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
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.
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