Chapter 6
SERVICE PROVIDER
SELECTION
6.1 NARROWING THE FIELD, THEN MAKING YOUR CHOICE
Once
proposals are received, they must be reviewed, analyzed and scored by the
agency to determine the apparent successful service provider. The proposal
represents the service provider's best offer to the agency.
Proposals
submitted in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) must demonstrate that the
proposer understands the agency's problem by recommending a workable, feasible
solution. The proposal should state how the service provider plans to solve the
problem and fulfill the needs; should define specific, definite, measurable and
obtainable objectives; establish a time frame for the project; and calculate
costs of the consulting services. The proposal should stress economy and
cost-effectiveness consistent with the difficulty of the project. It should
describe the special talents of the service provider's personnel, their various
backgrounds and skills, and the strength of the overall organization. It is
then up to the agency to conduct a thorough and objective evaluation.
In
much of what service providers do, effective communication is vital. The
proposal should reflect an ability to organize and present data, to address
complex situations, ideas and information, and to conceptualize and express
appropriate and innovative ideas in a clear and effective style.
6.2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION DOCUMENT
The
proposal evaluation document assists the agency in fairly evaluating the
service providers' proposals. It should be prepared concurrently with the RFP
and the major evaluation criteria to be included in the RFP. No criteria may be
used in proposal evaluation that are not set forth in the RFP.
Preparing
the evaluation document prior to issuing the RFP helps to ensure that the
methodology for scoring and evaluating proposal elements is well thought out
and workable and that it is consistent with the contents of the RFP. The
criteria and the weight assigned to each element in the proposal, e.g., technical,
managerial and cost, will vary depending upon the circumstances of each
project. In a highly complex proposal, technical factors may be weighted
highest. In that instance, the best technically qualified competitor may be
selected even though the proposed costs may be higher than competitors’ costs.
On a project where numerous qualified service providers are expected to bid,
cost may be given the greatest weight.
The
following types of criteria, not listed in order of significance, are examples
of criteria that might be included in the proposal evaluation document
depending upon the type of service required and the content of the RFP:
• • Proposers understanding of the project requirements.
• • Project approach and methodology.
• • Quality of the work plan.
• • Company ability, capacity and skill to provide the service.
• • Company experience on projects of similar complexity and type.
• • Project team structure and internal controls.
• • Staff qualifications and experience.
• • Satisfactory record of past performance.
• • Cost.
• • Company financial capability.
• • Business references.
• • Compliance with statutes and
rules relating to contracts.
Fair
competition requires that all competitors understand the basis upon which an
award is made. Therefore, proposals must be evaluated based on the requirements
set forth in the RFP and no other criteria may be used. A sample proposal
Evaluation Score Sheet is included as Appendix D. More detailed questions
specific to the project would often be included in an agency’s scoring sheet
depending upon the nature and complexity of the project. The critical point is
that the scoring sheet should reflect the evaluation criteria stated in the
RFP.
6.3 SELECTING THE EVALUATION TEAM
The
goal of the RFP process is to select the most qualified, responsive consulting
firm among the field of competitors, through a fair and unbiased evaluation.
Use of a panel of qualified individuals to evaluate proposals is common
practice to accomplish this end.
Members
of the evaluation team may be agency staff, employees from other state agencies
or governmental entities, or individuals from the private sector. A variety of
disciplinary skills and talents should be represented to ensure an impartial and
objective analysis. Selection should be based on technical competence,
familiarity with the procurement and applicable skills, understanding or
expertise. In instances where the proposals are particularly complex, separate
panels may be used to evaluate each component.
It
is advisable to have team members sign declaratory statements certifying their
lack of potential conflict of interest and assurance of confidentiality.
Evaluators cannot have a financial interest in the outcome of the selection. A
sample Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statement follows.
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ___________________
No Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Form
for______________________ RFP
I,
______________________, have reviewed the list of Bidders who have submitted
proposals and have no conflict of interest with any of the Bidders. This shall
include, but not be limited to, any relationship, past or present, with any
Bidders, partners, or subcontractors referenced in the proposals submitted. I
understand that the (Name of the Agency) relies upon my voluntary
disclosure of any past or present relationship with any Bidders, partners, or
subcontractors. I further understand that the purpose of this request is to
insure the fair and impartial review of all proposals.
I
agree to not release any information regarding these proposals until the
resulting contract is signed. I further agree to not release any confidential
information regarding these proposals in the future.
I
agree to return all proposal documents to the (Name of the Agency.) I
understand that portions of the proposals may be identified as proprietary and
I will not retain or disperse any portion of the proposals.
(Printed Name)
(Signature)
(Date)
6.4 COMMUNICATING WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS
Agencies
must provide an avenue of communication with prospective proposers. The RFP,
therefore, should designate an Issuing Officer/RFP Coordinator, through whom
all questions on the RFP will be directed. This communication is essential if
potential contractors are to understand agency requirements and prepare
responsive proposals.
Providing
consistent information to proposers is extremely important. Inconsistency can
result in one proposer receiving an unfair advantage over other proposers and
potentially invalidate the entire competitive process. Any pertinent
information generated after the RFP is issued should be incorporated into an
addendum to the RFP and forwarded to all on the mailing list.
Agency
employees should be instructed to refer all service provider questions about
proposals to the Issuing Officer/RFP Coordinator, named in the RFP. Some
agencies state in their RFPs that contacting any other agency individual for
information may result in disqualification of the service provider.
Opportunities for communication and information must be equally available to
all potential respondents. Agencies may provide this opportunity through a
formal vendors’ conference, an on-site visit or other controlled communication
forum.
6.5 VENDORS’ CONFERENCE
The
vendors’ conference offers a setting where all potential respondents may ask
questions and seek clarification and additional information about the Request
for Proposals (RFP) in a public setting without gaining competitive advantage
in preparation of their proposals. The vendors’ conference also provides an
opportunity for the agency to clarify complicated issues or requirements of the
RFP. In addition, it provides a format to present administrative information to
prospective proposers and to correct any Errors discovered in the RFP.
Personnel
familiar with the RFP and the project should preside at the conference and be
available to answer questions. Many questions will be simple, and may be answered
directly, but carefully. Some questions may not be immediately answerable, and
the audience should be advised that a written response will be issued. The RFP
should state that the agency will provide written questions and answers to all
recipients of the RFP and that the agency will only be bound by its written
responses.
The following guidelines will assist you in holding a vendors’
conference:
• • The best practice is not to have members of the evaluation panel attend the conference. If attendance cannot be avoided, then all members of the panel should attend.
• • Bidder sign in sheet and self-introductions.
• • Record the conference.
• • Announce the title of the RFP and the date.
• • Explain that the purpose of the conference is to answer questions the bidders may have.
• • Inform the bidders that the questions and responses will be transcribed and that only the written responses of the Agency will be binding.
• • Describe the question and answer process. The goal is to have an orderly process. Taking the RFP section by section, or page by page and asking if there are any questions will avoid the shotgun question approach.
• • Inform the bidders that some questions may be not answered directly, but will be deferred until the written responses. Do not guess at an answer. If a question requires additional discussion among agency members, defer the question. Decisions on complicated or sensitive matters should not be made at the bidder's conference.
• • Answer only the question asked. The shorter the response the better.
• • On occasion there may be a bidder who is unnecessarily argumentative or aggressive toward either the Issuing Officer/RFP Coordinator or competitors. It is the responsibility of the Issuing Officer/RFP Coordinator to discourage this type of behavior.
• • The bidder who calls the Issuing
Officer/RFP Coordinator after the conference with the statement, "I didn't
want to say this in front of my competition, but . . ." is out of line.
Inform the bidder that the contact is untimely and inappropriate.
The
vendors’ conference is generally used to brief prospective bidders on complex
procurements. In situations where few questions could arise as a result of the
RFP, the vendors’ conference can be eliminated.
6.6 RECEIPT AND OPENING OF PROPOSALS
Proposals
are required to be submitted by a definite time and date and to a specific
location. Upon receipt in the office, sealed proposals are to be stamped in by
date and by time and initialed or signed by the individual receiving the
proposal. This verifies receipt within the date and time frame specified in the
RFP. Proposals received electronically, if allowed, will automatically indicate
the date and time received.
Proposal
security is necessary to ensure the integrity of the competitive process. One
individual should be delegated the responsibility for receipt, recording and
safekeeping of the proposals. This person will date, time stamp and initial
each proposal immediately upon receipt. Written proposals should be kept locked
in a secure location. A locked file, locked storage cabinet or a locked office
is acceptable.
Only
the delegated individual(s) should know which firms have responded. Prospective
service providers should not be told which firms have submitted proposals as it
could potentially effect their own submission.
Once
the deadline for submission is passed, delegated agency staff may open the
proposals. Opening is usually done promptly according to the RFP timeline.
Agencies can announce which firms have submitted proposals when the proposals
are opened. The contents of the proposals remain confidential until the agency
announces the apparent successful service provider.
6.7 LATE PROPOSALS
Late
proposals should not be accepted and the RFP should state this. If received by
mail, a late proposal should be returned unopened with a letter stating why the
proposal is being returned.
6.8 RESPONSIVENESS OF PROPOSALS
The
Issuing Officer/RFP Coordinator reviews the proposals for responsiveness as
soon after the opening of proposals as possible, but prior to evaluation. For a
proposal to be responsive, it must meet certain minimum requirements of the
RFP. Only responsive proposals are submitted to the evaluation committee for
consideration.
A
responsive proposal is one that complies in all material respects with the
solicitation, including satisfaction of the minimum requirements clearly
identified in the RFP. A non-responsive proposal is one that obviously does not
conform to the essential requirements of the RFP. A non-responsive proposal is
rejected as non-responsive and is not forwarded to the evaluation committee.
Occasionally
all proposals may be deemed non-responsive and are all rejected. This could be
the result of unreasonable qualification requirements, misunderstanding by the
service providers of RFP requirements, or insufficient or unclear communication
of the objectives. The agency must then decide whether to revise and reissue
the RFP or to consider other alternatives.
If only one proposal is received and it is responsive, an award can be made. If only one proposal is received and it is non-responsive, it may be rejected. The reason(s) for rejection of proposals should be included in the contract file.
A
sample checklist of responsiveness follows. The checklist should be customized
to incorporate all the appropriate provisions of an RFP.
SAMPLE CHECKLIST FOR RESPONSIVENESS
Proposal was submitted by or before (the time
required in the schedule) .
Required (number) of proposal copies were
submitted.
The Letter of Submittal and the Certifications and
Assurances are signed by an individual authorized to bind the Proposer to a
contractual relationship, e.g., the President or Executive Director, if a
corporation, the managing partner, if a partnership, or the sole
proprietor.
Proposal was formatted into four major sections:
letter of submittal, technical proposal, management proposal, and cost proposal.
Proposer meets minimum qualifications which are:
Management Proposal is essentially responsive to core
requirements of the RFP.
Costs are not greater than $___________, the maximum
amount disclosed as the project budget.
Proposal conforms to the project schedule.
Proposal provides at least 60 days for acceptance of
its terms from the due date of proposals.
Proposer submitted a timely Letter of Intent (if
required).
The proposal states that a “Certificate of Insurance“
will be provided as a condition of award.
Three business references were provided.
NOTE: “Yes“
answers must be given to each element above for the proposal to be considered
responsive.
6.9 EVALUATING AND SCORING THE PROPOSALS
The purpose of the evaluation process is to assess
the proposals offered by the proposers based on the criteria in the RFP. This
phase of the procurement process is perhaps the one that requires the most
knowledge, judgment and skill. While evaluation is a substantial and sometimes
complex process, the purpose is to secure the most favorable result for the
state through conduct of an objective and thorough evaluation. The formal
evaluation lends integrity to the competitive process and ensures service
providers of fair and equal treatment. Also, an important correlation exists
between the degree of precision in the evaluation process and the ultimate
satisfaction with the results of the contract.
The use of an evaluation team to evaluate proposals is
the preferred method of ensuring objectivity.
It is important that the evaluation team collectively offer the overall
knowledge and expertise to evaluate the proposals effectively and objectively.
Evaluators should certify that they will not disclose any information available
to them as evaluation team members. Many agencies require evaluators to sign
conflict of interest statements that certify their lack of conflict in the
process. (See Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statement in Section
6.3.)
An evaluation committee generally consists of three or more members (preferably an odd number), depending on the complexity and scope of the service. For complex procurements, an agency may use separate evaluation committees for the technical proposals, management proposals and/or the cost proposals, each committee containing specific expertise applicable to the evaluation.
In briefing the evaluation team, the following points should be
emphasized:
1. Adhere strictly to the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP.
2. Follow the evaluation and scoring methodology that has been developed.
3.Provide
strong, clear, substantive comments supporting determination of acceptable and
unacceptable proposals.
4. Use numerical weights for ranking purposes.
5. Assess proposals against the RFP requirements and evaluation criteria,
not in relation to each other.
6. Maintain complete confidentiality throughout the evaluation process.
Study
the Criteria: Evaluators should
study the selection criteria in the RFP and the evaluation and scoring form
before beginning the actual evaluation. A proposal evaluation form for scoring should be provided to all evaluators
with instructions for its use. This form
will serve as a means of articulating the specific methodology to be used and
will make it easier to combine the findings of two or more evaluators.
Appendix D provides an Evaluation Score Sheet.
Explain the
Ratings: As the evaluator reads, evaluates and rates each
proposal in terms of the agreed upon ratings and numerical equivalents, the
evaluator may want to prepare a written explanation for the ratings
reached. Evaluator scores may be totaled
together for a final score, or evaluators may meet to develop a team score.
Independent Evaluation: By having each team member first independently
evaluate all the proposals, the agency receives the benefit of having several
opinions on the relative merits of the proposals. The true value of the team approach is a
balanced conclusion reflecting the differing viewpoints and contributions of
the team members.
Consensus: After the individual team members have separately
evaluated the proposals, the team–under the leadership of a team chair–may meet
and formulate its collective decision. The recommendation for an award is then
provided to the agency management for ratification. Where the team is unable to reach agreement,
the evaluation report should include the majority conclusion and the dissenting
view, each with supporting rationale.
Another possible approach to instructions for
evaluators:
• • Meet with the evaluation panel
before proposals are distributed to the panel members to discuss their mission and correct any
misunderstandings about their role.
• •Discuss the time commitment
required and the requirement that all panel members MUST attend all
meetings.
• • Encourage panel to appoint a chair and secretary.
• • Review the evaluation process
and documents.
• • Caution the panel that the evaluation process established in the RFP MUST be followed.
• • Discuss how the panel is
expected to reach a decision e.g., independently,
consensus, or hybrid.
• • Discuss the
wide latitude the bidder's have to describe their performance.
• • Discuss the
process for proposal clarifications.
• • Discuss the process for reference
checks.
• • Discuss the
process for site visits and/or presentations if necessary.
• • Encourage the
panel to keep accurate record of meetings, presentations and evaluations.
• • Discuss
security and confidentiality
• • Iowa Code §
72.3--prohibits divulging contents of sealed bids; and provides criminal and
civil liability for any violation.
• • Discussions MUST occur only during the organized
evaluation meetings.
• •Encourage panel members to avoid
and report inappropriate contact from a bidder.
• • Discuss what should and should not be included in the panels final written report and recommendation.
• • Inform panel members that scoring sheets, comments and other working papers will be public documents and may be discoverable in litigation.
• • Discuss the conflict of interest disclosure statement.
• • Encourage the panel members to contact the Issuing Officer/RFP Coordinator for assistance and guidance if necessary.
REFERENCE CHECKS
Checking service provider references can be a useful tool in assessing the capabilities of the firms and the individuals to be assigned to the project. The timing at which references are checked and the number of references required, depend on the needs of each contract and the RFP instructions. References can be checked as part of the evaluation process and points awarded accordingly or upon selection of the top finalist(s). The most important factor is that references are checked in accordance with the RFP requirements.
Examples of the types of questions that references
may be asked are:
• • What type of work has this firm
done for you?
• • How would you rate work
performed by this firm on your project(s)? Why?
• • Was the project completed on
time? If not, why not?
• • Was the project completed within
the budget? If not, why not?
• • What was the quality of deliverables
submitted?
• •Was staff responsive to solving problems that may
have occurred on your project? Explain.
• • What was the extent to staff turnover?
• •What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
firm?
• • Would you be willing to contract with this firm
again?
6.11
ORAL PRESENTATIONS
Oral presentations are often a part of the RFP
process. The oral presentations provide
an opportunity to meet the bidders’ personnel, to assess their interpersonal
skills, and to clarify the proposal.
They can provide information not easily determined from the written
proposal. For example, the project
manager from one of the bidders may demonstrate a depth of knowledge and
experience that far exceeds the description of the proposal.
In considering including oral presentations in your
RFP process, you should be aware that there are several approaches available to
you. You will want to consult with the
Department of Administrative Services or the assistant Attorney General
assigned to your agency.
6.12
DETERMINING THE APPARENT SUCCESSFUL SERVICE PROVIDER
Based on the evaluation team’s recommendation for
award, an apparent successful contractor is selected. Agencies may then have an internal approval
process to complete prior to ratification of the award decision by management. Once the agency approval process is completed
and the apparent successful contractor is selected, the service provider should
be promptly notified in writing. Sample
Notices’ of Intent to Award are found at Appendices K an L. A meeting can then be scheduled to begin
contract negotiations, if required, or a draft contract can be initiated.
Unsuccessful proposers should be notified promptly in
writing and, if desired, by telephone. Letters should be sent electronically or by facsimile to hasten
notification and to confirm receipt on a specific date.
6.13
DOCUMENTING THE SELECTION
All agency actions taken to arrive at the award
decision must be properly documented. This documentation should be comprehensive, provide support of all
decisions made, and present a complete picture of the award process to any
interested party who reviews the file. This documentation should be managed and retained in accordance with the
requirements prescribed in the Records Management Manual developed by the State
Records Commission.
The Records Management Manual specifies minimum periods
recommended for preservation of records. Certain circumstances, however, may warrant retaining records longer
than the times recommended in the Records Management Manual. The Attorney General’s Office recommends that
you retain contract documentation, including RFP’s, vendor proposals and other
documents that may be incorporated as part of a vendor contract, for at least
ten years after the date the contract has been completed, expired or terminated
(notwithstanding the shorter retention period stated in the Records Management
Manual) to coincide with the ten year statute of limitations applicable to
actions on written contracts. See
6.14 PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE
Generally, all proposals received are considered
confidential until the notice of intent to award the contract is released. Thereafter the proposals are considered
public records as defined in Iowa Code Chapter 22.
In the event a proposer desires to claim portions of
its proposal exempt from public disclosure, the proposer must identify those
portions in the proposal transmittal letter.
Each page of the proposal claimed to be exempt must
be clearly identified as “confidential“.
There are several ways to deal with the prospect of public disclosure in
the RFP if the agency does not want to try to sort out whether there is a
sufficient basis under the open records law to refuse to release the
confidential portions of the vendor’s proposal.
One is to require the vendor to get a court injunction preventing the
agency from releasing the information if the agency gets a request for the
vendor’s proposal. Another is to provide
in the RFP that the agency will return the proposals to the vendors if all bids
are rejected. Examples of these types of
provisions are included in the annotated RFP in Appendix P. The proposal of the successful service
provider generally becomes part of the contract and is subject to public
disclosure.
There are exceptions to the foregoing public
disclosure guidelines. An agency should
consult its assistant attorney general for clarification.
Appendix D: http://das.gse.iowa.gov/procurement/AppD_EvaluationScoreSheet.html
Appendix P: http://das.gse.iowa.gov/procurement/AppP_RequestforProposalAnnotated.html