|
A sample:
Dear Director of [OCR or OSP] choose only one, whichever is applicable.
In compliance with La. R.S. 39: 1497, I forward for your approval and hereby certify the following for the above referenced CSSA project:
- Either no employee of our agency is both competent and available to perform
the services called for by the proposed contract or the services called for are
not the type readily susceptible of being performed by persons who are
employed by the state on a continuing basis;
- The services are not available as a product of a prior or existing professional,
personal, consulting, or social services contract;
- When applicable, the requirements for consulting or social services contracts,
as provided for under Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 39:1503, have been
complied with.
- The (Department of _______) has developed and fully intends to implement a
written plan providing for:
- The assignment of (provide names) to a monitoring and liaison function; and
- The periodic review of interim reports or other indicia of performance to
date; and
- The ultimate use of the final product of the services.
|
- A cost-benefit analysis has been conducted which indicates that obtaining such
services from the private sector is more cost-effective than providing such
services by the agency itself or by an agreement with another state agency
and includes both a short-term and long-term analysis and is available for
review.
- The cost basis for the proposed contract is justified and reasonable.
- A description of the specific goals and objectives, deliverables, performance measures and a plan for monitoring the services to be provided are contained in the proposed contract.
- Entering into this contract will not result in the layoff of employees.
- Changes that have been made to the CSSC terms provided in the RFP dated March 27, 2006 are highlighted on the copy attached.
- Rates agreed in the CSSC are equal to or less than the contract rates in the Teir1 process.
|
Description of Procedures
- On (Date of approval), the IT-10 for this project was approved by the Office of Information Technology and assigned the approval number (#) (See copy attached).
- On (Date of approval), The Statement of Work (SOW) was approved by the Office of Information Technology.
- On (Date of Release), a copy of the Statement of Work (SOW) was e-mailed to the listserv containing each of the firms on the enclosed listofconsultants who were in the Tier One process for the (enter Technical Area). (Attach copy of listserv message.)
- The SOW included in the attached contract for your inspection contains provisions in compliance with La. R.S. 39:1503 as follows:
- The importance of price and evaluation factors is explained in section ___ of the SOW.
- The SOW defines project tasks in section ___
- As in (a) above, evaluation factors are defined in section ___ of the SOW.
- The period for the project is explained in section ___ of the SOW.
- In section ___ of the SOW letter, potential proposers are notified that
written questions must be submitted to (Name of Contact).
(This is only applicable if questions were submitted)
- State agency liaison personnel are described in the SOW and resources available to the Contracting Party are described in the SOW in section
____.
- The SOW requires all necessary information concerning methodology
and costs.
|
- During the proposal preparation period, there were questions submitted concerning the project. Copies of these questions and responses are attached. (This is only applicable if questions were submitted)
- As of (Date and Time proposals are due), (Number of proposals received) were submitted. (Give circumstances of non-responsive proposals to the SOW)
- A technical evaluation scoring sheet was developed utilizing the criteria specified in the SOW. (Outline the process utilized to evaluate and score) For example:
- The technical evaluation scoring sheets were filled out by the Proposal Evaluation Team, composed of .
- All proposals were examined for proper form and cost elements by the
SOW Coordinator. The proposing consultants did not propose pricing
higher than their Tier I response.
(see attached cost matrix from Tier I for reference).
- The evaluations and recommendations of the Proposal Evaluation Team were presented in written form to the agency head. The recommendation,
based on the rankings of the written proposals, was to award the
contract to the highest scored proposer.
|
- The selection of the Contractor was announced as provided in the SOW and all other proposers were officially notified by letter. (copies enclosed)
|
|
Justification for Selection
|
The extensive review process described above resulted in the selection of (Name of Contractor) to provide the required services. This decision was based on the fact that the contractor received the highest number of points by the Proposal Evaluation Team.
Sincerely,
Head of the agency
|
