|
||
|
||
|
||
|
This snapshot is taken from our new 400-page reference text, The Request For Proposal Handbook (Third Edition). This book focuses on best RFP practices that will help you be successful. Chapter 8 of The Request For Proposal Handbook (Third Edition) discusses the nine building blocks of the evaluation process.
Hear what the President of NASPO says about this book . . . “Michael Asner's book removes a lot of the RFP process mystery. It is one of very few RFP books that address the negotiation process. I refer to Mr. Asner's book often and it is recommended reading for public procurement officers.” In reviewing a large number of RFPs, we identified nine different components of the process, such as reviewing a proposal for compliance with mandatory requirements, or interviewing the suppliers. We refer to each of these components as a building block:
Weights Weights reflect the relative importance of each of the evaluation criteria. The use of weights grew out of the provisions and commentary of the Model Procurement Code [i] which states “The Request for Proposals shall state the relative importance of price and other factors and subfactors, if any.” Their Commentary provides some understanding and insight into the importance of this component of every RFP: . . . the Request for Proposals (shall) set forth the relative importance of the factors and any subfactors, in addition to price, that will be considered in awarding the contract. A statement in the RFP of the specific weighting to be used by the jurisdiction for each factor and subfact9or, while not required, is recommended so that all offerors will have sufficient guidance to prepare their proposals. This Subsection serves two purposes. First, a fair competition necessitates an understanding on the part of all competitors of the basis upon which award will be made. Second, a statement of the basis for award is also essential to assure that the proposals will be as responsive as possible so that the jurisdiction can obtain the optimum benefits of the competitive solicitation. The requirement for disclosure of the relative importance of all evaluation factors and subfactors applies to the areas or items that will be separately evaluated and scored, e.g., the items listed on evaluations core sheets. The requirement does not extend to advance disclosure of the separate items or emphasis that are considered in the mental process of the evaluators in formulating their scores for the factors and subfactors that are described in the solicitation. Well, it’s clear from this Commentary that the MPC was written by and for lawyers. I believe this example provides evidence that while you don’t have to publish the weights, it would be helpful to vendors if you did. And it also states that you only publish the factors that are measurable, not the items that you think about such as “risk” or “my career”, or “approval of my boss”. Determining the Weights. How do we establish the weights for a specific factor? Is Project Plan worth 10% or 20% of the available points? And who has the final word on it? After having reviewed the weights used in hundreds of evaluations, I’ve concluded the obvious: the weights for a specific factor are surprisingly similar at the gross level, but seemingly arbitrary when examined closely. For example, Project Plan may be 10% in one jurisdiction and 20% in another, but rarely 50%. Similarly, the merits of the technical solution may range between 10% and 25% but rarely get to 70%. Many jurisdictions have standardized the weights for each factor. The Procurement people have developed a standard RFP or a standardized evaluation process in which the weights are fixed. To modify the weights, the Evaluation Committee must justify the change. While most RFP publications deal extensively with the evaluation process, surprisingly little has been written about the weights. There is no formula to determine the weight for a specific factor. Some jurisdictions like For example, in . . . Generally, weights are assigned based on a 60/40 split, with cost equaling 40% and technical/managerial requirements equaling 60% of the evaluation. The percentages can be adjusted (70/30 or 80/20 or other) to reflect the relative importance of cost to the agency. The purpose of adjusting cost factors downward is to assure that the offeror with the best technical response and reasonable costs is awarded the contract and prevent an offeror from "buying" the business by simply having the lowest cost. Generally, weighting factors are not included in the RFP.
The New Mexico Handbook[iii] devotes eight pages to a discussion of evaluation factors. They provide weights for different types of RFPs and discuss the importance of specific evaluation factors and their reasons for increasing or decreasing certain weights. Here is one example: Balancing the Base Evaluation Factors The evaluation factors and their weights vary depending upon the type of the procurement. The following are the established base factors and their weights which have produced the best result. These recommended base factors and weights are the result of several hundred RFP based procurements: • Professional Services - Firm Fixed Price Contract Experience - Corporate 175 - Key Personnel 125 Methodology/Tools Employed 50 Technical Merit of Proposed Solution 50 References - Corporate 50 - Key Personnel 50 Project Plan 100 Cost 300 Oral Presentation 100 The base factors for this type of procurement strike a balance between quality, knowledge and experience of the offeror and key personnel versus cost and proposal work products. The base factors of Methodology and Technical Merit are established for the assessment of “best value” for the procuring agency. For contracts for amounts in excess of $500,000 a performance bond is recommended for this type of procurement instead of an evaluation of financial stability or retainage as the primary performance protection. The cost factor may be increased to 350 points with a corresponding 50 point total reduction to the other factors. Higher cost factors have produced undesirable results. Compensation is based upon receipt and approval of deliverables in accordance with the approved project plan. The oral presentation should cover all aspects of the offeror’s proposal. To disclose or not to disclose? The answer to this question of whether to publish or not is “yes, we must disclose the weights”, “no, we are prohibited from publishing” or “maybe – we can publish if we want” depending on the jurisdiction. The Model Procurement Code requires that the RFP disclose the relative importance of each factor. This is a generally accepted practice. Typically, the factors are ranked in decreasing order or the importance of each is described in words. For example, “Cost is more important that the technical solution.” Many jurisdictions find it easier to simply publish the actual weights. They believe that this provides direction to the vendors in understanding the requirements and supports “fair and open competition”. [i]. Page 27, Reference 1. [ii]. Reference 58. [iii]. Page 36, Reference 26. The entire 400-page book focuses on how to create effective, low-risk RFPs. You will learn about best practices that will help you be successful.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Institute
Home | Order | SOW Training CD | Demystified CD | Six-Pack CD | Licenses | Biographies | Evaluation CD Michael Asner Consulting
Home | Order | RFP Report | Products | Contact | About Michael Asner Fairness Officer
Home | Fairness Articles | Fairness Scandals | RFP's/RFQ's | Fairness Consultants | Ethics | Elected Officials Guide
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
