9-Evaluation Committee Spreadsheet - Supplee Farm.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 163 KB Posted
- Attached to
- REBID - Supplee Farm Restoration Project
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
- Issued by
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
About this file
This file contains an evaluation committee spreadsheet for the Supplee Farm Stream Restoration project (Conowingo Creek), a Grant Agreement 319 Nonpoint Source Management Grant administered by the Lancaster County Conservation District in partnership with the Donegal Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Penn State Agriculture & Environment Center, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. The project involves stream restoration services in Lancaster County, Southcentral Pennsylvania. Bidders are required to submit proposals by 12:00 AM EST on February 7th, 2026, with bid opening scheduled for 10:00 AM EST on February 9th, 2026, and a mandatory pre-bid site showing at 1:00 PM EST on January 20th, 2026. The bid award date is set for 10:00 AM EST on March 10th, 2026. Bids must be submitted online via PennBid and must include a signed bid form and schedule, bid bond, references, and a narrative describing the firm's experience with stream restoration in the region, along with a firm overview.
The evaluation criteria are divided into four sections totaling 100 points: Qualifications of Firm (15 points), Technical Approach (8 points), Firm's Costs (8 points), and project completion timeline, with evaluations due to Grace Chamberlain by 11:59 PM on March 6th. Firms are evaluated on their regional experience (5-10 years of practical restoration work in Lancaster County or Southcentral Pennsylvania), capacity to deliver timely service with references, ability to manage projects of similar size and scale, and demonstrated competence in natural channel stream restoration theory, stream/watershed assessment, and stream restoration construction. The technical approach evaluation considers the firm's understanding of project scope, provision of detailed work schedules with completion by December 31st, 2026 (three months preferred), and budget justification for construction labor, materials, assessment, design, and permitting costs. All evaluators are weighted equally, and final scores are calculated as an average of all evaluator scores.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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
START HERE
NOTE - THIS EVALUATION SPREADSHEET IS NOT FOR BIDDERS. IT IS SHARED AS A REFERENCE FOR HOW PROJECTS WILL BE EVALUATED. PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT THIS WITH YOUR BID.
Evaluation Summary Combined
| DATE: | |
| PROJECT : | Supplee Farm Stream Restoration (Conowingo Creek) |
| Grant Agreement | 319 Nonpoint Source Management Grant |
Evaluator's Name: NAME
Evaluations should be completed, signed, and emailed to Grace Chamberlain, Project Coordinator GraceChamberlain@lancasterconservation.org no later than 11:59 PM on March 6th
All scores will be expressed as a numeric value based on a total of 100 points total. Scores for a category will be the sum of the individual sub-categories. All sub-categories are to be given a point score not exceeding the value listed on the score sheet.
| Vendor Name |
| Place scores for each Firm in the column using the scoring key below. |
| EVALUATION CRITERIA* | Weighting Factor Points | EXAMPLE Only | Contractor #1 | Contractor #2 | Contractor #3 | Ranking Scale | |||
| Section 1. Qualifications of Firm | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| A. Firm must have worked in Lancasater County/Southcentral region, with 5-10 years of practical restoration experience. | 4.0 | Little to no relevant experience in the region and in this field | Not much worked completed in the county/southcentral region (1-2 projects); less than 5 years of practical experience | Some work done in the county/southcentral region (3-4 projects); more than 5 years of practical experience | Extensive work completed in the county/southcental region (5 or more projects); within the 5-10 year range of practical experience | ||||
| B. Proven capacity to deliver prompt and complete service on time - has 3 of references. | 4.0 | No relevant experience or references provided; references do not prove ability to deliver | Some experience; references demonstrate some ability to deliver; provided one written testimonies as a part of the bid | Some experience; references prove ability to deliver good service; provided multiple written testimonies (2+) as a part of the bid | Lots of experience; Excellent references that demonstrate proven ability to deliver; provided multiple written testimonies (3+) as a part of the bid | ||||
| C. Proven Ability to Manage a Project of This Size & Scale | 4.0 | Never completed a project of this size/sacle | Completed only a 1-2 projects of this size/sacle | Completed 3-4 projects of this size/scale and were managed well | Completed 5 or more projects of this size/scale and were managed excellently | ||||
| D. The firm that is selected for this project must be able to demonstrate professional competence in the following planning disciplines: | Firm does not demonstrate competence in any of the discplines listed | Firm demonstrates competence in 2 of the 4 discplines listed | Firm demonstrates competence in 3 of the 4 discplines listed | Firm demonstrates great competence in all of the discplines listed | |||||
| > Natural Channel Stream Restoration Theory | 1.0 | ||||||||
| > Stream/Watershed Assessment | 1.0 | ||||||||
| > Stream Restoration Construction | 1.0 | ||||||||
| QUALIFICATIONS of FIRM Score* | 15.0 | ||||||||
| Ranking Scale | |||||||||
| Section 2. Technical Approach (see Scoring Key above) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| A. Firm understands the issues, scope, and depth of the work involved in project based on previous experience, questions asked during the pre-bid mtg, and any comments on the design | 4.0 | Firm does not demonstrate a strong understanding of issues/scope/depth of work | Firm demonstrates some understanding of issues/scope/depth of work (lack of experience) | Firm demonstrates a good understanding of issues/scope/depth of work, based on past experiences | Firm demonstrates an excellent understanding of issues/scope/depth of work,based on past experiences | ||||
| B. Firm provided a detailed work schedule and timetable for completing the project | 4.0 | Firm did not provide work schedule or timetable; will complete project in 4 months on/or by 2/15/2027 | Firm provided a vague work schedule/timetable; will complete project in 4 months on/or by 1/15/2027 | Firm provided a work schedule; could use more details on timeline, will complete project in 3 months on/or by 1/15/2027 | Firm provided a work schedule with a detailed timetable for project completion, will complete project in 3 months on/or by 12/31/2026 | ||||
| Score | 8.0 | ||||||||
| Rank |
| Section 3. Firm's Costs | Ranking Scale | ||||
| A. Price: | 8.0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
| The firm provided a budget that support its projected costs for construction labor and materials plus the costs of assessment, design, and permitting the project. The proposed budget justifies the total cost. | Firm provided a very vague budget with no support for projected costs; project is over budget by $100,000+ | Firm provided a budget with little support for projected costs; project is over budget by $50,000+ | Firm provided a budget with good support for projected costs; project is equal to the budget or a max. of $10,000 over budget | Firm provided a budget with excellent detail, supporting projected costs: project is under budget while being reasonable (not cutting costs) | |
| Score | 8.0 | ||||
| Rank |
| Section 4. Final Total Score | 8.0 |
| OVERALL POINTS | 31.0 |
| OVERALL RANK |
CERTIFICATION:
| I hereby certify that as a member of the Neff-Dellinger Run Selection Committee, I have evaluated the proposals of all subcontractors who responded and rated those firms based on the above criteria to the best of my ability in a fair and equitable manner, independent of outside influence, persuasion or coercion. | |
| _________________________________________________________________ | ___________________ |
| Signature | Date |
Donegal Chapter of Trout Unlimited Natural Channel Stream Restoration Dellinger Run
&D Page &P of
Evaluation Committee
| Evaluation Committee |
| Organization |
| Donegal Trout Unlimited |
| Penn State Agriculture & Environment Center |
| Lancaster County Conservation District |
| Natural Resource Conservation Service |
| Chesapeake Bay Foundation |
| Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay |
| All evaluators will be given equal weight and the final score will be an average of all evaluator's final scores. |
Evaluation (2)
| PROJECT : | Professional Audting Services |
| RFP# | 15-030 |
| DEPARTMENT: | Controller's Office |
Evaluator's Name:
Evaluations should be completed and emailed to Linda Schreiner no later than 9:00 AM on Thursday, September 17th.
| Scoring Directions: |
| All scores will be expressed as a numeric value based on a total of 100 points total. Scores will be allocated to three categories each of which has one or more sub category. The total score for a category will be the sum of the individual sub-categories. All sub-categories are to be given a point score not exceeding the value listed on the score sheet. Use the Scoring Key below to calculate the individual point value by multiplying the allocation of the sub-category by the scoring key factor corresponding to your overall evaluation of that sub-category. |
Example: Customer Service assessed as Poor would be 3.0 X 0.3 = 0.9
| Vendor Name |
| Place scores for each vendor in the column using the following assignment |
| Scoring Key |
| 0.0 Insufficient data to evaluate |
| 0.3 Poor |
| 0.5 Marginal/does not meet expectations |
| 0.7 Fair - somewhat meets expectations |
| 0.8 Good - meets expectations |
| 0.9 Very Good - Consistently exceeds some expectations |
| 1.0 Excellent - Outstanding in all respects, consistently |
| SELECTION CRITERIA | Weighting Factor | EXAMPLE Only | VENDOR | VENDOR | VENDOR | VENDOR | VENDOR |
| Section 1. Qualifications of Firm and Key Personnel | |||||||
| Qualifications of Firm | |||||||
| A. Firm's History, Dependability and Relevant Experience | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| B. Proven capacity to deliver prompt and complete service on time. | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| C. Proven Ability to Manage a Project of This Size | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| D. Familiarity of County Government and its Operations | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| Qualifications of Key Personnel | |||||||
| A. Key Personnel Meet Qualifications and Requirements | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| B. Experience and Capabilities of Key Personnal | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| QUALIFICATIONS of FIRM Score | 24.0 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Section 2. Technical Approach | |||||||
| A. Provide a management system, sufficient in scope, content, personnel and procedure to effectively implement and manage the custodial service program. (Clause 3j(1) - Page 24) | 6.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| B. Copies of licenses, permits, registrations. (Clasue 3b - Page 23) | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| C. Demonstrated Training Methods and Procedures. | 6.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| D. Provided an Equipment List (make, model, and quantity). | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| E. Provide copies of daily check list or inspection log that will be used. (Clasue 8f - Page 27) | 4.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| F. Demonstrated Quality Control Processes and Procedures. | 6.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| Score | 30.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Rank |
| Section 4. References | |||||||
| A. Demostrates focus on customer service | 3.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| B. Customer satisfaction is high | 3.0 | 0.5 | |||||
| Score | 6.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Rank |
Total Score 60.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fee Schedule/Proposal -
TO BE COMPLETED BY PURCHASING
| A. Price | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Score | |||||
| Rank |
| Total Score | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| OVERALL POINTS | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| OVERALL RANK |
| CERTIFICATION: |
| I hereby certify that as a member of the Evaluation/Source Selection Committee, I have evaluated the proposals of all vendors or persons who responded and rated those vendors or persons based on the above criteria to the best of my ability in a fair and equitable manner, independent of outside influence, persuasion or coercion. |
| _________________________________________________________________ |
| Signature |
COUNTY of LANCASTER Custodial Services
&D Page &P of
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .