RFLP_3-25_ATTACHMENT_A-1_AND_A-2.pdf
PDF 158 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Clear Creek Inline Stormwater Detention Facility
- Solicitation number
- RFLP 3-25
- Issued by
- Laramie County, Wyoming
About this file
These documents are Attachments A-1 and A-2 from the City of Cheyenne's Request for Letters of Proposal (RFLP) for the Clear Creek Inline Stormwater Detention Facility project. The attachments provide detailed evaluation forms for consultant proposals, with two distinct rounds of assessment: a first-round written proposal evaluation and a second-round interview evaluation. The documents outline specific rating criteria across multiple categories including experience and personnel qualifications, past performance, local firm status, technical expertise, and specific project requirements. Each category includes a weighted scoring system ranging from 0-5, with weights assigned by the City Engineer's Office to indicate the relative importance of different evaluation elements.
The evaluation forms are designed to comprehensively assess consulting firms' capabilities for the stormwater detention facility project, with a focus on technical competence, project understanding, and team qualifications. The first-round evaluation (Attachment A-1) covers areas such as personnel qualifications, past performance, local firm status, and proposal quality, while the second-round evaluation (Attachment A-2) concentrates on interview performance, project experience, understanding of project requirements, and the consulting team's ability to execute the work. The scoring mechanism allows for a nuanced assessment of each consulting team's strengths and potential fit for the Clear Creek Inline Stormwater Detention Facility project, with an emphasis on local knowledge, technical expertise, and innovative problem-solving capabilities.
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
City of Cheyenne / Request for Letters of Proposal / Attachments A1 and A2
ATTACHMENT A-1
FIRST ROUND CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Ratings Weight Clearly outstanding in this item
5 Weak in this item 2 Level of importance, 1 through 5, assigned by City Engineer’s Office
Well-Qualified in this item 4 Unsatisfied in this item 1 Average in this item 3 Item not addressed 0
Project Name and No. ___________________________________________________________________________
Firm Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________
Committee Person: _______________________________________ Date: _______________________________
RATING ITEM RATING X WEIGHT = SCORE
1)
Experience and Personnel Qualifications Does the Consultant Team have professional personnel committed to the project with the qualifications, education, and specific experience to perform the tasks and services necessary for successful completion of the project.
Personnel
Related Experience
2)
Past Performance What do past Consultant Performance Appraisals or references indicate about the firm's performance on other City of Cheyenne or other public jurisdictional work (i.e.
meeting deadlines, goals, and objectives, staying within budgets, timely invoicing, coordination, communication, and overall project management.
Were previous projects completed on time and within budget?
Did the project manager / firm provide timely communication and comprehensive project management?
Were the previous work products complete and accurate?
3)
Resident Firm As defined by Wyoming Statute § 9-23-102 (50% of more of staff utilized are within the state of Wyoming)
Local (Cheyenne, WY) Resident Non-resident
3 points 2 points 1 point
4)
Knowledge and Technical Expertise The proposer will be evaluated on technical suitability for the tasks required. Proposals should contain complete discussions regarding technical qualifications and expertise. Software to be utilized in the work should be described with adequate information.
5) Specific Requirements Familiarity of firm and/ or personnel with the local/ project area, geography, and facilities. Ability to relate to the project requirements.
6) Proposal – The proposal shall be evaluated for general compliance with the instructions issued in the RFLP including content, quality, organization, and brevity.
City of Cheyenne / Request for Letters of Proposal / Attachments A1 and A2
ATTACHMENT A-2
SECOND ROUND CONSULTANT EVALUATION - INTERVIEWS
Project Name and No. ___________________________________________________________________________
Firm Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________
Committee Person: _______________________________________ Date: _______________________________
Ratings Weight Clearly outstanding in this item
5 Weak in this item 2 Level of importance, 1 through 5, assigned by City Engineer’s Office
Well-Qualified in this item 4 Unsatisfied in this item 1 Average in this item 3 Item not addressed 0
RATING ITEM RATING X WEIGHT = SCORE
1) RELATED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
a. Rate the overall experience and qualification of the consultant team personnel, excluding the Project Manager.
b. Rate the experience and qualifications of the Project Manager. 4
2) UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
a. Did the consultant team address all requirements of the project Scope of Work?
b. Rate the consultant team’s knowledge of the community, project area, project constraints, opportunities, and/or threats?
c. Did the consultant team offer innovative or creative ideas, or value-added alternative scoping to enhance the project?
d. Overall impression of the interview, i.e. organization, teamwork, problem solving ability, and ability to communicate.
3) CONSULTANT’S ABILITY AND CAPACITY TO PERFORM THE WORK
a. Key personnel committed to the project? 3
b. Have key personnel and subconsultants collaborated on previous projects?
4) OTHER
a. Did the key personnel who will be assigned to the project participate in the interview?
b. Did the consultant interview team respond effectively to direct questions or issues raised by the committee?
c. Rate the consultant team’s analysis, interview preparation, and level of interest.
TOTAL SCORE
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .