HomeMy WebLinkAboutmemoMETROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE
AND
DAVIDSON COUNTY
INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DIVISION OF PURCHASES
Date: July 3, 2003
To: File,. RFP #03-13, Internet -Based Solutions for Purchasing Card
Services and/or Travel Management Services
From:
Subject:
Michael F. Hauer, CPPO, CPPB
Evaluation Panel Award Justification
The Evaluation Panel (hereinafter, "Panel") consisted of the following individuals:
Michael F. Hauer
Roxianne Bethune
Tony Neumaier
Ray Stone*
Robert Watkins
Scott McPencow
Fred Adom
Angela McElrath
Jim Diamond
*Replaced Tony Neumaier
Purchasing
MBE/SBE
Internal Audit
Internal Audit
MNPS
Treasury
Grants Mgmt
Division of Accounts
MPHD
Chair (non -voting)
Advisory (non -voting)
Advisory (non -voting)
Advisory (non -voting)
Voting
Voting
Voting
Voting
Voting
On March 11, 2003, a meeting of the Panel was held to distribute the following
documents: RFP Evaluation Guidelines, Evaluation Panel Panel Member
Affidavit, copy of the RFP and any Addendums issued, Evaluation Scoring
Forms, and copies of the proposal responses received: JP Morgan Chase,
Amsouth Bank, US Bank, South Trust Bank, SunTrust Bank, Bank of America,
GE Capital Financial, American Express, and Comdata Corporation.
1
It was agreed that Purchasing would calculate the scores for the documented
current acceptance rate, and the small business participation. Additionally, it was
agreed that Tony Neumaier would calculate the scores for reference responses.
The Panel formally met on March 27, 2003. Some of the raw scores were noted,
discussion was held and consensus scores were developed on the proposal
responses received based solely on the evaluation criteria set forth the above
referenced RFP. The consensus of the Panel was that the proposal submitted by
Comdata Corporation was non -responsive to the RFP requirements and no
scores were to be given. The Chair reported that the acceptance data was not
yet received from VISA, MasterCard, or American Express. Additionally, the
Panel requested that the Chair request clarification from the proposers on the
rebate program offered.
The Panel formally met on April 22, 2003. The balance of the scores was taken,
discussion was held, and the rest of the consensus scores were developed. The
consensus of the Panel was that the "one card" solution was in the best interest
of Metro. Additionally, the consensus of the Panel was to short list to the top
three firms. Chair was requested to send letters to all proposers informing them
of the shortlist, to advise short listed firms of the request for software
demonstrations, and to prepare a script for proposers to follow during the
demonstrations.
The Chair sent the script to the shortlisted firms on May 27th, advising them of
the demonstration dates and times. The short listed firms participated in the
demonstrations that were held on June 16th and June 17th.
The Evaluation Panel formally met on June 18th. Discussions were held in
regard to the software demonstrations, and a new consensus score was reached
for the second criterion.
The evaluation criteria utilized (listed in order of importance), along with the
maximum scoring points allowed is shown below. Additionally, the consensus
scores, and Panel's justification for scores given, immediately follow.
1) Documented current acceptance rate of the offeror's card by registered
Metro vendors, as calculated by Metro. Maximum Scoring Points = 30.
The scores for this criterion were established by the Chair and received
consensus from the Panel. Metro sent its vendor data base to Visa, MasterCard,
and American Express to determine who carried what card, and the reporting
records level. Metro was mainly concerned with the percentage of Level III
records, which are needed to obtain purchase detail. Visa was given a 30 for this
criterion as they had the highest Level 11I percentage (47.7%).
2
MasterCard was given a 21 for this criterion as they had the next highest Level III
percentage (41.52%). American Express was given a 16 for this criterion as they
had the lowest Level III percentage (30.88%).
Utilizing this methodology, the following scores were given to the proposers: JP
Morgan Chase=30, AmSouth Bank=30, US Bank=30, South Trust Bank=30,
SunTrust Bank=30, Bank of America=21, GE Capital Financial=21, and
American Express=16
2) Responsiveness and feasibility of proposed business plan, including
overall approach/philosophy to providing the service, proposed contract
team and organizational structure, detailed plan of approach (for achieving
and attaining each of the required performance outcomes set forth in
section 2 of this RFP), proposed service quality program, plan to enable
Metro to control and report based on the N1GP Commodity Code, and the
government's analysis of the risks posed by offeror's proposed solution.
Maximum Scoring Points = 30
The consensus scores are as follows (the scores in the (--) are consensus score
changes due to demonstration): JP Morgan Chase=28 (28), AmSouth Bank=25
(21), US Bank=25 (23), South Trust Bank=23, SunTrust Bank=22, Bank of
America=29, GE Capital Financial=25, and American Express=15. The Panel
concluded that the business plans submitted by JP Morgan Chase and Bank of
America were the most responsive to RFP requirements. It concluded that the
business plans proposed by AmSouth Bank, US Bank, and GE Capital were less
responsive. South Trust Bank and SunTrust Bank met some of the requirements
requested in the RFP, and American Express met the least of the requirements.
After the demonstration of the three finalists, it was clearly evident that JP
Morgan Chase was the most responsive in meeting the required outcomes
requested in the RFP.
3) Any and all costs to Metro associated with full implementation of the
proposed business plan and any proposed rebate/revenue sharing/travel
award programs. Maximum Scoring Points = 30.
The consensus scores are as follows: JP Morgan Chase=28, AmSouth Bank=30,
US Bank=26, South Trust Bank=25, SunTrust Bank=21, Bank of America=16,
GE Capital Financial=15, and American Express=16. The scores reflect the
rebates that Metro would receive from each proposer, based on the expenditures
for fiscal year 2003 and projected expenditures for fiscal year 2004. Proposals
were scored objectively on this factor.
3
4) Offeror's ability, capacity, and financial strength to provide the service.
Maximum Scoring Points = 4.
The consensus scores are as follows: JP Morgan Chase=4, AmSouth Bank=4,
US Bank=4, South Trust Bank=3, SunTrust Bank=4, Bank of America=4, GE
Capital Financial=4, and American Express=4. The panel concluded that all
proposers have the minimum ability, capacity, and financial strength to perform
the contract
5) Customer evaluations of proposer's past performance. Maximum
Scoring Points = 4.
The scores for this criterion were established by Tony Neumaier and received
consensus from the Panel. The scores are as follows: JP Morgan Chase=3,
AmSouth Bank=2, US Bank=4, South Trust Bank=0, SunTrust Bank=2, Bank of
America=3, GE Capital Financial=4, and American Express=3. The scores were
established by asking the same questions of references submitted by each
proposer utilizing a 1-10 scale. The scoring points given were then assigned
based on the average score given to each proposer by the references.
6) Committed, Measurable Level of Small Business Participation. Maximum
Scoring Points = 2.
This criterion was scored by the Chair and received consensus approval for the
Panel. None of the proposers received any points for this criterion as they did not
claim status or did not commit to utilize small business participation in fulfilling
contract requirements.
In summary, the Panel concluded the consensus scores are as follows: JP
Morgan Chase=93, AmSouth Bank=87, US Bank=87, South Trust Bank=81,
SunTrust Bank=79, Bank of America=73, GE Capital Financial=69, and
American Express=54.
The panel asked the Chair to request that the Purchasing Agent issue a letter of
intent to award to JP Morgan Chase, subject to successful contract negotiations.
The panel also asked the Chair to make the necessary arrangements for
contract negotiations. The points, which must be negotiated with Morgan Chase,
include:
• Timetable for the completion of online approvals between
cardholder/supervisor/agency card representative/agency head/card
administrator
• Timetable for realistic solution to NIGP/MCC mapping on both the front
end of the transaction and also the backend
4