Addendum No.7_RFP Replacement Page 103 of 183 Rev.pdf

Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program Management and Operations Solicitation #: V-HQ-24019-S

RFP Document

RFP for MVA Page 103 of 183

6 Evaluation and Selection Process

6.1 Evaluation Committee

Evaluation of Proposals will be performed in accordance with COMAR 21.05.03 by a committee established for that purpose and based on the evaluation criteria set forth below. The Evaluation Committee will review Proposals, participate in Offeror oral presentations and discussions, and provide input to the Procurement Officer. The Department reserves the right to utilize the services of individuals outside of the established Evaluation Committee for advice and assistance, as deemed appropriate.

During the evaluation process, the Procurement Officer may determine at any time that a particular Offeror is not susceptible for award.

6.2 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The criteria to be used to evaluate each Technical Proposal are listed below in descending order of importance. Unless stated otherwise, any sub-criteria within each criterion have equal weight.

6.2.1 Offeror’s Approach and Methodology (See RFP § 5.3.2.F)

The State prefers an Offeror’s response to work requirements in the RFP that illustrate a comprehensive understanding of work requirements and mastery of the subject matter, including an explanation of how the work will be performed. If directed to acknowledge plans due after contract award, Offeror’s should indicate “concur” or “will comply” for those sections. Proposals which include limited responses to work requirements such as “concur” or “will comply” that have not been indicated for submittal as such, will receive a lower ranking than those proposals that demonstrate an understanding of the work requirements and include plans to meet or exceed them.

6.2.2 Offeror’s Functional and Technical Solution (See RFP § 5.3.2.F)

6.2.3 Offeror Qualifications and Capabilities, including proposed subcontractors (See RFP § 5.3.2.F)

6.2.4 Experience and Qualifications of Proposed Staff (See RFP § 5.3.2.F)

6.2.5 Economic Benefit to State of Maryland (See RFP § 5.3.2.F)

6.3 Financial Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The criteria to be used to evaluate each Financial Proposal are listed below in descending order of importance. Unless stated otherwise, any sub-criteria within each criterion have equal weight.

6.3.1 Total Cost Price Years 1-10, w/Transition, also known as Total Evaluated Price

6.3.2 Total per test Cost, for all contract years, for:

a. Centralized Station tests;

b. Kiosk tests;

c. Hybrid tests; and,

d. FIS tests

6.3.3 Transition Costs

All Qualified Offerors (see Section 6.5.2.D) will be ranked from the lowest (most advantageous) to the highest (least advantageous) price based on the Evaluated Total Proposal Price within the stated guidelines set forth in this RFP and as submitted on Attachment B - Financial Proposal Form.

6.4 Reciprocal Preference

6.4.1 Although Maryland law does not authorize procuring agencies to favor resident Offerors in awarding procurement contracts, many other states do grant their resident businesses preferences over Maryland contractors. COMAR 21.05.01.04 permits procuring agencies to apply a reciprocal preference under the following conditions:

A. The Maryland resident business is a responsible Offeror;

B. The most advantageous Proposal is from a responsible Offeror whose principal office, or principal base of operations is in another state;

C. The other state gives a preference to its resident businesses through law, policy, or practice; and

D. The preference does not conflict with a federal law or grant affecting the procurement Contract.

6.4.2 The preference given shall be identical to the preference that the other state, through law, policy, or practice gives to its resident businesses.

6.5 Selection Procedures

6.5.1 General