Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
the
(iv) conducts the evaluation in a manner that ensures a fair and competitive process and avoids
the appearance of impropriety.
(4) The evaluation committee may conduct interviews with, or participate in presentations by, the
offerors.
(5) Except as provided in Subsection (6) or (7), each member of the evaluation committee is
prohibited from knowing, or having access to, any information relating to the cost, or the scoring of
the cost, of a proposal until after the evaluation committee submits its final recommended scores on
all other criteria to the issuing procurement unit.
8
(i) indicating that, due to the nature of the proposal or other circumstances, it is in the best interest of the procurement unit to waive
compliance with Subsection (5); and
(ii) describing the nature of the proposal and the other circumstances relied upon to waive compliance with Subsection (5); and
(b) makes the written statement available to the public, upon request.
(8) The evaluation committee shall award scores to each responsive and responsible proposal that has not been disqualified from
consideration under the provisions of this chapter.
Definition of Evaluation
The NASPO State & Local Government
Procurement Practical Guide book defines
Evaluation as:
10
Definition of Evaluation
Criteria
Qualitative factors that an evaluation
committee will use to evaluate/score a
proposal and select the most qualified
proposer/offeror. May include such
factors as past performance,
references, management and technical
capability, price, quality and
performance requirements.
11
12
Evaluation Committee
Chairperson
14
16
Evaluation Committee
Chairperson
2.
3.
4.
Evaluation Committee
Chairperson
Cost Evaluation
When evaluating cost, you must
ensure that an appropriate comparison
is made. Cost/pricing details are not
sent to the agency for review until
after the technical scoring has been
completed and submitted to
Purchasing for final review. The
evaluation committee may not have to
be involved in the cost evaluation,
since costs are most often scored
objectively rather than subjectively.
20
Evaluation Committee
Member
22
cost benefit
analysis cont
(d) demonstrates that the value of the advantage to the procurement unit
of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror exceeds the value of
the difference between the cost of the higher cost proposal and the cost of
the lower cost proposals; and
(e) includes any other information required by rule made by the
applicable rulemaking authority.
(2) If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in Subsection (1) does not
justify award of the contract to the offeror that received the highest score, the
issuing procurement unit:
(a) may not award the contract to the offeror that received the highest
score; and
(b) may award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest
score, unless:
(i) an informal cost-benefit analysis is required, because the
difference between the cost proposed by the offeror that received the next
highest score and the lowest cost proposal exceeds the greater of $10,000
or 5% of the lowest cost proposal; and
(ii) the informal cost-benefit analysis does not justify award of the 23
cost benefit
analysis cont
(3)
the
the
If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in Subsection (1) does not justify award of
contract to the offeror, described in Subsection (2), that received the next highest score,
issuing procurement unit:
(a) may not award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score; and
(b) shall continue with the process described in Subsection (2) for each offeror that
received the next highest score, until the issuing procurement unit:
(i) awards the contract in accordance with the provisions of this section; or
(ii) cancels the request for proposals.
(4) (a) An issuing procurement unit is not required to make the cost-benefit analysis
described in this section for a contract with a construction manager/general contractor if the
contract is awarded based solely on the qualifications of the construction manager/general
contractor and the management fee described in Subsection 63G-6a-706(6).
(b) The applicable rulemaking authority shall make rules that establish procedures and
criteria for awarding a contract described in Subsection (4)(a) to ensure that:
(i) a competitive process is maintained; and
(ii) the contract awarded is in the best interest of the procurement unit.
24
25
26
27
Multi-Stage Example
Phase 1: Initial Review Evaluation Process
In the initial phase of the evaluation process, the proposal evaluation committee will review all proposals
timely received. Unacceptable proposals (non-responsive proposals not conforming to RFP requirements
or unable to meet the minimum requirements) will be eliminated from further consideration.
Evaluation Criteria
Points
Demonstrated ability to meet the scope of work and requirements
30 pts.
Demonstrated technical capability (proven track record), etc.
20 pts.
Qualification and expertise of staff proposed for this project
20 pts.
Offerors that achieve 75% of the total technical score (52.5 points) will proceed to Phase 2, Cost Proposal
Evaluation. Offerors with a score of less than the minimum required technical score will be deemed
unacceptable and ineligible for further consideration.
Evaluation Criteria
Points
Cost 30 Points
The offeror with the lowest total cost will receive the maximum 30 points. All other offerors will receive
points as determined by the ratio of their cost to the lowest cost based on the formula provided.
28
Copy of RFP
Proposal Responses
Technical Evaluation Scores Compilation
Cost Evaluation
Final Compilation of all scores (published copy has unsuccessful
offeror names redacted)
Questions?
---------------------Thank You!
30