Administrative Requirements

This section of the RFP describes the proposed acquisition procedures, states the due date for responses, outlines the formats for submitted proposals, and gives the names of contacts for further information.

Many of the administrative requirements for a RFP are specified by local rules. Courts should consult with the local purchasing department to learn what local administrative requirements govern issuing a RFP.

This section of the RFP includes the following information.

Oral Presentations-Depending on the size and complexity of the procurement, oral presentations may or may not be required. See CMS Oral Presentation Example.

Questions and Clarifications-The court should require any request for clarification or additional information deemed necessary by any vendor to present a proper proposal, be submitted in writing, such as letter, fax, or e-mail, to the RFP contact or Purchasing Office referencing the RFP before a specified date, typically at or prior to the Vendor Conference. Any request after that deadline should not be considered. Requests received prior to the stated deadline should be responded to in writing from the court in the form of an addendum addressed to all prospective respondents by a specified date, typically two weeks prior to the response deadline. Alternatively, responses could be posted to the procurement web site as they are developed to reduce the response time and reduce the number of duplicate questions submitted. The RFP should specify how answers will be disseminated, such as mail, fax, web site, or e-mail. See CMS Questions and Clarifications Example. The name and address of the court's vendor contact should be provided in the RFP. See CMS Vendor Contact Example.

Revisions-In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of the RFP, addenda should be provided to all vendors who received the basic RFP and have registered their intent to respond with the court. See CMS Revisions Example.

Vendor Conference-The vendors' conference may or may not be mandatory. Vendor conferences are encouraged because the ensuing dialogues will target any shortcomings in the RFP and give the court time to correct them before the RFP becomes final and perhaps unworkable. The vendors' conference identifies competitors in the process and reinforces the idea that there are bargaining alternatives available to the court. During the conference, the court will discover whether vendors are serious about forthcoming contractual arrangements. It is not uncommon for some vendors to state, at this stage, that they will only do business on the basis of their own standard contract. Any vendor who responds fully to the RFP in the specified format should be considered, even if there are problems with the submission. It is unlikely that a vendor would go through the RFP process if it did not believe that its product was acceptable for the purchase at hand. To increase vendor participation, courts should consider holding vendor conferences by conference call or videoconference rather than requiring vendors travel to the court's location. See CMS Vendor Meeting Example.

Selection Procedure-The selection procedure should be discussed in the RFP. Two elements of the selection procedure should be specified for the vendors. The two elements are the selection criteria used to evaluate the proposal and the makeup of the group evaluating the proposals. The selection criteria should be specified in the RFP to give vendors notice of how the selection will be made. See Business Process Evaluation Categories Example, Business Process Criteria Compliance Example, and CMS Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria Example. Additionally, any functional requirements criteria that the court will use should be included in the RFP. See CMS Requirements Checklist Example. The evaluation group composition should be specified to provide the vendor with an understanding of the technical level required in the proposal. See CMS Evaluation Team Example.

Procurement Timetable-The procurement timetable should include not only the major milestone dates, such as when the responses are due, but also the deadlines for site-visit inquiries, possible vendor system demonstrations, and technical inquiries. See CMS Procurement Timetable Example and Business Process Project Schedule Example.

Proposal Format-Courts should specify the format of the vendor response. The vendors will have a more detailed insight to the court's needs (and their relative importance to the court), and the court can compare the individual responses more easily. See CMS Proposal Format Example and Business Process Proposal Format Example.

A very helpful tool the court can include in the RFP is a response checklist that vendors can use to verify a complete response. The response checklist include deadlines, response sections, and required forms. See Response Checklist Example.

The vendors should be informed that each proposal should be sealed and submitted in an envelope to provide confidentiality of the information prior to the submission date and time. Additionally, the envelopes should have a reference to the RFP to prevent unintentional opening of any submission.

The court should pursue a bifurcated bidding process. That is, it should request two separate and independent vendor responses, a technical and business proposal that contains no cost information and a cost proposal that contains no technical information. The technical proposals should be evaluated and ranked first, followed by the cost proposals. To simplify cost comparisons courts should specify the cost proposal format or include a cost form. See Bid Response Cost Summary Example.

The court should tell vendors that the proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise but complete and detailed description of the vendor's abilities to meet the requirements of the RFP. Fancy bindings, colored displays and promotional materials should be discouraged. Emphasis will be on completeness of content. See Business Process Simple Proposal Example and CMS Simple Proposal Example.

Prime Contractor-Joint venture and other multiple vendor responses should be discouraged. Too often it becomes difficult to determine which vendor is responsible for curing system defects. A hardware vendor, for example, will say that a system problem is caused by the application software; the software vendor will be emphatic that the problem lies in the hardware. These defect discussions are particularly difficult to resolve when the system problem involves slow response time, which can be the result of inefficient programming logic or insufficient system memory. By insisting that one vendor assume prime contractor status, the court identifies who is responsible to resolve system defects.

Frequently, vendors require either services, hardware or software supplied by another vendor. In these instances, prime contractors that wish to use subcontractors should supply the subcontractors' names as part of their response. The court should insist on the right to approve or disapprove subcontracts entered into by prime contractors. The court also should insist that all subcontractors be obtained with adequate attention to the principles of competition and reasonableness of costs. See Business Process Example specifying subcontracting requirements.

Mandatory Versus Desirable System Requirements-As an aid to vendors to inform them which system features are most important to the court, the court should prefix each system specification by either the term mandatory or desirable. All vendors should strive to meet the mandatory requirements. A vendor may, however, determine that it cannot meet the mandatory requirements, but can offer an equivalent performance by other means. In this case, the vendor should identify the mandatory specification to which it cannot respond state an alternative, and describe how the alternative achieves equivalent performance. See CMS Mandatory System Requirements Example.

Contract Integration-Any contract entered into as a result of the RFP process should be a specifically drawn document between the court and the vendor (in no event should it be the vendor's standard contract). Its features should include a combination of terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the RFP; the winning offer, containing the vendor's technical and cost proposals; and any agreements, letters, memoranda, written clarifications, modifications, and any other changes made. See Business Process Contract Integration Example. The final contract should specify the controlling documents for the definition of terms and obligations. An example is where the court issues an addendum to the RFP, the information in the addendum should supercede inconsistent information in the RFP.

Vendor Proposal Revisions-All information required by the Request for Proposal must be submitted to constitute a proper proposal. Respondents should not alter the proposal documents except upon instruction by receipt of addendum. Respondents must furnish information required by the Request for Proposals in the form requested. The Court should reserve the right to reject proposals with incomplete information or which are presented in a different form.

Evaluation of Responses-Proposals that are not responsive to the requirements of the RFP may be disqualified without evaluation. See CMS Proposal Responsiveness Requirement Example. The court may, at its discretion, determine that the noncompliance is insubstantial and can be corrected or that an alternative proposed by the vendor is acceptable. In such cases, the court may seek clarification, allow the vendor to make minor corrections, apply appropriate adjustments in the evaluation, or use a combination of all three remedies. See Business Process Proposal Responsiveness Requirement Example.

Responses that are submitted on or before the proposal due date and meet the mandatory technical and business specifications of the court's RFP should be evaluated in accordance with the criteria summarized below: See Business Process Evaluation Categories Example and CMS Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria Example.

Technical specifications: The court should evaluate responses based on the vendor's ability to meet all the RFP's mandatory technical specifications. Responses should then be evaluated based on the desirable specifications.
Business specifications: The court should evaluate responses based on the vendor's ability to meet all the mandatory and desirable business specifications.
Cost: The court should evaluate responses using costs contained in the vendor's separate cost submission. This includes all the costs such as purchase, shipping, preparation, conversion, implementation, operation, and maintenance.
Vendor demonstrations: The court also may evaluate responses based on the vendor's live demonstration of its ability to meet all of the mandatory and desirable specifications.
Technical and business point assignment: In its evaluation, the court should assign points to each technical and cost response. (If any technical and cost response does not receive a minimum of 50 percent of the maximum combined technical and business points, the court probably will be justified in disqualifying the vendor's response from further consideration.)

Disqualification-The court may safely disqualify the selected vendor and initiate contract negotiations with the next ranked vendor if the selected vendor has not signed the contract within a specified time frame (usually within fourteen calendar days of the vendor's receipt of the contract).

Rejection of Proposals-A court should reserve the right to reject any or all proposals received in response to its RFP. See Business Process Example providing that the court is not bound to enter any contract. A vendor's response may be rejected at the discretion of the court if the vendor:

fails to adhere to one or more of the provisions established in the RFP, See CMS Non-Conforming Proposal Example.
fails to submit its response in the format specified or to supply the minimum information requested, including financial and business information fails to meet unconditionally all of the mandatory technical and business specifications of the RFP, See CMS Non-Responsive Proposal Example.
fails to state in writing its acceptance of the mandatory terms and conditions in the RFP
fails to submit its response before or on the deadline date established by the RFP
misrepresents its products or provides demonstrably false information in its proposal or fails to provide material information
fails to submit a costs response
refuses to provide clarifications requested by the court

Debriefing-It is wise for the court to allow individual vendors to have a debriefing after they receive notice that they have not been selected under the RFP. The court should conduct the debriefing, which should discuss the court's evaluation of that proposal only. Competing vendor proposals should not be discussed. Requests for debriefing should be managed by the court's vendor liaison.

Appeal Process-Although not necessarily required, but in the interest of establishing good long-term vendor relations, it may be wise for the court to establish an appeal process. A rejected vendor may be given the opportunity to request, in writing, an opportunity to present its reason for either a review or a reevaluation. Such written requests should include the basis for the appeal.

Ownership of Response Information-Vendors frequently include trade secrets in their responses to RFPs. Unless notified at the time of bid, all nonproprietary material submitted by vendors should become the property of the court. Care should be taken, therefore, that vendors are cautioned in the RFP to identify clearly any items of a proprietary nature; i.e., operating software, copyrights, patents, or any confidential items protected by trade secrets. They should be placed where they can be removed easily from the nonproprietary part of the response. See Business Process Ownership of Response Information Example and CMS Ownership of Response Information Example.

Use of Proposals-One of the principal reasons for using RFPs is to obtain information about how best to implement a project. The court should reserve the right to use any or all nonproprietary ideas, concepts, or configurations presented in vendors' responses. See Business Process Ownership of Response Information Example and CMS Ownership of Response Information Example.

Disclosure of Proposal Contents-At the conclusion of the evaluation and selection process, the contents of the proposals should be placed in the public domain and open to inspection by interested parties. Trade secrets or proprietary information that are recognized as such by law and clearly identified should be withheld.

Return of Proposals and Cost of Vendor's Response-The court should ensure that there is no obligation to return any proposals or materials submitted by vendors in response to the RFP and that no vendor costs or expenses will be charged to the court. See Business Process Cost of Proposal Example and CMS Cost of Proposal Example.

Duration of Contract-The court should specify the anticipated duration of the contract. The court also should ensure that the contract may be extended at the same terms and conditions. See Business Process Project Schedule Example.

CMS RFP Administrative Requirements

Administrative Requirements

Previous - RFP Introduction

Next - Technical Requirements

Index

Previous - RFP Introduction

Next - Technical Requirements

Index