8-26P-117 Evaluation Process and Scoring Criteria.pdf

SCORING CRITERIA

A. STATEMENT OF INTEREST AND INTRODUCTION

The firm provided a letter, on letterhead, not exceeding two (2) pages, which serves as a statement of interest and introduction to the submittal. The letter shall include a disclosure of any potential conflict of interest that your Proposal may have due to other clients, contracts or property interests in this project.

B. COMPANY/FIRM AND PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, CAPABILITIES

The firm demonstrated its ability to perform services as described in this RFP. That the firm included its organization profile and proposed project management including specific names, functions and resumes of personnel assigned to the project (to include years of experience, years with the submitting company, and experience working with governmental entities listing those projects) and specific knowledge with regards to services under this RFP. It is expected that the staff proposed under the firm’s submittal shall be the same staff assigned to the Project. Any changes in staff shall be mutually agreed upon; failure of the monitor to get the County’s approval for key staff changes shall be subject to County action up to, and including termination of contract. The firm demonstrated knowledge and experience with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Federal High Administration (FHWA) programs; funding sources and reimbursement processes. The firm demonstrated knowledge of solid waste and hazardous waste management and environmental requirements. In addition, the proposer described their ability to handle multiple contractual obligations in the event of a regional or statewide disaster involving a number of public entity clients under contract for similar support. Firm stated whether any employee thereof anticipated being assigned to provide debris monitoring services has been a defendant in any proceeding involving or arising out of debris monitoring services within the past five years.

C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Provided a narrative description with an organizational chart outlining the methods of operation, operations structure and services. Narrative included training methodology and frequency of all monitoring staff. Discussed ability to monitor multiple debris crews and monitoring of debris management sites and final disposal activities should they be needed. The firm addressed mobilization, response time, the ability to provide monitoring services, data management and reporting, accounting and required documentation. The description fully and completely demonstrated the proposers intended methods in performing the Contract.

D. TECHNICAL PLAN

Provided a narrative description of the data management system and devices to be used for all monitoring services. Narrative was inclusive of all software and hardware, samples of monitoring logs and reports, demonstrated ability for County to visually inspect progress on a daily basis, demonstrated ability to produce daily, weekly, monthly and project end totals. Firm demonstrated reliability to track and upload data considering limited wireless connectivity. Firm demonstrated data management inclusive of quality assurances and quality controls and reliability that field collected data is in compliance with local, state and federal regulations and reimbursement requirements. Firm demonstrated ability to store data through the life of the project; ability to transfer all data and documentation in a useful format to local, state or federal agencies upon request and to the County at project close out.

E. REFERENCES

Firm listed at least three, but no more than five projects, of similar complexity that documents successful and reliable experience in past performance within the last five

(5) years with regards to services under this RFP. The reference list demonstrated the firm’s timely response and quality data management and documentation in the monitoring of emergency disaster services and identify each client, date of contract, and dollar amount, with contact name, mailing address, email address and telephone number.

F. COST PROPOSAL

Fees for service(s) proposed are within budgeted amounts, appropriate for the services offered, and within acceptable range of comparable services providers/suppliers.

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