My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2023-233
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2020's
>
2023
>
2023-233
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2023 2:25:31 PM
Creation date
11/9/2023 2:22:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Agreement
Approved Date
10/31/2023
Control Number
2023-233
Agenda Item Number
8.C.
Entity Name
Emergency Management District
Subject
FY2023 Emergency Management Performance Grant Federally Funded Subaward and Grant Agreement G0440
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
A TRUE COPY <br />CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE <br />RYAN L. BUTLER, CLERK <br />procurement does not lend itself to sealed bidding and when a cost -reimbursement contract is <br />appropriate. Through this process, vendors can compete on a cost basis for like items or <br />services. The request for proposals method of procurement is an acceptable method of <br />procurement, where non -state entities cannot base the contract award exclusively on price or <br />price -related factors due to the nature of the service or property to be acquired. Simply put, the <br />Sub -Recipient can describe what it wants to accomplish but the methods or means to accomplish <br />the desired outcome cannot be easily defined. An RFP is appropriate when the following <br />conditions are present: <br />• The Sub -Recipient cannot base the contract award exclusively on price or price - <br />related factors due to the nature or the service or property to be acquired; <br />• The requirements are less definitive, more development work is required, or there is <br />a greater risk of performance; <br />• Technical capability, past performance, and prior experience considerations play a <br />dominant role in source selection; and/or <br />• Separate discussions with individual offerors are expected to be necessary after <br />they have submitted proposals. This is a key distinction from the sealed bidding <br />method of procurement where discussions with individual bidders are prohibited and <br />the contract shall be awarded based on price and price -related factors alone. <br />The Sub -Recipient shall publicize their RFP. The manner of the advertising depends upon the <br />facts and circumstances of the procurement, subject to state, local, and/or tribal requirements. <br />Within the advertisement, the Sub -Recipient shall identify all evaluation factors and their relative <br />importance. The following provides several considerations for developing evaluation factors: <br />• The evaluation factors for a specific procurement should reflect the subject matter <br />and elements that are most important to the Sub -Recipient. <br />• The evaluation factors may include such things as technical design, technical <br />approach, length of delivery schedules, past performance, and quality of proposed <br />personnel. <br />• The Sub -Recipient may use any one or a combination of source selection <br />approaches as permitted under state, local, and/or tribal laws, regulations, and <br />procedures, and these approaches will often differ based on the relative importance <br />of price or cost for the procurement. <br />• If permitted by the Sub -Recipient, written procurement procedures, and applicable <br />state, local, and/or tribal law, the Sub -Recipient may award a contract to the offeror <br />whose proposal offers the "best value" to the Sub -Recipient. The solicitation shall <br />also inform potential offerors that the award shall be made on a "best value" basis, <br />which should include a statement that the Sub -Recipient reserves the right to award <br />the contract to other than the lowest -priced offeror. <br />• The RFP shall identify evaluation factors and their relative importance; however, <br />they need not disclose numerical or percentage ratings or weights. <br />• FEMA does not require any specific evaluation factors or analytic process, but the <br />evaluation factors shall support the purposes of the grant or cooperative agreement. <br />The Sub -Recipient shall consider any response to a publicized request for proposals to the <br />maximum extent practical. In addition to publicizing the request for proposals, non -state entities <br />shall solicit proposals from an adequate number of offerors, providing them with sufficient <br />response time before the date set for the receipt of proposals. Determining an adequate number <br />of sources shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of the procurement, subject to relevant <br />state, local, and/or tribal requirements. <br />The Sub -Recipient shall have a written method for conducting their technical evaluations of the <br />proposals received and for selecting offerors. When evaluating proposals, FEMA expects the <br />Sub -Recipient to consider all evaluation factors specified in its solicitation documents and <br />51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.