Guidelines_for_Evaluation_for_Committee_Members.pdf

Guidelines for Evaluation

A. COMMITTEE REVIEWS REQUIREMENTS

The proposals must be reviewed using a three (3) step process.

1. DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIVENESS:

First, each proposal must be reviewed to determine compliance or noncompliance with the requirements as set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP). This is simply a determination of whether the Offeror disagreed and/or omitted any of the mandatory requirements. These mandatory requirements are identified by the words “MUST” or

“WILL”.

1.1 A proposal determined by the evaluation committee to be non-responsive cannot be recommended for contract award, and must not proceed to the next evaluation step.

1.2 The evaluation committee should also be aware of the words “SHOULD” and

“MAY” which are used frequently in the RFP. These words simply encourage the

Offeror to do something, but are not MANDATORY requirements.

2. DETERMINATION OF FACTS:

After all proposals are reviewed in relation to compliance or non-compliance, then facts must be determined about each responsive Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation categories stated in the RFP. The following methods available to evaluation committee members for determining facts:

2.1. Cost Points Determined – Cost points will be computed by the procurement officer.

The committee s a whole may discuss costs considerations. All committee members should review the costs to help identify any discrepancies, etc.

Cost formula is as follows:

Low Responsive Price X Maximum Cost Points = Cost

Compared Price Points

2.2. Review of Written Proposals – Facts from each proposal should be highlighted which address or relate to the evaluation categories. Listed below are the normal categories and some examples of types of facts:

2.2.1 Experience

Length of time the Offeror has been in operation

Number of similar past contracts

Amount of similar experience

Outcomes of activities previously performed

2.2.2 Expertise

Educational levels of proposed staff

Experience of proposed staff

Overall qualifications of staff

Job descriptions for proposed staff

Facts about the organizational chart, staffing and lines of authority

2.2.3 Approach

What is being proposed

How is it proposed to be done, with whom, when, why and to what extent

How does their approach relate to the RFP (Scope of Work requirements)

2.3. Reference Verification – The evaluation committee as a whole or a sub-committee may contact references for verification of the experience related facts present in the

Offeror’s proposal. The names of all references contacted, as well as documentation of the material discuss should be provided.

2.4. Question/Answer Conference or Personal Interview – Again, the evaluation committee as a whole or an appointed sub-committee may participate in an oral presentation in order to verify or clarify the facts presented in an Offeror’s proposal.

Again, documentation concerning the question/answer conference or interview should be provided.

2.5. Site Inspection – At times it may be necessary to tour and inspect the Offeror’s proposed facility or another facility or operation that the Offeror currently has.

Such inspections must be conducted by the evaluation committee as a whole by an appointed sub-committee. Documentation of the tour must be provided.

3. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF FACTS:

The subjective evaluation of facts maybe conducted concurrently with the determination of the facts or as a separate evaluation step. Each fact must be subjectively reviewed as to its relative merits in relation to the technical and service qualifications desired and proposed by the Offeror. Following are some guidelines of the types of issues that should be considered in the subjective evaluation of proposals.

3.1. Experience – Each committee member should evaluate the quality and quantity of experience that the Offeror has had providing the type of services proposed.

The committee member must decide whether each experience fact is a pro or con for the services proposed. Specifics, defining “why” the experience is good or bad are very important.

3.2. Expertise – Each committee member should evaluate the education, experience and overall qualifications of the PERSONNEL and STAFF who will provide service.

Important consideration should be appropriateness of the job descriptions and/or resumes for each staff proposed, and their relevance to the assigned task.

Additionally, the pros and cons of the organizational chart, staffing and lines of authority should be discussed in relation to the offeror’s expertise.

Each committee member should determine which expertise facts are pros and which facts are cons, and WHY.

3.3. Approach – Each committee member should evaluate every aspect of the services that are being proposed.

4. EVALUATION MEETING

Evaluation meetings shall be held with all committee members to discuss, as a group, the facts and relative merits of each proposal. AGFD procurement acts as chairman of the committee. Also during the committee meeting decisions related to the need for and process of reference verification, Q/A sessions/interviews, and/or site inspections are made.

B. COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. After the evaluation meetings are over, an evaluation form will be completed by each committee member and presented to the chairman. AGFD procurement will provide the appropriate forms. When assigning points for subjective categories, the best proposal for each category shall receive the maximum possible points for that subjective category with the other proposal’s receiving fewer points according to the evaluator’s judgment.

Although the scoring of points is a matter of subjectivity, the committee member’s judgment must be based on fact as presented in the offeror’s proposal, Q/A session and/or reference check. An Offeror shall not be penalized due to lack of experience with the

State Agency itself, but shall be judged, among other considerations, on the relevancy of such experience and expertise wherever it occurred.

Likewise, an offeror shall not be given an unfair advantage of points simply because of a previous contract relationship. However, the relevancy of such experience in terms of the

RFP’s Scope of Work may be judged. Points shall not be manipulated to overcome cost, but shall be assigned in an impartial and objective manner.

2. Written Narrative:

2.1 In addition to the evaluation report form mentioned above, each evaluation committee member will be required to submit a written report explaining and justifying why points were allotted for the various categories as they were.

2.2 In addition to the written evaluation narrative, the evaluation committee as a group must submit documentation of all reference verifications made, Q/A sessions (interviews) held, and/or site inspections made.

SAMPLE NARRATIVE 1 of 3

1 OFFEROR A

Experience This section should present facts related to past contracts or projects that this offeror has had as an organization. In addition, the pros and cons of the experience should be discussed and evaluated. The reasons for the committee member’s opinion should be presented.

Expertise This section should present facts related to the specific qualifications of the staff proposed for the project. Again, the pros and cons of the qualifications (or lack of them) should be described as well as the reasons the committee member feels that way.

Approach This section should describe the important facts related to the offeror methods of approaching the scope of work. Pros and cons of the approach should be discussed in detail as well as reasons for the subjective judgment.

1.1 OFFEROR B

Experience The same type of narrative as described above should be presented here.

Expertise The same type of narrative as described above should be presented here.

Approach The same type of narrative as described above should be presented here.

1.2 OFFEROR C

(See above for type of narrative to provide)

1.3 RECOMMENDATION

As an option, each committee member, or the evaluation committee as a group, may prepare an overall recommendation which details how they recommend awards be made and why.

N O T E: Also included in the narrative should be a “Responsiveness” Report which documents why a proposal, if any, was declared non-responsive. References should be made to the page and paragraph number in the RFP which contains the mandatory conditions which the offeror did not agree to do. In addition, this report should indicate where the disagreement was found in the offeror’s proposal.

SAMPLE NARRATIVE 2 of 3

MEMORANDUM:

TO: File RFP 99-9999 DATE: 99/99/99

FROM: Contract Officer

SUBJECT: EVALUATION SUMMARY NOTES (Feasibility Study)

The following notes were prepared during the evaluation process of offeror’s proposals for the above referenced RFP. They are not intended to be all inclusive and are to be used in conjunction with the total evaluation process.

ABC CO.

1. FEE: $55,000.00

2. EXPERIENCE: Proven track record with impressive list of clients.

3. EXPERTISE: A strong team of professionals with the ability to provide a quality product.

4. APPROACH: Overall, the company represented an understanding of he importance placed upon the project, an enthusiastic, creative approach to meeting the needs set forth in the RFP and the capability to deliver a quality product.

1.3.1 JOHN DOE

1. FEE: $79,500.00

2. EXPERIENCE: Very impressive list of clients – considerable experience with other

States with similar scopes.

3. EXPERTISE: Staff has considerable experience in all aspects of site planning and design work.

4. APPROACH: Well researched with heavy emphasis on research. Proposal well written with examples of recent work in same area.

(1 of 3)

FILE – RFP 99-9999

99/99/99

JOHN Q. PUBLIC:

1. FEE: $122,500.00

2. EXPERIENCE: This firm is one of the largest Consulting Engineering-

Architectural Organizations in the world. The firm provides consulting engineering services in system design; architectural design; property valuations; rate, financial feasibility, management; operation studies; construction supervision, with many years of experience within each specialized area.

3. EXPERTISE: The staff members are well qualified and the company represented an effective use of their subcontractor’s personnel in task responsibilities.

4. APPROACH: The plan of implementation was well developed and innovative.

1.3.2 ANYWHERE USA

1. FEE: $135,000.00 (Refer to page 28 – “Time & Material, Budget Figures Only”. Non-

Repsonsive)

2. EXPERIENCE: The company was founded in 1886, is and International Research, Engineering and Management Consulting Organization.

3. EXPERTISE: The company employs a professional staff of approximately 1,800 members, including expertise in virtually every discipline and industry.

4. APPROACH: The means by which they would meet the needs set forth in the

RFP were presented buy lacking in creativity and did not generate an air of enthusiasm.

(2 of 3)

FILE – RFP 99-9999

99/99/99

1.3.3 GOOD TIME CONSULTANTS

1. FEE: $150,600.00

2. EXPERIENCE: Landscape Architecture and Planning. Firm has excellent reputation with appropriate list of clients.

3. EXPERTISE: Well qualified experienced professional staff with proven track record.

4. APPROACH: Their implementation plan and approach was vigorous, and uplifting with a strong emphasis on the use of several firms to accomplish the over-all tasks.

1.3.4 I LIKE BUSINESS

1. FEE: $182,850.00

2. EXPERIENCE: 70 years as a large diversified accounting, tax and consulting firm

– mostly providing analytical and management advice and guidance.

3. EXPERTISE: The individual team members appear to be well qualified based upon their resumes.

4. APPROACH: Although a strong team of professionals represented an ability to produce a quality product, the company did not develop their ideas sufficiently to provide conclusive evidence of their ability to meet the needs of the Scope of Work contained in the RFP.

1.3.5 MY BUSINESS/YOUR BUSINESSS

1. FEE: $195,840.00

2. EXPERIENCE: 50 years in master planning and site planning, for both the Public and Private Sectors.

3. EXPERTISE: The staff had good credentials with proven track records.

4. APPROACH: A fully developed implementation plan was presented which provided conclusive evidence of their ability to meet the needs of the RFP.

(3 of 3)

SAMPLE NARRATIVE 3 of 3

EVALUATION REPORT

EVALUATOR’S NAME:_______________________________________________________

EVALUATOR’S SIGNATURE:________________________________ DATE:___________

OFFEROR’S NAME:_________________________________ RFP NO:__________________

I. EXPERIENCE OF THE ORGANIZATION:

A. List or discuss below, facts about this offeror’s experience such as the length of time the organization has been in operation, the types of activities and services previously engaged in, the number and relevancy of similar contracts, outcomes or success of past programs.

B. Evaluate below the pros and cons of the facts discussed in “A” above especially as the experience relates t the Scope of Work or similar experience. (This section should be each evaluator’s opinion of the facts listed above).

Pros:

Cons:

(1 of 3)

RFP NO: _____________

II. EXPERTISE OF PERSONNEL

A. List or discuss below, facts about this offeror’s personnel qualifications such as the level of education for the key staff proposed, the amount and type of experience the staff has had, facts related to the total number of staff proposed, etc.

B. Evaluate below the pros and cons of the facts discussed in “A” above especially discussing the relevancy of higher education verses experience or the importance of both as related to the types of services proposed. Also evaluate the pros and cons of the appropriateness of resumes and/or job descriptions to the tasks proposed, the quality of the organizational chart, etc. (This section should be each evaluator’s opinion of the facts listed above).

(2 of 3)

III. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OR APPROACH TO THE SCOPE OF WORK

A. List or discuss below, facts about this offeror’s approach to the Scope of Work such as physical aspects of the facility, facts about their program, what they propose for follow-up, the methodology utilized, etc.

B. Evaluate below the pros and cons of the facts discussed in “A” above. (This section should be each evaluator’s opinion of the facts listed above).

(3 of 3)

CHECK LIST TO ASSIST WITH EVALUAITON OF PROPOSALS

OFFEROR: __________________________________________

EXPERIENCE:

Length of time in operation:__________________________________________

Number of past contracts:____________________________________________

Amount of experience:_______________________________________________

Outcomes:_________________________________________________________

EXPERTISE:

Educational levels:__________________________________________________

Experience of staff:__________________________________________________

Overall qualifications of staff:_________________________________________

Job descriptions for staff:_____________________________________________

Organizational charts, staffing/authority:_________________________________

APPROACH/IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

What is proposed:___________________________________________________

How, with whom, when, why, extent, etc.________________________________

OTHER COMENTS: ________________________________