Mississippi Administrative Code › Title 36 - Technology › Part 2 - Information Systems Services › Chapter 9 - Awards and Contracts › Rule 36-2-9-209.1 - 018-010 Proposal Evaluation Process

Current through June 25, 2024
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.
25-53-5
				  (o)