Solicitation_Review_Checklist_(Inger)_.pdf

Solicitation Review Checklist

Solicitation Title:

Solicitation Type: □SMS □Bid Discount □Goal Set □ITB □RFP

□RFQ □RFI □Other:

Department Budget Amount:

Department(s): Department(s) Point of Contact:

Buyer Name:

Date:

Peer Reviewer

Name: Date: 3/3/25

Buyer

All Solicitation Types Below Items Are Applicable to All Solicitation Types

Peer

1□ Scope/specification provided by end-user is detailed and covers all necessary aspects of good/service. □

2□ The document avoids use of vague words, scope, and specifications. □ 3□

Solicitation complies with all relevant regulations, laws, policies (federal grant guidelines, awardee licensing requirements, etc.), and federal provisions are included (if applicable). □

4□ Appropriate sheltered market solicitation (SMS), bid discount, ban the box, etc. overlay is consistent throughout or removed if not applicable. □

5□ □N/A Mandatory requirements are clearly defined and captured in bidder’s checklist (such as licensing, certifications, years of experience – references, etc.) and are note restrictive. □

6□ □N/A Timeline of events is reasonable and justified (newspaper ad., Q&A period, pre-bid, site visit, acquiring insurance certificates, bid opening, etc.). □

7□ □N/A Pre-bid and site visit information is clearly defined and consistent throughout document, and if mandatory, is justified and reasonable. Management approval via OpenGov is required for solicitations where a mandatory pre-bid and/or site visit is required.

Date of management approval:

8□ Cost/pricing schedules, bid sheets, etc. are consistent with scope/specification and adequately account for things such as labor, materials, mobilization, freight, optional items, ongoing maintenance, licensing, etc.

9□ □N/A Quality standards (if any) are clearly defined and enforceable, such as ISO certifications or industry-specific quality control measures. □

10□ The term of award is clearly defined, including options to renew, is realistic, and in-line with industry standards/norms – term is multi-year where possible. If one-time purchase, it is clearly identified as such and consistent throughout document.

11□ □N/A

Insurance provisions have been added/removed as appropriate. If needed, Risk / Insurance has reviewed the scope and provided the requisite insurance requirements. □

12□ Acronyms are spelled out in the following format in first mention: American Water Works Association (“AWWA”); subsequent mentions use acronym, e.g., AWWA. □

13□ Capitalized terms are defined in the document, and capitalization of terms is used consistently throughout document □

14□ Use of terms are consistent throughout document, e.g., bidder, offeror, contractor, etc. and are not used interchangeably. Definitions of such are included. □

RFP RATE CONSULTANT

100,000

R&F MIKE PERRY

IVETTE INGER

2/28 missing adress

15□ Sizeable blank spaces in the document have been clearly identified as being intentionally left blank in order to avoid causing confusion and leading readers to believe information may have been cut off.

16□ “Ban the Box” (Bidder’s Criminal History) references have been taken out – Ban the Box is only applicable to procurements >$100k annually, may also be removed per user Department request. Management approval is required if Department requests removal of Ban the Box.

Date of management approval:

17□ □N/A The City’s responsibilities and roles vs. vendor’s responsibilities and roles are clearly stated and outlined, avoiding any vagueness, ambiguity, and contradiction. □

18 THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN CHECKED FOR CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY WITHIN THE DOCUMENT:

□ Font type (system default)

□ Font size (14 or 16)

□ Font color/highlighting

□ Attachment/Exhibit sequencing

□ Paragraph justification and indentation (lines up, consistent spacing)

□ Paragraph/Section numbering

19□ The specifications/scope of work have been reviewed from a supplier’s perspective to ensure it is not a restrictive document that can give the perception of collusion or undermining open and fair competition.

20□ The document is coherent and follows a logical sequence; avoids redundancy or dividing/addressing a single topic/content/deliverable/etc. among multiple sections, requiring users to jump back and forth within the document to identify scope/specs., submittal requirements, etc.

21□ The appropriate solicitation template was used, and if SMS, the “Private Bid” setting has been toggled ‘on’.

22□ All hyperlinks provided in the document are functioning as intended and direct readers to the appropriate website. □

RFPs, RFQs, RFIs, etc.

Items Below are Applicable to RFPs, RFQs, RFIs or As Otherwise Deemed Appropriate

23□

Evaluation criteria captures technical and qualitative requirements. □

24□ Cost structure/pricing schedule clearly defines compensation such as fixed-price, time and materials, cost reimbursable, milestone, progress payments, etc. □

25□ There are no contradictions or duplications in the instructions for proposal format, including required sections/documentation (executive summary, technical approach, qualifications, references, etc.).

26□ □N/A The document has taken negotiation, BAFO, and clarification into account and if applicable, have been clearly defined in the document. If COT Agreement or PO only, this is clearly stated in the document.

27□ The table of contents is accurate and documents all sections, attachments, appendices, exhibits, etc. in the solicitation. □