Att_1_Exhibit_C_-_Evaluation_Plan.docx

Data & Technology Division www.wildlife.ca.gov Attachment 1 – Exhibit C

Evaluation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the evaluation process and scoring criteria that the State will employ when reviewing responses to this Request for Quotation (RFQ). The evaluation process involves several steps, including a comprehensive examination of each bidder’s qualifications and their response. The goal is to ascertain whether the response is both responsive and provides the best value to the State. In this context, the term ‘best value’ refers to a response that not only fulfills all the requirements outlined in the RFQ but also offers an optimal combination of administrative, technical, and cost-related benefits. The evaluation process details are specified in this section.

This procurement process exclusively involves submitting a response. All responses must reach the DGS Procurement Official by the deadline specified in the RFQ Key Action Dates. Late submissions will not be accepted.

Final selection will be based on compliance with all requirements and responsive to the RFQ requirements. Responsiveness encompasses meeting the administrative, technical, and cost prerequisites. Any responses failing to comply with the mandatory administrative components outlined in the RFQ may be considered non-responsive and subsequently excluded from further State consideration. Additionally, the State retains the right to cancel this procurement at any point.

The following table is a summary of the evaluation:

Table 1: Summary of Evaluation

2. EVALUATION OF FINAL RESPONSES

During Evaluation, the State Evaluation Team will check each response in detail to determine its compliance with the RFQ requirements. Failure to respond to and/or meet a requirement may be considered a material deviation resulting in the response being considered non-responsive. The State Evaluation Team will be responsible for determining whether a deviation exists and whether it is material or immaterial.

Evaluation will consist of the following eight (8) steps:

· Step 1: Acceptance and Validation Check

· Step 2: Response Format Evaluation

· Step 3: Administrative Evaluation

· Step 4: Technical Evaluation

· Step 5: Bidder’s Total Technical Score Determination

· Step 6: Demonstrations

· Step 7: Cost Evaluation

· Step 8: Bidder’s Total Response Score

3. ACCEPTANCE AND VALIDATION CHECK

All responses received by the time and date specified in Key Action Dates of the RFQ will be accepted. Responses will be checked for proper identification and required information in conformance with the response submission requirements. Absence of required information may deem the response non-responsive and may be cause for rejection.

4. RESPONSE FORMAT EVALUATION

Each submitted response will be evaluated for compliance with the mandatory requirements specified in RFQ. If a response fails to meet any of the submission requirements, the State Evaluation Team will determine if the deviation is material. If the deviation is determined to be material, the response will be considered non-responsive.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION

The bidder’s response to the administrative requirements identified in this Evaluation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with the processes described below.

Each submitted response will be scored based on the responsiveness to the requirements listed. Requirements will be given either a “Pass” (e.g., complied with requirement, completed, and returned document) or “Fail” (e.g., did not comply with requirement, did not complete or return document). If a bidder receives a “Fail” for any of these requirements, the response may be deemed non-responsive and may be rejected. If a response fails to meet any of the mandatory requirements, the State will determine if the deviation is material. If the deviation is determined to be material, the response will be considered non-responsive.

Table 2: Administrative Evaluation Criteria

6. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION

The State Evaluation Team will review each response to determine its compliance with all the requirements set forth in this section.

Each submitted response will be evaluated and scored by a consensus of the State Evaluation Team for compliance with the requirements designated in the RFQ and Exhibit C: Evaluation Plan. If a response fails to meet any of the requirements specified in the RFQ and Exhibit C: Evaluation Plan, the State will determine if the deviation is material.

Any conflicting information may be deemed non-responsive and may result in the response being disqualified.

The maximum technical points are 760, and the point score for each of the technical areas is shown in Table 3: Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Table 3: Technical Evaluation Criteria

a. Exhibit E: Requirements (Mandatory) The requirements identified in Exhibit E: Requirements consist of Mandatory requirements and are scored Pass or Fail. The Bidder must provide complete responses to all requirements. A blank or “No” answer in the Response column will be deemed non-responsive and may be the basis for rejection of the Bidder’s Proposal.

b. Bidder References (Mandatory Scored) The State Evaluation Team will evaluate the Bidder’s References using the information provided in Exhibit C-2.

Three (3) Bidder References must be submitted with similar work performed in the Statement of Work. Each Bidder Reference Form must be signed by a reference contact who performed a management or supervisory role on the referenced project. All reference forms must be returned to be deemed responsive. Bidders who do not return the referenced forms shall be deemed non-responsive.

If the reference is not allowed either legally or by company/organization policy to sign the reference forms(s), the reference must type its full name with a brief statement outlining the reason they are not permitted to sign the States reference form. If needed, the State may contact either the Bidder and /or staff references to validate the reference submitted. The state will make two (2) attempts via email to validate Bidder experience using the information provided in the bidder reference forms, as applicable.

The scoring process for Bidder References included in the Proposal involves aggregating the Reference Satisfaction Rating for each question. This rating is based on the information provided in the Bidder Reference Form for each of the three (3) references submitted.

Table 4: Bidder Reference Scoring Scale

c. Key Staff Qualifications (Mandatory/Desirable) The State is seeking a team of exceptionally qualified staff to deliver the services outlined in the Statement of Work. Following contract execution, the Contractor will present the roles specified below in response to this RFQ, subject to review as detailed in Exhibit C-3.

The following sections describe the evaluation and scoring of key staff qualifications.

All Contractor staff provided under this contract must meet the minimum experience requirements to fulfill the deliverables of the Statement of Work.

Table 5: Key Staff Qualification Requirements - Project Manager

Table 6: Key Staff Qualification Requirements - Solution Architect

Table 7: Key Staff Qualification Requirements - Business Analyst

Table 8: Key Staff Qualification Requirements - Database and Application Developer

d. Understanding and Approach Narratives (Mandatory Scored) The State seeks a bidder who will provide highly qualified staff to perform the services referenced in the Statement of Work. The Bidder’s Understanding and Approach, Exhibit C-4, should be clear and apply directly to the relevant requirement. The State will evaluate the Bidder’s understanding and approach to the Statement of Work by reviewing the narrative description.

The Bidder must provide narrative responses for each of the seven (7) requirements listed below. Each narrative requirement response must not exceed two (2) pages. During evaluations, only the responses contained within the two-page maximum will be considered for each requirement. An additional page (up to a maximum of three (3) pages) will be allowed for images, charts, graphs, and diagrams.

NOTE: Each Requirement Response must not exceed two pages total, using 12-point font and standard 1" margins. Each Requirement Response must begin with the Item # and Requirement Title.

The State Evaluation Team will evaluate the Bidder’s Understanding and Approach as follows:

Table 9: Understanding and Approach Narratives Requirements and Scoring Criteria

CDFW procures and onboards various fleet asset types (vehicles, vessels, tractors, etc.). Each asset type is defined by a distinct set of required and optional fields. CDFW staff will need to define these assets differently in the system based on their unique type.

CDFW organization is structured in divisions/regions and branches (each division/region can have multiple branches). Often, when CDFW acquires a new vehicle, the vehicle is 2-way split-funded (80%, 20%). Each funding area is defined by the following codes: reporting structure, project, service location, activity. At CDFW vehicle funding could be split into a maximum of 10 ways. CDFW issues a WEX fuel card for the newly acquired vehicle. The WEX card is defined by the following required fields: vehicle license number, division/region, branch, WEX card number (5 digit), funding codes (reporting structure, project, service location, activity), funding % allocation (total to 100%), funding start date, funding end date. CDFW staff will need to define the fuel card in the system according to its funding allocation.

At the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the organizational structure includes divisions, regions, and branches. Each division or region may have multiple branches. Often, an employee’s position is funded from various sources within the organization.

At the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), when employees require fuel card PINs, the funding for the WEX fuel card PIN is also split-funded. Each funding area is identified by specific codes: reporting structure, project, service location, and activity. Within CDFW, an employee’s funding can be divided in up to 10 ways. The driver’s WEX fuel card PIN is determined by the following mandatory fields: employee name, division/region, branch, 6-digit PIN, funding codes (reporting structure, project, service location, activity), funding percentage allocation (totaling 100%), funding start date, and funding end date. CDFW staff will need to define split-funded drivers within the system.

CDFW fleet managers and coordinators need to have the ability to upload and manage all the documents pertaining to a vehicle in the system by document type (maintenance documents, maintenance type and cost, vehicle funding).

CDFW staff are sometimes required, due to policy changes, to update the existing fleet tracking system to capture new fields. The system configuration and reports are usually impacted by the policy change. CDFW staff needs to have the ability to easily add new fields to an existing fleet tracking system and update the reports to include the new fields.

CDFW has 3 WEX fleet card accounts (regular, aviation, temp) and receives 3 WEX invoices every month. The Accounts Payable (A/P) team is responsible for paying the 3 invoices. The A/P analyst relies on the transaction validation report to ensure the invoice totals match the total of the transactions loaded in the system for the month. Using this report, the A/P analyst ensures that the uploaded fuel card transactions were properly allocated to the appropriate funding (reporting structure, project, service location, activity) for the driver PIN’s and for the fleet cards, especially for those that are split-funded. The transaction validation report needs to be in an Excel format, permission based, and must contain the following fields: WEX card, driver name, account, funding codes (reporting structure, project, service location, activity), funding %, amount.

CDFW staff needs to manage the fleet asset funding from purchasing through transfers all the way to disposition. Staff needs to have the option to maintain the funding info (reporting structure, project, agency use, ultimate fund) of the asset including amount and percentage by funding change date.

Table 10: Understanding and Approach Narratives Response Rating

No deficiencies or weaknesses.

25-30 Points

e. Bidder’s Total Technical Score Determination After all scores have been assigned by the Evaluation Team in accordance with the rating scales described herein, the score for each evaluation category will be summed to yield a Total Technical Score. For bidders who meet all of the administrative and technical requirements, the Total Technical Score will be added to the bidder’s Total Cost Score to determine the bidder’s Total Response Score.

Table 11: Technical Evaluation Criteria

7. COST EVALUATION

The State will review and score the Cost Worksheet, Attachment 2, to verify that it is complete, mathematically accurate, and includes the hourly rates and yearly/total costs. During the cost evaluation, the Evaluation Team will score the Key Staff costs and the Bidder with the lowest Sub-Total Key Staff Cost will receive the maximum of 455 cost points available.

The State will perform the following steps to complete the cost evaluation:

1. List the Total Base Cost for each Bidder.

2. Calculate each Bidder's Percentage by multiplying the lowest Total Base Cost received by the Bidder's Total Base Cost.

3. Multiply the Percentage calculated with the Maximum Cost Points (455) to determine the Bidder’s Cost Score.

The Bidder with the lowest Total Cost will receive a maximum of 455 points. All other Bidders will receive a proportionally lower score.

The following table is an example only of how points are awarded for the Cost Evaluation.

Table 12: Cost Evaluation Criteria

(lowest Bidder’s Total Cost Divided by the Bidders Total Cost)

BIDDER’S COST SCORE

(Percentage x 455)

8. DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION (SCORED)

CDFW reserves the right to request demonstrations from the top two highest ranking Bidders. Depending on the total number of responses received, additional Bidder’s may also be asked to demonstrate their capabilities. However, CDFW retains the discretion to opt out of conducting demonstrations altogether if deemed necessary. Demonstrations will be conducted in-person.

The primary purpose of these demonstrations is to confirm or assess the following aspects:

1. The Bidders’ ability to meet the specified requirements.

2. The practical implementation of proposed solution.

3. The alignment of proposed solutions with CDFW’s needs and objectives.

If the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) decides to proceed with demonstrations, the following guidelines apply:

· Demonstration Duration: Each demonstration must not exceed two (2) hours. During this time, all the Bidders will be expected to adhere to the same Demonstration narratives.

· Attendees: In addition to the Bidder’s official authorized representative(s), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requires the presence of the primary and/or key project personnel during the demonstration. The Live Demonstration allows for a minimum of one (1) and maximum of five (5) in-person representatives. Additionally, extra support staff may participate remotely via Microsoft Teams throughout the Live Demonstration and the subsequent question-and-answer session.

· Communication: CDFW will convey specific Demonstration requirement information to the shortlisted Bidders via mail, e-mail, or telephone as applicable.

· Scoring: If demonstrations are conducted, they will be evaluated based on a total of 350 points.

These measures ensure a thorough assessment of the Bidders’ capabilities and alignment with CDFW’s needs and objectives.

The Bidder must provide a demonstration of their proposed solution and ensure the demonstration includes the set of criteria, scenarios, and use cases as detailed in each Scenario Requirement described below:

Table 13: Demonstration Evaluation Rating

The Bidder must speak to or demonstrate:

1. How will an asset be entered in the system?

2. How will the asset templates (required/optional fields, date fields, valid values) be configured based on the asset type?

3. How will an asset template be modified to add/remove fields from the template?

4. How will permissions be handled to allow asset template updates?

The Bidder must speak to or demonstrate:

1. How will a new card be entered in the system for a newly acquired vehicle?

2. If the newly acquired vehicle is split-funded between 2 different funding sources, how will the system account for the different funding sources?

3. What validation will be in place to prohibit the selection of expired funding codes?

4. What validation will be in place to ensure that funding % allocation sums up to 100%?

When employees need fuel card Personal Identification Numbers (PINs), the funding for the WEX fuel card PIN is also split-funded. Each funding area is identified by specific codes: reporting structure, project, service location, and activity. Within CDFW, an employee’s funding can be divided in up to 10 ways. The driver’s WEX fuel card PIN is determined by the following mandatory fields: employee name, division/region, branch, 6-digit PIN, funding codes (reporting structure, project, service location, activity), funding percentage allocation (totaling 100%), funding start date, and funding end date. CDFW staff will need to define split-funded drivers within the system.

The Bidder must speak to or demonstrate:

1. How will a new employee (driver) be accounted for in the system?

2. How will the employee information (employee name, employee number, division/region, branch) be imported from Active Directory or from the CDFW Human Resources system?

3. If the new employee is split-funded between 2 different funding sources, how will the system account for the different funding sources?

4. How will the employee (driver) PIN be captured in the system?

The Bidder must speak to or demonstrate:

1. How will a fleet asset document be uploaded to the system?

2. Can the uploaded documents be tagged and classified by document type (for example, registration, cost and funding, maintenance)?

3. How can a user search for a particular fleet asset document in the system?

The Bidder must speak to or demonstrate:

1. How to add a new fleet asset configuration field to the system?

2. How to change the definition of an existing field (label, type, length, valid values)?

3. How to update an existing report to include the newly added field?

4. How to manage role permissions to allow access for certain roles to add a new asset field?

The Bidder must speak to or demonstrate:

1. How to create a report to capture all the fuel card transactions uploaded in the system for a month; the report will capture the funding for each transaction as it is defined in the system. Special attention to be paid to the fleet cards and driver PIN’s that are split-funded.

2. How to modify an existing report to add / remove fields.

3. How to manage role permissions to allow access for certain roles only to the transaction validation report.

The Bidder must speak to or demonstrate:

1. How to enter funding for a fleet asset (funding change date, reporting structure, project, agency use, ultimate fund).

2. What validation will be in place to ensure only current funding values can be selected at the time of funding change?

3. What validation will be in place to ensure the sum of all funding totals to 100%?

4. How to run a historical report of all the funding changes for a fleet asset by fund and fund change date.

5. How to run a report that displays all the fleet assets by fund code.

6. How to transfer a fleet asset from one division/region and branch to another and capture transfer date and approval.

Table 14: Demonstration Evaluation Rating

9. BIDDER’S TOTAL RESPONSE SCORE

The highest scoring response will be the responsible, responsive bidder that has the highest combined score up to the 680 maximum possible points if demonstrations are held and 330 maximum possible points if demonstrations are not held. See Table 15: Sample for Total Point Summary.

Table 15: Sample for Total Point Summary

The award of the contract, if made, will be to the Bidder who meets all requirements of this RFQ and achieves the highest FINAL SCORE.

Exhibit C-1: RESPONSE CHECKLIST A complete response package will consist of the required documents identified below. Complete this checklist to confirm the items in your response. Place a check mark or “X” next to each item that you are submitting to the State. All required attachments must be returned to be deemed responsive. This checklist is provided for bidder use only and need not be submitted with the final response.

Agreement Cover Letter

Table of Contents

Form GSPD-05-105

Bidder Declaration Form GSPD-05-105

California Civil Rights Laws Certification Form

Attachment 2

Cost Worksheet

Exhibit E

Requirements

Exhibit C-2

Bidder Reference Form

Exhibit C-3

Key Staff Qualifications Form

Exhibit C-4

Understanding and Approach Narratives

NOTE: THE STATE MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE CHECKLIST IS A FULL, COMPREHENSIVE LISTING OF EVERY REQUIREMENT SPECIFIED IN THE RFQ. CHECKING OFF THE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RESPONSIVENESS TO THE REQUIREMENT(S). THE CHECKLIST IS ONLY A TOOL TO ASSIST BIDDERS IN COMPILING THEIR SUBMISSION. BIDDERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CAREFULLY READ THE ENTIRE RFQ. THE NEED TO VERIFY ALL DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A RESPONSE CANNOT BE OVER EMPHASIZED.

Exhibit C-2: BIDDER REFERENCE FORM

BIDDER INSTRUCTIONS:

· Complete items 1-6 of BIDDER REFERENCE FORM. One (1) form must be used for each reference.

· The Bidder’s reference contact must complete the remainder of this form.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BIDDER’S REFERENCE:

· Using the rating scale in the “Reference Satisfaction Rating” field, rate your satisfaction with the Bidder who performed the services.

· Sign and date the BIDDER REFERENCE FORM and return the form(s) to the Bidder.

BIDDER REFERENCE FORM

Satisfaction Rating to be completed by the Bidder’s Reference Using the following scale: 5 = Excellent; 4 = Exceeds Expectations; 3 = Satisfactory; 2 = Marginal; 1 = Unsatisfactory; N/A = Not Applicable Circle only one number for each question below.

By signing below, I declare that I have reviewed the information contained in ATTACHMENT 2: BIDDER REFERENCE FORM and that the information is true and correct.

DECLARATION OF REVIEW AND CORRECT INFORMATION

Reference Signature:

Date:

Printed Name:

Title:

Email:

Telephone Number:

EXHIBIT C-3: KEY STAFF QUALIFICATIONS

BIDDER INSTRUCTIONS:

· The Bidder must submit resumes for each of the Key Staff. Each resume should be concise, not exceeding three (3) pages in length.

· The resume must expressly address all mandatory experience requirements stated in section Key Staff Qualifications (Mandatory/Desirable) above.

· Requirements will be scored on the following scale:

· 5 = Exceeds requirement

· 3 = Meets requirement

· 0 = Fails requirement

EXHIBIT C-4: UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH NARRATIVES

BIDDER INSTRUCTIONS:

· The Bidder must provide narrative responses for each requirement listed in section Understanding and Approach Narratives (Mandatory Scored) above.

· Each narrative response must not exceed two (2) pages for each of the seven (7) requirements listed. An additional page will be allowed for images, charts, graphs, and diagrams for a maximum of three (3) pages per response.

· During evaluations, only the responses contained within the three-page maximum will be considered for each requirement.

· NOTE: Each Requirement Response must not exceed two pages total, using 12-point font and standard 1" margins. Each Requirement Response must begin with the Item # and Requirement Title.

image1.png