EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. Following submission, the Aviation Authority intends to shortlist no less than three (3) Proposers. Among the factors that will be considered in selecting the Proposers who will be shortlisted are their qualifications, approach to providing the Services, ability to provide the required Services, prior experience on similar projects, their past performance with the Aviation Authority (if applicable), their past performance with other entities, level and quality of small business participation, and the responses to the inquiries set forth above. The Aviation Authority reserves the right to solicit from available sources relevant information concerning a Proposer’s past performance and may consider such information in its selection of shortlisted Proposers. Shortlisted Proposers will be scheduled for an interview, presentation or both. Following shortlisting, and interviews or presentations, the Aviation Authority shall make a final ranking and select in order of preference, based on the above information, weighing of CCNA (Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act) factors, and interview results, in order to select for award the most highly qualified Proposer(s) to perform the requested Services. The Aviation Authority intends, but is not obligated, to enter into non-exclusive agreements with a minimum of three (3) selected Proposers to perform the required Services. The terms of these agreements shall be for a period of five (5) years. The Services are limited by Florida Statute 287.055 to projects of a construction value of $4,000,000.00 or as defined by statute. The Aviation Authority reserves the right to waive any informality in the Letters of Interest, to reject any and all Letters of Interest, to re-advertise for Letters of Interest or to elect not to proceed with the Services for any reason. All recommendations and decisions regarding award of the Services shall be made at open public meetings in accordance with the requirements of Florida Statute 286.011, and all interested parties are invited to attend such meetings. In accordance with Florida Statute 287.055 (10), the Aviation Authority declares that all or any portion of the documents and work papers prepared and submitted pursuant to this invitation shall be subject to re-use by the Aviation Authority.
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. A. Evaluation Criteria: The following criteria shall be used in determining the most advantageous Offeror for the services specified herein:
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. A. EVALUATION CRITERIA Proposals shall be evaluated by Old Dominion University using the following criteria:
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. The Aviation Authority's Procurement Committee will publicly evaluate the proposals and intends to shortlist no less than three (3) of the most qualified Proposers. Among the factors that will be considered in selecting the Proposers who will be shortlisted are their capabilities; adequacy of personnel; past record, including prior experience on similar projects; past performance with the Aviation Authority (if applicable) and past performance with other entities; approach to providing the Services; level and quality of the minority and small business participation written action plan; and, the responses to the inquiries set forth above. The Aviation Authority reserves the right to solicit from available sources relevant information concerning a Proposer's past performance and may consider such information in its selection of shortlisted Proposers. Shortlisted Proposers will be scheduled for a presentation and interview. Following the interviews, the Procurement Committee will evaluate the proposals, rank in order of preference, and select the most qualified proposer(s), based on the following evaluation criteria: EVALUATION CRITERION MAXIMUM POINTS Qualifications of Proposer's team including subconsultants 50 Qualifying Projects 35 MWBE/LDB/VBD/DBE Action Plan 5 Other CCNA Factors (willingness to meet time/budget, workload, volume of work previously awarded if applicable) 5 Financial, Claims and Certifications 5
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. This section is in two (2) parts. The first part, “Evaluation Criteria,” explains how the proposals will be evaluated. The second part is the “Award of Contract” clause that states how the award will be made.
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. Set out below is the weighted evaluation for SHL’s Requirements Criteria / Questions Weighting Price 40% Quality Questions 60% Total 100% The Criteria / Questions Weighting is broken down as follows: Section Assessment Supplier Information (SQ STAGE 1) Not scored Mandatory Exclusions (SQ STAGE 1) PASS/ FAIL Discretionary Exclusions (SQ STAGE 1) PASS / FAIL Insurance (SQ STAGE 1) PASS /FAIL Quality Questions (Tender stage) 60% Pricing Schedule (Tender Stage) 40% Presentations / Interviews To be advised as appropriate Form of Tender and acceptance of terms and conditions PASS / FAIL Where sections are scored, the following methodology will apply to each of the questions asked: The sum of all of the percentages from each section allows ranking of applicants. Score Interpretation 4 Clearly demonstrates the level of requirement with regard to ability, understanding of service requirements, systems and quality measures to provide the service. Also demonstrates and provides evidence of the ability to deliver some areas of the service above the level of requirements which include innovation and added value to the Council. 3 Clearly demonstrates the level of requirement with regard to ability, understanding of service requirements, systems and quality measures to provide the service. 2 Demonstrates the majority of the elements required but has not sufficiently demonstrated and/or evidenced how the requirement will be fulfilled in certain areas. 1 Response addresses minimal elements of the service requirements but in general contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirements will be met. 0 Does not comply and/or insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the service requirements can be met Please note for Information Governance the questions will be scored using the following scoring methodology for each: For Lot 1 Question 6 and Lots 2, 3 and Question 7 the following criteria will apply:- Score Interpretation 3 Provides information on the security measures for paper information (if applicable); Provides information on the security measures for electronic information (if applicable); Provide information on the measures in place to ensure the security of personal information at the organisations location(s). Provides information on the measures the provider has when information is being moved between locations. Provides information on the measures the provider has to send information by post; Provides ...
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. 1. The work of the evaluation committee(s) shall be based on the general principles applicable to grants laid down in Article 188 of the Financial Regulation and in particular, on the principles of equal treatment and transparency, as well as on the principle of non-discrimination.
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. Navajo County shall evaluate proposals deemed Responsive and Responsible. Proposals shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria set forth herein. Evaluation of cost shall be made without regard to applicable taxes. CRITERIA MAXIMUM POINTS
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. This RFP seeks firms to provide comprehensive accounting and auditing services to the Corporation. A preliminary evaluation will be conducted identifying the firms deemed fully qualified and best suited among those submitting proposals on the basis of the evaluation factors listed below (not in priority order): • Operational requirements - understanding the needs and operation requirements of the Corporation; scope of services offered. • Experience - experience, resources and qualification of the firm and individuals assigned to the account; relevant experience; quality and responsiveness of customer service; local decision-making authority to handle emergency needs. • Innovation - value of any service suggestions or ideas. • Compliance with the requirements of RFP and quality of the proposal submitted. • Fees. 265142 2 During the evaluation process, the Board may request certain of the respondents reasonably susceptible of being selected for award to make oral presentations to the Board for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of, and responsiveness to the RFP requirements. If the Board determines that further clarifications are needed or desirable, it may solicit Best and Final Offers from respondents, whether oral presentations are held or not. The authority to make the final selection of a respondent under this RFP and approve the terms of a resulting contract resides solely with the Board. The Board reserves the right to award the contract to the firm that best meets the requirements of the RFP and not necessarily to the lowest cost proposer. Further, the Board reserves the right to reject any and all responses to this RFP, with or without cause. Any award to any respondent will be contingent upon successful negotiation of fees and rates and other terms, subject to ratification and approval of the Board. If a contract with the selected firm is not finalized within fifteen (15) days, the Board reserves the right to open negotiations with another firm. 2651422 ATTACHMENT A - ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING SERVICES FEES AND CHARGES Service Unit Hourly Rate/Unit Charge Cost of Services Audit of Financial Statements, Books and Records Review of Internal Processes and Controls Per year Partner Per hour Manager Senior Staff Per hour Per hour Per hour Other consulting and review services Partner Per hour Manager Senior Per hour Per hour Staf f Per hour Assistance with financial report preparation by Board Partner Per hour Manager Per hour Senior...
EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA. 5.1 EVALUATION PROCESS: All proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. “Best Value” concepts will be used for the evaluation and award. “
