I know that the initials RFP usually produce snores, but the rank incompetence is amazing. Going to page 21a, the RFP response by CMS starts.
The essential issue here is that if you change the RFP process, you have to give everyone a fair chance to respond or you can game the system towards favored companies. What’s stunning is that most state agencies know how to write an RFP without having to worry about adjusting things afterward to get the company they want—CMS couldn’t even game the system within the rules as most agencies do already.
Auditor Finding:The Department used evaluation criteria not stated in the RFP.
CMS Response:
Each of the evaluations sheets shows that CMS did use the same evaluation criteria in the RFP.
? This is demonstrated in Attachment 04-4 A, which compares the criteria in the RFP with the criteria used in the evaluation score sheets.
? The use of sub criteria is cited as a ?best practice? of the National Association of State Procurement Officers (NASPO). (NASPO Principles, Chapter 9, p. 67 See 04-4 Attachment B) Given that the auditors used the NASPO principles as part of their audit criteria, they should have applied these principles here, but did not.
? The auditors? criticism of the Department is disingenuous and hypocritical. The OAG routinely uses sub criteria in its procurement evaluations even though the sub criteria are not delineated in the RFP.
? Each of the awards was clearly documented and was made to the vendor, which offered the best value to the State
Auditor Comment:
Comment 58: It is a fundamental principle of competitive procurement, recognized by NASPO guidelines and required by Illinois law, that contract awards must be made based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation document. Sub-criteria, by their definition, should be derived of, not depart from, the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. In Finding 4, the uditors noted instances in which CMS departed from its stated criteria and/or failed to maintain documentation necessary to demonstrate its compliance with those criteria.
Comment 59: Simply stated, CMS? statement is not correct. The criteria used to evaluate proposals received through the RFP process are set forth in the RFP document. These criteria can be linked to the evaluation team scoring forms. Firms participating in the OAG procurement process have never expressed any concern about the OAG using sub-criteria not delineated in the RFP.
Auditor Finding: The Department changed the scoring methodology without communicating the changes to bidders.
CMS Response:
The Department did not change scoring methodology without communicating changes to the bidders.
? In one instance, the Department did?during a permitted Best and Final Offer (?BAFO?) process, clarify pricing. As a result of that process, it became clear that one vendor?s proposal was superior, and this was documented in the
procurement and contract files.
Original Finding
FINDING: (Changes in Award Evaluation Criteria not Communicated to Proposers) The Department of Central Management Services (Department) used evaluation criteria to evaluate vendor proposals that were not stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Changes in scoring methodology were not communicated to proposing vendors or reflected in an addendum to the RFPs. Additionally, in one of these instances, the Department awarded a contract to a vendor that had not received the highest scoring total based on evaluation criteria set out in the RFP. The Illinois Administrative Code states that proposals shall be evaluated only on the basis of evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. Price will not be evaluated until ranking of all proposals and identification of the most qualified vendors (44 Ill. Adm. Code 1.2035
(h)(2)).In 44 percent (4 of 9) of the contracts we reviewed, the Department used different criteria when evaluating the price component of the proposals. The results are summarized below:
Go to the full Compliance Report for the examples