BPM003566_Evaluation_Documents.pdf

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

STATE PROCUREMENT OFFICE

DETERMINATION

TITLE

Blood Test Kits, Evidence Bags, and Laboratory Supplies Confidential Information - Approved

AUTHORITY

A.R.S. §41-2534 Competitive sealed proposals; A.R.S. §41-2504 Supplementary general principals of law applicable, A.A.C. R2-7-103 Confidential Information

SOLICITATION

No.: BPM003566

DETERMINATION

In accordance with A.R.S. §41-2534 and A.A.C. R2-7-103, it is hereby determined that the financial documents submitted by Arrowhead Scientific in response to the above identified solicitation are confidential and will not be released as public record upon contract award and is hereby approved.

BASES

Privately owned companies do not need to make financial information available to the public.

DOCUMENTATION

This determination shall be placed in the procurement file. A copy of this written determination is provided to the interested party, state procurement administrator, and other interested parties.

EFFECTIVE

This Determination is effective and shall remain in effect unless otherwise modified or revoked.

Cammy Hoang, CPPB Date

Procurement Officer

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

2102 WEST ENCANTO BLVD. P.O. BOX 6638 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85005-6638 (602)223-2000

“Courteous Vigilance”

DOUGLAS A. DUCEY HESTON SILBERT

Governor Director

Technical Evaluation Committee Instructions & Affidavit

CONFIDENTIAL

To: Technical Evaluation Committee Members

From: Cammy Hoang, Procurement Officer

Re: Technical Evaluation Committee Instructions – RFP BPM003566 Blood Test Kits, Evidence Bags, and Laboratory Supplies

Copies of offerors’ proposals received under the above entitled RFP will be provided for your technical evaluation. You are to review each proposal based on following criteria (evaluation criteria are listed in their relative order of importance) and in accordance with the guidelines listed below. As a technical evaluation member, you are not responsible for evaluating cost (this will be done by Procurement).

The proposals will be evaluated in these areas:

Experience and Capacity (400 points possible) Method of Approach (320 points possible) Cost (280 points possible – evaluated by Procurement)

In order to maintain the integrity of the evaluation process, you are required to be objective during the technical evaluation of the Offers in order to guard against any tendency that might slant your evaluation towards a personal preference. Additionally, you shall not communicate with anyone outside of the evaluation committee during the proposal evaluation process and/or prior to contract award. This is mandatory. As technical evaluations are based on a consensus of all committee members, individual committee member notes will not be collected.

Committee members may keep or discard their individual notes as they see fit.

Proposal Evaluation Committee Guidelines: As a technical evaluation committee member, you are to comply with the following guidelines and etiquette during the evaluation phase of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.

1. All Proposal evaluation committee members shall sign conflict of interest and non-disclosure statements before viewing proposals.

2. Evaluators shall read each proposal separately and completely.

3. During the initial evaluation of proposals, evaluators shall not compare proposals against other proposals. The purpose of the initial evaluation is to identify strengths and weaknesses and areas for clarification. In comparing proposals, evaluators risk transfusing proposal information from one proposal to another. Any response that is scored “Exceeds” or “Does Not Meet” requires written reasoning on evaluation tool.

4. Evaluators are personally responsible for safeguarding the proposals, information contained in the proposals and any notes relating to the proposals. This information shall not be given to anyone outside the proposal evaluation committee, including the evaluator’s supervisor.

5. Any findings on technical acceptability or merit must be based solely on the requirements of the solicitation. Any recommendations and conclusions shall be factually supported by stated facts.

6. The proposal evaluation committee report shall be updated following each evaluation phase, including oral presentations, clarifications, discussions and final proposal revisions.

7. Evaluators shall not communicate with offerors during this evaluation phase. All questions shall be fielded through the procurement officer to the offerors. This includes clarifications, fact finding, presentations, questions, and discussions/negotiations. It may be necessary for an evaluator to communicate with offerors regarding issues that are not related to the Request for Proposal or the offerors proposal. The evaluator shall report this communication to the procurement officer.

8. After completing all independent evaluations, the proposal evaluation committee shall prepare a narrative consensus evaluation committee report with recommendations. The report shall explain the basis for the recommendations and shall be submitted to the procurement officer.

9. Proposals are normally evaluated at least twice, after proposals are received and last after Final Proposal Revisions are received. Other evaluation records may be performed after clarifications, discussions and presentations.

10. The procurement officer shall meet with the proposal evaluation committee after the evaluation is completed. If there are any proposals that are determined not reasonably susceptible for award or not in the competitive range, the procurement officer shall write a letter to the offeror explaining why the proposal is unacceptable. The reasons shall be based on the assessment of the evaluation committee.

11. Each evaluation committee member shall sign and proposal evaluation committee report.

12. Although scoring, ranking and other evaluation methods are acceptable, the proposal evaluation report must contain a narrative, clearly describing the basis of the award decision.

13. Any communication regarding the selection process and contract award shall be coordinated through the procurement officer. Individual evaluators should not discuss the selection process with offerors. Any public notices or announcements regarding the procurement should be reviewed by the procurement officer prior to release.

Date:_______Name:______________________Badge ______Signature:__________________

(Signature also affirms that no actual or potential conflict of interest, as defined in ARS 38-502 existed at the time the requirement was submitted to Procurement and/or during the technical evaluation of the RFP and that DPS General Order 2.1.20 was followed).

Upon availability of all technical evaluation committee members, an evaluation team meeting will also be held to review these guidelines, the RFP procurement evaluation process and to answer any questions that you may have. Should you have any questions or concerns, I can be reached at (602) 223-2466. Thank you for your assistance and participation in the State’s procurement program.

9/14/21 Stephen Butler 5459