EXHIBIT C - Evaluation and Award.pdf

Exhibit C Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT C

EVALUATION AND AWARD

A. EVALUATION CRITERIA

The State will conduct a comprehensive, fair and impartial evaluation of the proposals received in response to this RFP. The objective of the evaluation is to determine the proposal that most effectively meets the State’s goals and requirements. The contract for this project will be awarded to the contractor whose proposal, conforming to the RFP; will be most advantageous to the State.

Failure of a contractor to provide any required information and/or failure to follow the response format set forth herein may result in reduced scoring and/or disqualification of the proposal. It is the contractor’s responsibility to assure all required materials are included.

An evaluation committee will conduct a thorough, complete, and fair evaluation of proposals received. Proposals will be evaluated on the Offerors demonstrated ability to perform the scope of work. The evaluation committee will evaluate the following criteria:

This section supplements paragraph 1.05, “Scope of RFP/Basis of Award” in the Colorado Solicitation Instructions/Terms and Conditions that are available through the link on the CORE solicitation page.

B. OVERVIEW

The contractor should not assume they would have an opportunity for oral presentations or revisions of proposals, so they should submit their most favorable proposal as the initial proposal. Contractors given final consideration may be provided an opportunity to make an oral presentation as part of the evaluation process. Determination will be based on the written proposals, so contractors are cautioned to ensure that their proposals adequately convey the soundness of their approach and understanding of the requirements.

If award is not made on receipt of initial proposals, Offerors in the competitive range (those most responsive to the requirements and reasonably susceptible of being selected for award) may be provided an opportunity to make an oral presentation.

An Evaluation Committee will be established prior to opening the proposals. The CDPS Procurement Officer will participate in an oversight capacity. The names of the Evaluation Committee members will not be disclosed until after an award has been made. It is common and expected that evaluators may have prior personal and/or business experience with one or more potential contractors. The State has established measures to ensure the integrity of the evaluation process, including independent review of proposals, evaluation of proposals based on content, opportunity for clarifications, and the fair and impartial treatment of all contractors.

The Evaluation Committee will judge the merits of the proposals received in accordance with the evaluation factors listed below. The sole objective of the Evaluation Committee is to conduct reviews of the submitted proposals along with other information that may be requested, to hold frank and detailed discussions among themselves, and to recommend the proposal for award that is responsive and most advantageous to the State.

C. EVALUATION PROCESS

While a numerical rating system may be used in the initial stages of the evaluation process, the award decision ultimately is a business judgment that will reflect an integrated assessment of the relative merits of the proposals using the factors listed below. A brief overview of the evaluation process follows:

Exhibit C Page 2 of 3

Review of all the proposals received for compliance with the RFP.

Scoring and/or ranking of all proposals.

a. All items listed in Exhibit A – Statement of Work

b. Providing information for all requested in Exhibit B – Proposal Submission Requests for clarification may be made. Any or all Offerors may be asked for such clarification. Such requests may be made at this point in the evaluation process and/or subsequent to the oral presentations, if applicable.

Offerors, whose proposals at this point are deemed likely to receive an award, may be scheduled to make an oral presentation to the Evaluation Committee (all travel at the Offerors expense).

Offerors may be given an opportunity to submit a best and final offer (BAFO) after the conclusion of the oral presentations, if an oral presentation has been requested.

a. Pricing of qualifying proposals will be evaluated and compared to available funding.

b. Recommendation for award will be made.

c. Clarifying questions, oral presentations, and BAFOs, may require revisions to original proposals. If so, Offerors will be given a reasonable timeframe in which to formulate and submit written responses to the questions and to provide any related revisions to their initial proposal. Such revisions will be at the option of the Offeror, but will be limited to the guidelines included within the State’s requested clarifications. No additional written materials will be permitted. Adjustments to pricing will also be allowed, but only to the extent such revisions are reflected in, and are consistent with, the proposal revisions.

D. BASIS FOR AWARD

The RFP," Scope of Work" and "Offerors Response Format" sections describe the work to be performed and the manner in which the proposals are to be structured. Evaluation of proposals will be based on a subjective review by Evaluation Committee members (including any clarifications, oral presentations, BAFOs, and any other sources of information deemed appropriate by the Evaluation Committee) as measured against the factors listed in Section D.1.

D.1 Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factors

TECHNICAL

1. Tasks/Deliverables/Timeline

2. Qualifications and Experience of the Firm (Offeror)

3. Understanding of the Statement of Work (Exhibit A)

4. Flexibility of Design

5. Quality of Material

6. Project Management Plan

7. System Testing and Acceptance Requirements

8. User Maintenance Requirements

9. Warranty

10. Ease of Replacement Parts

11. References

COST

12. Cost Proposal

*Selection for system testing does not guarantee selection for final award

E. AWARD METHODOLOGY

An Evaluation Committee will evaluate the merits of proposals received in accordance with the evaluation factors stated in this RFP and identify the proposal that is most advantageous to the State. While numeric evaluations may be used in some aspects of the process to identify strengths

Exhibit C Page 3 of 3 and weaknesses of proposals, the final decision will be a business decision and may not be based on a numerical score. A Decision Memorandum will document the basis for the award decision.

Failure of the Offeror to provide any information requested in this RFP may result in disqualify-cation of the proposal. This responsibility belongs to the Offeror.

If proposal revisions are permitted after oral presentations and discussions, a date will be established in writing by the State for submission of best and final offers. Offerors will not be provided an opportunity for comprehensive proposal revisions.

F. PROPOSAL SELECTION

Upon review and approval of the evaluation committee's recommendation for award, the CDPS Procurement Office will issue a "Notice of Intent to Make an Award" letter to all Offerors who submitted proposals. In addition, the CDPS Procurement Office may issue award information on VSS. Offerors should carefully monitor VSS for the “Notice of Intent to Make an Award.” A contract must be completed and signed by all parties concerned on or before the date indicated in the Schedule of Activities. If this date is not met through no fault of the State, then the State, at its sole discretion, may elect to cancel the "Notice of Intent to Make an Award" notice and make the award to the next most advantageous Offerors.