Question: PART 3 - EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS Schools should ensure that instructions to proponents are clear and descriptive and relate to the information needed in each

PART 3 - EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Schools should ensure that instructions to proponents are clear and descriptive and relate to the information needed in each area for evaluation purposes. For example, when requesting identification of individuals who will be assigned to the project, consider what information about the individuals (e.g. resumes, professional accreditations/licenses, etc.) is necessary to enable the evaluators to assess the appropriateness of the individuals proposed. Similarly, evidence of organizational experience might require specific types of information, which should be set out.

The RFP must fully disclose the evaluation methodology and process to be used in assessing submissions, including the method of resolving a tie score. It must clearly outline mandatory, rated, pricing and other criteria that will be used to evaluate submissions, including weight of each criterion. All criteria must comply with:

Directive Mandatory Requirement #14: Non-Discrimination - BPS organizations must not discriminate or exercise preferential treatment in awarding a contract to a supplier as a result of a competitive procurement process.

Provide a description of the evaluation methodology and process including:

Clear articulation of all mandatory requirements. BPS organizations must indicate that the mandatory requirements will be assessed on a pass/fail basis, outline how suppliers can achieve a passing grade, and state that where a submission is found not to comply with a mandatory requirement, no further evaluation of this submission will take place.

All weights, including sub-weights, for the rated requirements (where applicable) including any minimum-rated score requirements.

Please note, using a minimum score threshold is optional. It can be applied to some or all rated requirements. The recommendation, however, is that the threshold not be higher than 50% of the points allocated to that particular rated requirement.

A description of short-listing processes, if any.

The role and weight of other criteria, including reference checks, oral interviews and or demonstrations.

Descriptions of the price/cost of ownership evaluation methodology, including scenarios of the evaluation process (where appropriate), to determine costs for specific volumes and or service levels. The pricing evaluation should take place after evaluation of the mandatory requirements and rated criteria for all proposals.

This Common RFP Template evaluation process contemplates five (5) standard stages:

Mandatory Requirements

Rated Requirements

Pricing

Cumulative Score

Tie Breaker

Other optional evaluation stages the School may wish to incorporate, if applicable, are:

1.Oral Presentations

2.Reference Verification

If Purchaser chooses to incorporate any of these optional stages, please include information accordingly in Section 3.1 of the RFP - ensuring it occurs before the Cumulative Score stage.The content of these optional stages is general information, and needs to be re-worded for each specific RFP.

Option 1.Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit ([Insert points])

[Consider short listing the candidates to a manageable number of Oral Presentations and/or Site Visits. If appropriate add the following sentence: "Only up to the [Insert #] highest ranked Proposals from Stage II will be invited to participate in the Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit stage."]The purpose of the Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit will be to allow the Proponent to address the major elements of its Proposal, to obtain any required clarification, and to allow members of the Evaluation Team to interact directly with key representatives of the Proponent's proposed team so as to validate and to make final adjustments, if required, to the evaluation results of the written Proposal. In advance of the Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit, each Proponent invited to make a presentation will be notified in writing of the matters on which clarification will be sought, and the agenda for the meeting. The Proponent will not have the opportunity to modify its written Proposal or otherwise introduce new information during the Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit stage. [If using a minimum score approach, add the following sentence: "Eligible Proposals that do not meet the minimum score for the Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit will be disqualified".]In addition, the Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit will be evaluated on the basis of the following framework: [These are illustrative only. Proponents should have a general sense of the purpose of the oral presentation and/or site visit.

Objective of Oral Presentation and/or Site Visit:

Demonstration of Proponent commitment to the Purchaser

Response to all Proponents' pre-defined questions developed from Proposal

Proponent's willingness to accept accountability for project

Demonstrated credibility and perceived confidence in Proponent's ability to supply the Services in a way that meets or exceeds the needs of the Purchaser within the required delivery time at a cost effective price

Set out others

Option 2.Reference Verification (Pass/Fail)

This is an alternate approach to references, as set out in Section 3.1.4 of the template.

[If using this evaluation stage, identify how a Proponent will be measured (i.e. the criteria that will be used to evaluate and score) reference verification.

At this stage, the Evaluation Team will verify as many references provided by the Preferred Proponent in the Appendix D - Reference Form as the Evaluation Team may deem appropriate, and such references may be conducted in-person, as the Evaluation Team may determine in its sole discretion.References will be assessed on a pass/fail basis as to their satisfaction with the Services delivered, and will serve to validate (or not, as the case may be) the evaluation conducted by the Evaluation Team.

The evaluation process should be well defined as set out in:

Directive Mandatory Requirement #9: Evaluation Criteria - Evaluation criteria must be developed, reviewed and approved by an appropriate authority prior to commencement of the competitive procurement process.

Competitive procurement documents must clearly outline mandatory, rated, and other criteria that will be used to evaluate submissions, including weight of each criterion.

Mandatory criteria (e.g., technical standards) should be kept to a minimum to ensure that no bid is unnecessarily disqualified.

All criteria must comply with the Directive non-discrimination mandatory requirements (as set out on the previous page and in Section 7.2.14 of the Directive).

The evaluation criteria are to be altered only by means of addendum to the competitive procurement documents.

BPS organizations may request suppliers to provide alternative strategies or solutions as a part of their submission. BPS organizations must establish criteria to evaluate alternative strategies or solutions prior to commencement of the competitive procurement process. Alternative strategies or solutions must not be considered unless they are explicitly requested in the competitive procurement documents.

BPS organizations must use the evaluation criteria outlined in the competitive procurement documents when selecting the winning submission.

BPS organization may utilize price, quality, quantity, transition costs, delivery, servicing, environmental considerations, the capacity of the supplier to meet requirements of procurement, experience, financial capacity of the supplier as well as any other factor directly related to the procurement as evaluation criteria. BPS organizations must allocate the maximum justifiable weighting to the price/cost component of the evaluation criteria.

Where feasible, BPS organizations are recommended to perform a sensitivity analysis on the selected criteria and assigned weighting prior to finalizing the criteria.

BPS organizations should not request the suppliers to provide information that will not be evaluated as such information may affect the outcome of the evaluation process.

Directive Mandatory Requirement #10: Evaluation Process Disclosure - Competitive procurement documents must fully disclose the evaluation methodology and process to be used in assessing submissions, including the method of resolving tie score. Competitive procurement documents must state that submissions that do not meet the mandatory criteria will be disqualified.

Value-add incentives:

A value-add incentive, as set out in the Directive, is an offer by a supplier, over and above the primary services being purchased, with the intent to increase the total value received by the customer.

The current national practices are varied with some BPS organizations choosing not to include valueadd incentives in their procurement process and others developing specific policies regarding this practice. When not properly managed, requesting and/or evaluating value-add incentives may increase the level of risk within the procurement process and result in bid disputes.

The following rules for the use of value-add incentives have been compiled by incorporating the requirements and guidance of other provinces:

1.Value-add incentives must be directly relevant and transparently connected to the given procurement.

2.BPS organizations should openly state the desired enhancements. The procurement document should list the specific value-add incentives that would be considered beneficial to the BPS organization and order of preference, such as on-site technical assistance or product upgrades.

3.Cash should never be requested as a value-add incentive and, if received, should only be used to reduce the final price of the bid.

4.BPS organizations must establish criteria to evaluate value-add incentives prior to commencement of the competitive procurement process.

5.The weighting assigned to value-add incentives must be stated in the competitive procurement document.

6.BPS organizations should ensure that the weight assigned to value-add incentives demonstrates that they are not considered a major influencing factor.

7.Value-add incentives that are outside the scope of the services being procured or related operational improvements should not receive any points.

8.Value-add incentives should be evaluated as a separate and final step after all other rated criteria.

BPS organizations should be aware that the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from making payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Under this Act, BPS purchasers are considered foreign government officials.

BPS organizations willing to receive value-add incentives must ensure that they maintain the principles of open, fair and transparent procurement. To maintain such transparency, value-add incentives must not be considered unless they are explicitly requested in the competitive procurement documents.

BPS organizations must govern their procurement practices according to multiple trade agreements. As these trade agreements are regularly being updated and new ones developed, the rules regarding value-add incentives may be impacted. This section is subject to change to align with any broader principles that may be identified through the trade agreements to ensure a coordinated approach.

3.1 Stages of Proposal Evaluation

During the evaluation period (between the proposal submission deadline and award date), BPS organizations must not communicate with suppliers on matters related to the competitive procurement process unless it is to seek clarification of a proposal or notify the successful supplier. To ensure that the above bid clarification does not amount to bid repair, BPS organizations may seek legal advice. All competitive process-related communications that occur during this period must be documented.

The Purchaser will conduct the evaluation of Proposals in the following five (5) stages:

Stage Number

Title of Evaluation Stage

Stage I

Mandatory Requirements

Stage II

Rated Requirements

Stage III

Pricing

Stage IV

Cumulative Score

Stage V

Tie Break

3.1.1 Stage I - Review of Mandatory Requirements

Stage I will consist of a review to determine which Proposals comply with all of the mandatory requirements.

Proposals which do not comply with all mandatory requirements, may subject to the express and implied rights of the Purchaser, be disqualified and not be evaluated further.

3.1.2 Stage II - Rated Requirements

Stage II will consist of a scoring, by the Purchaser, of each qualified Proposal on the basis of rated requirements.

Rated requirements will be evaluated and Proponents must achieve the minimum score, as noted in Section 3.3.1, in order for the Proponent to move into Stage III of the evaluation.

Proposals failing to meet the minimum score requirement for a rated requirement will be disqualified and not evaluated further.

Refer to Section 3.1.4 below as it related to reference checks.

3.1.3 Stage III - Pricing

Stage III will consist of an evaluation and scoring of pricing submitted by Proponents as set out in Appendix C.

3.1.4 Stage IV - Cumulative Score

Ensure the language in this section aligns with that in section 1.5 - with respect to the number of proponents being selected.

At the conclusion of Stage III, all scores will be added and, subject to satisfactory reference checks and the expressed and implied rights of the Purchaser, the highest scoring Proponent(s) will become the Preferred Proponent(s).

Reference checks will be performed to confirm or clarify information provided within the

Proponent's Proposal. The reference checks themselves will not be scored, however the Purchaser may adjust rated requirements scoring related to the information obtained during the reference check.

3.1.5 Stage V - Tie Break

At this stage, where two (2) or more Proposals achieve a tie score on completion of the evaluation process, the Purchaser shall break the tie by [Indicate the tie break method, e.g.

selecting the Proponent with the highest score in Stage III - Pricing as the Preferred Proponent].

3.2 Stage I - Review of Mandatory Requirements (Pass/Fail)

When deciding on the mandatory requirements, bear in mind that a proponent must substantially comply with every single requirement or the School is obligated to disqualify that Proponent.

RFP mandatory requirements should be kept to a minimum to ensure that no bid is unnecessarily disqualified. The RFP document must state that submissions that do not meet the mandatory criteria will be disqualified.

Where a submission substantially complies, certain clarifications may be sought to confirm compliance. To ensure that the above clarifications do not amount to bid repair, Schools should seek legal advice.

The following are the mandatory requirements in this Common RFP Template:

Form of Offer (Section 3.2.1 and Appendix B)

Rate Bid Form (Section 3.2.2 and Appendix C)

Additional mandatory requirements can be added.

Submissions that do not comply with one (1) or more mandatory requirements must be rejected.

Once all compliant submissions are identified, a School should proceed with the balance of the evaluation process.

A Proposal must include the following [Insert number (#)] mandatory forms:

Appendix

Title of Appendix

Appendix B

Form of Offer

Appendix C

Rate Bid Form

[Insert]

Other than inserting the information requested on the mandatory submission forms set out in this RFP, a Proponent may not make any changes to any of the forms. Any Proposal containing any such changes, whether on the face of the form or elsewhere in its Proposal, may be disqualified.

3.2.1 Form of Offer - Appendix B (Mandatory Form)

Each Proposal must include a Form of Offer (Appendix B) completed and signed by the Proponent.

(a) Conflict of Interest

In addition to the other information and representations made by each Proponent in the Form of Offer, each Proponent must declare whether it has an actual or potential Conflict of Interest. If, at the sole and absolute discretion of the Purchaser, the Proponent is found to be in a Conflict of Interest, the Purchaser may, in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity, disqualify the Proposal submitted by the Proponent.

The Proponent, by submitting the Proposal, warrants that to its best knowledge and belief no actual or potential Conflict of Interest exists with respect to the submission of the Proposal or performance of the contemplated Agreement other than those disclosed in the Form of Offer. Where the Purchaser discovers a Proponent's failure to disclose all actual or potential Conflicts of Interest, the Purchaser may disqualify the Proponent or terminate any Agreement awarded to that Proponent pursuant to this Proposal process.

(b) General

The Purchaser, in addition to any other remedies it may have in law or in equity, shall have the right to rescind any Agreement awarded to a Proponent in the event that the Purchaser determines that the Proponent made a misrepresentation or submitted any inaccurate or incomplete information in the Form of Offer.

Other than inserting the information requested and signing the Form of Offer, a Proponent may not make any changes to or qualify the Form of Offer in its Proposal. A Proposal that includes conditions, options, variations or contingent statements that are contrary to or inconsistent with the terms set out in the RFP may be disqualified. If a Proposal is not disqualified despite such changes or Proposals, the provisions of the Form of Offer as set out in this RFP will prevail over any such changes or Proposals in or to the Form of Offer provided in the Proposal.

3.2.2 Rate Bid Form - Appendix C (Mandatory Form)

The Rate Bid Form, completed by the Proponent in accordance with the instructions contained below and in Appendix C, provided that the following shall apply:

All prices shall be provided in Canadian funds and shall include all applicable customs duties, tariffs, overhead, materials, fuel, office support, profit, permits, licenses, labour, carriage, insurance, Workplace Safety Insurance Board costs, and warranties, and further shall not be subject to adjustment for fluctuation in foreign exchange rates.

All prices shall be quoted exclusive of the harmonized sales tax (HST) or other similar taxes, each of which, if applicable, should be stated separately

All prices quoted, unless otherwise instructed in this RFP, shall remain firm for the Term of the Agreement as set out in the RFP

[Optional - alternatively, "travel, accommodation, and other costs shall be at the

Proponent's expense"]

travel and accommodation expenses shall not be included in the

rates quoted and shall be billed separately and charged in accordance with the Purchaser's policy, as may be amended from time to time. Original itemized receipts are required for reimbursement. Meals, hospitality, and other incidentals shall not be included in eligible expenses.

In the event of any discrepancy in the pricing, the lowest unit price submitted shall prevail

The Proponent is deemed to confirm that it has prepared its Proposal with reference to all of the provisions of the RFP, that it has factored all of the provisions of the Agreement into its pricing assumptions, calculations and into its proposed Pricing.

A Proposal that includes conditional, optional, contingent or variable rates that are not expressly requested in the Rate Bid Form may be disqualified.

3.2.3 Proof of Insurance

By signing the Form of Offer, the Proponent agrees, if selected, to carry insurance as outlined in Appendix A - Form of Agreement. The selected Proponent must provide proof of such insurance coverage in the form of a valid certificate of insurance prior to the execution of the Agreement by the Purchaser.

3.2.4 [Optional - Insert Other Mandatory Requirements, if necessary]

[**Insert any other applicable mandatory requirements.]

3.3 Stage II - Evaluation of Rated Requirements ([Insert points])

Rated requirements are the standards and measures used to assess the proponent's capability of meeting the RFP requirements. They should be clearly structured so that the evaluation and award decisions are defensible.

All weights, including sub-weights, for the rated requirements including any minimum-rated score requirements. Please note, using a minimum score threshold is optional. It can be applied to some or all rated requirements. The recommendation, however, is that the threshold not be higher than 50% of the points allocated to that particular rated requirement.

Schools should reference Part 2 - Deliverables and ensure that the rated requirements correspond with the required deliverables and requested information.

Directive Mandatory Requirement #11: Evaluation Team - Competitive procurement processes require an evaluation team responsible for reviewing and rating the compliant bids.

Evaluation team members must be made aware of the restrictions related to utilization and distribution of confidential and commercially sensitive information collected through the competitive procurement process and refrain from engaging in activities that may create or appear to create a conflict of interest.

Evaluation team members must sign a conflict-of-interest declaration and non-disclosure of confidential information agreement.

Directive Mandatory Requirement #12: Evaluation Matrix - Each evaluation team member must complete an evaluation matrix, rating each of the submissions. Records of evaluation scores must be retained for audit purposes.

Evaluators must ensure that everything they say or write about submissions is fair, factual, and fully defensible.

Proposals that are deemed compliant in Stage I Mandatory Requirements will qualify to be evaluated further.

Rated requirements will be evaluated and, where applicable, Proponents must achieve the minimum score, as noted below in Section 3.3.1, in order for a Proponent to move into Stage

III.

Proposals failing to meet the minimum score requirement for a rated requirement, where applicable, will be disqualified and not evaluated further.

It is important that Proposals clearly provide all the necessary information so that a thorough assessment of the Proponents' experience, qualifications and capabilities can be made. Responses and substantiating documentation should be direct and grouped together with an index provided to ensure the Evaluation Team is able to locate particular information.

In the case that contradictory information or information that contains conditional or qualifying statements is provided with respect to a requirement, the Purchaser will, in its sole and absolute discretion, determine whether the response complies with the requirements, and may seek clarification from the Proponent. The contradictory or qualifying information may result in the Proponent receiving a low score for that particular rated requirement.

3.3.1 Rated Requirements

The response to each rated requirement should:

Be submitted in a complete and clear manner.

Demonstrate the Proponents understanding of the Purchaser's business needs and should provide a detailed answer to the information requested.

Be provided in the same sequential order as set out below.

The following is an overview of the point allocation and minimum score requirements, if any, for the rated requirements of this RFP (N/A denotes - not applicable):

If using a minimum score approach, add the following sentence: "Proposals that reach or exceed the minimum score for each rated requirements will be eligible to proceed to the next stage of the evaluation process (an Eligible Proposal). Using a minimum score threshold is optional. It can be applied to some or all rated requirements. The recommendation, however, is that the minimum score threshold not be higher than 50% of the points allocated to that particular rated requirement.

Please note, detailed rated requirements for the above components, including sub-point allocation are set out in Appendix E.

A minimum score for rated requirements, as noted above, must be achieved for any Proponent to move into Stage III - Pricing.

3.4 Stage III - Pricing ([Insert points])

Schools should pay particular attention to applying maximum justifiable weighting of price/cost in the methodology for the evaluation of proposals.

When developing the pricing evaluation, please ensure the various pricing components can be scored and that they allow comparison to be made between proposals.

This template assumes pricing will be scored on the basis of a relative pricing formula (lowest price receives maximum points and all other proposals receive a ratio downwards of the allocated points).

Only at the completion of all rated requirements for all Eligible Proposals will the envelope containing Appendix C - Rate Bid Form be opened.

The total available points for pricing are set out below:

Services

Available Points For Pricing

General

[Insert]

Consumables

[Insert

]

[Insert other applicable pricing components]

[Insert]

Post Warranty Service

[Insert]

Aggregated Volume Discounts

[Insert]

Additional Discount

[Insert]

TOTAL AVAILABLE POINTS FOR PRICING:

[Insert

]

The Purchaser will not accept pricing assumptions.

The below illustrates how points will be calculated - using a relative formula (i.e. by dividing that Proponent's price into the lowest bid price) for proposed pricing on the Rate Bid Form:

[Insert correct point allocation below for each pricing evaluation]

EXAMPLE -PRICING EVALUATION

Proposed Prices

Calculation

Resulting Points

If Proponent 1 proposes on Appendix C the lowest bid price, that Proponent will receive 100% of the possible points.

[##]

$12.00 $12.00 x

[##]

If Proponent 3 bids $15, it will receive 80% of the possible points.

[##]

$12.00 $15.00 x

[##]

If Proponent 2 bids $24.00, it will receive 50% of the possible points.

[##]

$12.00 $24.00 x

[##]

The above evaluation will occur for all pricing components for each Eligible Proponent.

3.5 Stage IV - Cumulative Score

Directive Mandatory Requirement #13: Winning Bid - The submission that receives the highest evaluation score and meets all mandatory requirements set out in the competitive procurement document must be declared the winning bid.

At the conclusion of Stage III, the scores from Stage II and Stage III will be added and, subject to the express and implied rights of the Purchaser, the highest scoring Proponent will become the Preferred Proponent and invited it to enter into discussions to finalize the terms of the Agreement, attached in Appendix A.

3.6 Stage V - Tie Break Process

At this stage, where two (2) or more Proposals achieve a tie score on completion of the evaluation process, the Purchaser shall break the tie by [Indicate the tiebreak method, e.g. selecting the Proponent with the highest score in Stage III - Pricing as the Preferred Proponent].

3.7 Discussions with Preferred Proponent

Directive Mandatory Requirement #15: Executing the Contract - The agreement between the BPS organization and the successful supplier must be formally defined in a signed written contract before the provision of supplying goods or services commences.

Where an immediate need exists for goods or services, and the BPS organization and the supplier are unable to finalize the contract as described above, an interim purchase order may be used. The justification of such decision must be documented and approved by the appropriate authority.

Directive Mandatory Requirement #16: Establishing the Contract - The contract must be finalized using the form of agreement that was released with the procurement document.

In circumstances where an alternative procurement strategy has been used (i.e., a form of agreement was not released with the procurement document), the agreement between the BPS organization and the successful supplier must be defined formally in a signed written contract before the provision of supplying goods or services commences.

Subject to the requirements of Section 3.7, the Purchaser expects that the Agreement will be executed substantially in the form in which it appears in this RFP.

The Preferred Proponent will have up to [Insert number (##)] Days after being notified of the award to sign the Agreement.

After identifying the Preferred , if any, the Purchaser may attempt to finalize the terms and conditions of the Agreement with the Preferred Proponent, or it may, in its sole discretion, prior to making the award, issue a purchase order to the Preferred Proponent, on terms satisfactory to the Purchaser, as an interim measure.

The Purchaser shall at all times be entitled to exercise its rights under Section4.6.

For certainty, the Purchaser makes no commitment to the Preferred Proponent that the Agreement will be executed. The Preferred Proponent acknowledges that the commencement of any discussions does not obligate the Purchaser to execute the Agreement.