11-USBE-MI27022-RFP Award Justification Statement.pdf

Solicitation # USBE-MI27022-RFP Utah Professional Practices Advisory Committee (UPPAC) Investigators RFP

Award Justification Statement

A. RESULT

The evaluation committee determined that proposals submitted by JQ Investigations and Consulting (JQ), Kirton McConkie PC (KM), and Terri Francis (TF) provide the best value to the Utah State Board of Education (USBE).

B. EVALUATION PROCESS

A request for proposals (RFP) was issued by USBE to select a qualified vendor or multiple vendors to serve as external, independent investigators who will be used on a rotating/random basis as needed. In accordance with the Utah Procurement Code and applicable Administrative Rules, the RFP process was used because factors, apart from or in addition to cost, were highly significant in determining which vendor’s proposal is most advantageous to USBE.

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with Part 7 of the Utah Procurement Code by an evaluation committee composed of subject matter experts. A representative from USBE Purchasing and Contracts coordinated the process to ensure Procurement Code and Administrative Rules compliance but was not a voting member of the evaluation committee.

Six (6) proposals were submitted in response to the RFP, and five (5) proposals were deemed compliant with the RFP’s mandatory minimum requirements. The proposals were next evaluated against the RFP’s technical criteria in Stage 2: Technical Proposal Evaluation. Following this evaluation, four (4) proposals were deemed eligible to proceed to the Final Stage: Cost Proposal Evaluation.

Following evaluation of costs, a total combined score was calculated. The responsive and responsible vendors who received a total combined score of 227.5 points or higher were eligible for an award, provided the award was justified in accordance with the Utah Procurement Code and applicable Administrative Rules.

The progression of the proposals through the evaluation process is detailed below. To preserve anonymity, vendors that were not awarded are assigned a letter designation.

C. STAGE 1: INITIAL REVIEW

Six (6) proposals were submitted timely in response to this RFP, and five (5) proposals passed the initial review and advanced to Stage 2.

D. STAGE 2: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1. Investigator Experience

JQ: 93.3 out of 100.0 points possible* KM: 96.7 out of 100.0 points possible* TF: 73.3 out of 100.0 points possible* Vendor A: 56.7 out of 100.0 points possible* Vendor B: 90.0 out of 100.0 points possible*

In the opinion of the evaluation committee, all vendors except Vendor A met the expectations regarding the above criterion.

2. Educational Law Experience

JQ: 65.3 out of 70.0 points possible* KM: 70.0 out of 70.0 points possible* TF: 35.0 out of 70.0 points possible* Vendor A: 58.3 out of 70.0 points possible* Vendor B: 7.0 out of 70.0 points possible*

In the opinion of the evaluation committee, all vendors except TF and Vendor B met the expectations regarding the above criterion.

3. Writing Sample

JQ: 40.0 out of 50.0 points possible* KM: 46.7 out of 50.0 points possible* TF: 40.0 out of 50.0 points possible* Vendor A: 38.3 out of 50.0 points possible* Vendor B: 31.7 out of 50.0 points possible*

In the opinion of the evaluation committee, all vendors except Vendor B met the expectations regarding the above criterion.

4. Potential Conflicts of Interest

JQ: 30.0 out of 30.0 points possible* KM: 24.0 out of 30.0 points possible* TF: 29.0 out of 30.0 points possible* Vendor A: 29.0 out of 30.0 points possible*

Vendor B: 30.0 out of 30.0 points possible*

In the opinion of the evaluation committee, all vendors met the expectations regarding the above criterion.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

JQ: 228.6 out of 250.0 points possible* KM: 237.4 out of 250.0 points possible* TF: 177.3 out of 250.0 points possible* Vendor A: 182.3 out of 250.0 points possible* Vendor B: 158.7 out of 250.0 points possible*

The total minimum score threshold identified in the Evaluation Score Sheet to be deemed responsive, responsible, and eligible to advance to the next stage of the evaluation was 162.5 points out of 250.0 points possible. Four (4) proposals proceeded to the Final Stage: Cost Proposal Evaluation.

E. FINAL STAGE: COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Costs were scored as described in the RFP using the following cost formula:

The points assigned to each offeror’s cost proposal will be based on the lowest total cost for the duration of the contract. The offeror with the Lowest Total Cost will receive 100% of the price points. All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their Proposed Total Cost is than the Lowest Total Cost. An offeror whose Proposed Total Cost is more than double (200%) the Lowest Total Cost will receive no points.

The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (2- Proposed Total Cost/Lowest Total Cost).

Costs were submitted as follows:

JQ: Total Proposed Hourly Rate = $325.00 0.0 out of 100.0 points possible* KM: Total Proposed Hourly Rate = $350.00 0.0 out of 100.0 points possible* TF: Total Proposed Hourly Rate = $50.00 100.0 out of 100.0 points possible* Vendor A: Total Proposed Hourly Rate = $125.00 0.0 out of 100.0 points possible*

F. CONCLUSION

FINAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

JQ: 228.6 out of 350.0 points possible* KM: 237.4 out of 350.0 points possible*

TF: 277.3 out of 350.0 points possible* Vendor A: 182.3 out of 350.0 points possible*

*All scores were subject to rounding.

Following evaluation of costs, a total combined score was calculated. The responsive and responsible vendors who received a total combined score of 227.5 points or higher were eligible for an award, provided the award was justified in accordance with the Utah Procurement Code and applicable Administrative Rules.

The evaluation committee determined the vendors who received a total combined score of 227.5 points or higher met the minimum requirements, the pricing and terms were reasonable as they were within the stated budget, and the proposals were in the best interest of USBE. For these reasons and those stated above, the evaluation committee has determined that the proposals submitted by JQ Investigations and Consulting (JQ), Kirton McConkie PC (KM), and Terri Francis (TF) provide the best value to USBE.