Page 243 - Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS)

228 AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS

which may be releasable. While this topic is beyond the scope of this chapter,
it is noted that there are due process implications if a vendor is determined to
be non-responsible and such non-responsibility determination is the basis for
not awarding a contract. A vendor has the right to know the basis for the non-
responsibility determination and must be provided an opportunity to be heard.
There may be specific jurisdictional requirements governing when and how the
responsibility determination is made. For example, the Federal Acquisition Reg-
ulations provides fairly detailed requirements on the responsibility determina-
tion. (See FAR 48 CFR Part 9.)
This section of the RFP may also collect and evaluate the information sub-
mitted about the key vendor employees proposed for the project. A review
would be conducted to determine if the identified employees appear to possess
the necessary skills and background to complete the work. If desired, the gov-
ernment may request references for these employees. However, if a decision is
made to request additional references, the government should plan on making
the inquiries. As a general proposition, information should not be requested if
it is not relevant or is not going be used as part of the decision-making process.

9.7.4.6 Project Implementation
The RFP may also seek and evaluate a vendor’s proposal regarding project
implementation. Depending upon the nature of the procurement, the vendor
may be required to detail its concept of how the project would be implemented.
The government may request specific information, such as the vendor’s quality
assurance process and identification of employees authorized to generate new
releases and patches. The government has a significant interest in preventing
malicious or faulty code from entering the System, and this is one means of
control. Such information would be evaluated in terms of the vendor’s under-
standing of the government’s needs, reasonableness of the proposed time
frames, and conformance with industry standards.

9.7.4.7 Cost Evaluation
The final evaluation undertaken will probably be the cost or financial evalua-
tion. Oftentimes the RFP will require the separate sealed submission of the cost
information. A cost evaluation is often broken down into several weighed com-
ponents. As with other parts of the evaluation process, it is recommended that
the RFP include forms to capture the cost information. The forms will ease the
evaluation process and help ensure that costs are analyzed in the same manner.
Pricing should be broken out to specify the acquisition being made immedi-
ately, the maintenance costs for that acquisition, costs if additional hardware
and software is obtained, costs for consulting/customization work, training, etc.
This document may also capture the vendor’s proposal for price increases over