Each Request for Proposals (RFP) and Letter of Configuration (LOC) issued by ITS contains a summary-level description of the criteria and process that will be used in the evaluation of submitted proposals to determine the winning proposal. The details of the evaluation process and scoring methodology for each RFP are developed prior to the receipt of proposals, and the summary point allocation by category is posted on the ITS website when proposals are received. The LOC evaluation process and scoring methodology are documented to the project file prior to receipt of proposals and posted on the LOC database for access by General RFP vendors.
While the evaluation process used for a specific RFP or LOC will be customized to fit the particular procurement, ITS generally applies the evaluation practices outlined below for proposal evaluation. Steps may be combined, added, or eliminated at the sole discretion of the State based on attributes of the specific procurement project. Once the evaluation process has been defined for a given RFP or LOC, each proposal received is evaluated in a consistent and defensible manner according to that evaluation process.
The intent of the evaluation process is to establish a ranking of proposals based on the requirements of the RFP or LOC. See 018-020 Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Formula for details on the numerical scoring of proposals.
Proposal Evaluation Practices:
1. The ITS Technology Consultant assigned to the procurement project leads the evaluation process and ensures that the evaluation process and scoring methodology are consistently followed and documented. 2. The ITS Technology Consultant has primary responsibility for validating each proposal to ensure that all essential elements are present: e.g. number of copies, proposal bond, signatures. Such validation should occur on the day the proposals are received. Vendors may, at the State's sole discretion, be allowed to remedy some procedural deficiencies by immediate delivery of additional copies, valid bonds, or signed cover sheets within the timeframe established by the State, typically within twenty-four hours or less of proposal due date. In no case, however, will a vendor be allowed to submit additional price information that cannot be derived from the original proposal, nor will unsolicited clarifications be accepted outside the process defined in the RFP or LOC. Proposals that are non-responsive due to missing components or failure to follow critical instructions are eliminated from further consideration. If costs are required to be submitted and sealed separately, proposals that include any cost information in the unsealed portion of the technical proposal will be eliminated from further consideration 3. The ITS Technology Consultant, in conjunction with the customer, names an evaluation team prior to the receipt of proposals. Members of the evaluation team may be asked to participate in the scoring of entire proposals or in the scoring of only portion(s) of proposals that correspond with the member's particular knowledge and expertise. 4. If appropriate, the ITS Technology Consultant conducts an evaluation orientation session, explaining the evaluation process and scoring methodology and distributing copies of the proposals to the team members. 5. Proposal confidentiality statements are obtained from each team member before distribution of the proposals. 6. Each evaluator individually reviews the proposals, or portions of proposals assigned, prior to the evaluation scoring work sessions. Evaluators review, take notes, and prepare questions for discussion. 7. The evaluation team may determine from their initial review that some proposals are non-responsive and will not be included in the evaluation. Proposals may be deemed non-responsive by the following ways: * The vendor did not follow the instructions in the RFP in preparing the proposal
* Required information or critical components are omitted
* Total cost cannot be determined
* The proposal is clearly outside the scope of the RFP or LOC and/or proposes an alternate approach unacceptable to the State
* The proposal offers only a partial solution to the State's requirements
* The overall quality of the response is too poor to be evaluated with reasonable effort
* Other significant shortfalls determined by the evaluation team.
If a proposal is determined to be non-responsive, the evaluation team documents the reasons the proposal is eliminated from consideration and does not proceed further with the evaluation and scoring of the proposal.
8. For RFPs that do not have sealed costs, the ITS Technology Consultant and evaluation team may determine that a proposal's costs that are outside the project budget and/or out of the competitive range may not be included in the initial round of scoring. 9. For RFPs that contain Mandatory Provisions, as identified on the cover page and detailed in the Technical Specifications section of the RFP, proposals that do not meet one or more of the Mandatory Provisions are subject to immediate disqualification and elimination from further consideration, at the sole discretion of the State. 10. The ITS Technology Consultant facilitates consensus scoring sessions for the technical components of each proposal. During the technical evaluation, the evaluation team discusses each item to be scored and arrives at an overall consensus score for the technical portion of the RFP. The ITS Technology Consultant records the scores assigned by the team and documents specific ways in which any item exceeds or does not meet specifications. Proposals may be scored based only on criteria and specifications outlined in the RFP or LOC. 11. The ITS Technology Consultant, in conjunction with the evaluation team, determines the clarifications required for each proposal and solicits these clarifications from the vendor(s) in writing. The information in clarifications is then reviewed to determine whether the scoring is impacted by the additional information. All written clarifications become part of the vendor's proposal. 12. If references are to be verified, the ITS Technology Consultant, in conjunction with the evaluation team, develops a reference questionnaire. References are checked by telephone or email. Records of each vendor reference contacted are retained for the evaluation file. 13. Scores from the consensus scoring sessions are tallied by the ITS Technology Consultant. The ITS Technology Consultant reviews the consensus findings with the designated Quality Assurance (QA) Coordinator to ensure the process was followed and scores were assigned consistently. If there is a required threshold ("gate"), typically expressed as a minimum percentage of the technical requirements that must be met or of the non-cost points that must be obtained to proceed to vendor presentations and/or the cost evaluation phase, the proposals not reaching that threshold are eliminated from further consideration. 14. For proposals within the competitive range, the evaluation team reviews each proposal's exception summary and determines which exceptions are acceptable to the State, which cannot be accepted, and which can be negotiated after contract award. Proposals with a substantial number of material exceptions and/or with exceptions that are not acceptable to the State may, at the sole discretion of the evaluation team, be eliminated from further consideration at any point in the evaluation process. 15. The ITS Technology Consultant, in conjunction with the customer and other scoring team members, schedules vendor presentations, if required. If there is a possibility that vendor presentations will be required during the evaluation process, this possibility will be stated in the underlying RFP or LOC. All vendors who have submitted responsive proposals in the competitive range will be asked to schedule a presentation. Oral presentations are typically recorded and become part of the vendors' proposals. Following all presentations, the evaluation team reviews the scoring of each proposal to see if information from the presentation impacted the consensus score for any item. 16. The ITS Technology Consultant, with assistance as needed from the evaluation team, compiles the cost information, ensuring that all applicable costs are included in the price evaluation of each proposal, verifying quantities and calculations, and ensuring the cost proposal is consistent with the functional/technical proposal. The evaluation team may request vendor clarifications on inconsistencies or on what is included or not included in a particular cost item. No new pricing can be accepted after the proposal due date, except as defined in the underlying RFP or LOC. Any proposal for which the cost cannot be precisely determined will be eliminated from further consideration. See 018-020 Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Formula for details on cost calculation and scoring formula. 17. The evaluation team determines whether a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) will be requested. The State reserves the right to request a BAFO on any procurement. The decision of whether to request a BAFO is solely the decision of the State. If a BAFO is to be required from the vendors, the ITS Technology Consultant and the evaluation team develop a written request that outlines the information to be provided and the deadline for submitting the BAFO. This document is provided to all vendors who have submitted responsive proposals in the competitive range and who could be reasonably expectant of award. BAFOs are evaluated in the same manner as the original proposals. 18. The ITS Technology Consultant compiles and verifies all scores (technical and cost) and determines the apparent winning proposal. After this information has been verified by the Technology Consultant's QA Coordinator, it is sent to the evaluation team for verification. 19. Once the scoring has been reviewed and accepted by the evaluation team, the ITS Technology Consultant formally requests customer concurrence with the award recommendation, posts a notification of the award to the ITS website, and emails participating vendors a notice of intent to award pending ITS Board approval and/or successful contract negotiations. 20. Depending on the project cost, either the ITS Executive Director or the ITS Board must approve the award. This approval is independent of any approvals required by the customer agency or other regulatory or oversight entities. See 018-030 ITS Director Approval & ITS Board Approval of Procurements for additional information. 21. The ITS Technology Consultant, the Special Assistant Attorney General assigned to ITS, and the designated customer representatives begin contract negotiations with the awarded vendor. Should negotiations not be successful within a reasonable amount of time, the State may discontinue negotiations and begin negotiations with the vendor that provided the next most competitive proposal. 36 Miss. Code. R. 2-9-209.1