11-Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 251 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RPS-26-00282
- Issued by
- Hillsborough County, Florida
About this file
This is an evaluation criteria worksheet for a Professional Services Questionnaire issued by Hillsborough County Water Resources Department in Florida for the Van Dyke Flow Diversion (Pump Station and Pipeline) project. The document establishes four evaluation criteria with a combined maximum point value of 100 points that will be used to score professional engineering firms' proposals. Evaluation Criterion 1 (35 points maximum) assesses the ability of the firm and its professional personnel, requiring responses limited to 5 pages plus resumes for key personnel and organizational charts. Evaluation Criterion 2 (40 points maximum) evaluates the firm's relevant project experience, requesting a maximum of 5 recent projects preferably from the past five years with detailed information on project scope, personnel, cost, and contract length, limited to 2 pages per project. Evaluation Criterion 3 (20 points maximum) examines how the firm proposes to manage the project to meet schedule and budget requirements, requesting a 3-page maximum narrative addressing project controls, personnel assignments, task management, unique project issues, and schedule acceleration suggestions. Evaluation Criterion 4 (5 points maximum) assesses current workload and staffing availability, requiring a 2-page response including a one-page graphic representation of key personnel commitments over the next year.
The evaluation criteria establish performance standards and scoring ranges for each criterion to ensure consistent assessment across all proposals. Scoring ranges increase progressively from 0 points for inadequate or non-responsive submissions to maximum points for superior or exceptional responses. For the 40-point experience criterion, firms demonstrating superior past and recent successful experience with similar-sized projects with all scope services matching the Request for Proposal receive the highest score. For the 20-point schedule and budget criterion, submissions showing superior understanding and approach with potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings receive maximum points. The 35-point personnel and ability criterion awards maximum points to firms with exceptional team experience, uniquely qualified personnel, superior organization, and superior understanding of project requirements. The 5-point workload criterion prioritizes firms with adequate personnel availability and backup staffing capability. Negative scores are not permitted under any criterion.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
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: 35
Responses limited to 5 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
0 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.
1-8 Some project team personnel have adequate level of qualifications and experience.
Project team lacks minor disciplines. Organization of project team is marginal.
Prime firm has a marginal understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it.
9-17 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.
18-26 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
27-35 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
Maximum Point Value: 40
Maximum number of projects to be included:
Responses limited to 2 page(s) maximum per project
List a maximum of 5 recent projects, preferably during the past five (5) years, to indicate proficiency in similar work. For each representative project, indicate your personnel, total cost of the project, length of the contract, and a summary of the work used to plan, design, and administer the project.
0 Prime firm has marginal experience with projects of a similar size and type.
1-10 Prime firm has minor successful experience with projects of a similar size and type.
service required for the project. Scope of services provided for representative projects vary from RPS Scope.
11-20 Prime firm has adequate successful, recent (within past five (5) years) experience with projects of a similar size and type.
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.
21-30 Prime firm has more than adequate successful, recent (within past five (5) years) experience with projects of a similar size and type.
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.
31-40 Prime firm has superior past and recent successful experience with projects of a similar size and type.
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
REQUIREMENTS
Maximum Point Value: 20
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.
unique abilities, innovative approaches, and/or special considerations.
and budget.
0 Submittal does not address either the schedule or budget.
1-5 Submittal shows inadequate understanding of scope, schedule and budget requirements.
6-10 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.
11-15 Submittal shows good understanding of and approach to scope, schedule and budget.
Project budget and schedule can be met.
16-20 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
Maximum Point Value: 5
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 Submittal shows that consultant does not have sufficient available personnel to complete services on schedule.
complete services on schedule.
2 Submittal shows that while consultant has adequate time and available personnel, prior workload commitments may impact its ability to complete services on schedule.
personnel to complete services on schedule.
4-5 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 .