Proposal Evaluation Criteria. The contract will be awarded to the best proposer as determined by the District. It is appropriate to emphasize that the lowest proposer may not be the best. The District recognizes the complicated nature of delivering safe, reliable, efficient school transportation. In accordance with Section 156.12 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, in order to adequately measure the capabilities of the proposer, the District will evaluate and score each proposal in accordance with the criteria presented below. The maximum point allowance for each category is indicated. Total possible points are 100. A successful proposer must receive a minimum threshold score of at least 60 points. If no proposer receives at least this minimum score, then the District may, in its discretion, not award a contract as a result of this Request for Proposals. Category Points
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. A. Administrative Ability - 12 points The applicant demonstrates evidence of administrative capacity to meet federal, state, and county administrative requirements. Applicant demonstrates an ability to provide timely and accurate monthly client and financial reports. Applicant demonstrates an ability to be responsive to crisis situations, including, but not limited to, variations in client referral volume and serving exceptional cases. In scoring proposals, for agencies currently under contract with DHHS, reviewers will consider the on time and accuracy rate of applicant in prior year’s required submissions. For new applicants, reviewers will consider the on time and accuracy rate of applicant as described by the person providing the required Performance Assessment report (item 18c or 18c-2). Additionally, in scoring proposals for Administrative ability, reviewers will consider the accuracy and completeness of the proposal. Inaccurate or incomplete proposals will receive reduced scores. For new applicants (existing agencies without current or recent- within last two years-DHHS contracting experience), the provided Performance Assessment for New Applicant Agency report must attest to the applicant’s level of timeliness and accuracy of required submissions. This letter must be completed by an authorized representative of a prior fundor. For new agencies without an agency contracting history of any kind, the Performance Assessment for New Applicant Leadership report is subject to the same requirements as above, but will be for the head of the organization and senior fiscal and program staff. This document may be completed either by a prior fundor or by prior employer. Performance Assessment reports for agencies with non-DHHS contracting history and for new applicants without any agency contracting history must use Item 18c or 18c-2. The applicant shall describe its history, if any, as well as proposed strategy for handling crisis situations, as defined above, using specific examples. For full points, applicant must have an existing system in place that addresses crisis situations. For applicants without previous experience handling crisis situations, proposal will be scored based on the quality of proposed strategy. Examples of strategies to respond to crisis situations can include, but are not limited to: referral networks, flexible staffing arrangements-such as contingency workers, on call staff, or “pool” workers, and other strategies to expand or reduce p...
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. As a general rule, the level of innovation and novelty, the quality of the proposed experiment and of the executing team will play a major role in the selection process. All proposals will be ranked based on general criteria: • Excellence • Impact • Implementation Those general criteria are further elaborated in Table 1. Excellence Impact Implementation Criteria Technical and Innovation Merit Contribution to the creation of a SoftFIRE-based Ecosystem Business Impact and considerations Practical Feasibility on SoftFIRE testbeds Technical Soundness Threshold 7 6 6 Y|N (*) 7 Weight 0,35 0,15 0,20 0,30 P r o p e r t i e s Relevance of the proposal for SoftFire federated testbeds Potential to increase knowledge at the European level and differentiate the proposition Desirability/need of the proposed service/function and market perspective Implementability on the SoftFIRE infrastructure Clarity and quality of the proposal Appropriateness of technical and methodological approach (interoperability, programmability and security) Clarity and Quality of the Technological benefits for an European Ecosystem Alignement of the Project with respect to SoftFIRE constraints Quality of the proposing group Originality and innovative value of the proposed features/tests and their relation to the status of the art Contribution to standards or open interfaces Quality of the workplan Potential of exploitaiton/inclusio n in SoftFire of [proposed functionalities and features (including legal/admin aspects)] Quality of the team (*) This is a binary criteria: the proposal is feasible or not on SofFIRE platform Table 1: evaluation Criteria The proposals submitted by parties who have not yet been or are not participating in FIRE- projects or Open Calls from FIRE-projects will receive an extra “1” point on top of the criteria “Contribution to the creation of a SoftFIRE- based Ecosystem”. This measure is introduced to positively discriminate such new players and open the SoftFIRE federated testbed to a wider community. 6 Relationships with SoftFIRE consortium and funding scheme
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. The City will review and evaluate all proposals after deemed responsive. To receive proper consideration, the proposal must meet the requirements of this RFP. The evaluation process will provide credit only for those capabilities and advantages that are clearly stated in the written proposal(s). In other words, advantages that are not stated will not be considered in the evaluation process. Proposers whose proposals include a significant failure to comply with the RFP may be dropped from the evaluation process. The City’s evaluation process will involve at least one representative from a City Department with no direct interest in the service(s) being requested by this RFP and a representative from the City’s Purchasing Division. The City may also include representative(s) from outside the City organization which may include attorneys, consultants, and/or employees from other Agencies. It is the intent of the City to objectively evaluate the proposals received. The assignment of a score to a particular qualitative element is necessarily subjective and may result in a range of scores from different evaluators. The City currently anticipates using the following weighted evaluation criteria in that evaluation process. The City Council may, at its sole discretion, adjust the weighting of each of the criteria at any time or consider other factors. Criteria Responsiveness to RFP Maximum Score Pass/Fail % of Total N/A Financial Stability Pass/Fail N/A Proposer Qualifications 60 15% Technical Proposal for Services 60 15% Service Reliability/Sustainability 20 5% Ability to Enforce Franchise Terms 20 5% TOTAL QUALITATIVE SCORE 160 40% Cost and Rate Proposal 240 60% TOTAL MAXIMUM SCORE 400 100% Note that when the City evaluates the rate and cost proposals, the City will examine the reasonableness of the rates and costs; and, for comparison purposes, the City will estimate annual gross rate revenues for each service area based on the current customer base. In addition, the City may estimate the gross rate revenues (as a net present value amount) that may be generated over the term of the Agreement making reasonable assumptions regarding changes in employment cost index, producer price index, consumer price index, disposal fees, and processing fees and use the estimated net present value gross rate revenues to compare proposals. Any award shall be based on the proposals judged as providing the best value in meeting the interest of the City and the objectives of the proj...
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. IFAD will conduct a fair and transparent process to select successful organizations. Below is the scoring that will be used to rank the proposals: Technical and Financial Evaluation Scoring:
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. (a) Quality and cost-based selection criteria will be applied for evaluation of proposals and selection of the Consultant for the Services. This will be based on the respective corporate and personnel capability and experience, the quality of the technical proposals and the corresponding cost of the Services to be provided.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. Proposals will be evaluated based on the Company's ability to meet the performance requirements of this RFP. This section provides a description of the evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate the Proposals. To be deemed responsive, it is important for the Company to provide appropriate detail to demonstrate satisfaction of each criterion and compliance with the performance provisions outlined in this RFP. The Company’s Proposal will be the primary source of information used in the evaluation process. Proposals must contain information specifically related to the proposed Products and Services as requested herein. Failure of any Company to submit information requested may result in the elimination of the Proposal from further evaluation. Proposals will be assessed to determine the most comprehensive, competitive and best value solution for the City taking into consideration as a minimum response, but not limited to the following criteria:
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. A committee will evaluate proposals against the weighted criteria provided on the RFP Evaluation Score Sheet. Each area of the evaluation criteria must be addressed in detail in proposal. See RFP Evaluation Score Sheet. Understandability and comprehensiveness of information supplied in this RFP will affect the evaluation of the above criteria.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. Minimum Requirements Proposals must meet the following minimum criteria to qualify for competitive consideration:
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. The Evaluation Committee will rank qualified, responsive and responsible proposers. Proposers whose submittals are determined to be Not Advantageous or did not meet the minimum requirements will not be considered. The Evaluation Committee will then rank those finalists and make a recommendation of award to the awarding authority. The Evaluation Committee will use the comparative criterion for each separate rating area, and based upon these criteria, will assign an overall rating to each proposal as permitted under Chapter 30B. Each of the criteria may contain ratings of: Unacceptable Not advantageous Acceptable Advantageous Highly Advantageous NOTE: Responding proposers are to address each of the following criteria in a clearly labeled section of their response and in the same order.
