The best and final offers (BAFO) process has been around for many years and is seldom used. It is one possible technique which might be employed to enhance the position of a public authority in a tender or similar contract competition.
The idea would be to provide in the terms of a tender or RFP that a shortlist will be prepared based on the original supplier submissions, and that each supplier on that shortlist will then be invited to submit its best and final offer for the contract.
The general reason for adopting this approach is the reasonably common suggestion made by unsuccessful bidders that they could have matched or beaten the offer made by the successful bidder, if they had only had a second chance to do so.
The specific reason for employing it usually varies from one specific case to another — but the normal presumption where the process is employed is that the proposals received ought to have been better than they actually were.
Any such arrangement must be properly supported by the language of the tender or RFP terms and conditions, so as to fit within the law of tender. Some public purchasers make it a standing provision of the RFP process, while others incorporate it into the RFP documentation only in the case of atypically large or complex procurement projects.
Generally, a BAFO round is accommodated by proving in the terms of the tender, etc., that the municipally reserves the right to seek a best and final offer. The following provision includes how a BAFO round might be conducted — although practice varies widely.
In accordance with this section, the city may, at its discretion, conduct BAFO round to the RFP where the city determines that:
— None of the proposals submitted sufficiently address the city’s procurement needs.
— Each such proposal is in some respect otherwise unclear or deficient.
— All costs proposals are too high.
— Only one BAFO round shall be conducted.
— Where the scores received by a proponent is no more than five per cent less than the highest score awarded during the RFP evaluation, that the proponent shall be entitled to participate in the BAFO round.
— By way of clarification, if Proponent "A" receives a score of 65/100 and proponent "B" receives a score of 70/100, proponent "A" shall be considered to meet this qualification. Where no other proponent is within five per cent of the highest score awarded during the RFP evaluation, the highest scoring proponent shall be exclusively entitled to participate in the BAFO round.
— The purchasing manager shall initiate the best and final process. Each proponent entitled to participate in the BAFO round under section (2) shall be given a fair opportunity to submit a revised proposal. The city reserves the right to indicate to each proponent respectively the areas in which its proposal must be strengthened, which may:
— Relate to price, functionality or any other aspect of the specifications or evaluation criteria identified in the terms and conditions of the RFP; or
— Relate to some new specification or evaluation criteria, provided that in any such case, the new specification or evaluation shall be set out in an addendum and shall be provided to all proponents participating in the BAFO round;
— Establish a deadline for BAFO submissions, provided that all the offers shall be in writing, signed by each proponent respectively, and shall be submitted in a sealed envelope.
Many other steps are required in this process, but the general concept could be used in municipal procurement.
Stephen Bauld is a government procurement expert and can be reached at stephenbauld@bell.blackberry.net.
Some of his columns may contain excerpts from The Municipal Procurement Handbook published by Butterworths.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed