HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 1KENNYDALE FIBER OPTIC
CONSULTANT EVALUATION – FEBRUARY 2018
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM: _____________________________________________
NAME OF RATER:
EVALUATION OF WRITTEN SOQ / PROPOSAL
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications / Proposal, and evaluate the following elements,
based upon the scoring system described below.
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the SOQ / proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5 (multiply by weighting
factor)
Qualifications and Expertise of Proposed Team Members as Related to the Requirements
of THIS Project (Interceptor restoration/rehabilitation/replacement within a stream
corridor):
1 Project management experience and technical expertise of
proposed Project Manager / Team Leader. Weighting factor = 2.
(e.g. Good = 3 x 2 = 6)
2 Design and construction experience of proposed electrical
engineer. Weighting factor = 2. (e.g. Good = 3 x 2 = 6)
3 Design and construction experience of proposed civil engineer.
Weighting factor = 1. (e.g. Good = 3 x 1 = 3)
4 Proposed staff’s experience with and knowledge of Federal,
Washington State, King County and City of Renton laws, rules and
codes as they pertain to this project. Weighting factor = 2. (e.g.
Good = 3 x 2 = 6)
5 Planning, design and construction experience of other proposed
staff. Weighting factor = 1. (e.g. Good = 3 x 1 = 3)
6 Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item). Weighting factor = 1. (e.g. Good = 3 x 1 = 3)
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability: Weighting factor = 1, all items. (e.g. Good = 3 x 1 = 3)
1 Technical materials, specialists (including location of specialists).
2 Time availability of key staff.
SUBTOTAL:
KENNYDALE FIBER OPTIC
CONSULTANT EVALUATION – FEBRUARY 2018
Project Management: Weighting factor = 1, all items. (e.g. Good = 3 x 1 = 3)
1 Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget. Verified by contacting references.
2 Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3 Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
Project Approach: Weighting factor = 1, all items. (e.g. Good = 3 x 1 = 3)
1 Approach to project is compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.)
2 Approach to communication with client.
3 Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?)
4 Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations: Weighting factor = 1, all items. (e.g. Good = 3 x 1 = 3)
1 Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2 Affirmative action, enter a 2 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE, or
DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
KENNYDALE FIBER OPTIC
CONSULTANT EVALUATION – FEBRUARY 2018
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM:
NAME OF RATER:
ORAL PRESENTATION EVALUATION – IF USED
Evaluate the following elements, based upon the scoring system described below.
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the oral presentation:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
Key Personnel Skills and Abilities
1 Judgment and insight.
2 Technical skills and knowledge.
3 Leadership.
4 Communication skills (listening and speaking).
5 Overall skills and abilities of key personnel
SUBTOTAL
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm / Team:
1 Applicable work experience demonstrated and discussed.
2 Demonstrated technical experience of staff proposed, (familiarity &
experience with methodologies, technologies).
3 Knowledge of regulatory environment (SEPA, ESA, WDFW, Army
Corp, pertinent RCW & WAC, King County SWM and others).
4 Interest in work, willingness to accommodate the City.
5 Project experience matches City's needs.
6 Overall qualifications and expertise of the firm / team
SUBTOTAL:
KENNYDALE FIBER OPTIC
CONSULTANT EVALUATION – FEBRUARY 2018
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1 Confirmed time availability of key staff proposed.
2 Key proposed staff appears to be easy to work with.
3 Other, and overall resource availability of firm / team
SUBTOTAL:
Project Management:
1 Appropriate experience and expertise of project manager.
2 Team has worked together before.
3 Structure of team seems easy to work with, capable of working with
City staff.
4 Overall apparent project management capabilities.
SUBTOTAL:
Project Approach:
1 Approach to project compatible with City practice (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of tasks into goals and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.).
2 Emphasis on communication with client.
3 Adequacy of quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) program
(regularly performed by a senior engineer with the firm?)
4 Overall project approach
SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL SCORE ORAL PRESENTATION: