Attachment+1+Technical+Proposal.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Proposals that are determined to be responsive to the requirements of the RFP will be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee using the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP. For assistance with RFP evaluations, contact the State Procurement Office at infospo@nd.gov or 701-328-2740.

• If a group evaluation is conducted, the Evaluation Committee will produce one worksheet that summarizes the comments and scores. If individual scores are being compiled, each member of the Evaluation Committee will prepare an evaluation worksheet with their comments and scores.

• Evaluation Committee members must read the Request for Proposal and have a clear understanding of the requirements and evaluation criteria before attempting to evaluate proposals.

• Evaluators should read all proposals twice. First, read all proposals for a general understanding without scoring.

Next, read proposals with the intent to complete the evaluation worksheet which includes taking notes and documenting any questions/clarification needed.

• Each evaluation criterion is assigned a specific number of points. The questions under each evaluation criterion help Evaluators measure the quality of the Offeror’s response. Do not assign points to individual questions, instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion.

• Evaluators will assign an initial score for each evaluation criterion and provide comments which explain their scores.

• Evaluation documents become an open record upon award.

RATING SCALE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SCORING

The rating scale provided is intended to help Evaluators perform evaluations. Evaluators are exercising independent judgement so variation in scoring is normal. However, the Procurement Officer may question scoring that appears to be unsupported. Evaluators may assign any value for a given evaluation area from 0 to the maximum number of points allowed per evaluation criterion. A zero value typically constitutes no response or an inability of the Offeror to meet the criteria. In contrast, the maximum value should constitute a high standard of meeting the criteria. For example: “Experience and Qualifications” is an evaluation area weighted at 25% of the total possible points on a 100 Point Scale, so any value between 0 and 25 points can be awarded. An example of the rating scale is below:

Experience and Qualifications Rating Scale (25 Point Maximum)

Point Value Explanation 0-5 Poor. Not addressed or response of no value 6-10 Fair. Limited applicability 11-15 Good. Some applicability 16-20 Very Good. Substantial applicability 21-25 Excellent. Total applicability

COST PROPOSAL

Cost proposals are normally scored by the Procurement Officer or selected evaluators, and cost proposals are given to the Evaluation Committee after technical proposals have been evaluated. Prompt payment discounts are not considered in evaluating cost.

ADJUSTMENT OF INITIAL EVALUATION SCORES

After the initial scoring, the Evaluation Committee should meet to discuss proposals and identify areas where clarification or more information is needed. Evaluation scores may be adjusted as a result of discussions with offerors, clarifications, demonstrations, presentations, reference check results, Best and Final Offers, and further due diligence within the evaluation process.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Offeror Name _________________________________________________________________

RFP Title/Number _____________________________________________________________

Evaluator Name _______________________________________________________________

Evaluator Certification. I have reviewed the Request for Proposal Evaluators Guide, and I certify that neither I nor my immediate family members have a conflict of interest with regard to this offeror, in accordance with N.D.A.C. § 4-12-04-04.

Evaluator Signature____________________________________ Date________________

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS USED TO SCORE THIS PROPOSAL IS 100

PROJECT METHODOLOGY, UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN RATING SCALE

(45 Point Maximum)

Point Value Explanation 0 – 9 Poor. Not addressed or response of no value 10 – 18 Fair. Limited applicability 19 – 27 Good. Some applicability 28 – 36 Very Good. Substantial applicability 37 – 45 Excellent. Total applicability

IMPORTANT. Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions, instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. Evaluators must provide comments to support scoring.

Questions regarding methodology.

Does the proposed methodology provide an adequate approach to identifying key conditions for selecting and prioritizing water intake locations?

EVALUATOR NOTES

Is there a reliable method for accessing necessary information to identify and analyze location suitability?

Does the methodology offer a robust approach for choosing between surface water intake and BFS?

How comprehensive and feasible are the GIS workflow and quality control measures outlined in the proposal?

Questions regarding understanding.

Has the Offeror demonstrated an understanding of the deliverables expected?

Has the Offeror demonstrated an understanding of the STATE’s time schedule, and can the Offeror meet it?

Is the proposal submitted responsive to all material requirements in the RFP?

Questions regarding the management plan.

How well does the management plan support all of the project requirements, illustrate lines of authority and communication, and logically lead to the deliverables required in the RFP?

Does it appear that offeror can meet the schedule set out in the RFP, and to what extent does the management plan allow for timely meetings and updates throughout the project?

INITIAL EVALUATION SCORE FOR Project Methodology, Understanding, and Management Plan: _______

Additional/overall comments related to the offeror’s proposed strategy for accomplishing the work.

EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS RATING SCALE (40 Point Maximum)

Point Value Explanation 0-8 Poor. Not addressed or response of no value 9-16 Fair. Limited applicability 17-24 Good. Some applicability 25-32 Very Good. Substantial applicability 33-40 Excellent. Total applicability

IMPORTANT. Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions, instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. Comments to support scoring are required, and will be helpful when performing offeror evaluation debriefs after award.

Questions regarding the personnel.

How many years of experience on similar projects do assigned individuals have?

Are resumes complete and do they demonstrate backgrounds that would be desirable for individuals engaged in the work the RFP requires?

How extensive is the applicable education and experience of the personnel designated to work on the project?

Does the Offeror demonstrate a knowledge of how to choose the best location for surface and BFS water intakes?

Questions regarding the firm.

Has the firm worked on projects related to water intakes?

Has the firm demonstrated experience in completing water intake siting projects on time and within budget?

How successful is the firm’s general history regarding timely and successful project completion?

Has the firm provided 3 references from previous clients?

INITIAL EVALUATION SCORE FOR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS: __________

Additional/overall comments related to the offeror’s experience and qualifications.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

EVALUATION SUMMARY

Name of RFP:

Name of Offeror:

Date:

Technical Proposal

Evaluation

POINTS

Maximum

Evaluator

1. Project Methodology, Understanding, and Management Plan

2. Experience and Qualifications

Evaluator Totals

Grand Total

Note: Sum of all individual scores.

Technical Proposal Score

Note: Total of individual points divided by the number of evaluators (85 POINT MAXIMUM).

Cost Proposal Score

Note: See Cost Proposal Score Calculation section

(15 POINT MAXIMUM)

TOTAL Evaluation Score

(100 POINT MAXIMUM)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

EVALUATION SUMMARY BY VENDOR

Name of RFP:

Date:

Technical Proposal

Evaluation

POINTS

Maximum

Vendor 1

Vendor 2

Vendor 3

Vendor 4

Vendor 5

1. Project Methodology, Understanding, and Management Plan

2. Experience and Qualifications

Technical Proposal Score

(85 POINT MAXIMUM)

Cost Proposal Score

(15 POINT MAXIMUM)

Total Evaluation Score

(Combine Technical and Cost Proposal Scores)

COST PROPOSAL SCORE CALCUATION

Weight 15 Percent. Maximum Point Value for this Section 100 Points x 15 Percent = 15 Points

Applying Preference Laws The reciprocal preference law, N.D.C.C. § 44-08-01, was repealed effective August 1, 2023. Any applicable preference laws will be applied. For more information, refer to the Guidelines to Preference Laws.

Any prompt payment discounts terms proposed by the offeror will not be considered in evaluating cost.

Converting Cost to Points The lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum number of points allocated to cost. The point allocations for cost on the other proposals will be determined as follows:

× 𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝑨𝒗𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 (𝟏𝟓) = 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒔