2025-251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A TRUE COPY CER'11`ICATIJN ON LAST PAGE RYAN L. BUTLER, CLLRK • The requirements are less definitive, more development work is required, or there is a greater risk of performance; • Technical capability, past performance, and prior experience considerations play a dominant role in source selection; and/or • Separate discussions with individual offerors are expected to be necessary after they have submitted proposals. This is a key distinction from the sealed bidding method of procurement where discussions with individual bidders are prohibited and the contract shall be awarded based on price and price -related factors alone. The Sub -Recipient shall publicize their RFP. The manner of the advertising depends upon the facts and circumstances of the procurement, subject to state, local, and/or tribal requirements. Within the advertisement, the Sub -Recipient shall identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. The following provides several considerations for developing evaluation factors: • The evaluation factors for a specific procurement should reflect the subject matter and elements that are most important to the Sub -Recipient. • The evaluation factors may include such things as technical design, technical approach, length of delivery schedules, past performance, and quality of proposed personnel. • The Sub -Recipient may use any one or a combination of source selection approaches as permitted under state, local, and/or tribal laws, regulations, and procedures, and these approaches will often differ based on the relative importance of price or cost for the procurement. • If permitted by the Sub -Recipient, written procurement procedures, and applicable state, local, and/or tribal law, the Sub -Recipient may award a contract to the offeror whose proposal offers the "best value" to the Sub -Recipient. The solicitation shall also inform potential offerors that the award shall be made on a "best value" basis, which should include a statement that the Sub -Recipient reserves the right to award the contract to other than the lowest -priced offeror. • The RFP shall identify evaluation factors and their relative importance; however, they need not disclose numerical or percentage ratings or weights. • FEMA does not require any specific evaluation factors or analytic process, but the evaluation factors shall support the purposes of the grant or cooperative agreement. The Sub -Recipient shall consider any response to a publicized request for proposals to the maximum extent practical. In addition to publicizing the request for proposals, non -state entities shall solicit proposals from an adequate number of offerors, providing them with sufficient response time before the date set for the receipt of proposals. Determining an adequate number of sources shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of the procurement, subject to relevant state, local, and/or tribal requirements. The Sub -Recipient shall have a written method for conducting their technical evaluations of the proposals received and for selecting offerors. When evaluating proposals, FEMA expects the Sub -Recipient to consider all evaluation factors specified in its solicitation documents and evaluate offers only on the evaluation factors included in the solicitation documents. A Sub - Recipient shall not modify its evaluation factors after proposals have been submitted without re- opening the solicitation. In awarding a contract that will include options, FEMA expects the Sub - Recipient to evaluate proposals for any option quantities or periods contained in the solicitation if it intends to exercise those options after the contract is awarded. The contract shall be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the program with price and other factors considered. 56