Rose_Street_Evaluation_Scoring_Guide.pdf

Rose Street Streetscape Improvements | Evaluation Scoring Guide

ROSE STREET STREETSCAPE

IMPROVEMENTS

Evaluation Committee Scoring Guide | 100-Point Best-Value System

Use the descriptions below to score each responsive proposal consistently. Select a score within the stated range based on the quality and completeness of the submitted evidence. Record a brief rationale for each score.

Maximum Point Allocation Criterion Maximum Firm Qualifications 15 Similar Project Experience 15 Technical Approach 20 Project Team 15 Project Schedule 10 Public Communication & Traffic Maintenance 5 Quality Control & Safety 5 Cost Proposal 10 Local Experience / CRA Experience 5

TOTAL 100

Criterion-Specific Scoring Ranges

Firm Qualifications — 15 Points Score Evaluator Guidance 13–15 Excellent: Extensive qualifications, financial and operational capacity, resources, and strong successful delivery history.

10–12 Good: Well-qualified firm with sufficient resources and demonstrated capability.

7–9 Satisfactory: Meets basic qualifications; minor weaknesses or limited supporting detail.

4–6 Below Average: Limited qualifications, resources, or capacity.

0–3 Poor: Significant deficiencies or insufficient qualifications.

Similar Project Experience — 15 Points Score Evaluator Guidance 13–15 Excellent: Extensive successful experience with comparable streetscape, roadway, pedestrian, and urban infrastructure work.

10–12 Good: Multiple successfully completed projects with similar elements.

7–9 Satisfactory: Some relevant experience, but different scope or complexity.

4–6 Below Average: Limited comparable project experience.

0–3 Poor: Little or no demonstrated similar experience.

Technical Approach — 20 Points Score Evaluator Guidance

18–20 Excellent: Comprehensive project-specific methods, sequencing, coordination, and solutions to anticipated challenges.

15–17 Good: Well-developed approach addressing major requirements and challenges.

11–14 Satisfactory: Adequate approach; some details missing.

6–10 Below Average: General approach with significant gaps.

0–5 Poor: Inadequate approach or weak project understanding.

Project Team — 15 Points Score Evaluator Guidance 13–15 Excellent: Highly experienced key staff with directly relevant experience and clear roles.

10–12 Good: Qualified team with strong relevant experience and adequate staffing.

7–9 Satisfactory: Meets basic requirements with limited comparable experience.

4–6 Below Average: Limited experience or unclear roles.

0–3 Poor: Inadequate staffing or qualifications.

Project Schedule — 10 Points Score Evaluator Guidance 9–10 Excellent: Detailed, feasible phases, milestones, critical activities, coordination, and delay mitigation.

7–8 Good: Well-organized schedule covering major work and milestones.

5–6 Satisfactory: Reasonable schedule with minor gaps.

3–4 Below Average: Incomplete or potentially unrealistic schedule.

0–2 Poor: Inadequate schedule or failure to show timely completion.

Public Communication & Traffic Maintenance — 5 Points Score Evaluator Guidance 5 Excellent: Comprehensive notifications, access, pedestrian safety, traffic control, and impact mitigation.

4 Good: Well-developed plan addressing most impacts.

3 Satisfactory: Adequate basic communication and traffic plan.

2 Below Average: Limited plan with notable gaps.

0–1 Poor: Missing or inadequate strategies.

Quality Control & Safety — 5 Points Score Evaluator Guidance 5 Excellent: Comprehensive procedures, assigned responsibilities, inspections, and corrective actions.

4 Good: Strong programs with clear implementation.

3 Satisfactory: Adequate basic procedures.

2 Below Average: Limited procedures or supporting evidence.

0–1 Poor: Missing or inadequate programs.

Local Experience / CRA Experience — 5 Points Score Evaluator Guidance 5 Excellent: Extensive successful CRA, downtown, or comparable redevelopment experience and stakeholder coordination.

4 Good: Strong urban redevelopment or municipal project experience.

3 Satisfactory: Some relevant municipal or urban experience.

2 Below Average: Limited comparable redevelopment experience.

0–1 Poor: Little or no relevant experience.

Cost Proposal — 10 Points Score = (Lowest qualifying responsive cost proposal ÷ Cost proposal being evaluated) × 10. The lowest qualifying proposal receives 10 points; other proposals receive proportionate scores. Round to two decimal places. Purchasing should confirm treatment of alternates and applicable responsiveness/responsibility requirements.

Illustrative Proposed Cost Cost Score $1,000,000 10.00 $1,100,000 9.09 $1,250,000 8.00 $1,500,000 6.67

Individual Evaluator Score Sheet Criterion Maximum Awarded Firm Qualifications 15 ________ Similar Project Experience 15 ________ Technical Approach 20 ________ Project Team 15 ________ Project Schedule 10 ________ Public Communication & Traffic Maintenance

5 ________

Quality Control & Safety 5 ________ Cost Proposal 10 ________ Local Experience / CRA Experience 5 ________

TOTAL 100 ________

Evaluator: ___________________________________ Vendor: ___________________________________

Comments / score justification: ___________________________________________________________________

Evaluator Instructions

• Use the high end of a range when the proposal fully demonstrates that performance level; use lower values for gaps or weaknesses.

• Award zero when no relevant information is supplied for a criterion.

• Apply the same standards to all vendors; score only submitted material and permitted clarifications.

• Document the evidence supporting each score.

• Refer possible failures of mandatory solicitation requirements to Purchasing for responsiveness review rather than treating them solely as scoring deficiencies.

• Local/CRA experience measures comparable project conditions, not simply the vendor’s headquarters location.