06_Attachment_C-__RFP_Evaluation_Plan.docx
DOCX document 238 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SW1045 Emerging Technologies
- Solicitation number
- EV00000871
- Issued by
- Oklahoma County, Hobart City, Oklahoma
About this file
RFP Evaluation Plan Summary
This is an RFP Evaluation Plan document issued by the State of Oklahoma in collaboration with NASPO ValuePoint for Emerging Technology Consulting and Services (Solicitation Number EV00000871). The solicitation is divided into two categories: Category 1 focuses on Consulting services including advisory, planning, analysis, and implementation support, while Category 2 covers Services involving skilled professional resources for implementing, integrating, developing, and managing emerging technology solutions. Bidders may respond to one or both categories. The evaluation process follows a five-stage approach that begins with initial responsiveness review, progresses through mandatory minimum requirements verification, bidder experience and technical evaluation, and concludes with cost evaluation for proposals advancing to Stage 5. Awards will be limited to up to ten (10) vendors per category, determined by the highest cumulative scores across all evaluation stages. Prior to contract execution, award recommendations must receive approval from the NASPO ValuePoint Executive Council before the Lead State issues an intent-to-award announcement.
The evaluation methodology assigns point values across multiple criteria with a maximum total of 500 points per category. Bidder Experience is valued at 100 points, Technical Evaluation at 200 points, and Cost Evaluation comprises 200 points split between blended hourly rates (100 points) and scenario cost evaluation (100 points). Mandatory Minimum Requirements are pass/fail criteria requiring bidders to confirm they will not utilize offshore resources and will not store data outside the contiguous United States. Bidders advancing through each stage must score within the top fifty percent of proposals to continue. Cost evaluation uses a comparative formula against the lowest bidder's blended hourly rate, and scenario responses are scored based on approach, cost effectiveness, and innovation as determined by the Multi-State Sourcing Team. The evaluation plan permits the Lead State to negotiate contract terms that would not materially affect price, schedule, scope, or risk, and reserves the right to adjust formulas or accept more favorable pricing.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Request for Proposals for
[PORTFOLIO NAME]
Issued by the State of [Lead State] Solicitation Number: [#######]
Request for Proposals for Emerging Technology Consulting and Services Issued by the State of Oklahoma Solicitation Number EV00000871 Attachment C
RFP EVALUATION PLAN
Evaluation Overview Bidders proposing Emerging Technology Consulting and Services will be considered for an award according to the methodology detailed below. Awards will be separated between two categories: Category 1 – Consulting and Category 2 – Services. Bidders may respond to one or both categories. The Bidder's submitted cost proposal will be evaluated for each applicable category, and a cost score will be applied separately (if proposing both categories), then combined with the Bidder Experience & Technical Evaluation scores to result in the final score.
Stage 1: Initial Responsiveness Evaluation. Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and initial responsiveness. Proposals omitting required documents or responses outlined in Section IV of the RFP Summary, and Attachment A, RFP Terms and Conditions, may be rejected in accordance with Attachment A, 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:
| Criteria |
| Evaluation |
| Result |
| Bidder is not proposing the use of offshore resources in the delivery of services |
| Pass/fail |
| Bidder is not proposing to store any data outside of the contiguous United States |
| Pass/fail |
Stage 2 Result:
Proposals failing to meet or exceed all Mandatory Minimum Requirements may be rejected in accordance with Attachment A - RFP Terms and Conditions.
Stage 3: Bidder Experience Evaluation. Proposals meeting or exceeding the Mandatory Minimum Requirements will be evaluated against the following Bidder Experience criteria:
Category 1 – Consulting:
| Criteria |
| Technical Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Technical Points Earned |
| Bidder Experience – Category 1 (Attachment H – Requirements Response Table) |
| 100 |
Category 2 – Services:
| Criteria |
| Technical Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Technical Points Earned |
| Bidder Experience – Category 2 (Attachment H – Requirements Response Table) |
| 100 |
Following the Stage 3 Evaluation of Bidder Experience, only the top fifty percent (50%) of proposals, based on their Stage 3 scores, will advance to Stage 4: Technical Evaluation.
Stage 4: Technical Evaluation. Proposals that advance from Stage 3 by scoring within the top fifty percent (50%) of proposals will be evaluated against the following technical criteria, as outlined in Attachment H – Requirements Response Table.
Category 1 - Consulting
| Criteria |
| Technical Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Technical Points Earned |
| Technical Requirements – Category 1 |
| 180 |
| Category 1 & 2 – National Coverage |
| 10 |
| Category 1 & 2 – Implementation and Promotion of the NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement |
| 10 |
| Stage 4 Total: |
| 200 |
Category 2 - Consulting
| Criteria |
| Technical Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Technical Points Earned |
| Technical Requirements – Category 2 |
| 180 |
| Category 1 & 2 – National Coverage |
| 10 |
| Category 1 & 2 – Implementation and Promotion of the NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement |
| 10 |
| Stage 4 Total: |
| 200 |
For both Category 1 & 2, scores for Bidder Experience and Technical Criteria Evaluation will be combined into a single score. Only the top fifty percent (50%) of proposals, based on the combined single score, will move forward to Stage 5: Cost Evaluation.
Stage 5: Cost Evaluation. Bidder Cost Proposals for proposals not rejected, eliminated, or otherwise removed from consideration, will be evaluated based on their respective categories (i.e. Category 1 cost proposals will only be evaluated against the other Category 1 cost proposals, and the same applies to Category 2). Cost proposals will be evaluated and scored based on the following criteria:
Category 1 – Consulting As directed by the instruction in Attachment I – Cost Proposal, Bidders proposing to provide services under Category 1, are required to provide
PROPOSED COSTS
| Cost Item |
| Lowest Total Blended Hourly Rate |
| Bidder’s Total Blended Hourly Rate |
| Cost Points Possible for Blended Hourly Rate |
| Bidder’s Cost Points Earned for Blended Hourly Rate |
Blended Hourly Rate
The formula for calculating cost points earned for Proposed Costs is Lowest Total Blended Hourly Rate / Bidder’s Total Blended Hourly Rate x Cost Points Possible. The Lead State reserves the right to modify this formula and/or assign a nominal value to “0” cost values if application of the formula results in an error, negative numbers, or an unreasonably skewed distribution of points.
SCENARIO COST EVALUATION
| Cost Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Cost Points Earned |
| Scenario Cost Evaluation |
| 100 |
As part of Attachment I – Cost Proposal Form, Bidder are required to complete the Scenario for the applicable category(ies) they are submitting their proposal under. The Scenarios provided in Attachment I – Cost Proposal Form, includes the relevant details and assumptions for Bidders to complete. To score this section of the Cost Proposal, the Multi-State Sourcing Team will review all details provided by Bidder for approach, cost effectiveness, and innovation, and assign a point total based on the aforementioned factors.
The rates provided by the Bidder, as part of their response to the scenario, should not exceed the rates provided for the same position as part of the Rate Sheet. Bidders can however demonstrate how the provided scenario may help them leverage efficiencies that would result in lower rates. Such variations should be carefully explained.
Bidders may choose to utilize the space provided in the spreadsheet to provide their narrative response or Bidders may submit a document with their narrative. If Bidders choose to submit a separate document for their narrative response, it must be limited to two (2) pages with standard formatting.
VALUE-ADDED SERVICES
Bidders can outline any value-added services they may offer that do not fall directly in the scope of Category 1, but are related to Emerging Technology, as defined in Attachment B – Scope of Work. This portion of the Cost Proposal will not be scored and the decision to include those value-added services as part of the resulting contract is the sole decision of the Lead State, Multi-State Sourcing Team, and/or NASPO ValuePoint.
Category 2 – Consulting As directed by the instruction in Attachment I – Cost Proposal, Bidders proposing to provide services under Category 2, are required to provide
PROPOSED COSTS
| Cost Item |
| Lowest Total Blended Hourly Rate |
| Bidder’s Total Blended Hourly Rate |
| Cost Points Possible for Blended Hourly Rate |
| Bidder’s Cost Points Earned for Blended Hourly Rate |
Blended Hourly Rate
The formula for calculating cost points earned for Proposed Costs is Lowest Total Blended Hourly Rate / Bidder’s Total Blended Hourly Rate x Cost Points Possible. The Lead State reserves the right to modify this formula and/or assign a nominal value to “0” cost values if application of the formula results in an error, negative numbers, or an unreasonably skewed distribution of points.
SCENARIO COST EVALUATION
| Cost Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Cost Points Earned |
| Scenario Cost Evaluation |
| 100 |
As part of Attachment I – Cost Proposal Form, Bidder are required to complete the Category 2 – Scenario. The Scenario provided in Attachment I – Cost Proposal Form, includes the relevant details and assumptions for Bidders to complete. As part of the scenario for Category 2, there are two (2) separate scenarios (2A & 2B). Bidders must choose only one (1) scenario to respond to. Bidders who respond to both scenarios will only have one (1) scenario evaluated, as determined by the Multi-State Sourcing Team. To score this section of the Cost Proposal, the Multi-State Sourcing Team will review all details provided by Bidder for approach, cost effectiveness, and innovation, and assign a point total based on the aforementioned factors.
The rates provided by the Bidder, as part of their response to the scenario, should not exceed the rates provided for the same position as part of the Rate Sheet. Bidders can however demonstrate how the provided scenario may help them leverage efficiencies that would result in lower rates. Such variations should be carefully explained.
Bidder may choose to utilize the space provided in the spreadsheet to provide their narrative response or Bidder may submit a document with their narrative. If Bidders choose to submit a separate document for their narrative response, it must be limited to two (2) pages with standard formatting (Single spaced rows, 12 point font, default/standard margins).
VALUE-ADDED SERVICES
Bidders can outline any value-added services they may offer that do not fall directly in the scope of Category 2, but are related to Emerging Technology, as defined in Attachment B – Scope of Work. This portion of the Cost Proposal will not be scored and the decision to include those value-added services as part of the resulting contract is the sole responsibility of the Lead State, Multi-State Sourcing Team, and/or NASPO ValuePoint.
Evaluation Summary Category 1 – Consulting
| Stage |
| Total Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Total Points Earned |
| Bidder Experience – Category 1 |
| 100 |
| Technical Evaluation – Category 1 |
| 200 |
| Cost Evaluation – Total Blended Hourly Rate |
| 100 |
| Cost Evaluation – Scenario Cost Evaluation |
| 100 |
| Total: |
| 500 |
Category 2 – Services
| Stage |
| Total Points Possible |
| Bidder’s Total Points Earned |
| Bidder Experience – Category 2 |
| 100 |
| Technical Evaluation – Category 2 |
| 200 |
| Cost Evaluation – Total Blended Hourly Rate |
| 100 |
| Cost Evaluation – Scenario Cost Evaluation |
| 100 |
| Total: |
| 500 |
Award Selection The staged approach of the evaluation, that applies to both Category 1 and 2, will be outlined below:
| Stage |
| Criteria for Advancement |
| Stage 1: Initial Responsiveness Evaluation |
| Proposal is deemed complete and responsive |
| Stage 2: Mandatory Minimum Requirements Evaluation |
| Proposal is deemed to have met all Pass/Fail Mandatory Minimum Requirements |
| Stage 3: Bidder Experience |
| Bidder is scored in the top fifty percent (50%) of all Bidders |
| Stage 4: Technical Evaluation |
| Bidder is scored in the top fifty percent (50%) of combined Stage 3 and 4 scores |
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. Bidders who advance through to Stage 5: Cost Evaluation will be eligible for award. Of those Bidders that make it to Stage 5, based on the total combined scores from Stages 3-5, the following will represent the maximum number of awards for each category: Comment by Adam Herd: If there are more than 10 bidders that make it to Stage 5, how will the 10 bidders that receive awards be determined? The 10 highest scoring? I recommend including a description of the method that will be used.
· Category 1: Up to ten (10) awards
· Category 2: Up to ten (10) awards The highest scoring Bidder proposals will be the basis for the awards within both Category 1 and 2.
Prior to announcement of awards and execution of Master Agreements, the Lead State will present an award recommendation to the NASPO ValuePoint Executive Council for approval of the proposed awards.
Following approval of the NASPO ValuePoint Executive Council, the Lead State will issue an intent-to-award announcement on its electronic procurement system. After posting of the Notice of Intent of Award, the Lead State will begin formalization of NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreements. The Lead State reserves the right during contract negotiation of the Master Agreement to adjust terms and conditions that would not (in the Lead State's judgment) have a material effect on price, schedule, scope of work, or risk to the Lead State and Participating States, with materiality defined in terms of the effect on the evaluation and award. The Lead State reserves the right to accept contract or pricing changes that are more favorable to the Lead State.
If no Master Agreement is reached with the apparent awardee(s), the Lead State may negotiate with other Bidders or elect to make no award under this RFP.
Page 2 of 9 – Attachment [X], RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Attachment C, RFP EVALUATION PLAN image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .