18-B. Evaluation Process And Scoring Criteria.pdf

SCORING CRITERIA

A. COMPANY/FIRM AND PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS/CAPABILITIES MAXIMUM POINTS

• The Firm demonstrated its qualifications and capability to perform services as described in this RFQ, including background in working with Transportation Planning Organizations (TPOs)/Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)

• The Firm identified a project manager and primary point of contact, including background and total years of relevant professional experience in working with TPO/MPOs

• The Firm included a project team profile and their credentials (including specific names, functions and resumes of key personnel, years of experience, years with the submitting Firm or subcontractor, and demonstrated experience and expertise relevant to the scope of services identified in this RFQ)

B. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH

• The Firm demonstrated a clear understanding of the nature of the scope of work in the

RFQ.

• The Firm described their quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures that will be used to ensure accuracy, consistency, and timely delivery of project work products

C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

• The Firm’s proposal outlined the project team’s approach and management plan for providing services.

• The Firm discussed their staffing plan, including current and anticipated workload, with key team members’ capacity and availability to perform services, including subcontractors

D. COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY OF PROPOSAL AND PROJECT SAMPLES

• The proposal provides a straightforward, concise description of the team’s experience and ability to fulfill the requirements of the RFQ

• The proposal is well organized, clearly written, and includes all required documents.

• The Firm included four (4) one-page summary samples of work serving TPO/MPO projects

E. FIRM REFERENCES

• The Firm included three (3) letters of reference from TPO/MPO clients for which they performed the type of work requested in the scope under this RFQ.

EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCORING CRITERIA

1. EVALUATION PROCESS

1.1. Proposers will be evaluated using the criteria and methodology set forth below.

1.2. Proposers submitting a response to this solicitation may be required to give an oral presentation to County representatives to clarify or respond to additional questions relating to the proposals received.

1.3. These questions are not the sole determining factor in the ranking criteria for oral presentations but rather are simply used to help clarify or provide any additional information needed related to the written proposals. The decision whether to have oral presentations will be made during the initial Evaluation Committee Meeting, unless otherwise indicated in the solicitation. The County’s request for an oral presentation shall in no way constitute acceptance of a proposal or imply that an agreement is pending.

1.4. The County does specifically reserve the right to award a contract to provide the services specified herein based on the initial written proposals submitted without oral presentations. If no oral presentation is required, the recommendation for award will be based on the numerical score assigned to each proposal based on the criteria listed below.

The highest numerical score of all the Proposers, when all Evaluation Committee member scores are added together, will be the recommended first ranked Proposer. The second highest score will be the recommended second rank Proposer, and so on.

1.5. Should the Evaluation Committee elect to hear oral presentations, it has the discretion to create a shortlist of Proposers based on the numerical scores assigned to each proposal received and to request presentations from only the highest scored Proposers. The oral presentations may need to be scheduled within two (2) weeks after the Evaluation Meeting. The Proposer’s Project Manager and any key team members specific to this Project must be present at the oral presentation, either in-person or via teleconference, unless otherwise agreed to by the County. The County’s request for an oral presentation shall in no way constitute acceptance of a proposal or imply that a contract is pending.

1.6. Should an oral presentation be requested, the numeric rankings previously determined by the Evaluation Committee on the written proposals (Phase 1) will not be considered, and the short-listed firms will all be evaluated anew (Phase 2) based on a new set of evaluation criteria to be provided to the short-listed firms in writing, with their presentation invitation;

with one exception, that the location points from Phase 1 will be carried forward. Following the oral presentations, the short-listed firms will be scored according to the published criterion. The Respondent with the highest cumulative score for all criteria (Phase 2) will be ranked number 1 and so on, in consecutive numerical order for purposes of recommendation for award. The Evaluation Committee specifically reserves the right to determine the overall ranking for each criterion, whether presented on or not at oral presentations, on its cumulative knowledge of the Respondent obtained from the information previously provided in the written proposals, with the additional clarification questions and information supplied at the oral presentations.

1.7. Under Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law, the initial Evaluation Committee Meeting is open for the public to attend. Participation, however, is limited to the committee members. If the Evaluation Committee elects to hear oral presentations, the subsequent Evaluation Committee Meetings at which such presentations are made are closed to the public under the Government in the Sunshine Law (pursuant to s.286.0113, Fla.Stat.) and only the presenting firm may attend and present. The Evaluation Committee’s post oral presentation discussions where the proposals are ranked are open to the public.

2. SCORING CRITERIA

All submissions received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated based on the scoring guidelines outlined below. Evaluators will assign a score of 0 to 5 for each criterion, with 5 representing the highest performance. Each score will then be multiplied by the corresponding weight assigned to the criterion to calculate its total weighted score. The total scores for all criteria will be summed to determine the overall score. The overall score for each evaluator will be summed to determine the overall total score and final ranking for each proposer.

SCORE RATING DEFINITIONS

0 Non-Responsive Included no information on subject criteria; unacceptable

1 Poor Indicated responses, but indecipherable or incomplete for subject criteria;

unacceptable

2 Fair Contained adequate information, but information is less than required of subject criteria; unacceptable

3 Average Average - Included minimum information requested in subject criteria;

acceptable

4 Good Response was thorough and complete for subject criteria; acceptable

5 Excellent Response exceeds requested criteria; exceptional resources, staff, materials, etc.; excellent