You Be the Judge - Case Studies Office of the State Comptroller Office of Operations Bureau of...

Request for Proposals Workshop

You Be the Judge - Case Studies

Office of the State ComptrollerOffice of OperationsBureau of Contracts

Priscilla CassidyKathy Heffernan

Interactive session

Scenario

What would you do?

Have a question, please ask

2

Class Format

RFP – Computer Programmer Services

RFP identified that each vendor must have, at a minimum, three (3) Programmers available for assignment but no more than twelve (12).

Multiple awards will be made to allow the

Agency to achieve a total number of 12 Programmers.

3

Scenario 1

RFP – Computer Programmer Services

Awards will be based on Best Value. The Bidder with the highest composite score will be awarded the number of positions equal to the number of candidates the Bidder proposed.

Awards will continue to the next highest

Bidder until the Agency has reached the required 12 Programmers.

4

Scenario 1

Four bidders submitted proposals. The summary of scores are as follows:

5

Scenario 1

Number of Candidates

Technical Score

Cost Score

Total Score

Bidder A

8 72 21 93

Bidder B

6 72 21 93

Bidder C

12 65 25 90

Bidder D

3 60 19 79

Scenario 1 – The Results

6

Based on the evaluation results, the Agency made multiple awards to Bidders A and B. Each Bidder received an award for six (6) positions each.

Approve the contract?

Request additional information?

Return the contract Non-approved?

7

Scenario 1 – What would you do?

8

Scenario 1 – Additional InformationRequest Additional Information

WhyState Finance Law Section 163 subsection 10a states that “In the event two offers are found to be substantially equivalent, price shall be the basis for determining the award recipient or, when price and other factors are found to be substantially equivalent, the determination of the commissioner or agency head to award a contract to one or more bidders shall be final. The basis for determining the award shall be documented in the procurement record.”

Scenario 1 – Additional Information

9

In cases where cost and technical are equal, the Agency identified their documented policy for breaking ties is to award to the vendor who submitted their proposal first.

In this case, the proposal due date was 2/16/11 at 2:00 PM. Bidder A’s proposal was date stamped received on 2/15/11 at 3:00 PM and Bidder B’s proposal was date stamped received on 2/16/11 at 10:00 AM.

Approve the contract?

Request additional information?

Return the contract Non-approved?

10

Scenario 1 – What would you do?

Return the contract non-approved and request the Agency follow their established policy for breaking ties.

Once the tie is broken, the Agency should award in accordance with the Method of Award identified in the RFP. In this case Bidder A should receive an award for 8 positions and Bidder B should win an award for 4 positions.

11

Scenario 1 – The Decision

Contract Reporter Exemption Request – an Agency submits a request for a Single Source Exemption with the following information:

An Agency issued a Request for Information (RFI) to determine the various options available for a unique software to work with their legacy system.

The Agency received only one response. The firm that responded offered a software product that meets the Agency needs and is compatible with their legacy system. The firm’s pricing was reasonable.

12

Scenario 2

The Agency conducted an internet search and no other firm was found that offered a product that would be compatible with their system.

As only one firm offered a product that would work with the Agency’s system, the Agency requested to contract with the Firm who responded to the RFI.

13

Scenario 2

Approve the Exemption Request?

Request additional information?

Non-approve and request the Agency advertise the procurement opportunity?

14

Scenario 2 – What would you do?

Deny the exemption request and instruct the Agency to advertise this procurement opportunity.

The Request for Information is an information gathering tool. It is not meant to be used to by pass the competitive process.

15

Scenario 2 – The Decision

RFP – Auditing Services

RFP specified a relative weight of:60% Technical 40% Cost

RFP identified the following criteria to be

evaluated:Relevant Experience in AuditingApproach to Specific ProjectReferences Cost

16

Scenario 3

RFP – Auditing Services

Scoring guide for technical criteria:

Excellent Response = all available pointsGood Response = half the available pointsUnacceptable Response = zero points

17

Scenario 3

Evaluation Summary Matrix

18

Scenario 3 Enter Points as follows:ExcellentGoodUnacceptable

All Available PointsHalf Available PointsZero Points

Bidder A Bidder B Bidder CExperience (20 Points)

13 18 18

Approach (20 Points) 16 16 12References (20 Points)

12 19 7

Total Technical (60 pts)

41 53 37

Cost (40 pts) 28 25 40Total Composite Score

69 78 77

Approve the Contract?

Request additional information?

Return the contract Non-approved?

19

Scenario 3 – What would you do?

Return the Contract Non-approved Why

Range of points assigned were not allowed by the scoring methodology as defined in the evaluation instructions

Course of ActionAgency should re-score proposals in accordance with the evaluation instrument

20

Scenario 3 – The Decision

PO received at OSC for annual software maintenance.

PO contains Appendix A.

Package contains a signed price quote.

21

Scenario 4

Approve the Contract?

Request additional information?

Return the contract Non-approved?

22

Scenario 4 – What would you do?

Return the PO unapprovedSoftware maintenance must be procured using a

full contract.

It is a service.

A PO has no terms and conditions.

A contract gives the Agency the benefits and protections of terms and conditions of deliverables, performance etc.

23

Scenario 4 – The Decision

RFP – Upgrade of Legacy Software System

RFP specified available workspace could accommodate up to five (5) contractor staff at a time.

Bidder A’s proposal identified 12 individuals with varying skills needed to accomplish the scope of work.

24

Scenario 5

The Agency requested Bidder A to clarify their proposal by confirming that no more than 5 staff employees would need to be on-site at any one time.

Bidder A confirmed the Agency’s assumptions.

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the Agency’s methodology established prior to receipt of the proposals. Bidder A received the highest composite score, was deemed responsible and responsive and was awarded the contract.

25

Scenario 5

Approve the Contract?

Request additional information?

Return the contract Non-approved?

26

Scenario 5 – What would you do?

Approve the Contract Why - State Finance Law Section 163 states that:

“Where provided for in the solicitation, state agencies may require clarification from offerors for purposes of assuring a full understanding of responsiveness to solicitation requirements”

27

Scenario 5 – The Decision

RFP – Statewide Exams by Service Area Each Service Area had a specified maximum number

of slots the agency desired to fill.

Bidders proposed by Service Area and could propose to fill any number of slots up to the maximum.

RFP fixed payment at $20 per slot

Thus, award was based on Technical score alone. Minimum Technical Score of 60% to be eligible for award.

28

Scenario 6

If the maximum number of slots in a Service Area are not awarded to the highest scoring vendor, award will proceed to the next highest vendor(s) until all slots are filled.

Bidders who have not received their requested number of slots in a Service Area will be given a statewide rank.

29

Scenario 6 - Method of Award

If all bidders for a Service Area are awarded their full capacity, and un-awarded slots still remain, those slots will be awarded to vendors which received a statewide rank.

Thus, Service Areas awarded surplus seats may not be located near Service Areas with unfilled seats.

30

Scenario 6 - The Results

What if no proposals are received for a Service Area? How does the agency fill the need?

What if none of the proposals received for a Service Area meet the Minimum Technical Score? Should the agency waive the Minimum Technical Score in any situation?

31

Scenario 6 – Questions to Consider

Does it harm the bidding community /or / NYS to award seats above the RFP stated allotments in some regions to maintain the overall statewide total?

Would it have been better to prioritize award of open seats to neighboring regions, if possible? What if not possible?

32

Scenario 6 – More Questions to Consider!

Approve the Contract?

Request additional information?

Return the contract Non-approved?

33

Scenario 6 – What would you do?

Ultimately approved.

Only slots that are used are paid for, so there is no penalty to NYS.

Agency felt maximizing capacity is in best interest.

Limited benefit if additional seats are not close by.

34

Scenario 6 – The Decision

OSC Bureau of Contracts reviewed 30,370 transactions totaling over 49 Billion Dollars.

Of those transactions, over 92% percent were approved!

35

April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011

Any Questions? Contact Information

Priscilla Cassidy Kathy Heffernan(518) 474-0039 (518) 486-6231pcassidy@osc.state.ny.uskheffernan@osc.state.ny.us

36

THANK YOU!

37