The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Instructions
| Instructions for Completing the RFP Scorecard |
| This scorecard is designed to evaluate vendor responses for the CBDG-DR Program. Please review each criterion carefully and assign a numeric score to each vendor based on their proposal content. |
Step-by-Step Guidance
| 1. Locate Your Evaluation Sheet |
| Go to the sheet labeled with your team name (e.g., "Team 1", "Team 2", etc.). |
| 2. Understand the Evaluation Categories |
| Each vendor is scored across three primary sections: |
| A. Qualification & Experience |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology |
| C. Past Performance & References |
| Each section includes multiple sub-criteria. |
| 3. Review Proposal Content |
| For each sub-criterion, read the corresponding section in the vendor proposal carefully. |
| 4. Score Each Vendor |
| Enter a numerical score (0 to 5) for each criterion under the appropriate vendor column. |
| Reference the “Evaluation Legend” sheet to understand what each score represents. |
| 5. Use Whole or Half Points |
| You may use half-point increments (e.g., 2.5, 3.5) where appropriate. |
| 6. Average Scores |
| The “Average Score” rows under each category should automatically calculate if formulas are set. |
| If not, manually average the scores you entered for each vendor in that category. |
| 7. Do Not Modify Headers or Structure |
| Only input scores. Avoid altering row titles, column headings, or formulas. |
| 8. Repeat for All Vendors |
| Score all vendors listed across the top of the sheet for each applicable criterion. |
| 9. Save and Submit |
| Once completed, save your sheet and send it to the Evaluation Coordinator or follow your team lead’s instructions. |
Consolidated- Summary Management, Administration & Implementation of Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CBDG-DR) Program
| CRITERIA CHECKLIST | | | | | | | | |
| Please enter your scores for each submission on the vendor tab. See Evaluation Legend tab for scoring. | | | | | | | | |
| 1. Quality of Proposal | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Demonstrated direct experience managing HUD CDBG-DR programs, specifically in large-scale disaster recovery. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 |
| Clearly documented qualifications, credentials, and training of key project personnel, particularly the Lead Project Manager and compliance specialists. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 12 |
| Proven expertise and thorough knowledge of federal requirements including 2 CFR Part 200, Davis-Bacon Act, Section 3 compliance, URA, Environmental Reviews (Tier 1 & 2), and HUD regulations. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 12 |
| Firms Experience coordinating effectively with FEMA, HUD, and other governmental agencies. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 12 |
| Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 14.00 |
| 2. Approach and Capability | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Comprehensive project management methodology demonstrating clarity, feasibility, efficiency, and alignment with Pinellas County’s Action Plan priorities ("People First" approach). | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 8 |
| Clearly defined mobilization plan, demonstrating capability to initiate Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program intake. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| Innovative and streamlined approach to applicant intake, customer service, communication/outreach, and administrative processes ensuring rapid deployment of resources | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 4 |
| Effective strategies for compliance monitoring, reporting, transparency, and integration with Pinellas County’s financial and data management systems | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 12 |
| Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 13.00 | 9.00 |
| 3. Experience | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Documented successful implementation of comparable CDBG-DR projects over the past five years, including clearly defined outcomes, timelines met, and budget adherence. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 12 |
| Positive references from governmental or public sector clients, verifying reliability, responsiveness, regulatory compliance, and quality of deliverables. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 9 |
| Demonstrated history of effective problem-solving, adaptability, and proactive risk management during past projects of comparable complexity and size. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10.67 | 7.11 |
| 4. Cost | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Proposed fee structure, including billing rates, hourly rates, reimbursable expenses, etc. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Competitiveness and reasonableness of proposed fees, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | |
| Clear and transparent cost structure, minimizing potential for unexpected or additional fees. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | |
| Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| CRITERIA SCORES | WEIGHT | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| 1. Quality of Proposal | 35% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.00 | 4.90 |
| 2. Approach and Capability | 30% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.90 | 2.70 |
| 3. Experience | 25% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.67 | 1.78 |
| 4. Cost | 10% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Weighted Score | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 13.57 | 9.38 |
Finance Review
| Firm | Development | | Maintenance | | | | | |
| (over 10 years) | | Licencing | Total | | Notes | Schedule | | | |
| | Low | High | Low | High | | Low | High | |
| Seabury | $1,228,550 | $1,228,550 | $1,174,500 | $1,174,500 | | $2,403,000 | $2,403,000 | Cost range will be +- 20% after discovery |
Confusing, how does it break down?
PDMS € 400,000 € 550,000 € 550,000 € 700,000 € 400,000 € 1,350,000 € 1,650,000 Data migration: 25k-40 Training: 15k
| Travel and Hotel: 15k | Developed system for the Isle of Man aircraft registry | | | | | | | | | |
| EMPIC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Total AOC | € 0 | € 0 | € 266,400 | € 266,400 | € 0 | € 266,400 | € 266,400 | Development and maintenance included in licencing. | 12 months |
| CASR NOVA | $1,290,000 | $1,290,000 | $979,492 | $979,492 | $550,000 | $2,819,492 | $2,819,492 | Reserve the right to modify the bid +- 15% | |
Includes local technical support Once annual hours are exceeded, $172.50 per hour
| 9 months | | | | | | | | | |
| GCR | $496,612 | $619,595 | $569,346 | $569,346 | $0 | $1,065,958 | $1,188,941 | Licencing included in maintenance | 11 months / 44 weeks / 266 days |
| Troy Meyer | $150,000 | $225,000 | $150,000 | $225,000 | Not Provided | $300,000 | $450,000 | Pricing does not include equipment, travel, hosting, or 3rd party software licences | 9 - 12 months |
| LAIC AG | € 55,000 | € 55,000 | € 450,000 | € 450,000 | € 50,000 | € 555,000 | € 555,000 | Travel and accomodations are not included | 2 months Gantt Chart is hard to read |
Evaluation Legend
| Evaluation Legend | | | | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Poor/Below expectations.Vendor did not meet requirements, or the vendor did not provide enough information to evaluate. | | | | |
| (0-19%) | The vendor met some requirements | | | | |
(20-50%) The vendor met most requirements (51-95%)
| The vendor fully met this requirement. |
| (96-100%) | The vendor met this requirement and exceeded expectations. |
(>100%)
Team 1 Management, Administration & Implementation of Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CBDG-DR) Program
| CRITERIA CHECKLIST | | | | | | | | |
| Please enter your scores for each submission on the vendor tab. See Evaluation Legend tab for scoring. | | | | | | | | |
| A. Qualification & Experience | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Demonstrated direct experience managing HUD CDBG-DR programs, specifically in large-scale disaster recovery. | | | | | | | 5 | 5 |
| Clearly documented qualifications, credentials, and training of key project personnel, particularly the Lead Project Manager and compliance specialists. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Proven expertise and thorough knowledge of federal requirements including 2 CFR Part 200, Davis-Bacon Act, Section 3 compliance, URA, Environmental Reviews (Tier 1 & 2), and HUD regulations. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Firms Experience coordinating effectively with FEMA, HUD, and other governmental agencies, preferably in Florida or similar jurisdictions. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 3.50 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Comprehensive project management methodology demonstrating clarity, feasibility, efficiency, and alignment with Pinellas County’s Action Plan priorities ("People First" approach). | | | | | | | 5 | 2 |
| Clearly defined mobilization plan, demonstrating capability to initiate Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program intake. | | | | | | | 0 | 3 |
| Innovative and streamlined approach to applicant intake, customer service, communication/outreach, and administrative processes ensuring rapid deployment of resources | | | | | | | 4 | 1 |
| Effective strategies for compliance monitoring, reporting, transparency, and integration with Pinellas County’s financial and data management systems (Neighborly Software experience preferred). | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 3.25 | 2.25 |
| C. Past Performance & References | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Documented successful implementation of comparable CDBG-DR projects over the past five years, including clearly defined outcomes, timelines met, and budget adherence. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Positive references from governmental or public sector clients, verifying reliability, responsiveness, regulatory compliance, and quality of deliverables. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Demonstrated history of effective problem-solving, adaptability, and proactive risk management during past projects of comparable complexity and size. | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.00 | 2.33 |
| 4. Cost | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Proposed fee structure, including billing rates, hourly rates, reimbursable expenses, etc. | | | | | | | 5 | 0 |
| Competitiveness and reasonableness of proposed fees, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses. | | | | | | | | |
| Clear and transparent cost structure, minimizing potential for unexpected or additional fees. | | | | | | | | |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| CRITERIA SCORES | WEIGHT | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| A. Qualifications & Experience | 35% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.75 | 0.53 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | 30% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | 1.23 | 0.88 |
| C. Past Performance & References | 25% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 |
| D. Cost | 10% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.25 | 0.00 |
| Weighted Score | 1.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.23 | 2.07 |
Team 2 Management, Administration & Implementation of Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CBDG-DR) Program
| CRITERIA CHECKLIST | | | | | | | | |
| Please enter your scores for each submission on the vendor tab. See Evaluation Legend tab for scoring. | | | | | | | | |
| A. Qualification & Experience | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Demonstrated direct experience managing HUD CDBG-DR programs, specifically in large-scale disaster recovery. | | | | | | | 5 | 5 |
| Clearly documented qualifications, credentials, and training of key project personnel, particularly the Lead Project Manager and compliance specialists. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Proven expertise and thorough knowledge of federal requirements including 2 CFR Part 200, Davis-Bacon Act, Section 3 compliance, URA, Environmental Reviews (Tier 1 & 2), and HUD regulations. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Firms Experience coordinating effectively with FEMA, HUD, and other governmental agencies, preferably in Florida or similar jurisdictions. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 3.50 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Comprehensive project management methodology demonstrating clarity, feasibility, efficiency, and alignment with Pinellas County’s Action Plan priorities ("People First" approach). | | | | | | | 5 | 2 |
| Clearly defined mobilization plan, demonstrating capability to initiate Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program intake. | | | | | | | 0 | 3 |
| Innovative and streamlined approach to applicant intake, customer service, communication/outreach, and administrative processes ensuring rapid deployment of resources | | | | | | | 4 | 1 |
| Effective strategies for compliance monitoring, reporting, transparency, and integration with Pinellas County’s financial and data management systems (Neighborly Software experience preferred). | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 3.25 | 2.25 |
| C. Past Performance & References | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Documented successful implementation of comparable CDBG-DR projects over the past five years, including clearly defined outcomes, timelines met, and budget adherence. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Positive references from governmental or public sector clients, verifying reliability, responsiveness, regulatory compliance, and quality of deliverables. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Demonstrated history of effective problem-solving, adaptability, and proactive risk management during past projects of comparable complexity and size. | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.00 | 2.33 |
| 4. Cost | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Proposed fee structure, including billing rates, hourly rates, reimbursable expenses, etc. | | | | | | | 5 | 0 |
| Competitiveness and reasonableness of proposed fees, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses. | | | | | | | | |
| Clear and transparent cost structure, minimizing potential for unexpected or additional fees. | | | | | | | | |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| CRITERIA SCORES | WEIGHT | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| A. Qualifications & Experience | 35% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.75 | 0.53 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | 30% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | 1.23 | 0.88 |
| C. Past Performance & References | 25% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 |
| D. Cost | 10% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.25 | 0.00 |
| Weighted Score | 1.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.23 | 2.07 |
Team 3 Management, Administration & Implementation of Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CBDG-DR) Program
| CRITERIA CHECKLIST | | | | | | | | |
| Please enter your scores for each submission on the vendor tab. See Evaluation Legend tab for scoring. | | | | | | | | |
| A. Qualification & Experience | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Demonstrated direct experience managing HUD CDBG-DR programs, specifically in large-scale disaster recovery. | | | | | | | 5 | 5 |
| Clearly documented qualifications, credentials, and training of key project personnel, particularly the Lead Project Manager and compliance specialists. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Proven expertise and thorough knowledge of federal requirements including 2 CFR Part 200, Davis-Bacon Act, Section 3 compliance, URA, Environmental Reviews (Tier 1 & 2), and HUD regulations. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Firms Experience coordinating effectively with FEMA, HUD, and other governmental agencies, preferably in Florida or similar jurisdictions. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 3.50 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Comprehensive project management methodology demonstrating clarity, feasibility, efficiency, and alignment with Pinellas County’s Action Plan priorities ("People First" approach). | | | | | | | 5 | 2 |
| Clearly defined mobilization plan, demonstrating capability to initiate Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program intake. | | | | | | | 0 | 3 |
| Innovative and streamlined approach to applicant intake, customer service, communication/outreach, and administrative processes ensuring rapid deployment of resources | | | | | | | 4 | 1 |
| Effective strategies for compliance monitoring, reporting, transparency, and integration with Pinellas County’s financial and data management systems (Neighborly Software experience preferred). | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 3.25 | 2.25 |
| C. Past Performance & References | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Documented successful implementation of comparable CDBG-DR projects over the past five years, including clearly defined outcomes, timelines met, and budget adherence. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Positive references from governmental or public sector clients, verifying reliability, responsiveness, regulatory compliance, and quality of deliverables. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Demonstrated history of effective problem-solving, adaptability, and proactive risk management during past projects of comparable complexity and size. | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.00 | 2.33 |
| 4. Cost | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Proposed fee structure, including billing rates, hourly rates, reimbursable expenses, etc. | | | | | | | 5 | 0 |
| Competitiveness and reasonableness of proposed fees, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses. | | | | | | | | |
| Clear and transparent cost structure, minimizing potential for unexpected or additional fees. | | | | | | | | |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| CRITERIA SCORES | WEIGHT | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| A. Qualifications & Experience | 35% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.75 | 0.53 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | 30% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | 1.23 | 0.88 |
| C. Past Performance & References | 25% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 |
| D. Cost | 10% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.25 | 0.00 |
| Weighted Score | 1.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.23 | 2.07 |
Team 4 Management, Administration & Implementation of Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CBDG-DR) Program
| CRITERIA CHECKLIST | | | | | | | | |
| Please enter your scores for each submission on the vendor tab. See Evaluation Legend tab for scoring. | | | | | | | | |
| A. Qualification & Experience | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Demonstrated direct experience managing HUD CDBG-DR programs, specifically in large-scale disaster recovery. | | | | | | | 5 | 5 |
| Clearly documented qualifications, credentials, and training of key project personnel, particularly the Lead Project Manager and compliance specialists. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Proven expertise and thorough knowledge of federal requirements including 2 CFR Part 200, Davis-Bacon Act, Section 3 compliance, URA, Environmental Reviews (Tier 1 & 2), and HUD regulations. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Firms Experience coordinating effectively with FEMA, HUD, and other governmental agencies, preferably in Florida or similar jurisdictions. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 3.50 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Comprehensive project management methodology demonstrating clarity, feasibility, efficiency, and alignment with Pinellas County’s Action Plan priorities ("People First" approach). | | | | | | | 5 | 2 |
| Clearly defined mobilization plan, demonstrating capability to initiate Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program intake. | | | | | | | 0 | 3 |
| Innovative and streamlined approach to applicant intake, customer service, communication/outreach, and administrative processes ensuring rapid deployment of resources | | | | | | | 4 | 1 |
| Effective strategies for compliance monitoring, reporting, transparency, and integration with Pinellas County’s financial and data management systems (Neighborly Software experience preferred). | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 3.25 | 2.25 |
| C. Past Performance & References | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Documented successful implementation of comparable CDBG-DR projects over the past five years, including clearly defined outcomes, timelines met, and budget adherence. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Positive references from governmental or public sector clients, verifying reliability, responsiveness, regulatory compliance, and quality of deliverables. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Demonstrated history of effective problem-solving, adaptability, and proactive risk management during past projects of comparable complexity and size. | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.00 | 2.33 |
| 4. Cost | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Proposed fee structure, including billing rates, hourly rates, reimbursable expenses, etc. | | | | | | | 5 | 0 |
| Competitiveness and reasonableness of proposed fees, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses. | | | | | | | | |
| Clear and transparent cost structure, minimizing potential for unexpected or additional fees. | | | | | | | | |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| CRITERIA SCORES | WEIGHT | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| A. Qualifications & Experience | 35% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.75 | 0.53 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | 30% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | 1.23 | 0.88 |
| C. Past Performance & References | 25% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 |
| D. Cost | 10% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.25 | 0.00 |
| Weighted Score | 1.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.23 | 2.07 |
Team 5 Management, Administration & Implementation of Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CBDG-DR) Program
| CRITERIA CHECKLIST | | | | | | | | |
| Please enter your scores for each submission on the vendor tab. See Evaluation Legend tab for scoring. | | | | | | | | |
| A. Qualification & Experience | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Demonstrated direct experience managing HUD CDBG-DR programs, specifically in large-scale disaster recovery. | | | | | | | 5 | 5 |
| Clearly documented qualifications, credentials, and training of key project personnel, particularly the Lead Project Manager and compliance specialists. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Proven expertise and thorough knowledge of federal requirements including 2 CFR Part 200, Davis-Bacon Act, Section 3 compliance, URA, Environmental Reviews (Tier 1 & 2), and HUD regulations. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Firms Experience coordinating effectively with FEMA, HUD, and other governmental agencies, preferably in Florida or similar jurisdictions. | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 3.50 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Comprehensive project management methodology demonstrating clarity, feasibility, efficiency, and alignment with Pinellas County’s Action Plan priorities ("People First" approach). | | | | | | | 5 | 2 |
| Clearly defined mobilization plan, demonstrating capability to initiate Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program intake. | | | | | | | 0 | 3 |
| Innovative and streamlined approach to applicant intake, customer service, communication/outreach, and administrative processes ensuring rapid deployment of resources | | | | | | | 4 | 1 |
| Effective strategies for compliance monitoring, reporting, transparency, and integration with Pinellas County’s financial and data management systems (Neighborly Software experience preferred). | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 3.25 | 2.25 |
| C. Past Performance & References | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Documented successful implementation of comparable CDBG-DR projects over the past five years, including clearly defined outcomes, timelines met, and budget adherence. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Positive references from governmental or public sector clients, verifying reliability, responsiveness, regulatory compliance, and quality of deliverables. | | | | | | | 4 | 2 |
| Demonstrated history of effective problem-solving, adaptability, and proactive risk management during past projects of comparable complexity and size. | | | | | | | 4 | 3 |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.00 | 2.33 |
| 4. Cost | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| Proposed fee structure, including billing rates, hourly rates, reimbursable expenses, etc. | | | | | | | 5 | 0 |
| Competitiveness and reasonableness of proposed fees, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses. | | | | | | | | |
| Clear and transparent cost structure, minimizing potential for unexpected or additional fees. | | | | | | | | |
| Average Score | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| CRITERIA SCORES | WEIGHT | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | EMPIC | Vendor 3 | Vendor 4 | Vendor 5 | Meyer Technology | LAIC AG |
| A. Qualifications & Experience | 35% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.75 | 0.53 |
| B. Technical Approach & Project Methodology | 30% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | ERROR:#VALUE! | 1.23 | 0.88 |
| C. Past Performance & References | 25% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 |
| D. Cost | 10% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.25 | 0.00 |
| Weighted Score | 1.00 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! | 4.23 | 2.07 |
image1.png