4-3. Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Boulder County Procurement 1325 Pearl Street

Boulder, CO 80302

Evaluation Criteria

The proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee. The committee may request additional information from vendors or request interviews with one or more vendors. Final evaluation and selection may be based on, but not limited to, any or all of the following:

• Technical Understanding & Approach to Landscape Scale Planning

• Equitable, Accessible, and Innovative Engagement Strategy

• Project Management Quality & Feasibility of Schedule

• Integration of Technical Resource Analysis with Stakeholder Input

• Quality of Past Work & Relevant Experience

• Cost Competitiveness & Clarity of Budget

Technical Understanding & Approach to Landscape Scale Planning (25% of evaluation):

Evaluates whether the proposer demonstrates a deep understanding of landscape-level planning and ecology, effectively integrates resource management policies, and addresses the unique complexities of the Peak to Peak district. This criterion also assesses whether the proposed methodology is both sophisticated and clear—meaning the approach is high-quality, well-reasoned, and appropriate for the complexity of the project, demonstrating expertise, sound logic, and thoughtful integration of ecological, policy, and district-specific considerations, while communicating that expertise in a way that is accessible and easy to understand.

Scoring:

• Demonstrates strong understanding of landscape-scale planning and ecological systems

• Integrates resource policies and Peak to Peak district complexities

• Provides a clear, feasible, and sophisticated methodology that is well reasoned, appropriately scaled to project complexity, and communicated in a way that makes the proposer’s expertise understandable

• Proposes a scalable, repeatable district-level planning framework

Equitable, Accessible, and Innovative Engagement Strategy (20% of evaluation):

Assesses the proposer’s demonstrated ability to design and implement equitable, culturally responsive, and accessible engagement processes aligned with ECEF, CRISP, and digital accessibility practices. Evaluates the consultant’s capacity to effectively engage rural communities, historically marginalized groups, and linguistically diverse participants (including Spanish-language support). Also considers the proposer’s creativity and innovation in engagement and communication methods, including use of codesign approaches, micro-engagements, visual data storytelling, and other strategies that reach nontraditional voices and enhance public understanding.

Scoring:

• Aligns engagement approach with ECEF, CRISP, and digital accessibility standards

• Effectively engages rural, marginalized, and linguistically diverse communities

• Includes Spanish-language capacity

• Uses innovative engagement methods (co-design, micro-engagements, visual storytelling)

• Applies culturally responsive and trauma-informed practices

Project Management Quality & Feasibility of Schedule (20% of evaluation):

Reviews the proposer’s capacity to successfully manage logistics, coordinate interdisciplinary SME input, meet deadlines, produce high-quality documents, and ensure smooth pilot implementation.

Scoring:

• Provides a clear and realistic schedule aligned with the 18-month pilot

• Demonstrates strong staffing structure, roles, and qualifications

• Shows capacity to manage logistics, documentation, and communication

• Demonstrates ability to coordinate interdisciplinary SME contributions

Integration of Technical Resource Analysis with Stakeholder Input (15% of evaluation):

Evaluates how well the proposer integrates ecological, cultural, agricultural, and recreational resource analysis with engagement insights, and how effectively they plan to use analysis for boundary refinement, policy integration, baseline assessments, and management direction.

Scoring:

• Synthesizes ecological, cultural, agricultural, and recreation data

• Incorporates stakeholder feedback into planning and analysis

• Provides clear methods for district boundary refinement and baseline assessments

• Effectively integrates existing plans and policies into new planning direction

Quality of Past Work & Relevant Experience (10% of evaluation):

Considers quality, clarity, and accessibility of past plans; experience with public lands planning;

quality of engagement documentation; and success working with government partners on similar complex planning efforts.

Scoring:

• Shows high-quality, accessible, and visually clear past plans

• Demonstrates experience with public lands or landscape-scale planning

• Provides strong references and evidence of past client satisfaction

• Demonstrates success working with government agencies and complex projects

Cost Competitiveness & Clarity of Budget (10% of evaluation):

Assesses how well the proposed costs align with the scope, transparency of cost breakdowns, competitiveness within the market, and justification of budget assumptions.

Scoring:

• Provides a clear and transparent cost breakdown

• Shows alignment between budget and scope

• Demonstrates competitiveness within market norms

• Offers well-justified budget assumptions

A scoring matrix with the order and priority of criteria to be used by the county in its evaluation and selection process is shown below:

Description

Points

Technical Understanding & Approach to Landscape Scale Planning 25 Equitable, Accessible, and Innovative Engagement Strategy 20 Project Management Quality & Feasibility of Schedule 20 Integration of Technical Resource Analysis with Stakeholder Input 15

Quality of Past Work & Relevant Experience 10 Cost Competitiveness & Clarity of Budget 10

Total Possible 100