Sample Source Selection Plan

I.                    Introduction:

Purchase request XXX presents a requirement for Technical Support for Industrial Hygiene and Safety to assist in the implementation of health & safety program at the University. This requirement is a re-competition of existing support contracts currently held by incumbents ABC & DEF. This procurement is anticipated to be a Firm Fixed Price (type of contract) contract to be performed over a five (5) year period.

It is the intent of the Purchasing Director to announce the availability of the procurement as broadly as possible to include posting on the SMU website. The procurement will be advertised as Request for Proposal XXXX-TAC. The Request for Proposal will reserve the right of the University to make multiple awards and to award based upon the initial proposals submitted.

Technical evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP shall be performed by at least three Technical Evaluation Committee members composed of University reviewers including representatives of XXX Department/School. The Evaluators shall be appointed by the Technical Requester for this procurement.

The Source Selection Official will be the Director of Purchasing.

II.                   Evaluation Criteria

The following evaluation criteria will be used to evaluate the proposals and is included in the Requet for Proposal:

General Evaluation Information – Best Value Procurement:

(a)    Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the University considering the combination of all specified evaluation criteria. This will be determined by a comparison of the quality of the technical proposal and the overall cost to the University. In making this comparison, the University is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical quality, organization/management and cost to the University.

(b)   Source selection under this RFP will be made on the basis of an integrated assessment of all proposals received in light of the evaluation criteria. Proposals received in response to this RFP will be evaluated for Technical Content and Cost. The results of the technical evaluations will be valued at approximately X% of the total weight in the selection process.

(c)    Only information contained in a proposal will be evaluated. If information is provided in a proposal about prior work, the customers for that work may be contacted to verify the information in the proposal.

 

Technical Evaluation Criteria

1.       Personnel Qualifications and Experience: Qualifications and experience of technical personnel in environmental regulation pertaining to hazardous and solid waste with specific emphasis on:

 

a.       Technical/Support Personnel:

·         Knowledge and experience of Safety & Health regulations as codified under Occupation Safety & Health Administration and National Consensus Standards, including recent knowledge and experience with University policies and orders pertaining to health & safety.

·         Specific experience with regulatory and other related tasks of the kind set forth in the Statement of Work.

·         Experience in development, participation, and support of health and safety programs at facilities similar to the University and in the private sector.

·         Knowledge, education and experience of personnel with safety and health issues and programs.

·         Knowledge and experience with environmental requirements and issues which may be encountered by health and safety professionals.

 

b.      Management Personnel:

·        Qualifications and experience of the Project Manager to be assigned including knowledge of regulatory matters and with management of similar programs with the diversity of tasks as set forth in the Statement of work.

 

2.       Organizational/Management Experience

 

a.       Corporate experience in providing services similar to those required by this Statement of Work to the University and/or private industry.

b.      The demonstrated availability of personnel resources to be assigned to this program including the adequacy of the management structure to assign and perform tasks in a timely manner and adequacy of the management structure between the Contractor and any second tier subcontractor.

c.       The ability of the Offeror to provide high quality, timely and cost effective technical services similar to those required by the Statement of Work,  including the ability to provide timely technical and financial progress reports.

 

Cost Evaluation Criteria

Cost Realism: Cost will be evaluated for reasonablenness and realism in relation to the mix of skill levels proposed, hours proposed by skill, total hours deliverable for the specified ceiling contract amount, appropriateness of travel and other non-labor cost expense and other cost elements, if any, proposed by the Contractor.

 III.                Evaluation Process

Each evaluator may be required to execute a Confidentiality Certificate prior to the time proposals are provided for evaluation.

A technical evaluation kickoff meeting will be held between the Purchasing Director and the Evaluation Committee after proposals are received. Evaluators will review the list of offerors and may be requested to execute a Conflict of Interest Certification prior to being provided copies of the technical proposals for evaluation. Any evaluator who identifies a valid conflict of interest with any offeror will be removed from the Evaluation Committee. Evaluators removed from the Evaluation Committee due to a valid conflict of interest with any offeror or who are unable to participate in the evaluation for any reason will not be replaced unless the number of evaluators remaining on the committee is reduced to two.

 

Scoring Process

Each evaluator shall be furnished a copy of each offerors proposal and will independently review each proposal. Each evaluation shall identify the notable major/minor strengths, major/minor weaknesses, deficiencies and other relevant comments about each factor for each proposal. The definition of these terms is as follows:

        Major Strength:

A Major Strength is any part of the proposal that is considered to have potential for resulting in superior contract performance, while satisfying the University’s requirements.

Minor Strength:

A Minor Strength is any part of the proposal that is considered to have potential for resulting in satisfactory contract performance, while satisfying the University’s requirements.

Minor Weakness:

A Minor Weakness is any part of the proposal that, while satisfying the University’s requirements, is considered to have potential for resulting in less than satisfactory contract performance.

Major Weakness:

A Major Weakness is any part of the proposal that, while satisfying the University’s requirements, is considered to have significant potential for resulting in unsatisfactory contract performance.

Deficiency:

A Deficiency is any part of the proposal that fails to provide sufficient information to assess potential contract performance, or that fails to satisfy the University’s requirements.

Scoring will be done by assignment of a color code to each overall factor by each evaluator. Each evaluator will prepare comments to support the color code he/she assigned to each factor.

Upon completion of the independent reviews, the Evaluation Committee will meet to discuss each proposal and to arrive at a consensus color code for each factor of all proposals and an overall color code for each proposal. The relative importance of the factors will be considered in assigning the overall color codes.

The color codes that will be used and their definitions are as follows:

Blue:      Superior. The proposal is clear, complete, and in-depth; it contains significant strengths, no deficiencies, no significant weaknesses, and not more than one minor weakness.

Green:  Acceptable. The proposal is generally clear, complete and in-depth; it contains significant strengths, no deficiencies, not more than one significant weakness, and few minor weaknesses; weaknesses can be readily corrected.

Yellow:                 Marginal. The proposal is sometimes unclear or incomplete or lacks depth; contains strengths but also contains a deficiency and major and/or minor weaknesses.

Red:       Unacceptable. The proposal lacks vital information to validate contents; it contains one or more major deficiencies and major and/or minor weaknesses and few or no significant strengths. A major revision to the proposal would be required to make it acceptable.

Upon completion of assigning color codes to the proposals, the evaluation committee will by consensus assign a numeric score to each proposal to establish their relative ranking. The numeric scoring shall be in accordance with the following:

                Blue:                      90 to 100 points

                Green:                  80 to 89 points

                Yellow:                                 50 to 79 points

                Red:                         0 to 49 points

Source Selection

The evaluation committee shall upon completion of the scoring prepare an “in confidence” report summarizing the results for the evaluations, including a narrative summary of the basis for the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies noted for each proposal, color codes assigned for each factor and to the total proposal and overall score for each offeror. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Purchasing who shall, in conjunction with the Technical Evaluation Committee, prepare and document a cost realism evaluation for each proposal.

Source Selection shall consist of the technical evaluation report, the cost realism evaluation and a copy of the Source Selection Plan for a determination of the source selected. The Purchasing Director shall prepare a memorandum stating the determination and the basis for the selection. The memorandum will be incorporated in the contract file documentation.

Post Selection Activities

The Director of Purchasing shall proceed with the procurement, including audit and negotiation, to achieve award of a contract to the selected offeror in accordance with the final source selection.