Page 242 - Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS)

CONTRACTUAL ISSUES REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF AN AFIS 227

a series of fingerprint cards or fingerprint transactions representing real world
fingerprints and transactions. Each vendor is given the same set or duplicate
master copies and, under the observation of the government agency, is given
the same amount of time and same amount of tries to perform the process.
There are many acceptable ways to conduct and evaluate testing. The RFP could
establish specified performance requirements and if the product fails to meet
the requirements, it is considered no further. Alternatively, the RFP could deter-
mine that only some specified number of products will advance in the evalua-
tion process, or it could establish a “passing” grade needed to proceed in the
evaluation. The RFP should detail the manner and means for testing with the
goal of developing and implementing a process that is fair to the various
vendors and that provides the government with the information necessary to
undertake its evaluation.

9.7.4.5 Review of the Vendor
The evaluation process must also consider the vendor. While the concept may
be expressed in different ways, the idea is that there must be a determination
as to whether a vendor has the integrity, skills, and ability to perform the
required work. In many jurisdictions, this concept is referred to as a responsi-
bility determination (i.e., is the vendor a responsible vendor?) and is derived
from an obligation that the government contract only with responsible vendors.
Many means can be used to collect information about responsibility. The RFP
may require submission of financial statements or audits, financial reviews from
independent third parties, work references, or information about prior, similar
engagements. Standardized questionnaires can also be used to collect infor-
mation about previous governmental determinations about the vendor’s
responsibility or actions, such as if the vendor was fined for failure to pay pre-
vailing wages or comply with environmental laws. Similar to the effort expended
to define the nature of the AFIS acquisition, this is the government’s due dili-
gence inquiry into the vendor. The government must confirm the information
received and determine if other relevant information is available.
Generally, this component does not lend itself to an exclusively paper-based
review. The government needs to develop standardized questions for use with
the references so that the same specific questions are asked about all vendors.
As the information obtained tends to be subjective in nature, the government
may consider the use of a sliding scale based on opinion (e.g., strongly agree
to strongly disagree) rather than a quantified scale (e.g., 1 to 5). Consideration
should be given to discussing with legal counsel the possible open records law
implications of these evaluations. Such advice may factor into whether it is in
the government’s best interest to structure this part of the evaluation as opinion
based (which is often not releasable) or as factual, quantifiable information,