03 - RFP Evaluation Plan.docx

Request for Proposals for

[PORTFOLIO NAME]

Issued by the State of [Lead State] Solicitation Number: [#######]

Request for Proposals for

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Issued by the State of Nevada Solicitation Number 99SWC-S3474 Attachment 03

RFP EVALUATION PLAN

Evaluation and scoring are conducted in accordance with NRS 333.335 and NAC 333.160-333.165.

Stage 1: Initial Responsiveness Evaluation. Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and initial responsiveness. Proposals omitting required documents or responses may be rejected in accordance with Attachment 01, RFP Terms and Conditions.

Stage 2: Mandatory Minimum Requirements Evaluation. Complete and responsive proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the following Mandatory Minimum Requirements:

Stage 2 Result:

Proposals failing to meet or exceed all Mandatory Minimum Requirements may be rejected in accordance with Attachment 01, RFP Terms and Conditions.

Stage 3: Technical Criteria Evaluation. Proposals meeting or exceeding the Mandatory Minimum Requirements will be evaluated, by Category, according to the following Technical Criteria:

Offerors earning a minimum of 420 (60% of 700) points will move on to Stage 4: Cost Evaluation. The proposal of any Offeror not earning the minimum of 420 points will be rejected.

Stage 4: Cost Evaluation. Cost Proposals for proposals not rejected following evaluation of Technical Criteria will be evaluated as follows, by Category:

PROPOSED COSTS

Cost Proposals will be evaluated individually by Category, based on evaluation criteria established by the Lead State and will be subject to an independent review for reasonableness and best value by the Lead State. Costs determined not to be reasonable or best-value by the Lead State, including any cost to which Offeror’s proposed markup or discount is to be applied, may result in all or part of Offeror’s proposal being rejected.

Evaluation Summary

Award Selection Categories 1, 2, 3 The Lead State and Multistate Sourcing Team will then determine which proposals are most advantageous to the Lead State and potential Participating Entities and Purchasing Entities. Methods used to make this determination may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:

· Identification of a natural break in total scores

· Identification of a minimum scoring threshold above which Proposers are deemed to be adequately qualified

· Consideration of the optimal number of Contractors required to successfully supply Deliverables to Participating Entities and Purchasing Entities Prior to announcement of awards and execution of Master Agreements, the Lead State will present an award recommendation to NASPO ValuePoint for approval of the proposed awards.

Following approval of NASPO ValuePoint and any other approvals required by the Lead State, the Lead State will issue letters of intent to award.

Category 4 Assessment for Value-Added Services Offerors may propose value added services related to Offender Electronic Monitoring. The Lead State and NASPO reserve the right not to allow additional services proposed by the Contractor in the Master Agreement.

Awards for Category 4 will not be given to Offerors who do not qualify for awards in Categories 1, 2, or 3.

Contractors awarded Category 4 may not provide Category 4 services to Purchasing Entities who are not utilizing services from Categories 1, 2, or 3.

Category 4 services will be assessed based on the following:

Page 2 of 9 – Attachment [X], RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Attachment 03, RFP EVALUATION PLAN image1.png image2.png