements designed for ease of assembly, durability, and minimal disruption to store operations? Does the bidder include strategies to ensure that modularity enhances both customer experience and operational efficiency? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Detailed modular plans; highly flexible layout; durable, easy-to-assemble elements; enhances customer experience and operations. 4 – Good modular plans; mostly flexible layout; generally durable; some operational/customer benefits. 3 – Adequate modularity; partial flexibility; limited durability; minor benefits. 2 – Minimal modularity; weak flexibility; durability or operational benefits limited. 0–1 – Poor or no modular design; inflexible; no operational or customer benefits.

Are customer and BOH areas clearly separated? Are service and operational spaces efficiently integrated? Does the layout allow smooth staff operations and intuitive customer flow? Are customer touchpoints optimized from entry to exit? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Clear zoning; efficient service spaces; smooth operations; optimized customer flow. 4 – Good zoning; mostly efficient service spaces; generally smooth flow; most touchpoints considered. 3 – Adequate zoning; some efficiency; partial customer flow optimization. 2 – Minimal zoning; weak efficiency; limited flow or touchpoint optimization. 0–1 – Poor or no zoning; inefficient spaces; confusing flow; touchpoints not optimized.

Is there a clear entry-to-exit route for a seamless journey? Are key touchpoints identified and engagement strategies included? Are technology or experiential elements used to enhance interaction? Are visual cues effectively guiding customers and enhancing experience? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Clear route; optimized touchpoints; tech/experiential elements; effective visuals. 4 – Good route; most touchpoints addressed; some tech/experience; visuals mostly effective. 3 – Partial route; some touchpoints; limited tech/experience; some visual guidance. 2 – Minimal route; few touchpoints; weak tech/experience; limited visuals. 0–1 – No route; no touchpoints; no tech/experience; poor visuals.

Are PRM-friendly features incorporated throughout the outlet? Does the design comply with accessibility codes and standards? Are circulation spaces, ramps, and counters safe and convenient for all customers? Does the layout enable inclusive navigation without affecting operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Fully PRM-compliant; safe, convenient, and inclusive design; no impact on operations. 4 – Mostly PRM-compliant; generally safe and inclusive; minor operational adjustments needed. 3 – Partial PRM features; some accessibility; moderate operational limitations. 2 – Minimal PRM features; weak accessibility; noticeable operational issues. 0–1 – No PRM features; non-compliant; unsafe or inconvenient; poor inclusivity.

Is there a clear digital material board with visuals and specifications? Are materials indicated for LEED compliance and sustainability? Are detailed make-lists with suppliers, brands, and lead times provided? Do materials meet aesthetic, functional, and sustainability goals? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Comprehensive materials; fully LEED/sustainable; detailed make-list; meets aesthetic and functional goals. 4 – Good materials; mostly sustainable; make-list mostly complete; largely meets goals. 3 – Adequate materials; some sustainability; partial make-list; meets some goals. 2 – Limited materials; minimal sustainability; incomplete make-list; partially meets goals. 0–1 – Poor or no materials; not sustainable; no make-list; does not meet goals.

Are at least four interior 3D renderings and one façade view provided? Do renderings reflect realistic textures, finishes, lighting, and proportions? Are site conditions, circulation, and layout clearly shown? Do renderings effectively communicate design intent and customer experience? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – High-quality, realistic renderings; clear layout; design communicated well. 4 – Good renderings; mostly realistic; layout mostly clear; design communicated. 3 – Adequate renderings; some realism; partial layout clarity; design moderately communicated. 2 – Limited renderings; minimal realism; unclear layout; design weakly communicated. 0–1 – Poor or no renderings; unrealistic; layout unclear; design not communicated.

Are existing site elements (AC, speakers, Wi-Fi, utilities) incorporated accurately? Do visuals reflect site adjacencies, constraints, and operational needs? Are renderings photorealistic for accurate stakeholder understanding? Does the design address site-specific challenges while maintaining aesthetics and function? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – All site elements included; realistic, photorealistic visuals; constraints and challenges addressed. 4 – Most elements included; generally realistic; minor constraints addressed. 3 – Some elements included; partially realistic; some constraints considered. 2 – Few elements included; limited realism; minimal constraints addressed. 0–1 – Elements missing; unrealistic visuals; constraints ignored.

Does the bidder provide a detailed CAPEX breakdown for all components, including design consultancy fees, civil/interior construction, FF&E, MEP services, IT integration, sustainable materials, prefabrication, RRR materials, and PMC? How transparent and justified are the cost allocations for sustainable LEED-certified and RRR materials compared to conventional options? Are the CAPEX estimates realistic and aligned with industry standards for airport retail outlets, ensuring value for money without compromising quality? Does the CAPEX breakdown include provisions for contingencies, lead times, and any potential cost variations during project execution? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Complete, transparent, and realistic CAPEX; sustainable costs justified; contingencies and variations included. 4 – Mostly detailed and realistic CAPEX; some justification for sustainable costs; minor gaps in contingencies. 3 – Partial CAPEX detail; limited sustainability cost clarity; contingencies partially addressed. 2 – Minimal CAPEX detail; weak sustainability cost justification; contingencies not clearly addressed. 0–1 – Poor or no CAPEX detail; no justification; contingencies missing.

Are AI or smart technologies used to enhance customer experience? Are digital or immersive experiences (AR/VR, interactive media) incorporated? Are personalization and customer-centric features embedded? Is the use of prefabricated panels/structures planned and quantified? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong tech/AI; immersive experiences; personalized features; good prefabrication use. 4 – Good tech/AI; some immersive elements; mostly personalized; moderate prefabrication. 3 – Partial tech/AI; limited immersive elements; some personalization; low prefabrication. 2 – Minimal tech/AI; weak immersive elements; little personalization; minimal prefabrication. 0–1 – No tech/AI; no immersive features; no personalization; no prefabrication.

Which elements are prefabricated, and what % of total construction? Does prefabrication improve quality, speed, and sustainability? Is the design aligned with base build specs (electrical, HVAC, plumbing)? Are tap-off points properly mapped for compatibility with existing site? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Major prefabrication; improves quality, speed, sustainability; aligned with base build; tap-offs correct. 4 – Several prefabricated elements; mostly beneficial; mostly aligned; minor tap-off adjustments. 3 – Partial prefabrication; some benefits; partial alignment; some tap-off issues. 2 – Minimal prefabrication; limited benefits; weak alignment; tap-off issues. 0–1 – No prefabrication; no benefits; misaligned; tap-offs not mapped.

Which elements use prefabrication, and what % of total construction? Does prefabrication improve quality, speed, and sustainability? Is the design adapted to base build specs (electrical, HVAC, plumbing)? Are tap-off points correctly mapped for seamless integration? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Major prefabrication; strong quality, speed, sustainability benefits; fully aligned with base build; tap-offs correctly mapped. 4 – Several prefabricated elements; mostly beneficial; mostly aligned; minor tap-off adjustments. 3 – Partial prefabrication; some benefits; partial alignment; some tap-off issues. 2 – Minimal prefabrication; limited benefits; weak alignment; tap-off issues. 0–1 – No prefabrication; no benefits; misaligned; tap-offs not mapped.

Does the bidder have prior BIM experience with examples? Has the bidder used document control software/portals effectively before? Is there a clear strategy to integrate BIM and document control for this project? Will BIM and document control improve coordination, reduce errors, and ensure timely delivery? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong BIM and document control experience; clear integration strategy; major benefits for coordination, error reduction, and timely delivery. 4 – Good experience; mostly clear integration plan; noticeable benefits. 3 – Some experience; partial integration strategy; moderate benefits. 2 – Minimal experience; weak integration plan; limited benefits. 0–1 – No experience; no integration plan; no expected benefits.

Scoring Criteria

Does the PMC have experience with airport or high-traffic retail projects? Will the PMC effectively coordinate with the store team, contractors, and airport authorities? Are there documented processes to monitor progress, manage risks, and resolve issues? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Highly experienced PMC; excellent coordination; robust processes for progress, risk, and issue management. 4 – Good experience; mostly effective coordination; documented processes mostly in place. 3 – Some experience; partial coordination; basic processes in place. 2 – Limited experience; weak coordination; minimal processes. 0–1 – No experience; poor or no coordination; no processes.

Is there a clear organizational structure for the PMC team? Are key PMC personnel profiles with qualifications and experience provided? Is there a clear plan for on-site resource allocation to ensure effective project management? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Clear PMC structure; experienced personnel; strong on-site resource allocation plan. 4 – Mostly clear structure; good personnel profiles; adequate resource plan. 3 – Partial structure; some personnel details; moderate resource allocation. 2 – Minimal structure; limited personnel details; weak resource plan. 0–1 – No structure; no personnel details; no resource allocation plan.

Does the PMC have experience delivering similar projects on time, within budget, and to quality standards? Are clear strategies proposed for managing timelines, costs, and quality? How does the PMC handle unforeseen challenges to maintain project objectives? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong track record; robust strategies; effectively manages challenges to meet time, cost, and quality. 4 – Good track record; mostly clear strategies; generally manages challenges. 3 – Some experience; partial strategies; moderate challenge handling. 2 – Limited experience; weak strategies; minimal challenge management. 0–1 – No experience; no strategies; does not manage challenges.

Does the bidder provide client or contractor testimonials that demonstrate successful project delivery, adherence to timelines, and budget compliance? Are there verifiable performance metrics from past projects to support the PMC’s claims on time, cost, and quality management? How does the bidder plan to use lessons learned from past projects to ensure improved performance for this assignment? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong testimonials; clear metrics showing on-time, on-budget delivery; consistent quality. 4 – Good testimonials; mostly clear metrics; generally reliable performance. 3 – Some testimonials; partial metrics; moderate performance evidence. 2 – Limited testimonials; minimal metrics; weak performance evidence. 0–1 – No testimonials; no metrics; no evidence of performance.

Is the appointed architect/designer firm clearly named? Are individual profiles of key personnel provided? Do profiles demonstrate relevant experience and expertise for the project? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Firm and key personnel clearly named; profiles show strong relevant experience and expertise. 4 – Firm named; most key personnel profiles provided; good relevant experience. 3 – Firm named; some personnel profiles; moderate experience. 2 – Firm named; few personnel profiles; limited experience. 0–1 – Firm or personnel profiles not provided; no evidence of relevant experience.

Is a detailed Gantt chart with tasks, milestones, and dependencies provided? Are daily progress tracking and reporting plans included? Are contingency plans incorporated to address potential delays? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Comprehensive Gantt chart; clear daily tracking; robust contingency plans. 4 – Good Gantt chart; mostly clear tracking; some contingency planning. 3 – Partial Gantt chart; moderate tracking plan; minimal contingency measures. 2 – Limited Gantt chart; weak tracking; few contingency plans. 0–1 – No Gantt chart; no tracking; no contingency plans.

Is there a clear strategy for managing the project site and coordinating all verticals? Are quality control and EHS standards maintained throughout the project? Are roles, responsibilities, and expertise of deployed personnel clearly defined? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Strong site management; robust quality and EHS compliance; well-defined personnel roles. 4 – Good site management; mostly maintained quality and EHS; mostly clear roles. 3 – Moderate site management; some quality/EHS measures; partially defined roles. 2 – Minimal site management; weak quality/EHS compliance; unclear roles. 0–1 – No site management strategy; no quality/EHS compliance; roles not defined.

Is a clear, signed MOU with the contractor provided? Are contractor personnel listed with qualifications and relevant experience? Is there a plan to coordinate and monitor the contractor for timelines, quality, and safety? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – MOU clear and signed; personnel fully detailed; strong coordination and monitoring plan. 4 – MOU provided; most personnel details given; good coordination plan. 3 – Partial MOU; some personnel details; moderate coordination plan. 2 – Minimal MOU; few personnel details; weak coordination plan. 0–1 – No MOU; no personnel details; no coordination plan.

What strategies does the bidder propose to execute the project safely and efficiently without disrupting airport operations? How does the bidder plan to coordinate with airport authorities, contractors, and stakeholders to manage access, security, and logistics in a live environment? Are there contingency measures in place to handle unforeseen challenges, such as operational delays, safety incidents, or passenger flow disruptions? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Strong strategies; excellent coordination; robust contingency measures. 4 – Good strategies; mostly clear coordination; some contingency measures. 3 – Moderate strategies; partial coordination plan; minimal contingencies. 2 – Weak strategies; limited coordination; few contingency measures. 0–1 – No strategies; no coordination; no contingency measures.

Is there a strategy for efficient manpower deployment and management? Is material movement coordinated to minimize disruption to airport operations? Are systems in place to track manpower and materials to ensure timely execution? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 – Strong manpower strategy; excellent material coordination; robust tracking systems. 4 – Good manpower strategy; mostly coordinated material movement; some tracking systems. 3 – Moderate manpower strategy; partial material coordination; limited tracking systems. 2 – Weak manpower strategy; minimal material coordination; few tracking systems. 0–1 – No strategy; no coordination; no tracking systems.

Scoring Criteria

Is there a strategy to use RRR materials in civil construction (walls, flooring, ceilings, BOH)? Are RRR principles applied in interior finishes (furniture, shelves, décor)? Are quality control and verification processes in place for RRR materials? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong RRR strategy in construction and interiors; robust quality and verification processes. 4 – Good RRR strategy; mostly applied in interiors; some quality checks. 3 – Partial RRR use; limited interior application; moderate verification. 2 – Minimal RRR use; weak interior application; few quality checks. 0–1 – No RRR use; no quality verification.

Is there a strategy to minimize construction and design waste? Are sustainable practices like material optimization, recycling, or modular construction applied? Are monitoring and reporting mechanisms in place to track waste reduction? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong waste reduction strategy; sustainable practices fully applied; robust monitoring and reporting. 4 – Good strategy; mostly sustainable practices applied; some monitoring/reporting. 3 – Partial strategy; limited sustainable practices; moderate monitoring. 2 – Minimal strategy; few sustainable practices; weak monitoring. 0–1 – No strategy; no sustainable practices; no monitoring or reporting.

Does the bidder have a strategy to use electric vehicles (EVs) or low-emission transport methods for material movement during the project? How does the bidder plan to monitor and measure carbon emission reduction achieved through the use of EVs or sustainable logistics practices? Are there contingency plans to maintain efficiency and timelines while prioritizing low-emission material transport methods? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong EV/low-emission strategy; carbon reductions tracked; robust contingency plans. 4 – Good strategy; mostly tracked; some contingency measures. 3 – Partial strategy; limited tracking; moderate contingency planning. 2 – Minimal strategy; weak tracking; few contingency measures. 0–1 – No strategy; no tracking; no contingency plans.

Is there a strategy to segregate C&D waste by material type (concrete, glass, wood, plastic, metal)? Are proper handling, storage, and recycling/disposal processes in place? Are monitoring and reporting mechanisms used to track waste segregation efficiency? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5–6 – Strong segregation strategy; proper handling and recycling; robust monitoring and reporting. 4 – Good segregation strategy; mostly proper handling; some monitoring/reporting. 3 – Partial segregation; limited handling/recycling; moderate monitoring. 2 – Minimal segregation; weak handling; few monitoring measures. 0–1 – No segregation strategy; no handling/recycling; no monitoring.

Scoring Criteria

*Was the presentation well structured? Were the messages clear? Did the presentation contain the right level of information? Was the presentation easy to understand or confusing? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 2 – Presentation very clear, well-structured, and informative. 1 – Presentation somewhat clear; structure or information partially effective. 0 – Presentation unclear, confusing, or lacking necessary information.

Are responses clear, knowledgeable, and aligned with project requirements? Are practical solutions or examples provided to demonstrate capability? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 2 – Responses clear, accurate, and supported with practical examples. 1 – Responses somewhat clear; partial alignment or limited examples. 0 – Responses unclear, inaccurate, or no examples provided.

Max Points

Scoring Criteria

*How many years of retail experience does the bidder have in total? *How many years of experience does the bidder specifically have in airport or high-traffic retail environments? *What is the current number of operational outlets managed by the bidder? Points are quantitatively awarded as follows: 4 points : Bidder has 10+ years of total retail experience, with 5+ years in airport/high-traffic retail, and currently operates more than 15 outlets. 3 points : Bidder has 7–9 years of total retail experience, with 3–5 years in airport/high-traffic retail, and operates 6–15 outlets. 2 points : Bidder has 4–6 years of total retail experience, with at least 2 years in airport/high-traffic retail, and operates 3–5 outlets. 1 point : Bidder has 2–3 years of total retail experience, limited or no airport/high-traffic retail experience, and operates 1–2 outlets. 0 points : Bidder has less than 2 years of retail experience and no significant operational outlets.

*Has the bidder presented a clearly defined structure of their management team? Is there adequate detailing on their operational/aviation/hospitality experience? *Does the corporate structure comprises of independent directors for respective departments? *Does it seem that far too many responsibilities are clustered under one job role? *The bidder's corporate structure has the capabilities to drive the highest levels of customer service and sales at unit level? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Corporate structure is clearly defined, with a well-balanced leadership team including independent directors for core functions; strong detailing of aviation/retail/hospitality experience; structure demonstrates capability to deliver high service and sales excellence. 3 points : Corporate structure is defined with most key roles covered; some aviation/retail/hospitality experience showcased; responsibilities are fairly balanced though not all departments have independent leadership. 2 points : Corporate structure is partially defined; limited details on leadership experience; responsibilities appear clustered under a few roles, with moderate capacity to manage customer service and sales. 1 point : Corporate structure is vague with minimal leadership details; limited or no aviation/retail/hospitality experience; responsibilities heavily concentrated under one or two individuals. 0 points : No meaningful details provided on corporate structure or leadership team.

*What accreditations, certifications, or industry recognitions has the bidder received in the retail or service domain? *Has the bidder been awarded any honours or star ratings for excellence in operations, customer service, or innovation? *Are there any recommendations, testimonials, or endorsements from airports, industry bodies, or reputed institutions that highlight the bidder’s credibility? *Does the bidder hold quality or compliance certifications (e.g., ISO, HACCP, LEED, or equivalent) relevant to retail operations? *How recent and consistent are the awards and recognitions received by the bidder over the past 5–10 years? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Multiple accreditations, certifications, and awards (national/international level); consistent recognition in the past 5–10 years; includes quality/compliance certifications (ISO, HACCP, LEED, etc.) and strong endorsements from reputed institutions/airports. 3 points : Several recognitions or certifications received; some industry awards in the last 5–10 years; bidder holds at least one relevant compliance/quality certification; recommendations/testimonials available. 2 points : Limited recognitions or certifications; awards/honours are occasional or dated; bidder may hold basic compliance certification; few recommendations/testimonials. 1 point : Minimal recognition with only 1–2 awards/certifications; little evidence of consistency; limited endorsements or quality certifications. 0 points : No meaningful accreditations, certifications, awards, or endorsements provided.

*How well does the bidder demonstrate knowledge of current travel retail market dynamics, including passenger demographics and spending behavior? *What is the bidder’s understanding of emerging consumer trends in airport retail (e.g., demand for premium products, digital engagement, sustainability)? *How does the bidder plan to adapt their retail strategy to align with evolving traveler expectations and global retail trends? *Can the bidder provide examples of successful concepts or innovations they have implemented in response to changing consumer behaviors? *What market research, data insights, or analytics does the bidder rely on to stay updated about airport retail trends? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Demonstrates strong and detailed knowledge of travel retail dynamics, supported by market research/analytics; clear understanding of emerging consumer trends (digital, premium, sustainability); presents innovative, proven examples of adapting to traveler expectations. 3 points : Shows good understanding of travel retail market dynamics; identifies consumer trends with some data/insights; provides relevant but fewer examples of adaptation or innovation. 2 points : Displays only a basic or generic understanding of travel retail dynamics; limited awareness of consumer trends; examples of adaptation/innovation are weak or not well evidenced. 1 point : Very limited awareness of market dynamics and trends; response lacks depth or examples; minimal or no data-backed insights. 0 points : No meaningful demonstration of understanding travel retail market dynamics or consumer trends.

*What current CSR initiatives is the bidder implementing in Bangalore / Karnataka (education, environment, health, community development etc.)? *Please provide details of any recent / past CSR projects in Karnataka: scope, budget, partners, outcomes. *What proposed CSR initiatives does the bidder plan for Bangalore / Karnataka in the next 2–3 years? *Does the bidder collaborate with local NGOs, government bodies, or community groups in their CSR work in Karnataka? *What is the budget allocation or resources committed for CSR in Karnataka, and has the bidder demonstrated sustainability (ongoing funding / maintenance) for these initiatives? 4 points : CSR initiatives are well-documented with ongoing and impactful projects in Karnataka; bidder provides clear details on past and current work (scope, budget, outcomes, partnerships); strong and specific future CSR plans with allocated resources; demonstrates collaboration with NGOs/government; evidence of sustainable/long-term commitment. 3 points : CSR initiatives are defined with some projects in Karnataka; bidder shares moderate details of past/current initiatives; has proposed relevant future plans with indicative resource allocation; some collaboration with local partners evident. 2 points : CSR initiatives are limited or generic; only a few projects in Karnataka with minimal details on scope or outcomes; future plans are not well-developed; limited evidence of partnerships or sustainability. 1 point : Very minimal CSR activity in Karnataka; details vague or symbolic; no clear plans for future initiatives; little to no collaboration with local partners. 0 points : No meaningful CSR initiatives in Karnataka mentioned (past, present, or future).

What is the organizational structure of the bidder for managing the proposed outlet, and how are key functions (Design, Finance, Legal, Projects, Operations) aligned? Does the bidder have a clearly defined escalation matrix for issue resolution across different functions, and what are the timelines for response at each level? Who are the designated points of contact for each function (Design, Finance, Legal, Projects, Operations), and what is their level of authority in decision-making? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Organizational structure is clearly defined with proper alignment across all functions (Design, Finance, Legal, Projects, Operations); escalation matrix is detailed with clear timelines and levels; designated points of contact are identified with well-outlined authority/responsibility. 3 points : Organizational structure covers most functions with reasonable clarity; escalation matrix is presented but timelines/levels are partially defined; points of contact are identified but decision-making authority is somewhat limited. 2 points : Organizational structure is partially defined with some functions not clearly represented; escalation matrix is generic with minimal detail on timelines; points of contact are mentioned but roles/authority unclear. 1 point : Organizational structure is vague or incomplete; escalation matrix missing or not clearly explained; little detail on points of contact or authority levels. 0 points : No meaningful details provided on organizational structure, escalation process, or contact authority.

What policies and frameworks does the bidder have in place to ensure compliance with Environmental, Regulatory, and Corporate Responsibility (ERCR) standards? How does the bidder integrate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles into its operations, particularly in high-traffic retail environments such as airports? Has the bidder implemented sustainability initiatives (e.g., waste management, energy efficiency, carbon reduction) and how are these measured or reported? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive ERCR/ESG policies and frameworks are in place and well-documented; strong focus on compliance and governance; bidder has implemented multiple sustainability initiatives with measurable results and transparent reporting; clear integration into airport/high-traffic retail operations. 3 points : Good ERCR/ESG framework with partial documentation; bidder has implemented some sustainability initiatives with evidence of results; reporting mechanisms present but not fully comprehensive; ESG integration into operations is visible but not consistent. 2 points : Basic ERCR/ESG policies exist but lack detail; sustainability initiatives are limited, generic, or in early stages; minimal evidence of measurement or reporting; ESG integration is weak. 1 point : Very limited mention of ERCR/ESG policies; sustainability initiatives are symbolic or one-off; no structured reporting or governance framework. 0 points : No meaningful policies, frameworks, or initiatives related to Corporate Governance, ERCR, or ESG provided.

*What methodology and data sources has the bidder used to derive their projected Average Transaction Value (ATV)? *How has the bidder arrived at the assumed penetration rate (% of passengers purchasing), and is it supported by benchmarks or market research? *What is the bidder’s basis for calculating the projected number of daily transactions, and how realistic are these figures given actual passenger traffic? *Are the bidder’s assumptions for ATV, penetration, and daily transactions internally consistent and aligned with airport market dynamics? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 9–10 points : Methodology is robust, fully documented, and supported by credible data sources; ATV, penetration, and daily transactions are realistic, internally consistent, and benchmarked against similar airport/high-traffic locations. 7–8 points : Methodology is clear and reasonably supported; assumptions are generally realistic and mostly consistent; some benchmark or market research references provided. 5–6 points : Methodology is partially explained; assumptions for ATV, penetration, or daily transactions are somewhat realistic but lack strong supporting evidence; minor inconsistencies observed. 3–4 points : Methodology is unclear or generic; assumptions are not well-supported and show significant inconsistencies; projections may not align with actual market dynamics. 1–2 points : Methodology poorly explained; assumptions largely unrealistic or unsupported; projections not credible. 0 points : No meaningful methodology, assumptions, or supporting data provided.

Scoring Criteria

*Does the proposed organizational structure ensure clear roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines for all functions including FOH, BOH, and Customer Service? *Is the staffing plan adequate to manage peak operational hours while maintaining service quality and efficiency? *Does the plan include trained personnel for housekeeping and hygiene management to ensure compliance with airport retail standards? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Organizational structure is clearly defined with well-aligned roles and reporting lines across FOH, BOH, Customer Service, and other functions; staffing plan is fully adequate for peak hours; trained personnel included for housekeeping and hygiene with clear compliance measures. 3 points : Organizational structure mostly defined with minor gaps in reporting lines; staffing plan adequate with minor risk during peak hours; some trained personnel included for housekeeping and hygiene. 2 points : Organizational structure partially defined with several unclear roles; staffing plan may be insufficient during peak hours; limited focus on trained housekeeping/hygiene personnel. 1 point : Organizational structure vague or incomplete; staffing plan inadequate for operational needs; no clear provision for trained housekeeping or hygiene management. 0 points : No meaningful details provided on organizational structure, staffing plan, or housekeeping/hygiene compliance.

*Does the bidder have a clear strategy to manage peak hour customer volumes efficiently? *Are there staffing plans and operational measures in place to minimize queue times during high-traffic periods? *Does the bidder utilize technology or process innovations (e.g., digital ordering, self-service kiosks) to optimize queue management? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Clear and well-documented strategy for peak hour management; adequate staffing and operational measures in place; innovative technology/process solutions implemented to minimize queue times. 3 points : Strategy for peak hour management is defined but may have minor gaps; staffing and operational measures are mostly adequate; some use of technology/process improvements evident. 2 points : Strategy is partially defined with significant gaps; staffing or operational measures insufficient for peak periods; limited or minimal use of technology/process innovations. 1 point : Strategy is vague or unclear; staffing and operational measures inadequate; no clear technology/process innovations to manage queues. 0 points : No meaningful strategy, staffing plan, or queue management measures provided.

*Does the bidder have a clear plan to minimize packaging waste through sustainable materials or reuse strategies? *What measures does the bidder propose to reduce food waste during storage, preparation, and service? *Is there a system in place to monitor, track, and report waste reduction performance regularly? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive and well-documented plan for packaging and food waste reduction; effective measures in place at all operational stages; robust monitoring, tracking, and reporting system implemented. 3 points : Waste reduction strategy is defined and practical; most measures for packaging and food waste are in place; monitoring and reporting exist but may not be fully comprehensive. 2 points : Strategy partially defined; some measures proposed but not fully implemented; monitoring and tracking system limited or inconsistent. 1 point : Minimal strategy or vague measures for waste reduction; monitoring and reporting largely absent. 0 points : No meaningful plan or measures for packaging or food waste reduction provided.

*What strategies does the bidder propose to increase average transaction value and overall sales? *How does the bidder plan to attract repeat customers and enhance customer loyalty? *Are there innovative promotions, partnerships, or upselling techniques included in the revenue enhancement plan? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive and well-documented revenue enhancement strategy; clear initiatives to increase transaction value and sales; strong focus on repeat customers and loyalty; innovative promotions, partnerships, and upselling techniques clearly presented. 3 points : Revenue enhancement strategy is defined and practical; some initiatives to increase sales and transaction value; moderate focus on customer loyalty; some innovation in promotions or upselling techniques. 2 points : Strategy partially defined; limited initiatives to boost sales or transaction value; minimal focus on customer loyalty; few or generic promotional/upselling ideas. 1 point : Minimal or vague revenue enhancement strategy; negligible focus on increasing sales or repeat customers; no clear promotions or innovative techniques. 0 points : No meaningful revenue enhancement strategy provided.

*Does the bidder have established quality control systems for food, supply chain, hygiene, and manufacturing processes? *What certifications (e.g., ISO, HACCP, FSSAI) does the bidder hold to ensure compliance with industry standards? *How frequently are internal audits conducted, and what mechanisms are in place to address non-compliance or quality issues? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive quality control systems covering all operational areas (food, supply chain, hygiene, manufacturing); multiple recognized certifications (ISO, HACCP, FSSAI, etc.); regular internal audits with documented procedures; robust corrective action mechanisms in place and actively monitored. 3 points : Well-defined quality control systems covering most operational areas; some recognized certifications; periodic audits conducted; mechanisms to address non-compliance mostly clear and functional. 2 points : Basic quality control systems covering key areas but with gaps; limited certifications; audits infrequent or irregular; mechanisms to address non-compliance exist but are not fully structured. 1 point : Minimal quality control systems, few or no certifications; audits rare or ad-hoc; weak or unclear mechanisms for managing non-compliance. 0 points : No meaningful quality control systems, certifications, audits, or non-compliance mechanisms provided.

*What specific measures does the bidder plan to implement to consistently meet all SLA requirements outlined in the RFP? *How does the bidder monitor performance against SLA targets, and what reporting mechanisms are proposed? *What contingency plans or corrective actions are in place if SLA standards are not met during operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Detailed and comprehensive measures to meet all SLA requirements; clear, robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms; well-defined contingency plans and corrective actions fully integrated into operational processes. 3 points : Measures to meet SLA requirements are mostly defined; monitoring and reporting mechanisms are adequate; contingency plans exist but may not cover all scenarios. 2 points : Partial or generic measures for SLA compliance; monitoring and reporting are limited; contingency plans are minimal or loosely defined. 1 point : Vague or insufficient measures for SLA adherence; poor monitoring/reporting; contingency plans unclear or largely absent. 0 points : No meaningful strategy, monitoring, or contingency plan for SLA adherence provided.

*Does the bidder have a documented crisis management plan to address emergencies affecting operations, staff, or customers? *What measures are in place to ensure business continuity during disruptions such as power failures, IT outages, or supply chain interruptions? *How frequently does the bidder conduct drills or reviews to test the effectiveness of their crisis management and business continuity strategies? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive and well-documented crisis management and business continuity plan; robust measures for all critical disruptions; regular drills and reviews conducted, with clear processes to address gaps. 3 points : Crisis management plan is defined and practical; most critical disruptions covered; drills or reviews conducted periodically; minor gaps in processes. 2 points : Basic or partially defined plan; some key disruptions not fully addressed; drills/reviews infrequent; limited mitigation measures. 1 point : Minimal or vague plan; critical disruptions largely unaddressed; drills/reviews rare or ad-hoc; weak mitigation strategies. 0 points : No meaningful crisis management or business continuity plan provided.

*Does the bidder provide a clear and professional uniform policy for all staff, including FOH, BOH, and housekeeping? *Are illustrations or images of the proposed uniforms included to ensure compliance with brand identity and airport standards? *How does the bidder plan to maintain uniform hygiene, replacement cycles, and consistency across all staff members? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive and professional uniform policy for all staff; detailed illustrations/images provided; clear plan for hygiene, replacement cycles, and uniform consistency. 3 points : Well-defined uniform policy covering most staff; some illustrations/images included; plan for hygiene and replacement mostly clear. 2 points : Partial uniform policy; few or generic illustrations/images; hygiene/replacement plan limited or not fully defined. 1 point : Minimal or vague uniform policy; illustrations/images missing or unclear; hygiene/replacement plan weak or poorly defined. 0 points : No meaningful uniform policy, illustrations, or maintenance plan provided.

What training content is included in the staff training program, and how does it align with the overall goals of the organization? How frequently are training sessions conducted for staff, and what methods are used to assess their effectiveness? What processes are in place for updating training materials to ensure they remain relevant and effective for staff development? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive training content fully aligned with organizational goals; regular and structured training sessions; clear assessment methods; robust process for updating training materials. 3 points : Well-defined training content covering most key areas; training conducted periodically; assessment methods present; process for updating materials mostly clear. 2 points : Partial or basic training content; training sessions irregular; limited assessment methods; updating process minimal or ad-hoc. 1 point : Minimal or vague training program; training sessions rare; assessment methods unclear; updating of materials poorly defined. 0 points : No meaningful training content, process, or evaluation mechanism provided.

What specific employee welfare programs are currently in place to support staff well-being? How does the organization incentivize its employees, and what incentives are considered most effective? What ongoing employee development opportunities are provided, and how does the organization support career advancement for its staff? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive welfare programs covering well-being, health, and work-life balance; clear and effective incentive structure; structured employee development and career advancement programs actively implemented. 3 points : Good welfare programs addressing most staff needs; incentives in place with moderate effectiveness; development and career advancement opportunities provided but not fully structured. 2 points : Basic welfare measures; limited or generic incentives; minimal or ad-hoc development opportunities for staff. 1 point : Minimal or vague welfare programs; incentives unclear or ineffective; little to no structured development or career support. 0 points : No meaningful employee welfare programs, incentives, or development initiatives provided.

Does the bidder’s staffing plan comply with the required male-to-female ratio of 60:40 for the outlet? How does the bidder promote diversity and inclusion (D&I) in recruitment, training, and daily operations? Are there monitoring mechanisms in place to ensure ongoing adherence to gender ratio and D&I objectives? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Staffing plan fully complies with 60:40 ratio; proactive D&I initiatives implemented across recruitment, training, and operations; robust monitoring mechanisms ensure ongoing compliance. 3 points : Staffing plan mostly meets 60:40 ratio; D&I initiatives in place but limited in scope; monitoring mechanisms adequate but may have minor gaps. 2 points : Partial compliance with gender ratio; basic or generic D&I initiatives; monitoring mechanisms minimal or inconsistent. 1 point : Staffing plan poorly aligned with gender ratio; minimal D&I initiatives; weak or unclear monitoring mechanisms. 0 points : No meaningful gender ratio or D&I initiatives, and no monitoring mechanisms provided.

Scoring Criteria

What initiatives does the bidder propose to enhance passenger experience and drive consumer engagement at the outlet? Does the bidder have a proven track record of using loyalty programs, digital platforms, or personalized marketing to build long-term consumer relationships? How does the bidder plan to leverage technology, customer feedback, or experiential retail to differentiate its offering in an airport environment? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive and innovative consumer engagement strategy; proven track record of loyalty programs, digital platforms, or personalized marketing; clear plans to leverage technology, customer feedback, and experiential retail for differentiation. 3 points : Well-defined engagement initiatives; some experience with loyalty programs or digital marketing; plans to use technology or feedback are present but moderately developed. 2 points : Partial or generic engagement initiatives; limited experience with loyalty programs or marketing; technology and feedback integration minimal. 1 point : Minimal or vague engagement strategy; no proven track record; little to no use of technology or feedback mechanisms. 0 points : No meaningful consumer engagement strategy provided.

Does the bidder have a comprehensive monthly event calendar planned for promotions, campaigns, or special activities? How does the bidder plan to align their store events and promotions with BIAL’s airport event calendar? What strategies will the bidder implement to maximize customer engagement and revenue during airport events or festivals? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Detailed and well-structured monthly event calendar; clear alignment with BIAL event calendar; innovative strategies to maximize engagement and revenue during all airport events. 3 points : Good event calendar covering most months; partial alignment with BIAL events; strategies to boost engagement and revenue present but moderately developed. 2 points : Partial or generic event calendar; limited alignment with BIAL events; basic or minimal strategies for engagement and revenue. 1 point : Minimal or vague event planning; poor alignment with BIAL events; little to no strategy for engagement or revenue enhancement. 0 points : No meaningful event calendar or strategy provided.

Does the bidder have a detailed marketing and communication strategy that leverages both traditional and digital channels? How does the bidder plan to align its social media and digital campaigns with BLR airport’s official social media handles? What innovative promotional activities does the bidder propose to increase customer engagement and drive footfall at the outlet? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive marketing and communication strategy covering traditional and digital channels; fully aligned with BLR airport’s social media handles; innovative and well-planned promotional activities that maximize engagement and footfall. 3 points : Well-defined marketing strategy covering most channels; partial alignment with BLR social media; promotional activities present but moderately developed. 2 points : Basic or partial marketing strategy; limited alignment with BLR social media; minimal or generic promotional activities. 1 point : Minimal or vague marketing strategy; poor alignment with BLR social media; little to no innovative promotional activities. 0 points : No meaningful marketing, communication, or promotional strategy provided.

Does the bidder have a clear visual merchandising strategy that reflects the brand identity and enhances the customer experience? How does the bidder plan to maintain a consistent brand environment across all areas of the store, including FOH and display zones? Are there innovative or seasonal merchandising concepts proposed to attract customers and drive sales? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive visual merchandising strategy fully aligned with brand identity; consistent and engaging brand environment maintained across all areas; innovative and seasonal merchandising concepts clearly proposed. 3 points : Well-defined merchandising strategy; brand environment mostly consistent; some innovative or seasonal concepts included. 2 points : Partial or generic merchandising strategy; inconsistent brand environment; limited or minimal innovative concepts. 1 point : Minimal or vague merchandising strategy; poor brand consistency; little to no innovative merchandising concepts. 0 points : No meaningful visual merchandising strategy or brand environment plan provided.

Does the bidder have a detailed store launch plan, including timelines, resource allocation, and pre-opening activities? How does the bidder plan to ensure operational readiness, staff training, and compliance with airport regulations before the store launch? Are there marketing and promotional strategies proposed by the bidder to drive customer traffic during the store opening phase? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive and well-structured store launch plan; clear timelines, resources, and pre-opening activities; operational readiness fully ensured with trained staff and compliance measures; detailed marketing and promotional strategies for launch. 3 points : Well-defined launch plan covering most key activities; operational readiness and staff training mostly ensured; marketing strategies proposed but moderately developed. 2 points : Partial or basic launch plan; operational readiness or compliance measures minimally addressed; limited marketing or promotional strategies. 1 point : Minimal or vague launch plan; operational readiness and compliance poorly addressed; little to no marketing or promotional strategy. 0 points : No meaningful store launch plan provided.

Does the bidder have a structured approach to collecting and analyzing customer feedback through surveys, digital tools, or in-store interactions? How does the bidder monitor service performance and identify areas requiring improvement? What mechanisms are in place for service recovery to promptly address customer complaints and enhance satisfaction? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive and well-structured approach to collecting, analyzing, and acting on customer feedback; robust monitoring of service performance; clear and effective service recovery mechanisms implemented to enhance customer satisfaction. 3 points : Well-defined feedback collection and analysis approach; service performance monitored adequately; service recovery mechanisms present but moderately developed. 2 points : Partial or basic feedback collection process; monitoring of service performance limited; service recovery mechanisms minimal or inconsistently applied. 1 point : Minimal or vague approach to gathering customer insights; little to no monitoring; weak or unclear service recovery mechanisms. 0 points : No structured strategy for customer feedback, monitoring, or service recovery provided.

Does the bidder have a defined strategy to measure and improve Net Promoter Score (NPS) and overall customer experience? How does the bidder plan to act on customer feedback to enhance service quality and drive higher satisfaction scores? Are there processes in place to benchmark customer experience against industry standards or airport retail best practices? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive strategy to measure and improve NPS; proactive mechanisms to act on feedback; benchmarking against industry standards clearly defined and implemented. 3 points : Well-defined NPS and customer experience strategy; feedback acted upon; benchmarking present but moderately detailed. 2 points : Basic or partial strategy for NPS; limited use of customer feedback; benchmarking minimally applied. 1 point : Minimal or vague approach to NPS or customer experience; little to no action on feedback; no benchmarking process. 0 points : No strategy for NPS measurement, customer experience improvement, or benchmarking provided.

Scoring Criteria

Does the bidder leverage technology such as digital invoicing and real-time data analytics to improve operational efficiency? How does the bidder use trend monitoring and customer feedback systems to drive business decisions and enhance service quality? Are there integration plans for technology systems across FOH, BOH, and inventory management to ensure seamless operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive use of technology for invoicing, analytics, trend monitoring, and feedback; integrated systems across FOH, BOH, and inventory; technology clearly improves operational efficiency and decision-making. 3 points : Well-defined use of technology in most areas; moderate integration across operations; technology contributes to operational efficiency. 2 points : Partial or basic use of technology; limited integration; moderate impact on operations and service quality. 1 point : Minimal or vague use of technology; poor or no integration; little impact on operational efficiency. 0 points : No use of technology in operations or feedback systems.

Does the bidder have a clear plan to integrate store operations with BIAL’s digital platforms such as EPOS, BLR Pay, and FSTR? How will the bidder ensure seamless adoption of BLR Pulse and Pulse Rewards for enhanced customer engagement and loyalty tracking? Are there staff training and technical support measures in place to maintain smooth operations across all BIAL digital platforms? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive integration plan across all BIAL digital platforms; full adoption strategy with trained staff; robust technical support; clear impact on operational efficiency and customer engagement. 3 points : Well-defined integration for most platforms; moderate adoption strategy; staff trained; technical support present but not fully comprehensive. 2 points : Partial or basic integration plan; limited adoption strategy; some staff training; minimal technical support. 1 point : Minimal or vague integration approach; poor adoption plan; little to no staff training or technical support. 0 points : No integration plan or strategy for BIAL digital platforms.

Does the bidder leverage AI or other innovative technologies to provide personalized product or service recommendations to customers? How does the bidder plan to use data analytics and AI insights to enhance the overall customer experience in the store? Are there processes in place to measure the effectiveness of AI-driven recommendations in driving engagement, loyalty, and sales? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points : Comprehensive use of AI/innovative technologies across customer touchpoints; strong integration with data analytics; processes in place to measure and optimize personalized recommendations; demonstrable impact on engagement, loyalty, and sales. 3 points : Well-defined AI/innovation strategy for most customer interactions; moderate use of data analytics; some measurement processes in place; noticeable impact on engagement or sales. 2 points : Limited or partial use of AI or innovation; minimal analytics integration; few measurement mechanisms; limited impact on customer experience. 1 point : Vague or minimal use of AI/innovations; no structured analytics or measurement; negligible impact on engagement or personalization. 0 points : No use of AI or innovative technologies for personalized customer recommendations.

Scoring Criteria

How does the bidder ensure that the brand positioning aligns with the demographics and preferences of airport passengers? What strategies does the bidder propose to cater to varying consumption patterns of domestic and international travelers? Does the bidder have plans to tailor product offerings, promotions, or store ambiance to match the airport environment and passenger expectations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 points : Clear and well-researched alignment of brand positioning with airport passenger demographics; comprehensive strategies for domestic and international travelers; detailed tailoring of products, promotions, and store ambiance; demonstrated understanding of airport consumer behavior. 4 points : Good alignment with passenger demographics; strategies proposed for most traveler segments; some tailoring of products or promotions; good understanding of airport consumer behavior. 3 points : Partial alignment with passenger demographics; limited strategies for different traveler types; minimal tailoring of offerings; some understanding of airport consumer behavior. 2 points : Vague alignment with passenger demographics; few strategies for traveler segments; little consideration for product or ambiance tailoring; weak understanding of airport consumer behavior. 1 point : Poor alignment with passenger demographics; no clear strategies for traveler types; negligible tailoring of offerings; minimal understanding of airport consumer behavior. 0 points : No consideration for airport passenger demographics, preferences, or consumption patterns; no strategies or tailoring proposed.

Does the bidder have a proven track record of leadership or strong market presence in the relevant retail category? What strategies does the bidder propose to maintain or strengthen category leadership within the airport environment? How does the bidder plan to differentiate its offerings from competitors to sustain a leadership position in the category? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 points : Clear, documented category leadership with strong market share; innovative strategies in place; demonstrable differentiation from competitors; evidence of consistent performance in airport/high-traffic retail. 4 points : Established presence in the category with good market share; strategies for leadership and differentiation are defined; some evidence of airport/high-traffic relevance. 3 points : Moderate presence in the category; strategies for leadership partially defined; differentiation from competitors is limited; relevance to airport retail demonstrated but not strongly. 2 points : Limited presence in the category; minimal strategies for maintaining leadership; differentiation weak; limited evidence of airport/high-traffic relevance. 1 point : Very minor presence in the category; no clear strategies for leadership or differentiation; minimal relevance to airport retail. 0 points : No evidence of category leadership or market presence; no strategies; no differentiation; not relevant to airport retail.

Has the bidder received any industry awards or recognition that demonstrate excellence in retail, customer service, or operational performance? How do the bidder’s awards and recognitions reflect their credibility and reliability in managing high-traffic or airport retail operations? Are there any recent achievements that highlight the bidder’s innovation, sustainability, or customer experience initiatives? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 points : Multiple prestigious awards/recognitions across relevant domains; strong evidence of credibility, operational excellence, and innovation; recent achievements within the last 2–3 years. 4 points : Several notable awards/recognitions; clear evidence of operational reliability and customer service excellence; at least one recent achievement relevant to airport/high-traffic retail. 3 points : Some awards/recognitions; evidence of credibility or operational performance; achievements may be older than 3 years or partially relevant. 2 points : Limited awards/recognitions; minimal evidence of operational excellence or customer service; achievements not recent or only partially relevant. 1 point : Very minimal or obscure awards; limited evidence of credibility or achievements; relevance to airport retail is weak. 0 points : No awards or recognitions; no evidence of credibility, operational performance, or achievements.

Does the bidder have mechanisms in place to collect and analyze consumer feedback regarding products, services, and overall store experience? How does the bidder use consumer feedback to adapt offerings, improve service, and increase customer satisfaction? Are there documented examples or case studies demonstrating high consumer acceptance of the bidder’s products or services in similar retail environments? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 points: Robust, well-documented consumer feedback mechanisms; proactive use of feedback to optimize products/services; multiple examples/case studies demonstrating high acceptance and satisfaction in similar airport or high-traffic retail environments. 4 points: Good feedback collection and analysis methods; feedback used effectively for improvements; at least one example demonstrating consumer acceptance. 3 points: Moderate feedback mechanisms in place; some use of feedback to make changes; limited examples of consumer acceptance. 2 points: Minimal feedback collection methods; feedback rarely used to drive improvements; no clear examples of consumer acceptance. 1 point: Feedback mechanisms are poorly defined; no evidence of using feedback for service/product improvement; no examples of consumer acceptance. 0 points: No mechanisms to collect or analyze consumer feedback; no evidence of consumer acceptance or improvements.

How does the bidder define and quantify the total addressable market for their products or services within the airport environment? Does the bidder have a clear understanding of the target consumer profile, including demographics, travel patterns, and spending behavior? What strategies does the bidder propose to effectively capture and serve the identified TAM in alignment with passenger needs and preferences? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 points: Comprehensive and well-quantified TAM with detailed consumer profiling; strategies are highly targeted and clearly aligned with passenger needs; strong evidence of market understanding. 4 points: Good TAM estimation with clear consumer profiling; strategies mostly aligned with passenger needs; some evidence of market insight. 3 points: Moderate TAM definition with basic consumer profiling; strategies are generic with limited alignment to passenger needs. 2 points: Minimal TAM estimation; consumer profiling is weak or incomplete; strategies are vague and not well-aligned with passenger behavior. 1 point: Poorly defined TAM; little to no consumer profiling; strategies are unclear or not actionable. 0 points: No TAM definition; no understanding of target consumers; no strategies provided.

Scoring Criteria

Does the bidder have a clear pricing strategy that balances competitiveness, profitability, and perceived value for airport consumers? How does the bidder differentiate its product offerings to create a compelling value proposition for travelers? Are there mechanisms in place to review and adjust pricing based on market trends, consumer demand, and competitive landscape? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points: Pricing strategy is comprehensive, highly competitive, and clearly aligned with profitability goals; strong differentiation of product offerings; robust mechanisms for monitoring and adjusting prices based on market trends. 3 points: Pricing strategy is clear and generally aligned with profitability; some differentiation of products; mechanisms to review pricing exist but may not be fully systematic. 2 points: Pricing strategy is basic or partially defined; limited product differentiation; pricing review mechanisms are ad hoc or inconsistent. 1 point: Pricing strategy is unclear or not well justified; minimal differentiation of offerings; no formal mechanisms for price adjustments. 0 points: No pricing strategy or value proposition provided; no differentiation or mechanisms to adjust prices.

Does the bidder offer a well-defined range of products and services that cater to the needs and preferences of airport travelers? How does the bidder ensure the product and service mix remains relevant, innovative, and competitive in a high-traffic airport environment? Are there plans to introduce new products or services periodically to enhance customer engagement and drive sales? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points: Comprehensive, well-defined product/service range that is highly relevant and appealing to airport travelers; demonstrates innovation and competitiveness; clear plan for periodic updates or new introductions. 3 points: Good product/service range that meets traveler needs; some innovation or competitive elements; periodic updates or new introductions planned but not fully detailed. 2 points: Basic product/service range that partially meets traveler needs; limited innovation or differentiation; minimal plans for updates or new offerings. 1 point: Narrow or unclear product/service range; little innovation or competitive edge; no clear plan for new introductions. 0 points: No clear product or service strategy; offerings not relevant or competitive for airport environment.

Does the bidder offer products or packaging that are exclusive to airport travelers or specifically designed for BLR Airport? How does the bidder plan to differentiate travel-exclusive offerings from standard retail products to enhance customer appeal? Are there strategies in place to update or rotate airport-exclusive products regularly to maintain novelty and drive repeat purchases? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points: Clearly defined travel-exclusive or BLR airport-specific products/packaging; highly differentiated from standard retail; strong plan for regular updates or rotation to drive repeat purchases and maintain novelty. 3 points: Travel-exclusive products/packaging mostly defined; moderate differentiation; some plans for updates or rotation to maintain interest. 2 points: Limited travel-exclusive products/packaging; minimal differentiation; few plans for rotation or updates. 1 point: Very few or unclear travel-exclusive offerings; little to no differentiation; no clear plan for updates or rotations. 0 points: No travel-exclusive or BLR-specific products/packaging; standard retail offerings only; no novelty or differentiation.

How does the bidder ensure product differentiation to stand out in the airport retail environment? What strategies are in place to maintain merchandise freshness and ensure high-quality products at all times? How does the bidder approach menu engineering, including product mix, rotation frequency, and optimization to maximize sales and customer satisfaction? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points: Strong product differentiation strategy clearly articulated; robust processes to ensure merchandise freshness at all times; comprehensive menu engineering plan with well-defined rotation frequency and optimization to maximize sales and customer satisfaction. 3 points: Good product differentiation; adequate measures to maintain freshness; menu engineering plan defined with some rotation and optimization strategies. 2 points: Limited product differentiation; basic freshness maintenance measures; menu engineering plan exists but is minimally defined or infrequently updated. 1 point: Very little product differentiation; inadequate or unclear freshness strategy; menu engineering plan poorly defined with minimal rotation or optimization. 0 points: No product differentiation; no measures to maintain freshness; no menu engineering or product optimization strategy in place.

Does the bidder provide nutritional information such as Atwater factors to help consumers make informed choices? Are accessibility measures like Braille menus included to ensure inclusivity for all customers? How does the bidder ensure compliance with fair trade practices and BIS certification standards in their products and operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4 points: Comprehensive provision of nutritional information (detailed Atwater factors); fully accessible Braille menus available; strict adherence to fair trade practices; all products and operations comply with BIS certification standards. 3 points: Nutritional information mostly provided; Braille menus partially available; fair trade practices generally followed; majority of products comply with BIS certification. 2 points: Nutritional information provided but limited or unclear; minimal accessibility measures (few Braille menus); fair trade practices partially implemented; partial BIS compliance. 1 point: Nutritional information not well presented; no accessibility measures; fair trade practices and BIS certification standards poorly implemented. 0 points: No nutritional information; no accessibility measures; no adherence to fair trade practices; no BIS certification compliance.

Does the bidder offer certified organic products or dishes in the menu, and how is certification verified? Are there processes in place to maintain the quality and authenticity of organic offerings throughout the supply chain? How does the bidder leverage B Corp certification to demonstrate sustainability, social responsibility, and ethical business practices? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 points: Full range of certified organic products/dishes with proper documentation; robust processes to maintain quality and authenticity; actively leverages B Corp certification across operations demonstrating sustainability and ethical practices. 4 points: Majority of products/dishes are certified organic; processes mostly ensure quality and authenticity; B Corp certification practices demonstrated with minor gaps. 3 points: Some organic products/dishes offered; processes partially maintain quality; B Corp certification referenced but limited application. 2 points: Few organic products/dishes offered; weak processes for quality; minimal demonstration of B Corp or sustainability practices. 1 point: Organic offerings unclear or unverifiable; quality/authenticity processes absent; B Corp certification not demonstrated. 0 points: No organic offerings; no quality/authenticity processes; no B Corp certification or sustainability practices.

Scoring Criteria

How original and innovative is the overall concept proposed by the bidder, and does it demonstrate creative excellence consistent with the project vision? How well does the design concept align with the brand’s story, values, and identity while adapting to the airport/high-traffic environment? Does the bidder incorporate distinctive features or value-add elements that differentiate the outlet and enhance customer experience beyond the brief? How does the bidder justify any deviations from the design brief, and what benefits do these deviations bring to the overall concept? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

How effectively does the proposed concept design translate the brand story into the store environment? Are the design elements tailored to the lifestyle, preferences, and needs of the identified target customer segment? Does the use of brand-specific colour palettes, materials, and finishes reinforce brand recognition and identity? How does the design demonstrate modularity and flexibility, allowing for future reconfiguration without major disruption to operations? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide detailed plans for modular display fixtures, shelving systems, and furniture, including off-site fabrication details? How does the proposed design allow for flexible reconfiguration of the layout to accommodate seasonal collections or operational changes? Are the modular and adaptable elements designed for ease of assembly, durability, and minimal disruption to store operations? Does the bidder include strategies to ensure that modularity enhances both customer experience and operational efficiency? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide clear zoning plans that effectively segregate customer-facing display areas from back-of-house (BOH) operational spaces? How are service spaces, such as electrical rooms and storerooms, integrated within the layout to ensure accessibility and operational efficiency? Does the layout demonstrate logical spatial flow that facilitates smooth operations for staff and an intuitive experience for customers? How is customer movement from entry to exit mapped, and are all key touchpoints clearly identified and optimized for engagement? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide a clear entry-to-exit route mapping that ensures a seamless customer journey through the outlet? How are key customer touchpoints identified, and what strategies are proposed to maximize engagement at these points? Are technology-driven or experiential elements incorporated to enhance customer interaction and support intuitive navigation? Does the design use visual cues effectively to guide customers and create a memorable in-store experience? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the proposed design incorporate features that support Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) throughout the outlet? How does the design ensure compliance with accessibility codes and standards as outlined in the Design Guidelines? Are circulation spaces, ramps, and counters designed to provide safe and convenient access for all customers, including PRMs? Does the layout facilitate seamless navigation and inclusivity without compromising operational efficiency or customer experience? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide a minimum of four high-quality interior 3D renderings and at least one façade view? Do the renderings accurately reflect realistic textures, finishes, lighting, and spatial proportions? Are site conditions, circulation, and functional layout clearly represented in the 3D visuals? How effectively do the renderings communicate the design intent and overall customer experience of the outlet? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder incorporate existing site elements such as AC nozzles, speakers, Wi-Fi routers, and other utilities accurately in the visualizations? How well do the submitted visuals reflect actual site adjacencies, spatial constraints, and operational considerations? Are the renderings of photorealistic quality to facilitate visual approval and accurate stakeholder understanding? Does the design account for any site-specific challenges while maintaining functional and aesthetic integrity? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide a detailed CAPEX breakdown for all components, including design consultancy fees, civil/interior construction, FF&E, MEP services, IT integration, sustainable materials, prefabrication, RRR materials, and PMC? How transparent and justified are the cost allocations for sustainable LEED-certified and RRR materials compared to conventional options? Are the CAPEX estimates realistic and aligned with industry standards for airport retail outlets, ensuring value for money without compromising quality? Does the CAPEX breakdown include provisions for contingencies, lead times, and any potential cost variations during project execution? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

How does the bidder integrate technology and AI-driven solutions, such as predictive analytics, AI-powered wayfinding, smart kiosks, or adaptive lighting, to enhance customer experience? Are digital and immersive experiences, including AR/VR installations, interactive media walls, or gamified touchpoints, incorporated to engage customers effectively? How are personalization and customer-centric features, enabled through data insights, loyalty integration, or smart retail/F&B systems, embedded in the design? What is the proposed strategy for using prefabricated panels or structures, and what percentage of total construction do they represent in the project? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Which outlet elements are planned for prefabrication, and what percentage of the total construction does this represent? How does prefabrication contribute to quality, construction speed, and sustainability in the project? How is the proposed design aligned with base build specifications, including electrical loads, HVAC capacity, chilled water availability, and plumbing points? Are tap-off points for HVAC, isolators, and plumbing connections properly mapped and compared with existing site conditions to ensure compatibility and minimal modification? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Which outlet elements are planned to be constructed using prefabricated panels or structures, and what percentage of the total construction does this represent? How does the use of prefabrication contribute to improved quality, faster construction timelines, and sustainability benefits? How is the proposed design adapted to existing base build specifications, including electrical loads, HVAC capacity, chilled water availability, and plumbing points? Are tap-off points for HVAC, isolators, and plumbing connections properly mapped and compared with existing site conditions to ensure seamless integration and minimal modifications? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder have prior experience using Building Information Modelling (BIM) in previous projects, and can specific examples be provided? How has the bidder implemented document control software/portals in earlier projects to manage project documentation effectively? What is the proposed strategy for integrating BIM and document control systems for the current project? How will BIM and document control enhance coordination, reduce errors, and ensure timely delivery in the proposed outlet project? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Scoring Criteria

What is the experience and track record of the appointed PMC (internal or external) in managing similar airport retail or high-traffic projects? How will the PMC coordinate with the store team, contractors, and airport authorities to ensure timely and quality project delivery? Are there documented processes or methodologies followed by the PMC to monitor progress, manage risks, and resolve project issues efficiently? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide a clear organizational structure for the PMC team, including roles and reporting lines for on-site deployment? Are detailed profiles of key PMC personnel, including qualifications and relevant experience, included for evaluation? How does the PMC plan to allocate resources on-site to ensure effective project management, monitoring, and timely issue resolution? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

What is the PMC’s past experience in delivering similar projects on time, within budget, and meeting quality standards? What strategies and methodologies does the PMC propose to manage project timelines, control costs, and ensure quality throughout the execution? How does the PMC handle unforeseen challenges or deviations to maintain adherence to time, cost, and quality objectives? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide client or contractor testimonials that demonstrate successful project delivery, adherence to timelines, and budget compliance? Are there verifiable performance metrics from past projects to support the PMC’s claims on time, cost, and quality management? How does the bidder plan to use lessons learned from past projects to ensure improved performance for this assignment? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

What is the experience and track record of the appointed architect/designer firm in managing similar airport retail or high-traffic projects? Are detailed profiles of key architects/designers, including qualifications and relevant project experience, provided for evaluation? How will the appointed architect/designer coordinate with the PMC and other stakeholders to ensure design quality, compliance, and timely delivery? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide a detailed Gantt chart showing task-wise timelines, key milestones, and dependencies for the entire project duration? How does the bidder plan to track and report daily progress updates in alignment with the RFP requirements? Are there contingency plans included in the schedule to address potential delays or dependencies that could impact project delivery? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

What is the bidder’s strategy to manage the project site effectively, ensuring coordination across all verticals and timely execution? How does the bidder ensure quality control and adherence to EHS (Environment, Health, and Safety) standards throughout the project lifecycle? Are the personnel deployed across different verticals clearly defined in terms of roles, responsibilities, and expertise to manage operations efficiently? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder provide a clear and signed MOU with the contractor outlining roles, responsibilities, and scope of work? Are the personnel deployed by the contractor clearly listed, with details of their qualifications and relevant experience? How does the bidder plan to coordinate and monitor the contractor’s team to ensure adherence to project timelines, quality standards, and safety protocols? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

What strategies does the bidder propose to execute the project safely and efficiently without disrupting airport operations? How does the bidder plan to coordinate with airport authorities, contractors, and stakeholders to manage access, security, and logistics in a live environment? Are there contingency measures in place to handle unforeseen challenges, such as operational delays, safety incidents, or passenger flow disruptions? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

What is the bidder’s strategy for efficient deployment and management of manpower across different project activities? How does the bidder plan to coordinate the movement of materials within the site while minimizing disruption to airport operations? Are there systems in place to track manpower utilization and material logistics to ensure timely execution and prevent delays? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Scoring Criteria

Does the bidder have a defined strategy to use RRR materials in civil construction, including wall finishes, flooring, ceilings, and BOH areas? How does the bidder plan to incorporate RRR principles in interior finishes such as furniture, wall shelves, and décor items? Are there quality control and verification processes in place to ensure that RRR materials meet durability, safety, and aesthetic standards throughout the project? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder have a clear strategy to minimize construction and design waste throughout the project lifecycle? How are sustainable practices, such as material optimization, recycling, and modular construction, integrated into the design and construction processes? Are there monitoring and reporting mechanisms to track waste reduction performance and ensure compliance with sustainability objectives? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder have a strategy to use electric vehicles (EVs) or low-emission transport methods for material movement during the project? How does the bidder plan to monitor and measure carbon emission reduction achieved through the use of EVs or sustainable logistics practices? Are there contingency plans to maintain efficiency and timelines while prioritizing low-emission material transport methods? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Does the bidder have a clear strategy to segregate construction and demolition waste by material type, including concrete, glass, wood, plastic, and metal? How does the bidder ensure proper handling, storage, and recycling or disposal of segregated waste in compliance with environmental standards? Are there monitoring and reporting mechanisms in place to track waste segregation efficiency and minimize environmental impact? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Scoring Criteria

Does the presentation demonstrate clarity, logical flow, and professional quality in its content and visuals? How comprehensively does the presentation cover all relevant subjects, including operational, project management, sustainability, and marketing aspects? Are the key points, strategies, and supporting details communicated effectively to facilitate evaluation and decision-making? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

How effectively does the bidder address questions raised during the presentation, demonstrating clarity, knowledge, and understanding of the project requirements? Are the responses by the bidder comprehensive, accurate, and aligned with the RFP objectives and evaluation criteria? Does the bidder provide practical solutions or examples when responding to queries, showcasing experience and capability to execute the project successfully? Points are quantitatively awarded as under:

Scoring Criteria

*How many years of retail experience does the bidder have in total? *How many years of experience does the bidder specifically have in airport or high-traffic retail environments? *What is the current number of operational outlets managed by the bidder? Points are quantitatively awarded as follows: 16-20 : Company Profile and History was well presented and the company has a rich experience 11-15 : Company History detailed with origin, Landmarks & Milestone highlighted & Overall Establishment is more than 10 years 9-10 : Company History detailed with origin, Landmarks & Milestone highlighted & Overall Establishment more than 5 years 7-8 : Company History Not much detailed origin & Overall market existence 4yrs to 5 yrs 5-6 : Company History detailed with origin & Overall Establishment with 3 yrs market existence 3-4 : Company History Not much detailed origin & Milestone highlighted & Overall market existence 2yrs to 3yrs 1-2 : Company History Not much detailed origin & Milestone highlighted & Overall market existence less than 1 yr 0 : Company History & Overall market existence not much detailed

* What is Bidders average turnover in Last 3 FY's ? * What is Bidders turnover in the current year ? * Is the Bidder a growing company in airport retail space ? Points are quantitatively awarded as follows: 17-20 pts : More than ₹50 Cr turnover 14-16 pts : More than ₹30 Cr turnover 10-13 pts : More than ₹10 Cr turnover 7-9 pts : More than ₹5 Cr turnover 4-6 pts : More than ₹3 Cr turnover 2-3 pts : Close to ₹1 Cr turnover 0-1 pt : Close to ₹10Lakhs turnover

*How many retail stores/outlets is the bidder operating as on date? *How many locations does the bidder currently operate in? *Does the bidder operate in any of the international airports ? or International retail location with high traffic ? Points are quantitatively awarded as follows: 17-20 pts : number of outlets operated : > 40 Point of Sales 14-16 pts : number of outlets operated : > 30 Point of Sales 11-13 pts : number of outlets operated : > 20 Point of Sales 7-10 pts : number of outlets operated : > 10 Point of Sales 4-6 pts : number of outlets operated : > 5 Point of Sales 0-3 pts : number of outlets operated : less than 5 Point of Sales

*Has the bidder presented a clearly defined structure of their management team? Is there adequate detailing on their operational/aviation/hospitality experience? *Does the corporate structure comprises of independent directors for respective departments? *Does it seem that far too many responsibilities are clustered under one job role? *The bidder's corporate structure has the capabilities to drive the highest levels of customer service and sales at unit level? Points are quantitatively awarded as follows: 17-20 pts : Elaborate and detailed presentation about Leadership team and Org Structure 12-16 pts: Fairly detailed presentation about the Leadership team and Org Structure 8-15 pts: Limited details were presented about the Leadership team and Org Structure 4-7 pts: Very little inputs were provided about the Leadership team and Org Structur 2-3 pts: Presentation failed to give any inputs on the corporate HQ structure and the global leadership team 0-1 pts: The Bidder did not present anything

*What kind of awards or recogniition the operator has received for its business? *What is the market goodwill of Bidder's business in airport retail space ? Points are quantitatively awarded as follows: 13-20 pts : Recognition at International & National Level, Earned many awards and recognition 8-12 pts: Shown Notable Awards and Recognition 4-7 pts: Not recieved much awards & recognition 1-3 pts: Limited details presented 0 pts: No details Presented

*What considerations, value contributions has the bidder shown towards social responsibility? *Has the bidder shared anything on reducing carbon foot print by its operations? *Does the bidder show commitment towards employment for the differently abled ? *Do their CSR contribute in the areas of education, rural development? *Are the strategies alinged to water, sustainability, energy conservation? *Does the bidder indicate that they will contribute to BIAL's commitments in CRS activities? *Has the bidder shown any evidence or recognition of its claimed CSR activities? Points are awarded according to the evidences / recognition of CSR efforts were shown by the bidder towards these social concerns. 8-10 pts : Excellent Strategy on CSR & sustainbility, exhibited confidence in presenting Green points and Carbon foot prints 6-7 pts : Strategy on CSR activity was presented along with detailed presentation on sustainablity & process on green points & carbon foot print 4-5 pts : Good details on CSR, sustainablity & Green points presented 2-3 pts: Limited details were presented 1 pts : presented limited details without any supporting evidences 0 pts : did not present at all

Scoring Criteria

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 18-20 pts: Profile and History of the brand has been exceptional, its a reputed international brand 15-17 pts: Suggested brand has good International postioning and market acceptance 11-16 pts: Suggested brand has good brand recall value and details provided were satisfactory 8-10 pts: Suggested brand limited international presence, but is well known in the Indian market 4-7 pts: Suggested brand is young and limited market acceptance/Limited details 2-3 pts: Limited details were presented 0-1 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 14-15 pts: Brand has more than 100 years of experience 12-13 pts: Brand has 80-100 years of experience 10-11 pts: Brand has 60-80 years of experience 8-9 pts: Brand has 40-60 years of experience 6-7 pts: Brand has 20-40 years experience 4-5 pts: Brand has 10-20 years experience 2-3 pts: Brand has less than 10 years experience 0-1 pts: Less than 5 years experience

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 14-15 pts: Very Strong Global Presence, International brand 11-13 pts: Strong Global Presence 8-10 pts: Fairly diverse presence globally 4-7 pts: Limited global presence 0-3 pts: No international presence

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 14-15 pts: Brand has excellent recognition and exhibted capabilities of uniqueness in terms of innovation and leadership 11-13 pts: Brand has shown detailed presentation on productline & customer experience & good points on innovation 8-10 pts: Brand has good productline & good showed promise on customer experience and market acceptance 6-7 pts: Few details presented on positoning and market acceptance 4-5 pts: Very limited details presented on the positioning of the brand 2-3 pts: Productline & Customer experience needed lots of improvement 0-1 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: Excellent details illustrated 6-7 pts: Good details illustrated 4-5 pts: Limited details were presented 2-3 pts: Basic details were provided 0-1 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: Recognition at International Level, Earned many awards and recognition 6-7 pts: Global Recognition and other Notable awards, shown notable awards and recognition 4-5 pts: Not much of awards & recognition 2-3 pts: Limited details presented 0-1 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: Excellent Strategy on understanding CSR & sustainbility, exhibited confidence in presenting Green points and Carbon foot prints 6-7 pts: Strategy on CSR activity was presented along with detailed presentation on sustainablity & process on green points & carbon foot print 4-5 pts: Good details on CSR, sustainablity & Green points presented 2-3 pts: Limited details were presented 0-1 pts: No details were presented

Scoring Criteria

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: Excellent details illustrated 6-7 pts: Good details illustrated 4-5 pts: Limited details were presented 2-3 pts: Basic details were provided 0-1 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: Excellent details illustrated 6-7 pts: Good details illustrated 4-5 pts: Limited details were presented 2-3 pts: Basic details were provided 0-1 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 20-25 pts: Excellent details illustrated 15-19 pts: Good details illustrated 10-14 pts: Limited details were presented 5-9 pts: Basic details were provided 0-4 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts: Elaborate details were presented 3 pts: Good details were presented 2 pts: Basic details were presented 1 pts: Poor details were presented 0 pts: No details were presented

*What kind of sustainability initiatives, green practices has the bidder / designer proposed? *Has the bidder considered sustainability of materials in the design and interiors? *Will the materials be 'green'? *Does the bidder/designer present an intent to design the outlet as a highly efficient & energy-saving store? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts: Elaborate details were presented 3 pts: Good details were presented 2 pts: Basic details were presented 1 pts: Poor details were presented 0 pts: No details were presented

Scoring Criteria

*Was a detailed organization structure & work matrix presented mentioning key positions? *What are the key SLA's & SOP's bidder proposes to adhere? Has bidder shared a checklist ? *Has the bidder presented a strategy on how to adhere to the operational service level agreements (SLA) & Standard operating procedures (SOP) *Does the SLA's & SOP's adherence strategy cover BIAL’s expectations on quality, performance and value of the services to be provided in a clear and measurable manner? *Do SLA strategy comprise of qualitative & quantitative measurements - how the outputs of the service provision are measured? *What are the key performance indicators of both qualitative and quantitative metrics? *What IT enabled tools/apps does the bidder use for such in its organisation? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts : Elaborate details were presented 3 pts : Good details were presented 2 pts : Basic details were presented 1pts : Poor details presented 0 pts: No details presented

*Has the bidder defined "Demand Management" by creating inventory thresholds for products & planning for inventory well in advance ? *Has the bidder defined "Supply Management" by creating a process & planning for re-order & stock delivery from different brands/suppliers ? *Has the bidder defined "Product Portfolio" for continuously introducing new products & brands ? *Has the bidder defined "Warehouse Management" planning for upkeep of stocks locally in Bangalore? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts : Elaborate details were presented 3 pts : Good details were presented 2 pts : Basic details were presented 1pts : Poor details presented 0 pts: No details presented

*Has the bidder clearly defined quality in its operations - checklists etc? *What existing process of inspection & assurance are followed? *Is there a quality assurance manager profile in the unit structure? *The bidder clearly defines the strategy it will adopt for quality control planning ? *It presents the schedule of weekly/monthly/quarterly audits, external vendor audit? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts : Elaborate details were presented 3 pts : Good details were presented 2 pts : Basic details were presented 1 pts : Poor details presented 0 pts: No details presented

Scoring Criteria

*What will be org structure for managing daily ops of the store? *How many staff will be required for managing the store? Store manager, POS manager, Sales associates, Brand associates, Warehouse associates ? *How many staff will be brand sales associates from the brand side? *What will be the hierarchy & the escalation matrix for the store ? Who will be responsible for what ? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts : Elaborate details were presented 3 pts : Good details were presented 2 pts : Basic details were presented 1pts : Poor details presented 0 pts: No details presented

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 pts: Detailed staff recruitment plan with steps by step process with analysis market standards. 10% Local area recruitment 4 pts: Staffing recruitment plan was very organised & detailed including JD, manpower source with 8% Local area recruitment 3 pts: Extremely meticulous and detailed strategy for staffing & recruitment with 5% local area recruitment, convinces evaluation team of its capabilities with no doubt whatsoever 2 pts: A detailed strategy, drives confidence with 3% local area recruitment , doubts raised by evaluation team were answered to their satisfaction 1 pts: Local area recruitment 2% & not a robust strategy, the evaluation team raised lot of doubts on its capabilities, most were not addressed efficiently, the team is not satisfied 0 pts: The bidder was not able to propose any detail or strategy in this regards & extremely poor knowledge on the subject

*Will the Bidder be ready with trained staff in line with store go live dates ? *Will the bidder allocate existing staff/resources or will hire new staff for the store ? *Will Bidder Local staff from Bangalore/Karnataka or from any other state ? what will be the % of local staff vs others. *Will Bidder Hire staff with good mutilingual abilities including English, Kannad, Hindi ? *What will be the ratio of women & men staff ? Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts: Detailed staff recruitment plan with steps by step process with analysis market standards. 10% Local area recruitment 3 pts: Extremely meticulous and detailed strategy for staffing & recruitment with 5% local area recruitment, convinces evaluation team of its capabilities with no doubt whatsoever 2 pts: Local area recruitment 3% & not a robust strategy, the evaluation team raised lot of doubts on its capabilities, most were not addressed efficiently, the team is not satisfied 1 pts: Local area recruitment 2% & not a robust strategy, the evaluation team raised lot of doubts on its capabilities, most were not addressed efficiently, the team is not satisfied 0 pts: The bidder was not able to propose any detail or strategy in this regards & extremely poor knowledge on the subject

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 5 pts : Robust corporate governance of L&D functions, detailed functions and process, evalution team has no doubt on thier staff training strategies 4 pts : Dedicated corporate function focusing on L&D activities of every location with elaborate manuals with few e-learning modules 3 pts : Small L&D department , manuals are not elaborate, does not have e-learning modules, does periodic training check on staff development 2 pts : Small L&D department , manuals are not mandatory , doesn't have e-learning modules, No training tracker 1 pts: No training department only in house training done by managers, Manual are not mandatory no e-learning & training tracker 0 pts : No Training plan

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts: A very detailed & staff friendly incentive plan, benefits, HR Policies for employee welfare such as transportation & accomodation was presented to the satisfaction of evaluator 2-3 pts: A staff friendly incentive plan (based on sales generated) was presented but other employee welfare benefits such as staff transportation & Accomodation was missing 1 pts: Very low incentives plan was presented which was not at all staff friendly & other employee welfare benefits such as staff transportation & Accomodation were completely missing 0 pts: The bidder was not able to propose any details around staff incentive & benfits policies

Scoring Criteria

Points are quantitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: The bidder has detailed out the Annual marketing and Events calendar 6-7 pts: The bidder showed good details of the annual calendar with events and activities 3-5 pts: The bidder showed a basic annual calendar with events & activities 1-2 pts: Bidder showed limited details 0 pts: The bidder failed to present any details in this regards

*How does the bidder attract & convert walkin customers? *Does the bidder have incentives for Passengers & motivating team to generate more walkin? *What communication channel does the bidder use to communicate with customers? *What combos/bundling packeging offers will the bidder run to attract this segment? Points are qualitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: Excellent Strategy illustrated as how it drives customer engagement 6-7 pts: Good strategy illustrated how it drives customer engagement 4-5 pts: Limited design details were presented 2-3 pts: Basic design details were presented 0-1 pts: No details were presented

*Does the bidder have a clearly defined strategy behind their marketing and promotions calendar? *Have they demonstrated how such initiatives drive ATV and penetration rates? *Has the bidder displayed how they propose to market or promote the outlet? *Have they displayed understanding of how the promotions will be targeted to the passenger base? *Do they have campaings to drive user engagements? *How does the bidder propose to work with the airport team on this (joint marketing)? *Has the bidder made reference to the passenger mix/target customer? *Has the bidder shown the logic behind their marketing strategy and why it will work? *Has the bidder provided a clear logic as to why they adopt a certain marketing and promotions strategy and what are its results? *Has the bidder presented past campaign snapshots, how it invokes expressions, gives incentives, makes offers? Points are qualitatively awarded as under: 8-10 pts: Excellent Strategy illustrated as how it drives customer engagement 6-7 pts: Good strategy illustrated how it drives customer engagement 4-5 pts: Limited design details were presented 2-3 pts: Basic design details were presented 0-1 pts: No details were presented

Scoring Criteria

Points are qualitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts: Presented good details on sustainability and green initaitives 3 pts: Good ideas presented on Sustainability & green initatives 1-2 pts: Limited details presented 0 pts: No details presented

*What innovating technologies are used for driving analytics in outlet operations? *Is the bidder able to process data from inventory to distribution channels, customer behavior data to housekeeping records? *Does the bidder use Property Management System (PMS) and its modules like Revenue Management System (RMS) or Central Reservation System (CRS)? *Data management and analytics also assist in improving performance across a wide range of functions, including business, engineering, maintenance, operations and safety and risk management - could the bidder illustate such examples from within its organisation? Points are qualitatively awarded according to the opinion of the Evaluation Team members using the following guidance: 4-5 pts: The bidder has demonstrated strong capability for BI and Analytics 3 pts: The bidder has displayed a good strategy to leverage analytics 1-2 pts: The bidder has shown limited information on BI and Analytics 0 pts: he bidder has not shown any information on BI and Analytics

Scoring Criteria

*Was the bidder excited about the prospect of trading in the proposed location? Did they convince the team that the concept was right for the airport? Were they passionate about the proposed brand? Points are qualitatively awarded according to the opinion of the Evaluation Team members using the following guidance: 4-5 pts : The bidder demonstrated a good level of passion about their proposed brands and showed a good level of interest in the proposed concept & with impressive confidence. 3 pts : The bidder demonstrated some passion about their proposed brands and showed some interest in the proposed concept & some commitment to the concept and the Evaluation team had few concerns with statements made 2 pts : The bidder demonstrated little passion about their brand and showed little interest in the proposed concept. They struggled to give reasons as to why the concept is correct for the proposed location but did try. 0-1 pts : The bidder demonstrated no passion about their brand and showed no interest in the proposed concept. They gave no reasons as to why the concept is correct for the proposed location.

*Was the presentation well structured? Were the messages clear? Did the presentation contain the right level of information? Was the presentation easy to understand or confusing? Points are awarded as under: 4-5 pts : The structure of the presentation was good and the message was mostly clear. The participant presented most of the required information. The presentation was mostly easy to understand. 3 pts : The structure of the presentation was adequate. The message was mostly clear, but there were a few elements unexplained. Some of the required information was missing. Parts of the presentation were difficult to understand. 1-2 pts : The structure of the presentation was not good. There were several elements not explained properly, and some of the required information was missing. The presentation was quite difficult to understand. 0 pts : There was very little, if any, structure to the presentation. The message was very unclear and lots of elements were not explained properly. A significant amount of the required information was missing. Most of the presentation was difficult to understand.

*Did the participant cover all the areas listed in the RFP: Company Profile & Management Strategy / Design Development / Operations Strategy / Marketing & Customer Engagement Strategy / Product & Pricing Strategy / Innovation & Digital Strategy / Overall Quality Of Presentation. Points are qualitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts : All the areas were covered, presented and explained . All doubts whatsoever asked by the evaluation team were efficiently addressed and answered to the satisfaction of the evaluation team. 3 pts : Not all but most of the areas were covered, presented and explained . However few doubts asked by the evaluation team were not addressed efficiently and thus the evaluation team were not satisfied completely. 1-2 pts: Most of the areas were not covered, presented or explained. 0 pts: Showed very low confidence & lacked in clarity on overall presentation

*Was the presentation of high quality? Did the bidder put time and effort in to preparation? Were images shown clear and of high quality? Points are qualitatively awarded as under: 4-5 pts : The presentation was of exceptional quality and the bidder clearly put a lot of time and effort into getting it right. All images shown were well displayed and of very high quality. 3 pts : The presentation was of adequate quality and the bidder had put some time and effort into getting it right. Around half the images shown were well displayed and of high quality. 1-2 pts : The presentation was lacking in quality and the bidder had not really put much time and effort into getting it right. Few of the images shown were well displayed and of high quality, or very few images were shown. 0 pts: Very poor quality of presentation in all aspects

Vendor Query