7-EVALUATION PROCESS AND SCORING CRITERIA.pdf

SCORING CRITERIA

A. COMPANY/FIRM QUALIFICATIONS, CAPABILITIES Max per Reviewer The firm provided its required license, if applicable, organization profile and proposed project management team including specific names, functions and resumes of personnel assigned to the project (to include years of experience and years with the submitting company). Weight for this category is 20

B. CLIENT REFERENCES AND EXPERIENCE FOR SIMILAR PROJECTS

The firm included a minimum of three (3) favorable, applicable, and comparable reference letters from within the last 3 years, and they represent the type of work requested for the scope under this RFQ, and for an agency similar in size and type to Marion County. The firm shall identify each similar project description’s list of the personnel who worked on the project(s). Weight for this category is 20

C. SCHEDULING AND COST CONTROL

The firm fully described its scheduling and cost control system, highlighting their methods for assuring subcontractors’ adherence to schedules. The firm provided comparisons of the firm’s initial and final project schedules and budgets for all projects provided as references in their submittal, demonstrating their ability to maintain original schedules and budgets. Weight for this category is 15

D. COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSE

Professional presentation, correct layout of e-file as directed, and all documents as required. Weight for this category is 10

E. FIRM LOCATION

Firms with a physical office location within Marion County shall receive 5 points; firms with a physical location in an immediately surrounding location that borders Marion County (Sumter, Citrus, Alachua, Lake, Putnam, Levy, Volusia) shall receive 3 points;

firms with a physical office location within Florida, but not within bordering counties, shall receive 2 points. Firms that are not located in Florida will receive 0 points. Weight for this category is 5

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. In accordance with the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) the decision whether to have oral presentations, interviews or both for the subsequent Phase II meeting will be made during the initial Evaluation Committee Meeting. 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 Evaluation Committee 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.

1.5. In the second phase of the evaluations, 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 Phase II criteria 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.

1.6. 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