00011524 EvaluationScoreMatrix for release.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 53 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-73000-00011524
- Issued by
- Benton County, Oregon
About this file
This evaluation score matrix from ODOT and Benton County details the proposal scoring for the Corvallis to Albany Shared Use Path project between NE Merloy Ave and NW Rainwater Ln. Four firms were evaluated: Alta Planning + Design, David Evans and Associates, Harper Houf Peterson Righellis, and Parametrix. Each proposal was scored by three evaluators across six criteria: Design Philosophy and Approach (15 points), Project Management (10 points), Project Team and Qualifications (20 points), Project Samples (40 points), Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness (10 points), and Clarity of Proposal (5 points).
Parametrix received the highest combined average score of 96.00, followed by David Evans and Associates with 94.67, Harper Houf Peterson Righellis with 88.33, and Alta Planning + Design with 84.67. The scoring matrix also includes unused sections for interview scores and reference checks, suggesting these components were either not completed or not required for this evaluation process. No scoring deduction points were applied to any of the proposals.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Combined Food Provider Solicitation - 24-26.pdf | ||
| 00011524 Attachment C.docx | DOCX document | |
| 00011524 Interview Notice.docx | DOCX document | |
| 00011524 ITA.docx | DOCX document | |
| 00011524 EvaluationScoreMatrix Final for release.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 00011524 RFP Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| 00011524 Sample Contract Final.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Local Agency Proposal Scores
| S-73000-00011524 Corvallis to Albany Shared Use Path (NE Merloy Ave to NW Rainwater Ln) | ||||||
| SOP SCORE DETAILS | ||||||
| Proposal Evaluation Detail Scores | Enter actual number of evaluators: | |||||
| Evaluation Team | ||||||
| Maximum | ||||||
| Score | evaluator 1 | evaluator 2 | evaluator 3 | |||
| 1 | Alta Planning + Design | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Proposer’s Project Management | 15 | ||||
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | ||||
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | ||||
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | ||||
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | ||||
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | ||||
| Total | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 2 | David Evans and Associates | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Design Philosophy and Approach | 15 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | 18 | 18 | 20 | |
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | 37 | 37 | 40 | |
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | 8 | 10 | 10 | |
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |
| TOTAL | 100 | 89 | 93 | 99 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 89 | 93 | 99 | 93.67 |
| 3 | Harper Houf Peterson Righellis | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Design Philosophy and Approach | 15 | 11 | 13 | 14 | |
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | 7 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | 15 | 18 | 20 | |
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | 35 | 36 | 38 | |
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | 6 | 10 | 10 | |
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| TOTAL | 100 | 76 | 91 | 97 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 76 | 91 | 97 | 88.00 |
| 4 | Parametrix | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Design Philosophy and Approach | 15 | 13 | 13 | 14 | |
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | 18 | 16 | 20 | |
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | 38 | 37 | 39 | |
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | 9 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | |
| TOTAL | 100 | 91 | 88 | 94 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 91 | 88 | 94 | 91.00 |
ODOT Proposal Detail Scores
| S-73000-00011524 Corvallis to Albany Shared Use Path (NE Merloy Ave to NW Rainwater Ln) | ||||||
| SOP SCORE DETAILS | ||||||
| Proposal Evaluation Detail Scores | Enter actual number of evaluators: | |||||
| Evaluation Team | ||||||
| Maximum | ||||||
| Score | evaluator 1 | evaluator 2 | evaluator 3 | |||
| 1 | Alta Planning + Design | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Design Philosophy and Approach | 15 | 10 | 11 | 9 | |
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | 7 | 9 | 7 | |
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | 19 | 20 | 18 | |
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | 38 | 30 | 40 | |
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | |
| Total | 100 | 86 | 81 | 87 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 86 | 81 | 87 | 84.67 |
| 2 | David Evans and Associates | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Design Philosophy and Approach | 15 | 15 | 14 | 15 | |
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | 18 | 19 | 20 | |
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | 37 | 35 | 40 | |
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | |
| TOTAL | 100 | 95 | 90 | 99 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 95 | 90 | 99 | 94.67 |
| 3 | Harper Houf Peterson Righellis | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Design Philosophy and Approach | 15 | 13 | 10 | 14 | |
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | |
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | 18 | 19 | 20 | |
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | 36 | 30 | 39 | |
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | |
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | |
| TOTAL | 100 | 91 | 76 | 98 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 91 | 76 | 98 | 88.33 |
| 4 | Parametrix | |||||
| 2.2.1 | Design Philosophy and Approach | 15 | 15 | 15 | 12 | |
| 2.2.2 | Proposer’s Project Management | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | |
| 2.2.3 | Project Team and Qualifications | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| 2.2.4 | Project Samples | 40 | 37 | 38 | 38 | |
| 2.2.5 | Interested Parties Support & Construction Readiness | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| 2.2.6 | Clarity of Proposal and Conformity with Requirements | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| TOTAL | 100 | 97 | 98 | 93 | 0% | |
| Scoring Deduction Points | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TOTAL (incl. Scoring Deductions) | 97 | 98 | 93 | 96.00 |
Interview Detail Scores
| ERROR:#REF! | |||||||
| INTERVIEW SCORE DETAILS | |||||||
| Enter actual number of interview evaluators: | 1 | ||||||
| Evaluation Team | |||||||
| Maximum | |||||||
| Score | evaluator 1 | evaluator 2 | evaluator 3 | evaluator 4 | evaluator 5 | ||
| Firm Name | |||||||
| Eval criterion/question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Firm Name | |||||||
| Eval criterion/question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Firm Name | |||||||
| Eval criterion/question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Firm Name | |||||||
| Eval criterion/question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Firm Name | |||||||
| Eval criterion/question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Firm Name | |||||||
| Eval criterion/question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Eval criterion/question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
References Detail Scores
| ERROR:#REF! | |||||||
| References Evaluation Detail Scores | |||||||
| Enter actual number of references scored: | 1 | ||||||
| Reference Scores | |||||||
| Maximum | |||||||
| Score | reference 1 | reference 2 | reference 3 | reference 4 | reference 5 | ||
| 1 | Firm Name | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | Firm Name | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | Firm Name | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 4 | Firm Name | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | Firm Name | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6 | Firm Name | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 3 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 4 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 6 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 7 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Criterion/Question 9 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
&"Arial,Bold"&12REFERENCES SCORE DETAIL RFP xxx (PCMS xxx) &"Arial,Bold Italic"[insert project name]
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .