https://www.americancityandcounty.com/wp-content/themes/acc_child/assets/images/logo/footer-logo.png
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcast
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources & Events
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • Municipal Cost Index – Archive
    • Equipment Watch Page
    • American City & County Awards
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Service
American City and County
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Hybrid Work
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcasts
    • Latest videos
    • Product Guides
  • Resources/Events
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers/eBooks
    • IWCE 2022
    • How to Contribute
    • American City & County Awards
    • Municipal Cost Index
    • Equipment Watch Page
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Stament
    • Terms of Service
  • newsletter
  • Administration
  • Economy & Finance
  • Procurement
  • Public Safety
  • Public Works & Utilities
  • Smart Cities & Technology
  • Magazine
acc.com

Procurement


Non-Numerical RFP Evaluations: Making a Good Business Decision

Non-Numerical RFP Evaluations: Making a Good Business Decision

Skyline reveals the State of Colorado's Capital, Colorado Springs. The written offers in response to your Request for Proposal (RFP) have been evaluated
  • Written by Government Procurement Contributor
  • 12th April 2004
Skyline reveals the State of Colorado’s Capital, Colorado Springs.


The written offers in response to your Request for Proposal (RFP) have been evaluated and a winner has been selected. Through a traditional numerical rating system, the evaluation spreadsheet shows that out of a possible 100 points, the first place vendor has received 95 points, second place has received 94.5 points, third place has received 93 points, and so on and so forth.

You have a winner, but you do not have a clear winner. How do you explain to the second place offeror that they lost by one-half of a point? Where exactly did they lose that one-half of a point? Realistically, there are no reasonable explanations for such an insignificant difference in score.

Many years ago when I worked as a purchasing agent in private industry, I was tasked with selecting a coffee supply company to provide each of our departments with packaged soup and coffee on a twice-weekly basis. We solicited offers from five different suppliers and evaluated them all on several different criteria. Price, of course, was an important consideration. Along with price, however, we also requested product samples and had several of our employees give their opinions about how the coffee tasted. We checked customer references. We compared delivery schedules among the suppliers to determine which one best met our needs. And, finally, we interviewed the delivery person to assess their background, ability, and desire to provide the level of customer service we desired.

Once our individual evaluations were complete, the review team met, discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each supplier, and decided which vendor should receive the contract. Essentially we made a business decision as to which vendor we felt would give us the best “bang for the buck.” Nowhere in this process did we use a numerical rating system. The end result was that we hired a vendor who consistently provided an excellent product at a reasonable price and in a timely manner.

But this example is from private industry and unlike public procurement offices, they have the ability to use a non-numerical evaluation process. Right? Not necessarily. In regards to the evaluation of proposals received in response to a RFP, the Colorado Procurement Code and Rules state that “Numerical rating systems may be used.” In essence, this rule is saying that the use of numerical rating systems is optional and is not a requirement under Colorado law.

In the summer of 2002, the State of Colorado issued a RFP to select a vendor (or vendors) for its procurement, fleet, and travel card programs. Within the RFP document, the state described the evaluation process to be used:

“Multiple evaluation committees, through a phased evaluation process, will evaluate the merits of proposal received in accordance with the evaluation factors stated in this RFP and formulate a recommendation. While a numerical rating system may be used to assist the evaluation committee in selecting the competitive range (if necessary) and making an award decision, the award decision ultimately is a business decision that will reflect an integrated assessment of the relative merits of the proposals using the factors and their relative weights disclosed in the RFP.”

In this particular RFP, a numerical rating scheme was utilized, but merely as a tool to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each written offer. The final score for each offeror did not necessarily result in a final determination as to which vendor(s) would be recommended for award.

Phase I
In Phase I of the evaluation, separate evaluation committees for each of the three card programs reviewed and scored proposals submitted for their respective programs. For each card program, general factors and sub-factors were all assigned relative numerical weights. Each factor was then multiplied by a “Standards Score” from 1 to 5 with 5 being the best possible score. Standards Scores were based on an adjectival description for each general factor.

For example, a score of 5 ( excellent) was described as a proposal that met all requirements and exceeded most mandatory requirements in tangible, clearly advantageous ways, no clarifications or revisions were necessary to comply with the state’s requirements, and there very little if any risk of unacceptable or late performance. A Standards Score of 1 (poor) was characterized by an approach that did not substantially comply with the state’s requirements in many respects, the offer had a very limited understanding of the scope of work, and there was a high risk of unacceptable or late performance.

The Phase I committees then discussed scores and modified individual ratings as appropriate. For the purpose of conducting discussions with offerors, each proposal response was classified into one of three categories: “unacceptable” (a proposal which was so deficient that it would require extensive amounts of state involvement to change the approach and achieve successful completion), “potentially acceptable” (although deficient in several areas, clarifications and/or revisions could possibly make the offer acceptable), or “acceptable” (the proposal clearly met the state’s requirements with few or no clarifications and/or revisions needed).

Each Phase I committee then composed an executive summary which described the strengths and weaknesses of each offer. Numerical ratings were used in this phase of the evaluation as a mechanism to help identify the merits as well as deficiencies of each proposal response. The executive summaries also designated which offers each Phase I team recommended to be included in the “competitive range.” In this case, the competitive range consisted of those proposals that were classified as either potentially acceptable or acceptable.

Phase II
Upon completion of the initial Phase I review, one key individual from each Phase I team migrated to a single Phase II team. In addition, three new team members became a part of the Phase II evaluation committee. The Phase II team reviewed the findings and recommendations from each Phase I committee and decided which of the offerors should be in the competitive range and subsequently invited to give oral presentations.

Both Phase I and II teams attended the oral presentations. Upon completion of the oral presentations, Phase I committee members were allowed to adjust their original scores as appropriate and advised the Phase II team of these adjustments. At the same time, a Phase III committee consisting of three individuals, all at the executive level, also attended the oral presentations.

Phase III
Ultimately, this Phase III team reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Phase I and II committees. It was then decided which of the vendors should be sent a request to submit a Best and Final Offer (BAFO). BAFOs were then analyzed by the Phase I, II, and III teams. Phase I and II committees submitted their comments along with revised scores and recommendations to the Phase III team for their consideration. When all was said and done, it was the Phase III team which made the final award recommendations. A selection memorandum was written which described, in general, the evaluation process used, the strengths and weaknesses of each of the finalists, and, finally, the discriminating factors that lead to the final award recommendations.

This was a highly complex and rigorous source selection process. Along the way, the state utilized various subject matter experts to assess each vendor’s information technology capabilities as well as to evaluate some very complex financial issues (rebates and incentives). All in all, approximately thirty individuals throughout the State of Colorado were somehow involved in either evaluating proposals or providing technical advice.

This particular RFP evaluation was painstaking due to the complex nature of the procurement and the potential dollar volume (an estimated one billion dollars over a possible eight-year term) involved. Many, if not most, non-numerical evaluations need not be as exacting as was this one.

By not restricting itself solely to a numerical rating system, the state was able to make a business judgment as to which vendors provided the most advantageous offers (price and other factors considered). Although numerical ratings proved to be useful in assisting with these determinations, the state did not base its source selection exclusively on the final score for each of the vendors.

It should be noted that several of the offerors chose to inspect the procurement file after the award of this RFP. What they saw in their review of the file was an evaluation process that demanded a thorough and equitable analysis of each proposal response. As a result, although some vendors were understandably disappointed by not having received an award, the state received no formal protests against the award recommendations.

So, instead of finding yourself backed into a corner trying to explain to an unsuccessful offeror why they lost an award by one half of a point, consider the benefits and advantages of using a non-numerical evaluation system. When used properly, it’s a fair process, it’s a reasonable process, and it’s a completely justifiable and defensible means of selecting the vendor who will give your agency the best “bang for the buck.”

Tags: ar mag Procurement

Most Recent


  • sustainability
    With adequate data, a local government’s sustainability goals are within reach
    To reach ambitious green environmental goals, cities and counties need good data, says Jennifer Robinson, global government strategic advisor at analytics provider SAS. “Sustainability requires comprehensive knowledge of what has happened, what is happening, and what may happen. Collecting data and sharing it between departments and with other organizations is one of the key elements […]
  • metal building
    Metal buildings can be a lifesaver for local governments needing to expand
    In 2023, cities and counties are relying on metal buildings to help them meet their infrastructure needs and requirements, says Harlem, N.Y.-based architect and educator Victor Body-Lawson FAIA, founding principal of Body Lawson Associates Architects & Planners. “Yes, metal building systems are ideal for needs and uses like infrastructure, storage, recreation facilities, industrial warehouses and […]
  • infrastructure procurement
    Taking a higher priority
    When budgets become tight, and unforeseen challenges or emergencies occur, government entities must re-prioritize operational needs, often deferring infrastructure projects and facility maintenance. However, as buildings continue to age, and the backlog of maintenance and upgrade projects becomes longer, infrastructure is taking a higher priority for municipalities, school districts and higher education institutions. Federal funding […]
  • infrastructure procurement
    Is your agency’s procurement team sidelined during the infrastructure procurement process?
    Early in my professional career as an agency CPO, I was asked if my team played a role in infrastructure projects. I did not know how to answer that question, so I investigated. I found that despite our centralized procurement setup, infrastructure projects—from preparing solicitations to awarding—were handled in a siloed environment by a separate […]

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your American City and County account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • Public procurement can be transformative for stakeholders in a community
  • The pandemic has led to big adjustments in procurement staffing in governments
  • Adapting procurement priorities for a post-COVID environment
  • IT infrastructure in government is getting a post-pandemic makeover

White papers


Digital Government Service Delivery – A Guide for Buyers

23rd February 2023

Modernizing government services for today’s resident expectations

24th January 2023

Preparing Your Community Now for the Next Generation of Older Adults

18th October 2022
view all

Webinars


Future-proof Your State and Local Government Finance: 5 Key Trends for 2023

6th February 2023

How To: Evaluate Digital Government Service Delivery Technologies

23rd January 2023

Using Technology to Enhance Communications

29th November 2022
view all

PODCAST


Young Leaders Episode 4 – Cyril Jefferson – City Councilman, High Point, North Carolina

13th October 2020

Young Leaders Episode 3 – Shannon Hardin – City Council President, Columbus, Ohio

27th July 2020

Young Leaders Episode 2 – Christian Williams – Development Services Planner, Goodyear, Ariz.

1st July 2020
view all

GALLERIES


Gallery: America’s top 10 bicycle-friendly cities

20th March 2023

Gallery: Top 10 hardest working American cities

8th March 2023

Gallery: Top 10 least expensive American metro areas

24th February 2023
view all

Twitter


AmerCityCounty

IWCE 2023: Enhanced bandwidth and cybersecurity in the face of natural disasters dlvr.it/SldY7W

28th March 2023
AmerCityCounty

With adequate data, a local government’s sustainability goals are within reach dlvr.it/SldTc9

28th March 2023
AmerCityCounty

Overcoming worker shortages in public sector amidst growing demand dlvr.it/SlYssG

27th March 2023
AmerCityCounty

Report: Renters living at or below the poverty line face a ‘severe shortage of housing’ dlvr.it/SlR6rb

24th March 2023
AmerCityCounty

Report: Technology is encouraging unprecedented collaboration in local government organizations dlvr.it/SlNYqx

23rd March 2023
AmerCityCounty

Metal buildings can be a lifesaver for local governments needing to expand dlvr.it/SlMCV1

23rd March 2023
AmerCityCounty

Transportation department to invest $94M into projects promoting innovation, safety dlvr.it/SlKRf7

22nd March 2023
AmerCityCounty

How state and local CIOs can prioritize security, cloud and legacy systems dlvr.it/SlK7H1

22nd March 2023

Newsletters

Sign up for American City & County’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about local governments.

Resale Insights Dashboard

The Resale Insights Dashboard provides model-level data for the entire used equipment market to help you save time and money.

Municipal Cost Index

Updated monthly since 1978, our exclusive Municipal Cost Index shows the effects of inflation on the cost of providing municipal services

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital audience? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • IWCE’s Urgent Communications
  • IWCE Expo

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us

FOLLOW American City and County ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2023 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.