Evaluation Process.docx

PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

Proposal Evaluation Worksheet Evaluators will use the technical proposal evaluation form in scoring responsive technical proposals. NDUS has assigned each evaluation criterion and the relative weight. The procurement officer will use the proposal evaluation worksheet to tally the scores for each vendor and to summarize the evaluation scoring. All final technical proposal evaluation forms and the proposal evaluation worksheet are included in the procurement file.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATORS

NDUS has assigned each evaluation criterion a specific number of points. The questions under each evaluated area help measure the quality of the Offeror’s response. Do not assign points to individual questions: instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. Use the technical proposal evaluation form to make brief comments and score the proposal.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Each evaluator must review the list of offerors submitting proposals and determine if they or any immediate family members have a conflict of interest with regard to an offeror, in accordance with SBHE Policy 308.4. By signing on the technical proposal evaluation form, evaluator is confirming no conflict of interest exists with the offeror being evaluated.

RATING SCALE FOR ASSESSING VENDOR RESPONSES

NDUS intends this rating scale to establish guidelines within that range to ensure members of the RFP evaluation committee perform their evaluation with consistency. Evaluators may assign any value for a given criteria from zero to the maximum number of points. A zero value typically constitutes no response or an inability of the vendor to meet the criterion. In contrast, the maximum value should constitute a high standard of meeting the criterion.

For Example: “Experience and Qualifications” is an evaluation criterion receiving a weighting of 20% of the total possible points. Using a 100-Point Scale, there can be a maximum of 20 points awarded. The rating scale would be:

EXAMPLE ONLY Rating Scale (20 POINT Maximum)

COST PROPOSAL

The offeror is required to place cost proposals in a separate sealed envelope, and the pricing will not be disclosed to the evaluation committee until after the initial evaluation of proposals is completed.

NDUS will evaluate cost as follows:

· Cost will be evaluated to include the initial deployment costs plus the first two years of annual costs.

· NDUS will not consider any prompt payment discounts terms proposed by the Offeror when 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:

ATTACHMENT 2

PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

RFP Number and Title

Name of Offeror:

Evaluator Name:

Signature of Evaluator

Date:

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS USED TO SCORE THIS CONTRACT IS 100. Evaluation criteria and relative weight is as follows:

Technical Proposal Evaluation: 80 Points A. Information Technology Solution – 50 Points B. Product Support and Customer Service – 15 Points C. Experience and Qualifications – 15 Points Cost Proposal Evaluation: 20 Points A. Information Technology Solution Fifty (50) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion.

Rating Scale

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.

1. Does the proposed solution meet applicable directives (Section 3.1)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

2. The solution must collect, integrate, and analyze collection data from multiple sources to evaluate collection usage by composition, age, size, genre, performance and other relevant metrics. Describe the data sources supported, frequency and method of updates, and how the solution helps users identify collection trends and opportunities for improvement. (Section 3.2A)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

3. The solution must provide data-driven analysis and recommendations to support collection development, including identifying collection gaps, demand, underused materials, and opportunities to purchase, expand, replace, transfer, or remove materials. Describe how the solution provides these capabilities, the data and criteria used to generate recommendations, and what criteria are configurable by library staff.

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

4. The solution must provide analysis of circulation, usage, and collection performance over time for physical and electronic collections. Describe how the solution identifies changes in usage and demand, compares performance across collections or categories, and provides metrics to evaluate overall collection health and performance. In addition to the Polaris ILS data, list other sources of circulation data that are supported.

5. The solution must provide configurable dashboards, reports, and visualizations to monitor and analyze key library and collection metrics over time. Describe how users can customize reports and dashboards, filter and drill down into data, track key performance indicators, and export reports or data in commonly used formats. Provide screenshot examples of commonly used reports, dashboards and visualizations.

6. The solution must support multiple libraries, institutions, and/or branches within a shared environment while providing both individual and systemwide collection analysis and reporting. Describe how the solution supports multi-library environments, including cross-library comparisons, systemwide reporting, and configurable user access that allows participating libraries to manage and analyze their own collection data.

7. The solution must provide analytics and visualizations to help the Library understand patron engagement, community usage patterns, and potential gaps in outreach or services. Describe how the solution analyzes and presents this information, including the data used, available visualizations, and how the solution helps Library staff identify community needs, usage trends, and opportunities to improve engagement.

8. The solution must provide an interface that enables Library staff with varying levels of technical expertise to independently access, search, filter, analyze, visualize, and report on library data. Describe how the solution supports ease of use, self-service reporting and analysis, role-based access, and administrative management of authorized users.

9. Has the Offeror offered any value-added functionality, products, services, or upgrades as part of the proposal that demonstrates added value (Section 3.2B)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

10. Does the proposed solution appear to meet accessibility standards? (Section 3.2C)

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

11. Will the proposed solution interface with existing technology (Section 3.2D)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

12. Does the software licensing option(s) that are proposed align with NDUS needs the proposed solution (Section 3.2F)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

13. Evaluation of NDUS – Furnished Property and Services response (Section 3.2H).

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

14. Does the Offeror’s risk management response raise any issues or add risk to NDUS (Section 3.2I)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

15. Evaluate the Offeror’s response to the contract schedule / deliverables. Does the Offeror’s response demonstrate a good understanding of the deliverables and schedule, and the capacity to achieve the deliverables based on a mutually agreed upon schedule (Section 3.2J)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

B. Product Support and Customer Service Fifteen (15) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion.

Rating Scale

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.

1. Evaluation of the warranty included with the contract and other warranty options (Section 3.3A)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

2. Evaluation of the vendor’s software maintenance and upgrade policies (Section 3.3B)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

3. Evaluation of the technical support services included in the contract and other technical support options (Section 3.3C)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

4. Evaluate the Offeror’s proposed account representation in support of this contract and how well Offeror identified its plan for handling customer inquiries and response time to inquiries (Section 3.3D)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

C. Experience and Qualifications

Fifteen (15) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion.

Rating Scale

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.

1. Does the Offeror have experience on similar projects (Section 3.4A)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

2. How successful is the general history of the firm regarding timely and successful completion of projects (Section 3.4B)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

3. Was the reference section satisfactory (Section 3.4C)?

EVALUATOR'S NOTES:

4. Does the project team demonstrate backgrounds that would be desirable for individuals engaged in the work the RFP requires? If a subcontractor will perform work on the project, how well does it measure up to the evaluation used for the Offeror? (Section 3.4D)

Technical Proposal Evaluation Total Score

D. Demo, References, Project Management, Contract Review & HECVAT, etc. (if applicable) adjustment

1. Describe what items caused you to adjust your score?

image1.png