12 Miss. Code. R. 9-6.8
Criteria that are not set forth in the RFP or RFQ may not be used to evaluate proposals or qualifications. The contract(s) shall be awarded to the responsive and responsible offeror(s) who was awarded the highest overall score(s) during the evaluation process.
The Agency official responsible for the procurement shall create a list of all offerors who submitted proposals or qualifications, their principals17, their parent organizations, and their subsidiary organizations. Prior to beginning the evaluation process all Agency officials responsible for management of the procurement, all members of the evaluation committee, and all advisors to the evaluation committee shall be provided the list of offerors and shall certify, in writing, that they have no personal, financial, or familial interest in any of the offerors or principals thereof. The certification shall restate the conflict of interest standards found in the Mississippi Ethics in Government laws, Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 25-4-101 through 25-4-121. The certification shall also state:
"I hereby certify that I have no personal, financial or familial interest in any of the contract offerors, or principals thereof. I have reviewed the conflict of interest standards prescribed herein, and I do not have a conflict of interest with respect to the evaluation of this proposal or qualification. I further certify that neither I nor any member of my immediate family are engaged in any negotiations or arrangements for prospective employment or association with any of the offerors submitting proposals or qualifications or their parent or subsidiary organization."
Persons who are unable to execute the conflict of interest certification shall not participate further in the procurement process. All executed conflict of interest certifications shall be maintained in the Agency Procurement File.
See Exhibit 1 to this chapter for a sample Conflict of Interest Certification.
In order to determine which offerors are responsive and responsible, the Agency official conducting the procurement shall evaluate:
The procuring Agency shall notify all offerors whose proposals or qualifications are deemed non-responsive or non-responsible. Such notice shall be promptly made either within five business days following the determination that the offeror is non-responsive or non-responsible or at the time the Notice of Intent to Award is issued, whichever the Agency determines is in the best interest of the Agency for the particular procurement.
Written acknowledgement of all amendments shall be received from all offerors prior to issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award. Should any offeror fail to submit all necessary acknowledgement(s) with its proposal or qualification, the Agency shall have the sole discretion as to whether to request that an offeror submit the required acknowledgement(s) after the proposal or qualification submission deadline but prior to issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award. The Agency shall exercise that discretion in a manner that is fair to all offerors. Any offeror who does not provide the Agency acknowledgement(s) of every amendment issued may be deemed non-responsive and not eligible for award.
Any proposal or qualification which is conditioned upon receiving award of both the particular contract being solicited and another Mississippi contract shall be deemed non-responsive and not eligible for award.
A committee shall be used to evaluate proposals or qualifications to determine which offeror(s) will be awarded the contract(s). Persons appointed to an evaluation committee shall have the relevant experience necessary to evaluate the proposals or qualifications. The Agency Head or his or her designee has the sole discretion to determine who has the relevant experience necessary to serve as a member of or advisor to the evaluation committee. PPRB shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Agency regarding the experience of the evaluation committee.
When evaluating proposals or qualifications, the evaluation committee members may conduct their work separately or together. Where the evaluation committee chooses to conduct its work together (commonly referred to as "consensus scoring"), it is recommended, but not required, that all members of the evaluation committee be present at all evaluation sessions. If an Agency chooses to use consensus scoring but all members of the evaluation committee are not present at all evaluation sessions, the Agency must demonstrate that the evaluation sessions were conducted in a fair and reasonable manner.
The evaluation committee may also use advisors who provide opinions regarding the proposals and qualifications being evaluated. Advisors to the evaluation committee are individuals who provide significant input to a member or members of the evaluation committee such that the advisor's opinions are fundamental in shaping the committee member(s)' evaluation of the submitted proposals or qualifications. Advisors provide advice and opinions only, and do not act as a substitute for members of the evaluation committee.
The members of and advisors to the evaluation committee may be employees and/or non-employees of the procuring Agency. There is no minimum or maximum number of people who may serve as members of and advisors to the evaluation committee.
The members of and advisors to the evaluation committee's names shall not be publicly disclosed until the Evaluation Committee Report is published with the Notice of Intent to Award. The members' and advisors' names and job titles shall be made available to the public in the Evaluation Committee Report. Where any evaluation committee member is not an employee of the state, that member's educational qualifications, professional qualifications, and practical experience (i.e., curriculum vitae) shall also be made available to the public with the Evaluation Committee Report.
See Exhibit 2 to this chapter for a sample Evaluation Committee Report.
The process of evaluating proposals and qualifications on the basis of weighted factors shall result in either the proposal(s) or qualification(s) which is most advantageous to the Agency - price and other factors considered - being recommended for contract award(s) or all proposals or qualifications being rejected.
Agencies may use any factors to evaluate proposals or qualifications the Agency feels will result in obtaining the best value for the Agency.
Other than as discussed in Section 6.8.4.2.1, Agencies shall evaluate the Price submitted by offerors as an evaluation factor in every RFP or RFQ. Price is the only required evaluation factor. Price constitutes the monetary cost (i.e., the dollar amount bid) to the Agency to obtain the personal and professional services needed.
As required by Mississippi Code Section 31-7-413, Price shall be (1) given at least 35% of the available points, (2) the highest weighted individual factor, and (3) objectively scored. To meet the requirement of objective scoring, the lowest priced proposal or qualification shall receive the maximum points allotted to Price and the other offerors shall be assigned points proportionally.
The following formula is an example of how Agencies may objectively assign Price points:
Where the Agency sets the rate of pay, the Agency is not required to use Price as an evaluation factor.
However, if an Agency sets the rate of pay and chooses to include Price as an evaluation factor:
Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-413 requires a procuring Agency to consider whether these commonly used categories of evaluation factors would result in best value for the Agency. A procuring Agency is not required to include any of these categories in its solicitation. Agencies have the sole discretion to use the factors which meet the needs of the particular solicitation and will achieve best value for the Agency - whether that includes all, some, one, or none of the categories of evaluation factors discussed here.
These factors aid in determining the offeror's technical ability to perform the service, such as proposed methodology, understanding of the scope of work and objectives, or the use of innovative technology and techniques.
These factors aid in determining the offerors' qualifications to provide the service and can include the capability and experience of the offeror's proposed staff, the offeror's record of reliability in performing similar services, or work plans and schedules.
These factors aid in determining the value which the vendor's proposal or qualification would provide to the Agency and/or the vendor's financial viability.23
Agencies shall weight evaluation factors in a manner that helps achieve best value of the Agency. The weight of the factors shall have been approved by PPRB when the petition for relief was approved.24 See Section 6.3.2.
The Agency shall develop a total number of points available during evaluation and assign each individual factor a percentage of those points. The total percentage of all individual factors in a category shall equal the percentage of points that corresponds with the weight approved by PPRB.
At minimum, the RFP or RFQ shall show the relative importance of each category of evaluation factors by stating the number of points each category will be assigned, stating the percentage of points each category will be assigned, listing the categories in order of importance, or by all of the above. An Agency may provide more detailed information about the weight of the evaluation factors, if it so chooses.
Discussions may be conducted to promote understanding of the Agency's requirements and the offeror's proposal or qualification, or to facilitate arriving at a contract which will be most advantageous to the Agency. The offeror may update its proposal or qualification to reflect clarifications needed following discussions.
The Agency shall ensure information gleaned from one proposal or qualification is not disclosed to other offerors and shall conduct the discussions in a manner which maintains the essential integrity of the procurement process. Each offeror shall be treated fairly with regard to the opportunity to engage in discussions.
The Agency shall prepare a memorandum with the date, place, purpose, attendees, and outcome of any discussions. The memorandum shall become part of the Evaluation Committee Report.25
An Agency requesting offerors to submit a Best and Final Offers ("BAFO") are asking those offerors to submit their lowest price. If allowed by the RFP or RFQ, the Agency may request BAFOs in accordance with the requirements in the RFP or RFQ. Offerors shall be informed that if they do not submit a BAFO, the immediate previous offer will be considered their BAFO.
The Agency shall request BAFOs only once unless the Agency makes a written determination it is in the Agency's best interest to require additional submission(s) of BAFO(s). The Agency shall maintain the written determination in the Agency Procurement File.
The Agency shall recalculate price points after the BAFOs are received. See Section 6.8.4.2.
The awardee(s) shall be the offeror(s) who submitted the proposal(s) or qualification(s) which received the highest score(s) following evaluation of the factors listed in the RFP or RFQ. Where an offeror has offered more services than those solicited, such unsolicited offers may not be considered in determining which offeror(s) will be awarded a contract. An Agency may accept services beyond the scope solicited only if (1) those services are offered at no cost to the Agency and (2) the offeror would have been the awardee regardless of whether the unsolicited services had been offered (i.e., the unsolicited services were not considered in the evaluation of proposals or qualifications.)
If only a single responsive and responsible proposal or qualification is received, an award may be made to the single offeror if the Agency makes a written determination that (1) other prospective offerors had a reasonable opportunity to respond and (2) to the best of the Agency's knowledge, the intended awardee reasonably anticipated that competing proposals or qualifications may be submitted. It is presumed that an Agency awarding a contract when only a single responsive and responsible proposal or qualification is received has determined the price was reasonable when considering all relevant circumstances.
It is recommended, but not required, that all Agency officials responsible for management of the procurement, all members of the evaluation committee, and all advisors to the evaluation committee execute affidavits when the evaluation process is complete and all scores have been tabulated.
It is recommended that the affidavit identifies the affiant's role in the procurement process, affirms the affiant acted in good faith and in compliance with the Mississippi Ethics in Government laws, and affirms that the final tabulation of scores is true and correct. Any affidavits executed under this Section shall be made under penalty of perjury and notarized by an actively commissioned notary public.
Agencies who choose to have affidavits executed by those participating in the procurement process shall work with Agency legal counsel to draft an appropriate affidavit for the procurement at issue and to ensure the affidavits are properly executed.
See Exhibit 3 to this chapter for a sample Post Evaluation Affidavit.
17 For each RFP or RFQ issued, the Agency shall define who constitutes a "principal" of the offerors. The Agency has discretion to tailor the definition to the specific procurement, but that discretion must be exercised in good faith. The RFP or RFQ shall clearly state the Agency's chosen definition. (e.g., "A principal of an offeror is a person or entity who has a 5% or greater ownership interest in the offeror and all individuals in senior-level management positions, regardless of whether those individuals have an ownership interest in the offeror."
18 [This note provides an explanation of how the responsive and responsible determination complies with the statutory mandate to determine acceptability of offers. This note requires no additional action by a procuring Agency.] In compliance with Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-419(1), an Agency which has deemed a proposal or qualification responsive and responsible has determined that the offeror is acceptable; an Agency which needs to hold discussions with the offeror to determine whether its proposal or qualification is responsive and responsible has determined that the offeror is potentially acceptable (See Section 6.8.4.5); and an Agency which has determined that a proposal or qualification is non-responsive and/or non-responsible has deemed the offeror unacceptable.
19 Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-413 distinguishes between factors which require the identity of the offeror to be revealed and those which do not. PPRB has determined that all factors in RFPs and RFQs for personal and professional services require the identity of the offeror to be revealed.
20 Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-413 provides the following examples of technical factors which may be used to evaluate proposals or qualifications: a clear understanding of the scope of work and related objectives; capability to provide the personal or professional services required; previous record of work similar to what is proposed; and use of innovative technology and techniques.
21 Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-413 provides the following examples of management factors which may be used to evaluate proposals or qualifications: timeline; project management plan; experience performing the work; record of producing on budget and on time; prior contract compliance issues; industry experience; record of business ethics; availability of resources; qualification and experience of personnel; and cultural sensitivity in hiring and training staff.
22 Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-413 provides the following examples of cost factors which may be used to evaluate proposals or qualifications: relative cost when compared to other offerors; cost is adequately explained and documented; suitable bonds, warranties, insurance, or guarantees are provided; quality control measures; and financial stability of the offeror.
23 Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-413(2)(b)(iii), PPRB hereby approves all Agencies under its purview procuring personal and professional services to submit cost factors to the evaluation committee at any point in the evaluation process which the procuring Agency deems to be in its own best interest.
24 It is not required that PPRB approve every individual factor in the petition for relief, but PPRB must have approved the weight of the categories of evaluation factors the Agency will use to evaluate proposals or qualifications.
25 The requirement in Mississippi Code Annotated § 31-7-419(3) that discussions be recorded is met when the Agency creates a record of all discussions in a memorandum.
12 Miss. Code. R. 9-6.8