The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
G. EVALUATION CRITERIA
All proposals received by the specified date shall be subject to evaluation by a review committee. The following criteria can be used to rank Offerors. PHA reserves the right to hold discussions with and request Best and Final Offers from the highest rated Offerors determined by PHA to be within the competitive range. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose price, technical factors, and level of MBE/WBE and Section 3 participation are most advantageous to PHA.
| NUMBER |
| EVALUATION CRITERIA |
| POINTS |
| 1 |
| Proposal Content and Letter of Interest - The quality of the proposal and the degree to which it demonstrates the respondent’s full understanding of and the ability to perform the Services to be rendered; |
| 25 |
| 2 |
| Previous Experience - Previous experience in providing development and real estate financial consulting services. Previous experience with and understanding of HUD Public Housing programs, applicable HUD regulations, including but not limited to mixed-finance proposals. Previous experience with and understanding of layered financing, including but not limited to LIHTC's. Experience with the integration of HUD regulations and programs with real estate development. Actual familiarity with housing authority finances and budgets; and |
| 20 |
| 3 |
| Organizational Structure, Profile of Principals, Key Staff - The quality of the respondent’s management, reputation, and references; The terms under which the respondent will commit its personnel, without transfers and changes, the identification of the member of the respondent’s staff who will have primary responsibility to perform and/or supervise and coordinate the performance of the Services, and the demonstration of sufficient staffing capacity to execute the Services in an efficient and timely manner; |
| 4 |
| LIHTC/RAD/Mixed-Finance and PIH Experience - The respondent’s demonstration of experience in providing services similar to the Scope of Services described herein, including the respondent’s demonstrated experience and/or expertise with specific geographic area(s) within City and multiple asset class(es) such as civic, healthcare, hospitality, educational, recreational facilities, transferrable development rights, etc.; |
| 5 |
| Commitment to certified MBE and WBE participation |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| Commitment to Section 3 participation |
I. Evaluation, Scoring and Selection Criteria:
A. Selection Criteria
| PHA will evaluate and select Firm(s) according to the evaluation criteria set | forth on page G-1 of this RFP. |
| B. | Evaluation Process | |
| Responsive proposals will be evaluated in the following manner: | |
| 1. | A technical evaluation committee will review, rate and score all proposals individually on their technical merits and according to evaluation criteria on page G-1. | |
| 2. | Upon completion of technical evaluation, all Offerors proposals will be classified as acceptable, potentially acceptable, or unacceptable. All Offeror found to be acceptable or potentially acceptable will be deemed to be in the competitive range. | |
| 3. | All proposals deemed to be in the competitive range may be given an opportunity to present an oral presentation to Evaluation Committee. | |
| 4. | Those proposals in the competitive range may be asked to participate in negotiations to discuss technical and price factors to ensure a mutual understanding of both PHA requirements and the respondent’s proposal, unless PHA determines that there is no need to hold negotiations and awards are made base on initial proposals received. Negotiations will be conducted either in person or by telephone depending on the nature of each proposal and the evaluation panel’s requirement. | |
| 5. | After negotiations are completed with those proposals in the competitive range, a date and time will be established for submission of best and final offers if they are considered necessary and in the best interest of PHA. Best and final offers will be submitted only once unless the Contracting Officer makes a written determination that it is in PHA’s best interest to conduct additional negotiations or change PHA requirements and request another submission of best and final offers. | |
| 6. | After best and final offers are received, a final round of technical and fee proposal evaluation will occur. | |
| 7. | The Evaluation Committee will recommend the responsible Firm (s) whose proposal(s) is/are most advantageous, with price and technical factors considered, for selection. | |
| 8. | The selection will be awarded to the proposal that provided PHA with the best value based on the pre-established evaluation criteria and process. Selection will not necessarily be made to the lowest offeror. | |
G-1