‘Award Justification Statement Solicitation # 1016011 jperation Excellence and Performance Improvement Consultant Conclusion Four proposals were received. Two proposals did not achieve the technical score threshold of 525 and were disqualified. Overall, the evaluation committee determined that the proposals submitted by both Novaces, LLC and Goldratt Consulting provide the best value to the State. Evaluation Process Proposals were evaluated in accordance with Part 7 of the Utah Procurement Code by an Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from the Governor's Office of Management and Budget. A representative from State Purchasing attended the evaluation committee meetings to ensure that the process outlined in the Procurement Code was followed but was not a voting member of the evaluation committee. A request for proposals was issued by the State to select consultants for training, professional development, and performance improvement. Under Utah Code 63G-6a-702(2), the RFP process was used because criteria other than cost were considered important in determining which proposal provides the best value to the State, These other criteria were highly significant in determining which vendor’s proposal provided the best value to the State. The following paragraphs describe each scoring category and explain and compare the scores assigned to each proposal that achieved the technical score threshold by the State’s evaluation committee. 1. Qualifications: Demonstrated Experience The RFP requested an outline of the offeror’s experience delivering operational excellence training, development and/or consultation services with a primary focus on TOC methodologies. Both vendors demonstrated significant experience in delivering ToC-centric solutions and thus received excellent scores. Novaces, LLC was awarded slightly more points for having a longer organizational history than Goldratt Consulting Of a possible 250 points in this category Novaces, LLC scored a 250 and Goldratt Consulting scored a 233.3. In the opinion of the State evaluation committee, Novaces, LLC provides the best value to the State through their demonstrated experience. 2. Technical ExpertiseThe RFP stated that: Offerors must be able to demonstrate technical expertise in the operational excellence subject matter in which they wish to provide service. ‘A. Outline your technical expertise in TOC operational excellence methodologies, presentation skills, facilitation skills, consultation, and evaluation techniques. B. Offers must be able to reference and provide their own materials in the area in which they wish to provide services. In the opinion of the State Evaluation Committee, both proposals offered the best value to the state in this category because both vendors were able to demonstrate significant expertise in TOC operational excellence methodologies, presentation skills, facilitation skills, consultation, and evaluation techniques. Of the possible 250 points available for this overall category of Technical Expertise, Novaces, LLC scored a 250 and Goldratt Consulting scored 250 points. In the opinion of the State Evaluation Committee, both proposals offer the best value to the state in this category. 3. Public Sector Experience The RFP required the Offeror to demonstrate that their experience is relevant to performance improvement in the public sector. While both vendors received at least satisfactory scores in this category, the proposal from Novaces, LLC demonstrated a significantly greater breadth and depth of public sector experience than that of Goldratt Consulting. For this, Novaces, LLC was awarded full points. Of the possible 125 points available for this overall category of Public Sector Experience, Novaces, LLC scored a 125 and Goldratt Consulting scored 75 points. In the opinion of the State Evaluation Committee, the Novaces, LLC proposal offers the best value to the state in this category. 4, Performance References References submitted in response to Section 2.2 Mandatory Minimum Requirements (C) (ii) were contacted and evaluated by committee members. Both contractors received excellent ratings from their references, particularly in regard to their knowledge and use of Theory of Constraints principles and methodologies. For this they both received near-perfect scores.Of the possible 125 points available for this overall category of Public Sector Experience, Novaces, LLC scored a 116.7 and Goldratt Consulting scored 108.3 points. In the opinion of the State Evaluation Committee, the Novaces, LLC proposal offers the best value to the state. 5. Cost. Cost was scored as described in the RFP. The following offers were successful in meeting the technical score threshold of 525 points out of a possible 750 and were thus eligible to proceed to the cost evaluation, Novaces, LLC (with 741.7 total points) Goldratt Consulting (with 666.7 total points) Cost Proposal Evaluation. The Offeror with the lowest total cost will receive the maximum points of 321.4. Points assigned to each Offeror’s cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. ‘The Offeror with the lowest total cost will receive 321.4, or 100% of the total cost points. All other Offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their total cost is than the total lowest cost. An Offeror whose total cost is more than double (200%) the Lowest Proposed Price will receive no points. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (2- Proposed Price/Lowest Proposed Price). Cost Proposal Points Firm Name. Total Cost Points Novaces, LLC 3214 Goldratt Consulting | 285.3 Conclusion Based on the justifications outli \n of the Evaluation Committee that the proposals submitted by Novaces, LLC and Goldratt Consulting provide the best value to the State. The proposals submitted by Novaces, LLC and Goldratt Consulting both achieved a total combined (technical and cost) score that exceeded the \um score threshold of 750.