5-7. EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCORING CRITERIA.doc

DOC document 94 KB Posted

Attached to
25Q-125 MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Solicitation number
25Q-125
Issued by
Marion County, Florida

About this file

This is an evaluation process and scoring criteria document for Marion County, Florida's Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 25Q-125 for miscellaneous maintenance of stormwater management facilities. The contract covers day-to-day activities including miscellaneous maintenance and sinkhole repairs consisting of standard clearing and grubbing, placing and compacting fill in 12-inch lifts, and sodding disturbed areas. The contract will be valid for two years with the option of three additional one-year renewal terms, for a total not to exceed five years.

The evaluation process uses four weighted scoring criteria: Company/Firm Personnel Qualifications & Capabilities (100 points), Client References and Experience for Similar Projects (50 points), Equipment (50 points), and Location (50 points). Proposers are scored from 0-5 on each criterion, with scores multiplied by weights to determine final rankings. Location scoring favors Marion County firms (5 points), surrounding counties (3 points), other Florida locations (2 points), and out-of-state firms (1 point). The evaluation may include oral presentations at the committee's discretion, and if conducted, Phase 1 written proposal scores are disregarded except for location points, which carry forward to Phase 2 evaluation.

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

SCORING CRITERIA

A. COMPANY/FIRM PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS & CAPABILITIES

The Firm demonstrated its ability and capability to perform services as described in this RFQ. The Firm includes its organization profile and proposed project management including specific names, functions and resumes of personnel assigned to the project(s) (to include years of experience and years with the submitting company) and specific knowledge with regards to services under this RFQ.
100

B. CLIENT REFERENCES AND EXPERIENCE FOR SIMILAR PROJECTS

The Firm provided at least three (3) favorable, relevant, and comparable reference letters that align with the type of work outlined in the scope of this solicitation. These references are from agencies similar in size and type to Marion County. Additionally, the Firm detailed each similar project's description and included a list of the proposed team members who contributed to those projects.
50

C. EQUIPMENT

The Firm showed their ability to acquire (owned or leased) equipment necessary for. And routinely used in the performance of tasks associated with this contract, weight will include ability to provide non-owned equipment within 24 hours’ notice for emergency task orders, if/when assigned (include year, make, and model)
50

D. LOCATION

Firms within Marion County shall receive 5 weight points; those in surrounding counties shall receive 3 points; those within Florida but not in Marion or surrounding counties receive 2 points; and Firms outside Florida shall receive 1 weight point for this category. It is the responsibility of the Firm to clearly identify its location qualifications and status.

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

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .