/
Best Practices in State & Local Government Contracting Best Practices in State & Local Government Contracting

Best Practices in State & Local Government Contracting - PowerPoint Presentation

pasty-toler
pasty-toler . @pasty-toler
Follow
372 views
Uploaded On 2018-03-19

Best Practices in State & Local Government Contracting - PPT Presentation

Module 3 Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores Prepared for California State University San Bernardino Management Certificate in Public Procurement MCPP Module 3 Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores ID: 657413

scores formulas weighed proposed formulas scores proposed weighed proposal amp evaluation diff score anomalous weighing lowest government state practices

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Best Practices in State & Local Gove..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3 - Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

Prepared for

California State University, San Bernardino

Management Certificate in Public Procurement (MCPP)

Module 3 - Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

Prepared byWilliam Sims Curry, CPCM, NCMA FellowAuthor, Contracting for Services in State & Local Government Agencies

Government Contracting:

Books

Research

ConsultingSlide2

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3: Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

TOPICS COVERED

MODULE

TOPIC__________________________________________

1 Description of Research Project – First 3 Best-Practices 2 Definitions & Proposal Evaluation Criteria 3 Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores 4 Request for Proposals (RFP) Provisions 5 Evaluating Proposals & Monitoring Contractor Performance 6 Underrepresented Contract Terms & ConditionsSlide3

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3: Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

Best Practice

“Use Formulas to Weigh Proposal Scores”

2006 Conformance = N/A

2015 Conformance = 83%

Adjectives and color codes often result in tied scores & cryptic proposal evaluation resultsFormulas can be applied to numeric weights and numeric proposal evaluation scores to clearly identify contractor offering “best value” proposalVerification: The finding that 83% of the respondents to the 2015 survey use formulas to weigh numerical proposal scores is compelling in the decision to declare this process as a best-practice. Slide4

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3: Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

Best Practice

“Avoid Anomalous Formulas for

Objective

Criteria”

Merely 8% of the 2015 Research Participants Used the Correct FormulaThis Best-Practice was Not Evaluated in 2006Anomalous Formulas for Price1. Lowest Proposed Value ÷ (Proposed Value ÷ Criterion Weight) = Weighed Scoreor2. (Lowest Proposed Value ÷ Proposed Value) ÷ Criterion Weight = Weighed Score&3. (Lowest Proposed Value – (Proposed Value – Lowest Proposed Value)) ÷ (Lowest Proposed Value ÷ Criterion Weight) = Weighed ScoreCorrect Formula for Price(Highest Proposed Value – (Proposed Value – Lowest Proposed Value)) ÷ (Highest Proposed Value ÷ Criterion Weight) = Weighed ScoreSlide5

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3: Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

Best Practice

“Avoid Anomalous Formulas for

Objective

Criteria”

If Proposed Values are Equidistant, then Weighed Scores Must be Equidistant First Two Anomalous FormulasWeight = 20Weighed Score for Middle Price is AnomalousFormula

Proposed Values $400M-$600M

Proposed Values $600M-$800M

Value Diff

Percent Diff

Weighed Score

Percent Diff

Value Diff

Percent Diff

Weighed Score

Percent Diff

Anomalous

200

25%

3.3

16.5%

200

25%

6.7

33.5%

Correct

200

25%

5.0

25%

200

25%5.025%Slide6

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3: Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

Formula

Proposed Values $400M-$600M

Proposed Values $600M-$800M

Value Diff

Percent Diff

Weighed Score

Percent Diff

Value Diff

Percent Diff

Weighed Score

Percent Diff

Anomalous

This Formula Does Not Work Because it Could Result in the Need to (1) Divide a Positive Number into Zero or (2) Divide a Positive Number into a Negative Number

Correct

200

25%

5.0

25%

200

25%

5.0

25%

Best Practice

“Avoid Anomalous Formulas for

Objective

Criteria”

If Proposed Values are Equidistant, then Weighed Scores Must be Equidistant

Third Anomalous Formula

Weight = 20Slide7

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3: Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

Best Practice

“Avoid Anomalous Formulas for

Subjective

Criteria”

Anomalous Formulas for Subjective CriteriaCriterion Weight X (Actual Subjective Rating ÷ Highest Possible Subjective Rating) = Weighed ScoreCorrect Formula for Subjective CriteriaCriterion Weight X (Actual Rating ÷ Highest Actual Subjective Rating) = Weighed ScoreSlide8

Best Practices in State & Local Government ContractingModule 3: Formulas for Weighing Proposal Evaluation Scores

When Criteria have Equal Weights, Lowest Price & Highest Technical Rating Should have Identical Weighed Scores

Weighed Scores with Anomalous Formula for Criteria that are Subjectively Rated

Weighed Score for Lowest Price

Weighed Score for Highest Technical Rating

10.0

7.5Weighed Scores with Correct Formula for Criteria that are Subjectively RatedWeighed Score for Lowest PriceWeighed Score for Highest Technical Rating10.010.0

Best Practice

“Avoid Anomalous Formulas for

Subjective

Criteria”

Lowest Price = $7.5 Million

Highest Technical Rating = 7.5

Weight for Both Criteria = 10