Practices for Developing Transparent Best Value Selection Procedures (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 21-45
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 21... ...
22 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview With the passage of its D-B legislation in 2009, Caltrans began using best value procurement. Its thoroughly documented process builds on other state procedures.
|
From page 22... ...
23 Type of Factor Evaluation Factors Pass/Fail Legal Financial Technical/Quality Management/Administration Evaluation Criteria Environmental Compliance and Public Outreach Plans Responsiveness to RFP and Design Concept Transportation Management Plan and Safety Source: Caltrans (2012b)
|
From page 23... ...
24 weaknesses of the proposals. Next, the TRC evaluates the strengths and weaknesses and assigns an adjectival rating to each technical criterion.
|
From page 24... ...
25 Lessons Learned The Caltrans agency representative for this study provided the following lessons learned for developing and maintaining a transparent best value process: • Evaluation criteria should be made as clear as possible to the proposers to ensure the success of the best value procurement process. • The TRC must reach a consensus as a whole.
|
From page 25... ...
26 RFP Section Example Technical Proposal 1. Design (25–40 points)
|
From page 26... ...
27 • Evaluate ELOIs based on the scoring criteria provided in the advertisement; • Evaluate technical proposal based on the rating criteria provided in the RFP; • Provide comments to defend scores -- the score must be substantiated by comments; • Comments are to be concise and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal; • Scoring by evaluators does not need to be the same across all evaluators; however, each evaluator should be consistent across each team with respect to scoring; • Perform evaluations independently; • Develop good understanding of the evaluation criterion for each phase; and • Attend meetings and make site visits. Evaluation Committee FDOT divides its evaluation committee into two groups.
|
From page 27... ...
28 been submitted. FHWA is invited to sit in on federal-aided oversight projects.
|
From page 28... ...
29 Evaluation Criteria/Award Algorithms MDOT indicated in the interview that establishing a welldefined list of evaluation criteria is one of its most important factors in achieving a fair and transparent best value selection. MDOT does not have a standard template for best value projects; instead, it conducts best value selection on a projectby-project basis.
|
From page 29... ...
30 Evaluation Committee The MDOT best value evaluation committee often includes a project manager, construction engineer, and other personnel related to the project. The committee specifically includes a member of a statewide Central Selection Review Team to help mitigate biases and ensure a defensible evaluation process.
|
From page 30... ...
31 results posted publicly in accordance with MnDOT standards (MnDOT 2013)
|
From page 31... ...
32 erocS noitpircseD lasoporP noitpircseD QOS etaR Excellent (E) • Submitter has exceptional qualifications.
|
From page 32... ...
33 Technical Advisors (TAs) • TAs (i.e., members of the core project team)
|
From page 33... ...
34 MnDOT notes that the debriefings may not include pointby-point comparisons of the debriefed proposer's proposal with other proposals. To ensure the evaluation process is fair and transparent, the score breakdown of SOQs and the technical proposal and evaluators' comments are placed on a public website.
|
From page 34... ...
35 To enhance the transparency and fairness of the evaluation process, NYSDOT uses the following strategies: • NYSDOT provides a detailed description of the quality evaluation factors, the objectives and requirements for each quality evaluation factor, the relative weights of the quality evaluation factors, and the information to be submitted in their RFQs and RFPs. • The result of rating individual evaluation factors must be arrived at through consensus of the members of evaluation teams and the selection committee as applicable.
|
From page 35... ...
36 Table 14 summarizes quality and technical factors defined in the RFP. These factors and their sub-factors were rated by using ten level adjectival ratings as shown in Table 15.
|
From page 36... ...
37 Source: New York State Thruway Authority (2012)
|
From page 37... ...
38 TABLE 18 ONEIDA'S PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES OVER NIAGARA Source: New York State Thruway Authority (2012)
|
From page 38... ...
39 the evaluation. Project-specific training is provided to those involved in the procurement process in advance of reviewing the SOQs and RFP responses.
|
From page 39... ...
40 • Step 2: RFP and submittal of proposals. The department evaluates the proposals and selects the final one.
|
From page 40... ...
41 The quality and price weights are determined by the project development team during the development of the RFP, and were mentioned in the RFPs issued to the proposers. Table 22 illustrates an example of a best value selection scoring process.
|
From page 41... ...
42 (TESP) , scoring team with a chairperson, selection official, and observer.
|
From page 42... ...
43 Scoring Team The members of the scoring team are ODOT employees who have previous experience with similar projects (understand comprehensively the project's evaluation categories and subcategories) or are familiar with the evaluation process in the best value selection.
|
From page 43... ...
44 requirements for each technical and quality evaluation factor, and the relative weights of the technical and quality evaluation factors. • Evaluation teams and selection committees use a clarification or communication process to resolve any ambiguities, errors, and omissions related to these criteria stated in the RFQ/RFP.
|
From page 44... ...
45 • Time (proposer's number of days for the substantial completion dates of the RFP) ; • Technical merit; • The risk analysis of the added value elements; and • The best technical score.
|
From page 45... ...
46 agency believes that providing training for the analysis and evaluation committee members improves the consistency and fairness. The purpose of training is to ensure that the process is followed as outlined in the RFP, Instructions to Proposers, and Evaluation and Selection Manual.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.