Competitive Proposal Evaluation Process

Printer Friendly Version


Excerpt from the American Public Transit Association

Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines

Draft as of 9/20/96

1.1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION, NEGOTIATION AND SELECTION

Proposals will be evaluated, negotiated, selected and any award made in accordance with the criteria and procedures described below. The approach and procedures are those which are applicable to a competitive negotiated procurement whereby proposals are evaluated to determine which proposals are within a competitive range. Discussions and negotiations may then be carried out with Offerors within the competitive range, after which Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) may be requested. However, the Procuring Agency may select a proposal for award without any discussions or negotiations or request for any BAFO(s). Subject to the Procuring Agency's right to reject any or all proposals, the Offeror will be selected whose proposal is found to be most advantageous to the Procuring Agency, based upon consideration of the criteria of "Qualification Requirements" (Sections 1.1.4.3.1) and  "Proposal Evaluation Criteria" (Section 1.1.4.3.2) below.

1.1.4.1 Opening of Proposals

Proposals will not be publicly opened. All proposals and evaluations will be kept strictly confidential throughout the evaluation, negotiation and selection process. Only the members of the Selection Committee and Evaluation Team and other Procuring Agency officials, employees and agents having a legitimate interest will be provided access to the proposals and evaluation results during this period.

1.1.4.2 Selection Committee and Evaluation Team

(NOTE: Procuring Agency to specify how it will organize the evaluation and appropriately title this section. The following is provided as an example.)

A Selection Committee will be established. The Committee will make all decisions regarding the evaluations, determination of responsible Offerors and the competitive range, negotiations and the selection of the Offeror, if any, that may be awarded the Contract. The Selection Committee will be assisted by an Evaluation Team which will include officers, employees and agents of the Procuring Agency. The Evaluation Team will carry out the detailed evaluations and report all of its findings to the Selection Committee.

1.1.4.3 Proposal Selection Process

The following describes the process by which proposals will be evaluated and a selection made for a potential award. Any such selection of a proposal by a responsible Offeror shall be made by consideration of only the criteria of "Qualification Requirements" (Section 1.1.4.3.1) and "Proposal Evaluation Criteria" (Section 1.1.4.3.2) below. Section 1.1.4.3.1 specifies the requirements for determining responsible Offerors, all of which must be met by an Offeror to be found qualified. Final determination of an Offeror's qualification will be made based upon all information received during the evaluation process and as a condition for award. Section 1.1.4.3.2 contains all of the evaluation criteria, and their relative order of importance, by which a proposal from a qualified Offeror will be considered for selection. An award, if made, will be to a responsible Offeror for a proposal which is found to be in the Procuring Agency's best interest, price and other evaluation criteria considered.

The procedures to be followed for these evaluations are provided in "Evaluation Procedures" (Section 1.1.4.4) below.

1.1.4.3.1 Qualification Requirements

The following are the requirements for qualifying responsible Offerors. All of these requirements must be met; therefore, they are not listed by any particular order of importance. The Offeror of any proposal that the Selection Committee finds not to meet these requirements, and cannot be made to meet these requirements, may be determined by the Selection Committee not to be responsible and its proposal rejected. The requirements are as follows:

(NOTE: Requirements shown in italics are examples to serve as guidelines. The Procuring Agency is to choose and specify the appropriate requirements.)

  • I. Sufficient financial strength and resources and capability to finance the work to be performed and complete the Contract in a satisfactory manner as measured by:

    • A. Offeror's financial statements prepared in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and audited by an independent certified public accountant authorized to practice in the jurisdiction of either the Procuring Agency or the Offeror. (NOTE: Procuring Agency to determine any minimum requirements for equity, working capital, debt, etc. For example where it would be possible to establish some minimum numerical values for equity, debt to assets ratio, etc. as a screening mechanism, this should be done on an approximate basis to avoid having to rule out an otherwise viable Offeror which is just below a rigid minimum. Whatever measures are established should be consistent with what the financial strength needs are for the project. Here it is only important to determine if the Offeror will have sufficient financial strength to pay its bills on time, fund the cash flow, and meet obligations to subcontractors. The evaluation of financial strength should take into account the Offeror's other contractual commitments)

    • (NOTE: If performance bonding is specified as an alternative to or together with other financial qualifications and assurances) Ability to secure required bond(s) as evidenced by a letter of commitment from an underwriter confirming that the Offeror can be bonded for the required amount.

    • B. Willingness of any parent company to provide the required financial guaranty evidenced by a letter of commitment signed by an officer of the parent company having the authority to execute the parent company guaranty. (NOTE: If the Offeror is a subsidiary(ies) of another company(ies) or is a joint venture, guaranties from the parents and/or corporate members of the joint venture should be required. Language can be stipulated by the Procuring Agency to assure that the guaranty is effective.)

    • C. Ability to obtain required insurance with coverage values that meet minimum requirements evidenced by a letter from an underwriter confirming that the Offeror can be insured for the required amount.

  • II. Evidence that the human and physical resources are sufficient to perform the contract as specified and assure delivery of all equipment within the time specified in the Contract, to include:

    • A. Engineering, management and service organizations with sufficient personnel and requisite disciplines, licenses, skills, experience, and equipment to complete the Contract as required and satisfy any engineering or service problems that may arise during the warranty period.

    • B. Adequate manufacturing facilities sufficient to produce and factory-test equipment on schedule.

    • C. A spare parts procurement and distribution system sufficient to support equipment maintenance without delays and a service organization with skills, experience, and equipment sufficient to perform all warranty and on-site work.

  • III. Evidence that Offeror is qualified in accordance with Part 4: Quality Assurance Provisions.

  • IV. Evidence of satisfactory performance and integrity on contracts in making deliveries on time, meeting specifications and warranty provisions, parts availability, and steps Offeror took to resolve any judgments, liens, fleet defects history, and warranty claims. Evidence shall be by client references.

1.1.4.3.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The following are the complete criteria, listed by their relative degree of importance, by which proposals from responsible Offerors will be evaluated and ranked for the purposes of determining any competitive range and to make any selection of a proposal for a potential award. Any exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings explicitly, fully and separately stated on the "Form for Proposal Deviation (Section 1.1.6.9) which do not cause the Procuring Agency to consider a proposal to be outside the competitive range, will be evaluated according to the respective evaluation criteria and/or sub-criteria which they affect.

The criteria are listed numerically by their relative order of importance. However, certain criteria may have sub-criteria that are listed by their relative order of importance within the specific criterion they comprise. Also, certain sub-criteria may have sub-criteria that are listed by their relative degree of importance within the specific sub-criterion they comprise.

(NOTE: Procuring Agency to define and insert the evaluation criteria. At the option of the Procuring Agency weights should be assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion and shown in the document. The criteria are to be listed by their order of importance in the evaluation. The following are suggested categories of criteria for Procuring Agency consideration, but not listed in suggested order of importance:

  • Technical
  • Qualifications and Resources
  • Management
  • Price
  • Other Financial Impacts

Example evaluation criteria are presented in the Appendix at the end of this Section 1.)

1.1.4.4 Evaluation Procedures

All aspects of the evaluations of the proposals and any discussions/negotiations, including documentation, correspondence and meetings, will be kept confidential during the evaluation and negotiation process.

Proposals will be analyzed for conformance with the instructions and requirements of the RFP and Contract documents. Proposals that do not comply with these instructions and do not include the required information may be rejected as insufficient or not be considered for the competitive range. Procuring Agency reserves the right to request an Offeror to provide any missing information and to make corrections. Offerors are advised that the detailed evaluation forms and procedures will follow the same proposal format and organization specified in "Instructions to Offerors" (Section 1.1.3). Therefore, Offerors shall pay close attention to and strictly follow all instructions. Submittal of a proposal will signify that the Offeror has accepted the whole of the Contract documents, except such conditions, exceptions, reservations or understandings explicitly, fully and separately stated on the forms and according to the instructions of "Form for Proposal Deviation." Any such conditions, exceptions, reservations or understandings which do not result in the rejection of the proposal are subject to evaluation under the criteria of "Proposal Evaluation Criteria" (Section 1.1.4.3.2).

Evaluations will be made in strict accordance with all of the evaluation criteria and procedures specified in "Proposal Selection Process" (Section 1.1.4.3). The Procuring Agency will select for any award the highest ranked proposal from a responsible Offeror, qualified under "Qualification Requirements" (Section 1.1.4.3.1) which does not render this procurement financially infeasible and is judged to be most advantageous to the Procuring Agency based on consideration of the evaluation "Proposal Evaluation Criteria" (Section 1.1.4.3.2).

1.1.4.4.1 Evaluations of Competitive Proposals

  • I. Qualification of Responsible Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with requirements of "Qualification Requirements" (Section 1.1.4.3.1) to determine the responsibility of Offerors. Any proposals from Offerors whom the Procuring Agency finds not to be responsible and finds cannot be made to be responsible may not be considered for the competitive range. Final determination of an Offeror's responsibility will be made upon the basis of initial information submitted in the proposal, any information submitted upon request by the Procuring Agency, information submitted in a BAFO and information resulting from Procuring Agency inquiry of Offeror's references and its own knowledge of the Offeror.

  • II. Detailed Evaluation of Proposals and Determination of Competitive Range. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements and criteria specified in "Proposal Selection Process" (Section 1.1.4.3).

  • The following are the minimum requirements that must be met for a proposal to be considered for the competitive range. All of these requirements must be met; therefore, they are not listed by any particular order of importance. Any proposal that the Procuring Agency finds not to meet these requirements, and may not be made to meet these requirements, may be determined by the Procuring Agency to not be considered for the competitive range. The requirements are as follows:

    • A. Offeror is initially evaluated as responsible in accordance with the requirements of "Qualification Requirements" (Section 1.1.4.3.1), or that the Procuring Agency finds it is reasonable that said proposal can be modified to meet said requirements. Final determination of responsibility will be made with final evaluations.

    • B. Offeror has followed the instructions of the RFP and included sufficient detail information, such that the proposal can be evaluated. Any deficiencies in this regard must be determined by the Procuring Agency to be either a defect that the Procuring Agency will waive in accordance with "Acceptance/Rejection of Proposals" (Section 1.1.5.1) or that the proposal can be sufficiently modified to meet these requirements.

    • C. Proposal price would not render this procurement financially infeasible, or it is reasonable that such proposal price might be reduced to render the procurement financially feasible.

      The Procuring Agency will carry out and document its evaluations in accordance with the criteria and procedures of "Proposal Selection Process" (Section 1.1.4.3). Any extreme proposal deficiencies which may render a proposal unacceptable will be documented. The Procuring Agency will make specific note of questions, issues, concerns and areas requiring clarification by Offerors and to be discussed in any meetings with Offerors which the Procuring Agency finds to be within the competitive range.

      Rankings and spreads of the proposals against the evaluation criteria will then be made by the Procuring Agency as a means of judging the overall relative spread between proposals and of determining which proposals are within the competitive range, or may be reasonably made to be within the competitive range.

  • III. Proposals not within the Competitive Range. Offerors of any proposals that have been determined by the Procuring Agency as not in the competitive range, and cannot be reasonably made to be within the competitive range, will be notified in writing, including the shortcomings of their proposals.

  • IV. Discussions with Offerors in the Competitive Range. The Offerors whose proposals are found by the Procuring Agency to be within the competitive range, or may be reasonably made to be within the competitive range, will be notified and any questions and/or requests for clarifications provided to them in writing. Each such Offeror may be invited for a private interview(s) and discussions with the Procuring Agency to discuss answers to written or oral questions, clarifications, and any facet of its proposal.

    In the event that a proposal, which has been included in the competitive range, contains conditions, exceptions, reservations or understandings to any Contract requirements as provided in "Form for Proposal Deviation", said conditions, exceptions, reservations or understandings may be negotiated during these meetings. However, the Procuring Agency shall have the right to reject any and all such conditions and/or exceptions, and instruct the Offeror to amend its proposal and remove said conditions and/or exceptions; and any Offeror failing to do so may cause the Procuring Agency to find such proposal to be outside the competitive range.

    No information, financial or otherwise, will be provided to any Offeror about any of the proposals from other Offerors. Offerors will not be given a specific price or specific financial requirements they must meet to gain further consideration, except that proposed prices may be considered to be too high with respect to the marketplace or unacceptable. Offerors will not be told of their rankings among the other Offerors.

  • V. Factory and Site Visits. The Procuring Agency reserves the right to conduct factory visits to inspect the Offeror's facilities and/or other transit systems which the Offeror has supplied the same or similar equipment.

  • VI. Best and Final Offers (BAFO). After all interviews have been completed, each of the Offerors in the competitive range will be afforded the opportunity to amend its proposal and make its BAFO. The request for BAFOs shall include:

    • A. Notice that discussions/negotiations are concluded;

    • B. Notice that this is the opportunity for submission of a BAFO;

    • C. A common date and time for submission of written BAFOs, allowing a reasonable opportunity for preparation of the written BAFOs;

    • D. Notice that if any modification to a BAFO is submitted, it must be received by the date and time specified for the receipt of BAFOs and is subject to the late submissions, modifications, and withdrawals of proposals provisions of the Request for Proposal;

    • E. Notice that if Offerors do not submit a BAFO or a notice of withdrawal and another BAFO, their immediate previous Offer will be construed as their BAFO.

      Any modifications to the initial proposals made by an Offeror in its BAFO shall be identified in its BAFO. BAFOs will be evaluated by the Procuring Agency according to the same requirements and criteria as the initial proposals "Proposal Selection Process" (Section 1.1.4.3). The Procuring Agency will make appropriate adjustments to the initial scores for any sub-criteria and criteria which have been affected by any proposal modifications made by the BAFOs. These final scores and rankings within each criteria will again be arrayed by the Procuring Agency and considered according to the relative degrees of importance of the criteria defined in "Proposal Evaluation Criteria" (Section 1.1.4.3.2).

      The Procuring Agency will then choose that proposal which it finds to be most advantageous to the Procuring Agency based upon the evaluation criteria. The results of the evaluations and the selection of a proposal for any award will be documented in a report.

      The Procuring Agency reserves the right to make an award to an Offeror whose proposal it judges to be most advantageous to the Procuring Agency based upon the evaluation criteria, without conducting any written or oral discussions with any Offerors or solicitation of any BAFOs.

APPENDIX A: ILLUSTRATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING PROCEDURE

Two scoring methods, each including criteria and application of the criteria, are presented below. The first is a completely weighted method, in which all the criteria have a predetermined role and, given the unavoidably subjective assignment of pass/fail or numerical scores to specific criteria, results in a single, certain total score for each proposal. The second method, the narrative/trade-off method, provides more subjectivity in the assignment and combination of technical scores, and in the trade-offs between price and non-price criteria. An infinite number of variations and combinations of these methods could be developed.

I. COMPLETELY WEIGHTED FORMULA METHOD

1.1.4.3.2 Illustrative Evaluation Criteria (Completely Weighted Formula Illustrative Method)

  • I. Affordability (pass or fail). The price proposals will be assessed for affordability. The Procuring Agency will not make an award for any proposal which proposes prices that would render the procurement infeasible.

  • II. Minimum Technical Requirements (pass or fail). Technical proposals shall meet the following minimum technical requirements for any consideration for selection and award. A proposal not meeting all of these requirements will be rejected.

    (NOTE: Certain requirements of the specification can be selected as absolute requirements, such that where any one is not proposed to be met would be reason to reject a proposal. When doing so, the specific requirements must be identified by detailed references.)

    EXAMPLES:

    1. Passenger Capacity specified in _______.
    2. Overall dimensions specified in _______.
    3. Performance (speed, acceleration, braking, turning radius) specified in _______.
    4. Emissions specified in _______.
    5. Propulsion system requirements of _______.
    6. Body structural and material requirements of _______.
    7. Service proven technology
  • III. Unacceptable Exceptions, Conditions, Reservations and Understandings (pass or fail). Exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings that are explicitly, fully and separately stated on the required form of Section 1.1.6.9 "Form for Proposal Deviation" will be evaluated for their acceptability. A proposal having a preponderance of unacceptable exceptions and conditions may be cause for the proposal to be rejected. Each of any exceptions and/or conditions made in a proposal will be evaluated and the Procuring Agency will determine their individual acceptability. An unacceptable exception, condition, reservation or understanding, if not withdrawn by the Offeror upon the request by the Procuring Agency, would be cause for the proposal to be rejected. For the purposes of determining the competitive range a proposal containing unacceptable exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings may be included on the basis that the proposal is capable of being made acceptable provided that the Offeror withdraw or modify the unacceptable exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings. Any exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings which do not cause the Procuring Agency to consider a proposal to be outside the competitive range, will be evaluated according to the respective evaluation criteria and/or sub-criteria which they affect.

  • IV. Technical Proposal Scoring Criteria (weight = _______) The transit bus offered in the technical proposal will be evaluated for the following factors which are listed in their relative order of importance:

    1. Engine - Operating experience of previous users and test results of proposed engine and subsystems in transit service. The degree to which performance requirements of Part 3: Technical Specifications, for the engine are proposed to be met. The risk of development tasks (if any) will be assessed. (sub-weight = ______)
    2. Transmission - Operating experience of previous users and test results of proposed transmission in transit service. The degree to which performance requirements of Part 3: Technical Specifications, for the transmission are proposed to be met. The risk of development tasks (if any) will be assessed. (sub-weight = ______)
    3. Major Subsystems - Operating experience of previous users and test results of proposed major subsystems in transit service. The degree to which performance requirements of Part 3: Technical Specifications, for each major subsystem are proposed to be met. The risk of development tasks (if any) will be assessed. (sub-weight = ______)
    4. Quality Assurance - Sufficiency of in-place Quality Assurance Program and procedures to meet requirements. (sub-weight = ______)
    5. Spare Parts Availability - Degree to which the required availability of spare parts (Section 2.5.4) are proposed to be met or exceeded. (sub-weight = ______)
    6. Standard Warranty - Degree to which the standard warranty of Part 5 is proposed to be met or exceeded. (sub-weight = _______)
    7. System Support - Demonstrated ability to meet or exceed reliability and maintainability requirements; suitability of test equipment; quality of manuals; and effectiveness of training programs. (sub-weight = ______)
  • V. Proposed Price (weight = _______). The lowest proposal price (among all proposals) will be divided by the proposal price being scored, and the resulting quantity will be multiplied by the weight for the proposed price criterion.
  • VI. Qualifications (weight = _______). Degree to which Offeror exceeds the required qualifications of Section 1.1.4.3.1 above.
    1. Financial Strength and Resources (sub-weight = ______)
    2. Human and Physical Resources (sub-weight = ______)
    3. Record of Performance on Bus Contracts (sub-weight = ______)
  • VII. Other Financial Impacts (weight = _______). This factor will consider the following financial impacts: maintenance costs resulting from parts reliability, parts standardization, warranties, timeframe for Contract performance and final delivery, and the extent to which the Procuring Agency can analyze cost and pricing data. 

     

1.1.4.3.3 Application of Evaluation Criteria. (Completely Weighted Formula Illustrative Method)

(NOTE: This section may or may not be included, dependent upon the specific criteria that are included in Section 1.1.4.3.2.)

Proposals will be evaluated against the pass/fail Criteria Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Any proposal which meets all pass/fail criteria, or fails one or more of these criteria but is susceptible of being made to meet such failed criteria, will be considered within the competitive range. Otherwise, a proposal may not be considered to be within the competitive range.

Sub-criteria of Criteria Nos. 4 and 6 will be scored based on the reviewer's determination of the degree of compliance with Contract requirements, potential risks and benefits, and strengths and weaknesses. The score is reduced in proportion to the extent of non-conformance, discrepancies, errors, omissions, and risks to the Procuring Agency. Scores will be assigned according to the following:

9 - 10

Exceptional. Fully compliant with Contract requirements and with desirable strengths or betterments; no errors, or risks, or weaknesses or omissions.

6 - 8

Good to Superior. Compliant with Contract requirements; some minor errors, or risks, or weaknesses or omissions.

4 - 5

Adequate. Minimally compliant with Contract requirements; errors, or risks, or weaknesses or omissions; possible to correct and make acceptable.

1 - 3

Poor to Deficient. Non-compliant with Contract requirements; errors, or risks, or weaknesses or omissions; difficult to correct and make acceptable.

0

Unacceptable. Totally deficient and not in compliance with Contract requirements; not correctable.

An estimate of the impact costs to the Procuring Agency will be made for the items listed in Criterion No. 7. Resultant scores for each sub-criterion will be weighed by the appropriate weight factors and a total score for each criterion determined. The scores of Criteria Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will then be weighed by the appropriate weight factors and a total score developed for the proposal. The following table illustrates the procedure.

II. NARRATIVE / TRADE-OFF METHOD

1.1.4.3.2 Evaluation Criteria (Narrative / Trade-Off Illustrative Method)

  • I. Unacceptable Exceptions, Conditions, Reservations and Understandings (pass or fail). Exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings that are explicitly, fully and separately stated on the required form of Section 1.1.6.9 "Form for Proposal Deviation" will be evaluated for their acceptability. A proposal having a preponderance of unacceptable exceptions and conditions may be cause for the proposal to be rejected. Each of any exceptions and/or conditions made in a proposal will be evaluated and the Procuring Agency will determine their individual acceptability. An unacceptable exception, condition, reservation or understanding, if not withdrawn by the Offeror upon the request by the Procuring Agency, would be cause for the proposal to be rejected. For the purposes of determining the competitive range a proposal containing unacceptable exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings may be included on the basis that the proposal is capable of being made acceptable provided that the Offeror withdraw or modify the unacceptable exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings. Any exceptions, conditions, reservations or understandings which do not cause the Procuring Agency to consider a proposal to be outside the competitive range, will be evaluated according to the respective evaluation criteria and/or sub-criteria which they affect.

  • II. Other Pass/Fail Criteria - (NOTE: If the procuring agency wishes to impose any other unalterable conditions on the proposals, these may be included as pass/fail criteria. Proposer criteria in addition to those specified in Section 1.1.4.3.1 "Qualification Requirements" (such as financial capability, proof of ability to provide performance bonds, or proven experience record) or essential technical criteria (such as propulsion system or approved equal, or structural requirements) may be either included in this category as pass/fail criteria, or evaluated under the following criteria with extremely low ranking for attributes that are unsatisfactory. The necessary input data should correspond to proposal requirements listed in Sections 1.1.3.2.2 "Technical Proposal" or 1.1.3.2.3 "Management Plan.")

  • III. Technical Proposal - The transit bus and support offered in the technical proposal will be evaluated for the following factors which are listed in their relative order of importance:

    1. Powertrain - Operating experience of previous users and test results of proposed engine, transmission, and subsystems in transit service. The degree to which performance requirements of Part 3: Technical Specifications and the needs of the Procuring Agency, for the engine and transmission are proposed to be met. The risk of development tasks (if any) will be assessed.
    2. Structure, Suspension, and Body - Operating experience of previous users and test results of proposed structure, suspension (including braking systems and steering) and body in transit service. The degree to which performance requirements of Part 3: Technical Specifications and the needs of the Procuring Agency, for these systems are proposed to be met. The risk of development tasks (if any) will be assessed.
    3. Other Major Subsystems - Operating experience of previous users and test results of proposed major subsystems in transit service. The degree to which performance requirements of Part 3: Technical Specifications and the needs of the Procuring Agency, for each major subsystem are proposed to be met. The risk of development tasks (if any) will be assessed.
    4. Quality Assurance - Sufficiency of in-place Quality Assurance Program and procedures to meet requirements.
    5. Spare Parts Availability - Degree to which the required availability of spare parts (Section 2.5.4) are proposed to be met or exceeded.
    6. Standard Warranty - Degree to which the standard warranty of Part 5 is proposed to be met or exceeded.
    7. System Support - Demonstrated ability to meet or exceed reliability and maintainability requirements; suitability of test equipment; quality of manuals; and effectiveness of training programs.
    8. Other Financial Impacts - This factor will consider the following financial impacts: maintenance costs resulting from parts reliability, parts standardization, warranties, timeframe for Contract performance and final delivery, and the extent to which the Procuring Agency can analyze cost and pricing data.
    9. Qualifications - Degree to which Offeror exceeds the required qualifications of Section 1.1.4.3.1 above.
      1. Human and Physical Resources.
      2. Financial Strength and Resources.
      3. Record of Performance on Bus Contracts.
  • (NOTE: The necessary input data should correspond to proposal requirements listed in Sections 1.1.3.2.2 "Technical Proposal" or 1.1.3.2.3 "Management Plan.")

  • IV. Proposed Price. The price proposals will be evaluated and appropriate, uniform treatment of unit costs, ancillary products and services, escalators, exchange rates, deviations and options will reduce each proposal to a single price evaluation figure. (NOTE: FTA competitive procurement requirements specify that to preserve the right to exercise options, they should be included in the evaluation). The price proposals will be evaluated and appropriate, uniform treatment of unit costs, ancillary products and services, escalators, exchange rates, deviations and options will reduce each proposal to a single price evaluation figure. (NOTE: FTA competitive procurement requirements specify that to preserve the right to exercise options, they should be included in the evaluation).

1.1.4.3.3 Application of Evaluation Criteria. (Narrative / Trade-Off Illustrative Method)

(NOTE: This section may or may not be included, dependent upon the specific criteria that are included in Section 1.1.4.3.2.)

1. Proposals will be evaluated against the pass/fail Criteria Nos. 1 and 2. Any proposal which meets all pass/fail criteria, or fails one or more of these criteria but is deemed susceptible of being made to meet such failed criteria, will be considered within the competitive range. Otherwise, a proposal may not be considered to be within the competitive range.

Sub-criteria of Criterion No. 3 will be evaluated based on the reviewer's determination of the degree of compliance with Contract requirements, potential risks and benefits, and strengths and weaknesses. One of the following adjectival ratings should be used for each subcriterion:

Excellent

Significantly exceeds in all respects the minimum requirements; high probability of success; no significant weaknesses.

Very Good

Substantial response; meets in all aspects and in some cases exceeds, the critical requirements; no significant weaknesses.

Good

Generally meets minimum requirements; good probability of success; weaknesses can be readily corrected.

Marginal

Lack of essential information; low probability for success; significant weaknesses, but correctable.

Unsatisfactory

Fails to meet minimum requirements; needs major revision to make it acceptable.

Evaluators are to substantiate each rating with a brief narrative explaining their evaluation. The narrative will be specific in nature, addressing the strengths/weaknesses of the proposal in each area and provide a sound rationale for the conclusion reached. This becomes the basis for the evaluator's overall rating and comparison to other proposals. To arrive at the overall technical rating, the evaluator will develop a summary statement.

Evaluators may utilize an informal weighting scheme as a tool (not to be considered the formal evaluation) to assist them in formulating their evaluation. This may be helpful to individual evaluators in terms of remaining focused on the relationship between criteria and facilitate the evaluation process.

2. The individual evaluators will rank each of the proposals reviewed in descending order and provide a supporting narrative, addressing the specific elements of the proposal that are the determining factors (consistent with step 1 findings) for their position within the ranking.

3. Committee members will review and discuss the individual findings and develop a consensus ranking consistent with the evaluation criteria. The committee ranking must also be supported by a narrative that provides the rationale (specific strengths and weaknesses) for their determination.

4. The rank ordered list of proposals will be arrayed in descending order together with the price evaluation figure for each proposal. As the list is reviewed in descending order, any increase in price as technical merit decreases will cause the elimination of the proposal from the list. If more than one proposal remains, the committee will review the trade-offs between descending technical merit and descending price. The committee will then make a decision regarding which of the proposals is the most advantageous to the Procuring Agency, price and other factors considered.

Return to the top of the document

A A A    Bookmark and Share