10-Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 724 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Miscellaneous Subsurface Investigation & Testing
- Solicitation number
- RPS-26-00367
- Issued by
- Hillsborough County, Florida
About this file
This is an evaluation criteria document for a Professional Services Questionnaire used by Hillsborough County Capital Programs Department in Florida to assess proposals for subsurface investigation and testing services. The evaluation framework consists of four primary criteria categories with maximum point values totaling 100 points. Evaluation Criterion 1, "Ability of Firm and Its Professional Personnel" (25 points maximum), requires firms to submit resumes for key personnel, organizational charts, and demonstrate understanding of the County's project requirements and team qualifications. Evaluation Criterion 2, "Firm's Experience with Projects of a Similar Size and Type" (20 points maximum), requires submission of up to 10 recent projects, preferably within the past five years, detailing the firm's role, project managers, contract costs, contract length, and methodology. Evaluation Criterion 3, "Firm's Willingness and Ability to Meet Schedule and Budget Requirements" (35 points maximum), requires a narrative description of project management approach, schedule and budget controls, personnel allocation, and proposed innovations. Evaluation Criterion 4, "Effect of Firm's Recent, Current and Projected Workload" (20 points maximum), requires description of current workload capacity and a one-page graphic representation of key team members' availability over the next 12 months.
The evaluation criteria establish specific scoring ranges for each category to standardize assessment across all submittals. Responses are limited to specified page maximums per criterion, with resumes and organizational charts exempt from page limits. Scoring ranges progress from inadequate performance (lowest points) through marginal, adequate, above average, and superior performance (highest points). The scope of work for this estimated $6,000,000 contract includes geotechnical services, construction materials testing, roofing and waterproofing assessments, materials engineering, and asbestos-related services, requiring firms to demonstrate both technical capability and resource availability to execute the comprehensive subsurface investigation and testing program.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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
Professional Services Questionnaire Revised 09.22.2025
EVALUATION CRITERIA INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions for completing the following evaluation criteria worksheets:
1. For each evaluation criterion, utilize the MPV from the Professional Services Questionnaire.
2. Establish a range under each criterion to distribute the MPV to the corresponding definitions. Negative scores should not be used.
3. Evaluators will score each response using this rating guide.
4. The following evaluation criteria forms will be included in the Solicitation Document for firms to review.
EVALUATION CRITERIA NUMBER. 1
ABILITY OF FIRM AND ITS PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL
Maximum Point Value: 25
Responses limited to 3 page(s) maximum, plus resumes for key personnel
Attach resumes only for key personnel of the Project Team, detailing past experience as it relates to projects of a similar size and type.
Submit separate organizational charts delineating personnel assigned to both construction and design services, if applicable. Clearly indicate the role of each member of the proposed project team. Resumes and organizational charts do not count against the maximum page limit. Indicate that the team has a clear understanding of the County’s project and requirements.
0-5 Project team personnel do not have appropriate level of qualifications and experience.
Project team does not contain all critical disciplines. Organization of project team is inappropriate. Prime firm lacks adequate professional resources to properly provide services. Prime firm lacks understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. Proposed project manager is not appropriate.
6-10 Some project team personnel have adequate level of qualifications and experience.
Project team lacks minor disciplines. Organization of project team is marginal.
Prime firm’s professional resources to properly provide services are marginal. Prime firm has a marginal understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. Proposed project manager’s qualifications are marginal.
11-15 Project team personnel have adequate level of experience. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of project team is adequate to the project. Prime firm has adequate professional resources to properly provide services. Prime firm has an adequate understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. Proposed project manager’s qualifications are adequate.
16-20 Project team personnel have above average level of experience, and the project manager is uniquely qualified. Project team contains all necessary disciplines.
Organization of project team is adequate to the project. Prime firm has superior professional resources to properly provide services. Prime firm has an above average understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete
it. Proposed Project Manager’s qualifications are above average.
21-25 Project team personnel have exceptional level of experience, and several are uniquely qualified. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of project team is superior. Prime firm has a superior understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. Prime firm has superior professional resources to properly provide services. Proposed project manager is uniquely qualified.
EVALUATION CRITERIA NUMBER 2
FIRM’S EXPERIENCE WITH PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR SIZE AND TYPE
Maximum Point Value: 20
Maximum number of projects to be included:
Responses limited to 1 page(s) maximum per project
List a maximum of 10 recent projects, preferably during the past five (5) years, to indicate proficiency in similar work. For each representative project, indicate your Firm’s role (Prime, Sub-Consultant, etc.), your Firm’s project manager and key personnel, total cost of the project, length of the contract, and a summary of the work performed by your Firm.” Show your firm’s approach to the project and methods used to plan, design, and administer the project.
0-4 Prime firm has marginal experience with projects of a similar size and type.
5-8 Prime firm has minor successful experience with projects of a similar size and type. Prime firm’s approach and methods proposed are inadequate to provide the level of service required for the project. Scope of services provided for representative projects vary from RPS Scope.
9-12 Prime firm has adequate successful, recent (within past five (5) years) experience with projects of a similar size and type. Prime firm’s approach and methods proposed are adequate to provide the level of service required for the project. Some of the scope of services provided for representative projects are similar to RPS scope.
13-16 Prime firm has more than adequate successful, recent (within past five (5) years) experience with projects of a similar size and type. Prime firm’s approach and methods proposed are above average to provide the level of service required for the project. Most of the scope of services provided for representative projects are similar to RPS scope.
17-20 Prime firm has superior past and recent successful experience with projects of a similar size and type. Prime firm’s approach and methods proposed are superior to provide the level of service required for the project. All of the scope of services provided for representative projects are similar to RPS scope.
EVALUATION CRITERIA NUMBER 3
FIRM’S WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO MEET SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
REQUIREMENTS
Maximum Point Value: 35
Response limited to 3 page(s) maximum
Provide a short narrative outlining how you propose to manage the project in order to meet schedule and budget requirements.
Indicate the controls to be utilized to maintain both schedule and budget for this project.
Describe how personnel will be assigned, and tasks effectively handled, in order to provide the most efficient service on the project (during both the design and the construction phases, if applicable). Describe any unique issues and/or items of focus based on your understanding of the project scope. Describe any suggestions on how the proposed project schedule could be further accelerated. Describe your Firm’s unique abilities, innovative approaches, and/or special considerations.
Describe your firm’s ability to provide the required services and provide them within a schedule and budget.
1-7 Submittal does not address either the schedule or budget.
8-14 Submittal shows inadequate understanding of scope, schedule and budget requirements.
15-21 Submittal shows adequate schedule approach, understanding of budget control, and understanding of scope. Project budget and schedule can be met or modified to meet project intent.
22-28 Submittal shows good understanding of and approach to scope, schedule and budget.
Project budget and schedule can be met.
29-35 Submittal shows superior understanding of and approach to scope, schedule and budget with potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings.
EVALUATION CRITERIA NUMBER 4
EFFECT OF FIRM’S RECENT, CURRENT AND PROJECTED WORKLOAD
Maximum Point Value: 20
Responses limited to 2 page(s) maximum, including a one-page graphic representation.
Describe the current workload and your daily ability to handle the scope of services.
Provide a graphic representation of your current commitment over the next one-year period for key members of the project team.
0-4 Submittal shows that consultant does not have sufficient available personnel to complete services on schedule.
5-8 Submittal shows that consultant’s workload commitments will impact its ability to complete services on schedule.
9-12 Submittal shows that while consultant has adequate time and available personnel, prior workload commitments may impact its ability to complete services on schedule.
13-16 Submittal shows that consultant’s project team has adequate time and available personnel to complete services on schedule.
17-24 Submittal shows that consultant’s project team has adequate staffing available to complete services on schedule. Submittal indicates backup staffing capability in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .