Evaluating

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Responses
Presented By:
Department of General Services
Bureau of Procurement

Rev. June, 2014

Agenda
What is a Request for Proposal (RFP)?
Evaluator Roles & Responsibilities
Understanding the Evaluation Process

Independent Scoring How do I?

Evaluator Scoring Guide
Evaluator Scoring Guide How Do I Use It?
Group Discussions
Important Reminders
Glossary
Knowledge Check
Survey
2

What is a Request for Proposal

(RFP)?

Definition & Benefits

Definition Request for Proposal (RFP) - A competitive procurement process in
which the Commonwealth identifies requirements and solicits potential
Offerors to provide innovative solutions. The RFP encourages Offerors
to provide the best combination of price, quality and service.
RFP Benefits-

Allows the Commonwealth to:

Seek an Offerors solution to an agency requirement
Provide Offerors with flexibility in the content of their proposals in
terms of materials, services, or construction
Ensure fair and just competition among qualified Offerors
Conduct negotiations
Consider subjective criteria other than price in the
award process

RFP Process Overview Chart

Notice of Forthcoming
Procurement & RFP
Justification

Advertise RFP

(Form BOP-124)

(if required)

Recommendation for
Selection for Contract
Negotiations

Oral Presentations
Questions & Answers

Initial Preparation
Pre-Proposal Conference
(if applicable)

Evaluation Committee
Selection
Notify Legal, Comptroller,
BSBO

(if held)

Technical Committee
reports technical
evaluation

Finalize Technical
Scores
Includes Small Diverse
Business (SDB) scoring
& Domestic Workforce
Utilization

Contract Negotiations

Open Cost &

Tentative Overall
Scoring

Contract Execution

Receipt of Proposals
Responsiveness Determination:

Develop Statement of
Work

Clarifications

Technical Submittal
Cost Submittal
SDB Submittal
List Proposals

BAFO
Technical
Cost
SDB (if needed)

Weight Setting &

Evaluation Criteria

Debriefing

Review Proposals
RFP Approval

Evaluator Role

Individual Scoring
Group Scoring
Note: All proposals must
be reviewed prior to group
discussion

Final Evaluation
Only pieces involved in
BAFO are re-scored

Evaluator Roles & Responsibilities

Standards of Conduct
Members of the Evaluation Committee will not be identified by the
Commonwealth
Members of the Evaluation Committee are:

Required to sign a Confidentiality Statement and No Conflict

Form and adhere to the provisions specified

Prohibited to inform anyone that they are a voting member or

divulge any of the other voting members names

Prohibited to meet with Offerors or other committee members

to discuss the RFP, the proposals, or any related matters
except in formal, scheduled committee meetings

Required to keep proposals, notes, and evaluation forms

secure and confidential

Standards of Conduct (contd)

Members of the Evaluation Committee are:

Prohibited from comparing one Offerors proposal to another

Prohibited from disclosing scores to Offerors

Prohibited from disclosing proposals of non-selected Offerors

Objectives of Technical Evaluation

Use the evaluation criteria established in the RFP to fairly and
objectively evaluate the technical proposals

Applies the greatest weight and places the utmost importance on

the Offerors technical approach
Ensures all Offerors proposals are evaluated in a fair and
systematic manner

Understanding the Evaluation

Process

10

Overview of Evaluation Process

There are three main parts to evaluating an RFP which are:
Technical Submittal
Cost Submittal
Small Diverse Business (SDB) Submittal
These components are scored separately as illustrated on the subsequent slide

Proposals
Received
by Issuing Office

Check for Mandatory Requirements

Performed by Issuing Office, Legal & Comptroller

Technical
Submittal
Issuing Office forwards
to Evaluation Committee
for Individual Scoring

Cost Submittal
Retained unopened
by the Issuing Office
until Technical Scores
are final

Small Diverse
Business Submittal
Issuing Office forwards to
Bureau of Small Business
Opportunities (BSBO)
for Scoring

Financials
Issuing Office forwards to
Office of Budget for
Evaluation and Financial
Analysis

Initial Scores
Group Discussions
(Technical only)

Clarifications
Evaluators Role

Final Scores

11

70% Rule
A 1,000 point scale is used to evaluate the three (3) main parts of the
proposal response. Typically, the percentage allotment is:
Technical

50%

500 points

Cost

30%

300 points

SDB

20%

200 points

Total Points:

1,000 points

Technical Proposal Evaluation threshold must be at least 70% of the total

available Technical points (70% of 500 points = 350 points)
Any Offeror that does not achieve 70% of the total available
technical points, is determined to be non-responsible and will not
receive further consideration in the process
Evaluators must keep the 70% Rule in mind during the
evaluation process

12

Evaluation/Scoring Process

Two steps of the Evaluation Scoring process are:

1. Independent Scoring
2. Group Discussion

13

Independent Scoring - How Do I?

14

Independent Scoring
Ground Rules

Understand the RFPs Statement of Work (SOW)

Read every proposal in detail in the random order assigned by

the Issuing Office

Be objective; free from bias (previous knowledge/experience),

dishonesty, and injustice

Refrain from performing research of any nature, including

Internet searches or obtaining information regarding an Offeror

Evaluators may not discuss proposals or independent scores

with anyone, except with committee members during formal
scheduled meetings

15

Independent Scoring
What to Consider in Scoring a Proposal
Completeness of the Offerors response to the requirements or
questions asked
Consistency in scoring the Offerors responses
Offerors experience and demonstrated understanding of the
contract requirements outlined in the SOW
Did the Offeror simply repeat the SOW? Reiterating the SOW
should not be considered an indication that an Offeror understands
the contract requirements
Proposals should provide specifics in the Offerors approach; not
merely repeat or paraphrase the RFP
After an objective assessment, identify the proposals
viability, feasibility and acceptability

16

Independent Scoring
Dos & Donts

DO give each proposal the same consideration up front

The name of the Offeror should not influence (positively or
negatively) the evaluators comments or ratings, except when
evaluating past performance

DO be fair and consistent in the proposal evaluation

DO provide detailed comments and accurate references

If an item is a strength/weakness for one proposal it must also be
noted as a strength/weakness when it appears in other proposals

DO NOT rate an idea as a positive in one proposal and the same idea as
a negative in another

DO NOT evaluate or compare proposals against one another

DO NOT score based on criteria that is not included in the RFP

DO NOT take it easy or be overly harsh. Fairly evaluate all

proposals against the requirements of the RFP

17

Independent Scoring
Documentation

It is extremely important that evaluators document and justify their scores

This information is used during debriefing conferences with
unsuccessful Offerors

Always ask yourself:

If I was present at the debriefing conference would I be able to defend
this assessment?
Ensure that your comments are clear, concise and professionally stated

The evaluation documents may be used during litigation and should

not contain informal or unrelated remarks

Antagonistic or inflammatory comments can lead to a protest and must

be avoided
All 0% and 100% scores must be fully justified

18

Evaluator Scoring Guide

19

Evaluator Scoring Guide

The Evaluator Scoring Guide was developed as a reference tool for Evaluators to
use when scoring proposals

Benefits:
Provides a consistent approach to evaluating proposals
Easy to use and understand

Failure to follow the Scoring Guide may result in an undesirable

Offeror

When finished scoring a proposal always ask yourself:

Did this Offeror demonstrate sufficient competence to be awarded the
contract?
If your scores do not reflect how you responded to this question then
you should revisit your scores
NOTE: The Evaluator Scoring Guide is provided on the subsequent
slide to assist Evaluators when scoring an RFP
20

Evaluator Scoring Guide

Percent
Score

90-100

Quality of
Response

Excellent

Description

The proposal addresses the

requirements completely, exhibits
Meets requirements outstanding knowledge, creativity, numerous strengths in key
innovation or other factors to
areas.
justify this rating.

Good

The proposal addresses the

requirements completely and
addresses some elements of the
requirements in an outstanding
manner.

70-79

Moderate

The proposal addresses most

elements of the requirements.

60-69

Marginal

The proposal meets some of the

RFP requirements.

80-89

0-59

Strengths Relative to
Requirements

Meets requirements some strengths in key

areas.

Weaknesses

Confidence in
Proposed
Approach

None

Very High

Minor - not in key

areas

High

Meets most requirements - Moderate - does

minimal strengths provided
not outweigh
in their response.
strengths
Meets some of the
Exist in key areas requirements with some
outweighs
clear strengths.
strengths

Meets a few to none of the

The proposal meets a few to none
Unacceptable
requirements with few or
of the RFP requirements.
no clear strengths.

Significant and
numerous

Moderate

Low

No Confidence

21

Evaluator Scoring Guide

How Do I Use It?

22

Evaluator Scoring Guide How Do I Use It?

Read each proposal and evaluate based on the requirements in the RFP
EXAMPLE: The RFP asked the Offeror to answer:
What is your process for dealing with an employee performance issue?

Offeror Response # 1
We are committed to perform
responsibly in the review and
revision of professional and
administrative policies and
procedures. Such policies
and procedures would be to
ensure that customer
complaints are addressed in a
timely and courteous manner,
always with the ultimate
consideration for customer
satisfaction. Matters that
would most often require
close attention include:
Late arrivals for service

Failure to appear at scheduled

service site
Unprofessional behavior
Unprofessional attire

What is Wrong with

Offeror Response #1?

Did you see a process

for identifying,
responding to, and
resolving performance
issues?
Did the response
discuss how will they
address the
performance issues?
Whose responsibility is
it to address the
performance issue?
What is the timeframe
for addressing and
resolving the
performance issue?

Offeror Response #2
Offeror provided mechanisms
for early identification and
response
Offeror discussed its
employment expectations
and provided documentation
of such
Offeror discussed its 24-hour
Corporate Compliance
Program
Offeror discussed the
process it would use to deal
with an employee issue:
Investigation

Verbal Warning
Written Warning
Termination

What is Right with

Offeror Response #2?

The Offeror
discussed its
process and the
various stages at
which the process is
initiated
Investigation

Verbal Warning
Written Warning
Termination
It also provided an
added bonus of
utilizing
Mechanisms for
Early Identification
and Response

Suspicion of substance abuse

23

Evaluator Scoring Guide How Do I Use It?

Consider the earlier examples of the employee performance question. How
would one score the responses below using the Evaluator Scoring Guide?
If the first response was marginal
Evaluator reviews the guide and notes that a marginal response should
receive between 60%-69% of the points allotted for the question
Evaluator determines it deserves 65% of the points allotted for the
question
If the second response was excellent
Evaluator reviews the guide and notes that an excellent response should
receive between 90%-100% of the points allotted for the question
Evaluator determines it deserves 100% of the points allotted for the
question

24

Group Discussions

25

Group Discussions
Group discussions are used to ensure evaluators have a common
understanding of the proposal and to allow evaluators to change their scores
based on the committees understanding of the proposal and discussion
Note: Evaluators must provide written justification for any adjusted scores
Items to be discussed:

Strengths and Weaknesses

Beneficial for debriefing sessions
Independent Scoring overview of each proposal

Variance in Scores
The group should discuss any criteria which has a significant variance in
score. An evaluator may take the opportunity to re-adjust their scores
Example:
3 out of 5 evaluators scored in a range between 90%-100%
2 evaluators scored in a range between 0%-59%

26

Group Discussions (contd)

During group discussions, evaluators may determine a need for oral or
written clarification on an Offerors proposal

1. Clarifications may:
Be different for each Offerors proposal
Address one (1) or more Offerors technical proposals

2. Offerors shall only provide additional information to clarify their

original response
This is not an opportunity for the Offeror to change their
response to the original question
3. Evaluators review each Offerors clarification response
Technical scores may be adjusted when related to a
clarification question

Adjusting technical scores requires written

justification
27

Group Discussions (contd)

During group discussions, evaluators may determine whether a Best
and Final Offer (BAFO) is needed
BAFOs may:
Differ for each Offerors proposal
Include any combination of the proposal (Technical, Cost, DB)
Address one (1) or more Offerors technical proposals
During group discussions, the Evaluation Committee will also discuss
items to be included in negotiations on the technical portion of the
proposal
At the end of the scoring process evaluators must sign and date their
individual scoring sheets, verifying that their scores are accurate
and final

28

Important Reminders

29

Important Reminders
Contact the Issuing Office if you have any questions regarding
the RFP and/or the Offerors proposal
Proposals shall not be discussed outside of the Evaluation
Committee meetings

Independent scoring is just thatindependent scoring

Your role as an evaluator requires you to commit a significant
amount of time and concentrated effort to the project

30

Glossary

31

Glossary
Best and Final Offer (BAFO) - A Best and Final Offer is initiated when
evaluators determine that proposals can be improved upon in the best
interest of the Commonwealth, BAFOs are not necessary when the
Commonwealth is satisfied with the proposals.
Bureau of Small Business Opportunities (BSBO) - An office within the
Department of General Services with the responsibility to assist small
businesses and small diverse businesses, including minority business
enterprises, women business enterprises, veteran business enterprises and
service-disabled veteran business enterprises, in competing for
Commonwealth contracting opportunities.

Evaluation Committee - A committee composed of evaluators (often 3, 5, 7

or more members) that are responsible for awarding points to the proposals so
they may be scored and ranked.

32

Glossary
Evaluator - A person that applies independent judgment in awarding
points to RFPs for the purpose of scoring and ranking them,
and participates in group discussions.
Issuing Office - The sole point of contact for the Offerors and Evaluation
Committee members with any questions regarding a RFP.
Offeror - A person or organization that submits a proposal in response to
a RFP. The term is synonymous with contractor, supplier or vendor.
Proposal - An offer made in response to an RFP which may be
subject to negotiation and award criteria.

Request for Proposal (RFP) - A competitive procurement process in

which the Commonwealth identifies requirements and solicits potential
Offerors to provide innovative solutions. The RFP encourages
Offerors to provide the best combination of price, quality and
service.

33

Glossary
Small Business - A small business is a business in the United States which is
independently owned, not dominant in its field of operation, employs no more
than 100 full-time or full-time equivalent employees, and earns less than $20
million in gross annual revenues ($25 million in gross annual revenues for
those businesses in the information technology sales or service business).
Small Diverse Business (SDB) A Small Diverse Business is a DGScertified minority-owned business, woman-owned business, service-disabled
veteran-owned business or veteran-owned business, or United States Small
Business Administration-certified 8(a) small disadvantaged business concern,
that qualifies as a small business.
Statement of Work (SOW) - A detailed description of the work
to be accomplished.

34

Knowledge Check

35

Knowledge Check
1. Members of the Evaluation Committee may not discuss the
proposals with other Committee Members except in formal
scheduled meetings.
a. True
b. False

36

Knowledge Check
2. Evaluator inquiries or questions relating to the RFP must be
directed to:
a. Issuing Office
b. Comptroller
c. Offeror

37

Knowledge Check
3. During the independent scoring, evaluators should NOT consider the

following in reviewing each proposal.

a. Previous knowledge/experience with the Offeror who submitted
the proposal
b. Internet searches
c. The other technical proposals that were submitted
d. All of the above

38

Knowledge Check
4. During the independent scoring, evaluators should consider the

following in reviewing each proposal.

a. The RFP Requirements
b. Evaluator Scoring Guide
c. Evaluation Criteria
d. All of the above

39

Knowledge Check
5. Evaluators must sign and date their independent scoring sheets

verifying that their scores are accurate and final.

a. True
b. False

40

Survey

Select the link below to complete an online

Zoomerang survey
https://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22FBFAGGMUE

41

You will receive credit for completing this

course within 24 hours. Please select the
Log Off button in the lower right corner to
close this course.
As a reminder, you will not receive an E-mail
notification for WBT completions.

Thank you!
42