Upcoming Webinars
Access the latest trends and insights shaping the profession—free for members.
.png)
 (1).jpg)
_1.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Document
Establishing an Effective Supplier Diversity Program
Year Created: 2022
DOCUMENT
MODL - OA4 Best Value Analysis Example 2003
- YEAR CREATED: 2003
- ENTITY TYPE: County
- TYPE OF DOCUMENT: MODL - Model, Templates
- Management
- Policies and Procedures
The document is a briefing for an evaluation panel regarding the evaluation process for a procurement project. The Procurement Manager serves as the Chairperson of the panel but does not have a voting role. The briefing covers several key areas that will be discussed with the panel before the evaluation process begins.
Firstly, it emphasizes that no conflict of interest should exist for any member of the panel, such as having ownership in a company submitting an offer or having a family member working for or owning a company presenting an offer. Each member of the panel is required to independently score each proposal.
The document suggests that proposals should be read and rated twice for better understanding and comprehensive evaluation. After the initial scoring and vendor presentations, a general discussion will be held before finalizing scores and making a recommendation for the award.
Proposals that do not comply with all essential requirements will be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated. The procurement manager is responsible for determining responsiveness.
The document also mentions that the evaluation points for each award criteria have already been assigned and are indicated on the evaluation sheet. The cost section of the evaluation will be calculated by the procurement manager using a formula provided by the SC Materials Management Office.
It is required that each member of the panel supports their reasoning for discussions and scoring with appropriate documentation or notes. These notes will become part of the file and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. All proposals must remain on county property and be returned to purchasing at the end of committee meetings.
The panel may request oral presentations from offerors, if provided for in the Request for Proposal (RFP), to reach a final decision. All decisions by the panel are subject to protest, and panel members may be called upon to explain or defend their individual ratings.
Confidentiality is emphasized throughout the evaluation process, and all information obtained and discussed is considered confidential.
The document also includes a cost element evaluation methodology and provides an example formula for scoring the cost section of the evaluation.
Finally, there is a table outlining the evaluation criteria and rating scale for each criterion. The total score is out of 100, and each criterion is assigned a specific range of points. The document concludes with a certification section for panel members to sign, confirming their evaluation process.