I.SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this IFB/RFP was to elicit proposals for a (insert the project description. Give the reader enough information to understand what the project was all about.) The term of the contract is for (insert the term of the contract as stated in the solicitation). (If this is the preliminary version of the report created prior to cost opening, the estimated value of the contract should also be identified.)
Services that the contractor will provide include:
post-implementation system support and maintenance
management reports as required
….Include all as required by the solicitation
The IFB/RFP was conducted using the two-envelope procedure, the first for the administrative and technical response and the second for cost. The administrative and technical responses to the IFB/RFP were first evaluated for responsiveness, points were scored and the scores were published at the cost envelope opening. The DVBE incentive was included as an administrative requirement with points offered for DVBE participation. The value-effective aspects of the solicitation were weighted 40% and cost was weighted 60%. (Note: the default is 50% admin/tech and 50% cost. A % less than 50% must be justified and approved by DGS/PD.) Final selection was determined on the basis of highest overall point score resulting from a combined score of the technical evaluation and the total cost evaluation for proposals that are responsive to the IFB/RFP requirements. Award, if made, would be to a single bidder receiving the highest score.
Final Proposals were submitted from (list all bidders). The total scores are as follows (If this is the preliminary version of the report created prior to cost opening, the total score would not yet be known so identify the total administrative and technical score):
Bidder 1 0
Bidder 2 .8872
Bidder 3 .9686
Bidder 4 .8690
(If this is the preliminary version of the report created prior to cost opening, identify bids containing material deviations and include a recommendation that their cost envelope not be opened. If this is the final report, identify rejected bidders and acknowledge that their cost envelope was not opened.) The Evaluation and Selection Team recommends that the cost envelope for Bidder 4 not be opened in accordance with Section IX, Evaluation, D.3. which states “After completion of the Administrative and Technical Evaluation, the cost sections will be opened for all the bids that have not been rejected...” and Sec.IX.E which states “Final selection will be on the basis of highest weighted score among the proposals which are responsive to the RFP requirements. Responsiveness is comprised of meeting the technical and functional requirements, performing a satisfactory demonstration and conforming to the rules of Section II.
The cost envelopes were opened and the cost calculations were verified (see Section II of this report for a summary of adjustments). The administrative and technical score and the cost score were calculated and weighted (see Section B for detail).
At the demonstration of the proposal from Bidder 5, it was determined that the (this is the area where any deviations in scoring may be accounted for and explained.)