6-Attachment 2. Evaluation Criteria.pdf

I. Introduction

This section describes the evaluation process that will be used to determine which proposal provides the greatest benefits to the City. The evaluation criteria or elements listed will be used to determine which proposal is the most advantageous to the City. Discussions may be conducted with Vendors determined to be reasonably qualified, and the City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. The City reserves the right to terminate this process at any time, and no guarantee is expressed or implied that obligates the City of Arlington to contract for the proposed project. The City will negotiate a contract with the highest evaluated vendors, as determined by the selection committee. The City of Arlington shall not be liable to any Vendors for costs associated with responding to the RFP, for the Vendor’s participation in the interview, or any costs associated with negotiations.

Vendors shall be treated fairly and equally with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of their offer. To obtain the best and final value offers, revisions may be permitted after submissions and before award of the Contract.

The City will evaluate and score each of the proposal submittals received from responsive Vendors based on established criteria. The Committee reserves the right to request a system demonstration and oral presentation.

II. Preliminary Evaluation

This is a two-step RFP process. Your submittal needs to contain two (2) envelopes/documents:

• Part One will be titled “Technical Response” – clearly marked

• Part Two will be titled “Cost Response” Attachment A – clearly marked

The Evaluation Committee will use a point formula during the review process to score proposals. Each member of the Evaluation Committee will first score each technical proposal by each of the criteria described below.

The Evaluation Committee will then meet to review and discuss these evaluations and to combine the individual scores to arrive at a composite qualification/technical score for each respondent. Respondents with an unacceptably low qualification/technical score will be eliminated from further consideration.

After the qualification/technical score has been established for each respondent, the proposal pricing will be opened and scored. The City will then determine if respondents with the highest scores will be contacted to be given the opportunity to discuss their qualifications and proposal contents with the Evaluation Committee. This vendor interview and oral presentation phase is at the discretion of the City.

If necessary, the Evaluation Committee will then discuss the oral presentation results. The Evaluation Committee will arrive at an overall score for each respondent. Negotiations with the respondent having the highest overall score will then begin.

If negotiations do not result in a contract, the city will then begin negotiations with the respondent having the second highest overall score. This process will continue until either a contract is awarded or the RFP is cancelled.

Once the city and the respondent determine that an agreement cannot be reached and the decision is made to move on to the next highest scoring respondent, negotiations cannot be reconvened with a respondent with whom agreement previously could not be reached.

EVALUATION

III. Evaluation Criteria

An evaluation committee will assess the information provided by Vendors in response to the criteria established below. The scores of all evaluators will be used to determine the ranking of each proposal. Proposals will be evaluated on a matrix of the following criteria/weights:

Maximum Possible Points Evaluation Criteria

Cost Response:

• Target Price Proposal

• Estimated Non-Target Price Proposal and Rates

• Transition Costs Proposal

Qualifications, Safety & Experience:

• Measured in terms of relevant experience of the company and key personnel, attainment of certifications and their ability to execute the contract.

Responsiveness, Understanding and Approach to meeting RFP Requirements:

• Measured in terms of Proposer’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements of the scope of work and satisfying the City’s goals as outlined in the intent section.

Organization and Staffing:

• Proposed organization structure. Vendor will present a staffing chart showing specific job classifications, number of employees and full-time equivalent employees (FTE) by position; and reporting relationships.

Exceptions and Innovations:

• Measured as the number and reasonableness of any exceptions proposer notes to the City’s RFP and the quality and relevance of any innovations or plans to improve service levels.

Quality Assurance Plan:

• Measured as quality and relevance of QA plan and specific discussion of manner in which the proposer plans to meet the performance measures outlined in the RFP.

Transition Plan:

• Measured as quality and thoroughness of transition plan and ability to start contract operations in accordance with the City’s desired timeframe.

100 TOTAL POINTS

IV. Other Considerations The City reserves the right to consider historical information and facts, whether gained from the proposal, references, or any other source, in the evaluation process, including Vendor’s past working or business relationship with the City, if any.

The City will also consider the impact on the ability of the City to comply with rules, policies, and practices relating to contracting with historically underutilized businesses and nonprofit organizations employing persons with disabilities. The City further reserves the right to consider a Firm’s background, personnel, experience, financial and other references, exceptions to this RFP or subsequent contract, and any working relationships, past or present, a vendor may have with its other clients.