CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL EVALUATION SOFTWARE FOR PUBLIC OWNERS

Best Value(TM)

THE NEED


 “An agency’s primary purpose is to serve their constituents in the most effective and efficient way possible. One of the key components of the success of any agency is a fair, equitable and transparent Procurement process which results in the best possible solutions, products, and services.” (NGIP The Institute for Public Procurement, White Paper “We ‘No Bid’ and I’ll tell you why.”, Part one in a series, 2013)


  • Requiring award based on best value, Legislated changes in procurement provide little guidance on creation of fair, equitable, and transparent solicitations.
  • Means and methods, often not well defined, remain open to subjectivity, bias, and political influence.  
  • Guidance on consideration of best value is broadly subjective; typically reputation, experience, quality, safety, personnel, financial capability, and other relevant factors.  
  • Best Value(TM) Proposal Evaluation software establishes an objective hierarchical structured scoring framework creating a comprehensive environment of standardized and objective evaluation. 
  •  The Best Value(TM) scoring techniques result in a more effective and efficient process.
     

"The best way to maintain the trust of the public is to have a process that , though it may include some subjectivity, is still one that is difficult to influence."..."The absence of a formal process to incorporate non-price criteria into the final evaluation and selection increases the chances of subjecting your selection committee to scrutiny resulting from charges that the process was not as “fair” as it should have been." ("Best Practices For Use of Best Value Selections" – A joint Publication of Associated General Contractors of America and National Association of State Facilities Administrators, 2006)

    

  • Decision theorists recognize an owner’s cognitive bias does affect the decision process.   The lack of a well established and objective criteria system to consistently score and rank proposals leads to bias.  Scoring benchmarks require individually scored objective criteria to overcome the natural bias.    
  • Lack of well-defined criteria naturally lead to the owner’s belief that the low percentage or fixed fee is the best value.
  • Best Value(TM) software incorporates owner's specific project information into the technical evaluation objectively and without bias.  
  • The owner may choose to develop their own criteria,  use pre-established criteria including categories of Firm Experience, Project Specific Experience, Team Member Experience, Financial Stability, Quality Control, Safety, Pricing, References, Interviews, and HUB participation, or use a combination of both. .   
  • Best Value(TM) guides an owner to score proposals objectively, fairly, and consistently across all proposals.

  

 “There is currently no standard method for scoring technical proposals in a best value selection. If agencies cannot justify the “value” added to the project in terms of a trade-off with additional costs, those tendering offers will justifiably file protests." (Leadership & Management in Engineering, 3(3),  "Engineering the procurement phase to achieve the best value" )


  • Best Value(TM) standardizes the scoring for each individual owner and each project.  
  • A solution specific to each owner's defined project is developed using:  

  1.           Owner established point values for each category.  
  2.           Owner selected criteria categories; select only those contributing to a best value solution
  3.           Owner additionally created criteria; if desired
  4.           Best Value(TM) printout of required document submission for inclusion in the Request for Proposals.
  5.           Best Value(TM) printout of well defined score factors for inclusion in the Request for Proposals.  
  6.           Best Value(TM) reports and recommendations for owner consideration at important milestones in the Request for Proposal process.

  • The result is:

  1.          Consistent results in evaluation and scoring.
  2.          Stable comparative value analysis
  3.          Accurate reflection of the value added as a trade off.
  4.          Solid documentation of the process and subsequent award determination. 



THE RESPONSE

image37

Best Value(TM) is designed to:

  1. Be easy to use and intuitive.
  2. Elicit trust of the process by the public.
  3. Remove political or personal influences.
  4. Consider technical capabilities and pricing.
  5. Provide objectivity in a subjective environment.
  6. Provide solid documentation in the event of protest.
  7. Prevent award at any price based on technical scores.
  8. Allow owner determined technical score point structure.
  9. Require only 1 individual instead of a committee of many.
  10. Alert owner of issues requiring investigation prior to award.
  11. Provide a "Selection Criteria" printout for use in the RFP process.
  12. Allow owner determined split between technical and price weight.
  13. Reduce the man hours required to evaluate and score proposals.
  14. Provide proposer "Submittal Requirements" for use in the RFP  process . 
  15. Present documented and printed reports at milestone intervals in the selection process with recommendations as appropriate.
  16. Present recommendations for owner consideration based on owner's defined "best value" requirements.







              "I strongly support this system and recommend it to others who go through the processes Medina County just completed to choose the best contractors." 

                                  Chris Schuchart -County Judge

THE SAVINGS

image38

Best Value(TM) saves money and time for an owner:


  1. Easy to set up.
  2. Evaluation is consistent and established.
  3. Evaluation benchmarks are well defined.
  4. Requires only 1 person for the evaluation process.
  5. Objective definitions based on the owners specific project information.
  6. Reports provide well documented results creating public trust.


Best Value(TM) Proposal Evaluations lead to:

  1. Objective selections.
  2. Lower procurement cost.
  3. Trust by the public of the process.
  4. Reduced risk of a formal protest saving time and expense.


COMPARED TO:

  

Traditionally, proposals are evaluated by ; 

  1. Ill defined benchmarks.
  2. One or more end users.
  3. One or more architect representatives.
  4. One or more public citizens with political influence.
  5. One or more owner administrative representatives.
  6. Manually performed and compiled evaluation on paper. 
  7. Using imprecise sliding scales of 1 to some higher number.


Traditional methods lead to:

  1. Subjective selections.
  2. Higher procurement cost.
  3. Political and personal influence.
  4. Distrust by the public of the process.
  5. Opportunity for formal protest is large leading to more time and expense.



 

Subscribe for email and updates

Type your email address below then click Sign Up Now.