60-00000-26-00092_60-00000-26-00092 Temporary Employment Services Att C - RFP Evaluation Plan.pdf.PDF

Request for Proposals for Temporary Employment Services

Issued by the State of New Mexico Solicitation Number 60-00000-26-00092

Attachment C, RFP EVALUATION PLAN

Attachment C

RFP EVALUATION PLAN

This RFP will be evaluated with the intention of awarding the following Categories independently of each other:

• Category 1 – Administrative

• Category 2 – Commercial and Industrial

• Category 3 – Educational

• Category 4 – Healthcare (Clinical and Non-Clinical)

• Category 5 – Informational Technology (Professional and Non-Professional)

• Category 6 – Professional Services (excluding IT)

Stage 1: Initial Responsiveness Evaluation. The Lead State will review Proposals for completeness, initial responsiveness, and compliance with all mandatory requirements. Proposals omitting required documents or responses or failing to meet all Mandatory Requirements shall be rejected in accordance with Attachment A, RFP Terms and Conditions.

Mandatory Requirements:

Table 1 Criteria Evaluation

Offeror must agree to the Prerequisite in the Lead State’s eProNM system. Pass/Fail Offeror must submit a completed and signed Attachment G, Offeror Information, Acknowledgements, and Certifications as outlined in the RFP. Pass/Fail

Offeror must submit a completed Attachment H, Offeror Response Worksheet as outlined in the RFP. Pass/Fail

Offeror must submit a completed Attachment I, Cost Proposal as a separate document and separate file as outlined in the RFP. Pass/Fail

Offeror must submit a completed Attachment J, Proposed Modifications to Sample Master Agreement as outlined in the RFP. Note that in accordance with Section IV. E. of Attachment A, RFP Terms and Conditions, offeror-specific modifications are strongly discouraged. If proposing modifications, a redlined copy of Attachment D, Sample Master Agreement must also be submitted as outlined in the RFP.

Pass/Fail

Offeror must submit a completed Attachment K, Claim of Business Confidentiality and a redacted copy of the Proposal clearly marked as such if claiming confidential, proprietary, or protected information, as outlined in the RFP.

Pass/Fail

Offeror must submit a completed and signed copy of Attachment L, Letter of Transmittal Form as outlined in the RFP. Pass/Fail

Offeror must submit a completed and signed copy of Attachment M, Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form as outlined in the RFP. Pass/Fail

Stage 1 Result: Pass/Fail

Stage 2: Technical Criteria Evaluation. Proposals meeting the Mandatory Requirements will be evaluated against the requirements of this RFP and weighed and scored based on the following Technical Criteria. Offerors must submit one technical proposal in accordance with Attachment H, Offeror Response Worksheet, regardless of the number of Categories the Offeror would like to be considered for an award.

Issued by the State of New Mexico Solicitation Number 60-00000-26-00092

Attachment C, RFP EVALUATION PLAN

Table 2 - Technical Criteria for Applicable Categories

Attachment Section Criteria Description Technical Points Possible

Att. H 1. Organizational Experience 50

2. Operational Information 100

3. Sub-vendor Management 100

4. Contingent Workers 150

5. Quality Assurance 100

6. Data Management and Security 100

7. Implementation and Promotion of the NASPO

ValuePoint Master Agreement

Att. N N/A Organizational References 50 Stage 2 Total: 700

Attachment H, Offeror Response Worksheet

1. Organizational Experience Points will be awarded based on the thoroughness and clarity of Offeror’s response in this Section. The relevancy and extent of Offeror’s experience, expertise and knowledge will be weighed.

2. Operational Information Points will be awarded based on the thoroughness and clarity of Offeror’s response in this Section. The relevancy and extent of Offeror’s service capabilities will be weighed.

3. Sub-vendor Management Points will be awarded based on the thoroughness and clarity of Offeror’s response in this Section. The relevancy and extent of how the Offeror manages its Sub-vendor network will be weighed.

4. Contingent Workers Points will be awarded based on the thoroughness and clarity of Offeror’s response in this Section. The relevancy and extent of Offeror’s Contingent Worker experience, expertise and knowledge, as well as education, experience and relevant training will be weighed.

5. Quality Assurance Points will be awarded based on the thoroughness and clarity of Offeror’s response in this Section. The relevancy, strength, and extent of Offeror’s approach to Quality Assurance.

6. Data Management and Security Points will be awarded based on the thoroughness and clarity of Offeror’s response in this Section. The relevancy, strength, and extent of Offeror’s approach to Data Management and Security.

7. Implementation and Promotion of the NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement Points will be awarded based on the thoroughness, clarity, ingenuity, relevancy, and extent of Offeror’s descriptive response in this Section.

Attachment N, Organizational References

Issued by the State of New Mexico Solicitation Number 60-00000-26-00092

Attachment C, RFP EVALUATION PLAN

Evaluators will review the Organizational References submitted in accordance with Attachment N, Organizational Reference Questionnaire. Points will be awarded based upon an evaluation of the responses to the questions provided on Attachment N, Organizational Reference Questionnaire. Points will be awarded for each organizational reference provided, up to 25 points per organizational reference. Offeror will be evaluated on references that show positive service history, successful execution of services and evidence of satisfaction by each reference. References indicating significantly similar services/scopes of work and comments provided by a submitted reference will add weight and value to a recommendation during the evaluation process. References not received by the stated deadline in the RFP Overview will receive zero (0) points.

Stage 3: Cost Evaluation.

The Cost Proposals will be evaluated independently of and after the technical evaluation. Cost Proposals must be submitted as a separate document in the Offerors’ Proposals and shall not be combined in the Technical Response document. Do not embed the Cost Proposal in the technical proposal response.

Offeror shall provide the MSP Markup for all costs associated with the responsibilities and related services, per Attachment I, Cost Proposal and Attachment B, Scope of Work.

To calculate the Cost Proposal scores, all percentages provided by the Offeror will be converted into their decimal equivalents. The lowest responsive Sum of MSP Markup in each Category will receive 300 points. All other Offeror’s Cost Proposal Score per Category will be calculated and scored as follows:

Lowest Sum of MSP Markup Offeror′s Sum of MSP Markup

× 300 = Offeror′s Cost Proposal Score for the applicable Category

If an Offeror submits a Cost Proposal for more than one Category, the Cost Proposal for each Category will be evaluated and scored separately. A single Master Agreement will be executed for an awarded Offeror, regardless of the number of Categories awarded.

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.

Cost Proposals may also 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, notwithstanding the results of the Cost Proposal evaluation.

Evaluation Summary

Offeror’s Technical Criteria Evaluation and Cost Proposal scores will be added to determine each Offeror’s total points earned for each Category.

Table 3 Proposal Available Points

A. Offeror’s Technical Criteria Evaluation Score 700 B. Offeror’s Cost Proposal Score 300

Total Available Points per Category (A+B) 1,000

Award Selection Offerors Technical Criteria Evaluation and Cost Proposal Evaluation scores will be added to determine each Offeror’s total points earned for each Category.

Issued by the State of New Mexico Solicitation Number 60-00000-26-00092

Attachment C, RFP EVALUATION PLAN

This RFP is anticipated to result in Master Agreement Awards to multiple Offerors based on a ‘natural break’ in the total points to determine the Offerors for consideration of Award for each Category. Taking into consideration the Evaluation Factors, 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. The most advantageous proposals may or may not have received the most points. The Lead State and Multistate Sourcing Team reserves the right to increase/decrease the number of finalists awards in consideration of the optimal number of Contractors required to successfully supply Deliverables to Participating Entities and Purchasing Entities.

Prior to the 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.

Upon NASPO ValuePoint approval, the Lead State will issue an intent-to-award to all selected Offerors.