Page 239 - Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS)

224 AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS

making up each criterion and the relative weights are not so limited and are
highly subject to variation.
From a legal perspective, it is critically important that the vendor be pro-
vided with sufficient information to determine how the proposal will be evalu-
ated, but there is generally no obligation to provide the vendor with the fine
details of the evaluation. Jurisdictional requirements must be researched on
this point. Development of evaluation criteria has two major components. The
first is the public component, the information presented to the vendors iden-
tifying the topics to be evaluated and the relative weights of importance. The
second component is the specific detailed elements used by the government in
evaluating the proposals, which are kept confidential before the opening date
for the proposals. In keeping with the concept of fairness, these elements must
be finalized prior to the opening.
Careful consideration and thought must be given to the evaluation criteria,
because once established, they must be used. Criteria cannot be discarded, dis-
regarded, or substituted without amending the RFP, and that step cannot occur
after the proposals have been submitted. Similarly, relative weights cannot be
changed without amending the RFP. Depending on the jurisdiction, there may
be a limited ability to waive a requirement that no vendor can satisfy. As indi-
cated below, each tier in the evaluation tends to become more complex and
time consuming. Consideration should be given to establishing thresholds that
a proposal must pass to be considered for the subsequent evaluation tier. That
way, the governmental entity is not investing substantial effort evaluating the
technical requirements of a proposal that fails to meet the mandatory require-
ments. However, it should also be recognized that disqualifying a proposal from
full consideration is a severe step. The RFP must clearly identify these conse-
quences and expectations so a vendor has a full understanding and can assess
the risks associated with submitting a proposal.
Whatever criteria are established, it is strongly recommended that a stan-
dardized method for collecting and evaluating the responses be incorporated
into the RFP. For example, if a vendor’s proposal is presented as free form nar-
rative text, the government will need to locate the relevant information. That
is not only a time-consuming exercise, but also one with a high potential for
errors. It would be better, to the extent possible, to develop forms to collect the
information. The obligation is then placed on the vendor to provide the infor-
mation. Depending on the requirement, the questions could be presented with
yes/no responses, with the vendor able to incorporate supplemental materials
if desired.
Evaluation criteria for an AFIS procurement will often be multi-tiered. Gen-
erally, there is no requirement that each tier be evaluated the same. A tier can
be set up as “pass/fail,” a weighted point system, or the top three scores, among