There are lots of long answers to this question. In fact, several days can be spent on this one alone. The material which follows constitutes a simple, short answer to this question. This material was originally published in "RFP Evaluation Process -- Instructions," which can be found at http://www.discoveringmontana.com/doa/gsd/css/Resources/RFPProcess.asp.
Please refer to your copy of the RFP as a guide to the scoring process for each proposal.
NON-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Once the proposals have been received and it is clear which companies are involved in the RFP, each member of the evaluation committee must sign a "Non-Conflict of Interest" form. This will be provided by the evaluation committee chairperson or the State Procurement Bureau (SPB) contracts officer. These forms must be signed before any committee members begin their initial evaluation of the RFPs.
The committee chairperson will collect and return them to SPB.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Certain documents received as part of an RFP may be protected from public view under the provisions of section 18-4-304, MCA. The SPB contracts officer will inform evaluation committee members if any documents received meet the criteria set out in the statute. If such documents are present, each member of the RFPevaluation committee will be asked to sign a "Confidentiality Statement" form which sets out their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of these documents during and after the RFP evaluation process. The committee chairperson will collect and return the forms and the confidential materials to SPB at the conclusion of the evaluation process.
INDIVIDUAL SCORING: Evaluation committee members are provided with copies of each RFP to begin their individual review of the proposals.
Step One: Review all proposals. Take notes, make comments or prepare questions for discussion. Do not score at this point.
Step Two: Determine status. Determine whether each proposal is "responsive" or "non-responsive." A "responsive" proposal conforms in all material respects to the RFP. A proposal may be deemed "non- responsive" if any of the required information is not provided, the submitted price is found to be excessive or inadequate as measured by criteria stated in the RFP, or the proposal is clearly not within the scope of the project described and required in the RFP. Extreme care should be used when making this decision because of the time and cost that a potential offeror has put into submitting a proposal. If a proposal is determined to be "non-responsive," provide a written justification for this conclusion.
Step Three: Score proposals. Score proposals based on the criteria established in the RFP. Proposals must be evaluated solely on the stated criteria listed in the RFP. Only material presented in the written proposals and vendor demonstrations can be considered in the evaluation.
Prior experience with the product and/or offeror cannot be considered in scoring the proposals. Include a written justification for each scoring category. A scoring sheet, drafted by the evaluation committee and/or chairperson, will be provided to assist you in the process of awarding and totaling points.
EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS: Once the proposals have been evaluated and scored by individual committee members, the entire committee may meet to discuss the proposals and arrive at the final scoring. All meetings involving the evaluation of RFPs are open to the public and subject to the open meeting laws. These meetings must be posted electronically on the General Services Division website, http://www.discoveringmontana.com/doa/gsd, 72 hours in advance. The meetings must take place in an ADA accessible location and members of the public are welcome to attend. However, the public may not participate in the evaluation process or offer any comments. When sections of the proposals involving trade secrets are discussed, the meeting must be temporarily closed to the public. Pursuant to state law, Mont. Code Ann. 2-3-212, the committee chairperson, or assigned designee, must take minutes of each meeting. These minutes must include the date, time, place of meeting, a list of the evaluation committee members in attendance, as well as the substance of all matters discussed or decided and, at the request of any evaluation committee member, a record by individual members of any votes taken. These minutes will become part of the permanent record kept by the SPB. In addition, a quorum of the committee must be present to take any official action.
Step Four: Discuss proposals. The full evaluation committee should discuss all aspects of the proposals so that there is a "unified understanding" of the criteria and corresponding responses. Individual scores may be adjusted at this point based upon discussion. The committee may tally the final point assignments by the following methods: (1) consensus score, (2) a total of all of the points given by individual committee members, or (3) an average of the individual scores. Any method or combination thereof is acceptable.
Step Five: Interview. This step is optional. If interviews are deemed necessary, the SPB will issue a letter asking the offeror to attend the interview or give a presentation. This is an opportunity for both sides to explain their viewpoints. If an oral interview is pursued as an option, it must be so stated in the RFP and scored according to stated criteria.
Step Six: Discussion/Negotiation. This step is also optional. If the committee is unsure of certain items or issues included in an RFP response, it may request further clarification from the offeror. The SPB will distribute clarification questions. Responses will be returned to the SPB and submitted to the evaluation committee.
Step Seven: Best and Final Offer. This is optional. A letter asking the offeror to submit a "Best and Final Offer" may be issued by the SPB at the request of the evaluation committee. Once a "Best and Final Offer" is received, the committee will evaluate it in the same manner as the original proposal. Unless the RFP so states, a "Best and Final Offer" may not be requested from the offeror on price alone.
Step Eight: Recommendation. The full evaluation committee makes a written recommendation as to whom the contract should be awarded. This written recommendation should contain scores, justification and rationale for the decision, along with any other variables that may have been considered. If scoring methods (2) or (3) are used, as noted in above in Step 4, individual scoring sheets must be provided to SPB at the end of the evaluation process. If consensus scoring is used, the consensus score sheets and any other material relating to the evaluation process must be turned in to SPB.
Step Nine: Review. The SPB will review the committee scoring and justification. If in agreement with the committee decision, the SPB will: (1) issue a Request for Documents Notice and rejection letters, (2) obtain the required insurance documents and contract security, and (3) issue a purchase order or vendor contract, as appropriate. If a formal contract is required by the agency, a signed copy must be forwarded to the SPB for final review and signature. A copy of the fully executed contract will be returned to the agency and one copy will be retained for the SPB's RFP file. This completes the RFP process.
Excerpted from THE RFP REPORT, Issue 39, November 2002 By Michael Asner
