2-A Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 222 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Upper Agua Fria Recharge Facility Expansion
- Solicitation number
- UTIL250803.1
- Issued by
- Yavapai County, Arizona
About this file
This document contains evaluation criteria sheets for the Town of Prescott Valley's Upper Agua Fria Recharge Facility Expansion project. The document provides standardized scoring rubrics for selection committee members to evaluate consultant Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) submissions and optional interviews/presentations. The evaluation forms assess firms seeking to provide professional services for the design and expansion of an underground water storage and recharge facility.
The Statement of Qualifications evaluation criteria totals 100 points distributed across five categories: Understanding & Approach (20 points), Experience of team members and sub-consultants (25 points), Capacity/Capability/Resource Availability (20 points), Experience with comparable municipal projects and underground storage facility design and permitting (25 points), and Overall Quality of SOQ preparation and organization (10 points). An optional interview/presentation evaluation form is also provided with 100 total points across four categories: Communication with Town staff and project approach (30 points), Presentation quality and relevance (30 points), Question/Answer portion clarity (30 points), and Other Relevant Issues defining why the firm should be selected (10 points). Each evaluation sheet requires selection committee member signatures, dates, and firm identification, with provisions for ranking and scoring to facilitate the consultant selection process.
View the file
Other files
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
Town of Prescott Valley
Upper Agua Fria Recharge Facility Expansion
Appendix A Evaluation Criteria Sheets
Maximum
Points
Points
Awarded
Please do not minimize the importance of an adequate response in any area.
Total Score: 100
Evaluate the Statement of Qualifications and bring your finished results to the Selection Committee Meeting.
Selection Committee Member Name & Signature Date Name of Firm/Person Evaluated
EVALUATION OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Evaluation Criteria Comments and Notes
1. Understanding & Approach: Grasp of local/Town/site specific project requirements? Detailed/vague? Preparation? Creativity/Style?
Identification of project challenges that require special attention?
Understanding of regulatory requirements? Commitment to successful working relationship with Town?
2. Experience of each team member & sub-consultant: Description of each persons duties & time allocations. Professional background match project needs? Technical competence? Recent/Similar projects? Specialized Experience? Quality of past performance (i.e.
competent/accurate plans, cost controls, ability to mobilize quickly, adherance to schedule)?
3. Capacity/Capability/Resource Availability: Adequate personnel/equipment/facilities to perform on schedule? Current work load of firm/team? Stability of Firm?
Rank:
4. Experience: Specific experience of firm with comparable projects in municipalities or local governments? Delivery of projects?
Experience: Underground Storage Facility design and permitting
5. Overall Quality of Statement of Qualifications: Preparation?
Organization (i.e.clear/credible/concise)? Technical concepts? Visual aids? All information readily available and present? Focus is on the project and/or firm and/or design team (hopefully all three)? 10
Town of Prescott Valley
Upper Agua Fria Recharge Facility Expansion
Appendix A Evaluation Criteria Sheets
EVALUATION OF INTERVIEWS/PRESENTATIONS
(if required by Selection Committee)
Evaluation Criteria Comments and Notes Maximum
Points Points Awarded
1. Communication: Proposed interaction with Town Staff?
Proposed Team cohesion and enthusiasm? Approach to project planning, design, innovative ideas, and cost saving measures?
2. Presentation: Supplementary/complimentary to SOQ?
Observation of existing conditions and grasp of key project information? Relevant to project? Quality of Presentation?
Organization (i.e. clear/credible/concise)? Technical concepts?
Visual aids? All information readily available and present?
3. Question/Answer portion: Clear understanding of questions? Relevant answers? Answers directed to success of project, or only to firm?
4. Other Relevant Issues: Define why their firm should be engaged?
Please do not minimize the importance of an adequate response in any area.
Total Score: 100
Rank:
Selection Committee Member Name & Signature Date Name of Firm/Person Evaluated
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .