66-10 Attachment

Township of West Orange Revaluation Proposal Evaluation & Recommendation Report In accordance with N.LS.A. 40A:11-4.5 this report shall clearly. set forth the reasons why Appraisal Systems, Inc, was recommended to perform the complete revaluation of the Township of West Orange. All proposals were thoroughly reviewed by the Evaluation Committee which consisted of the following individuals: Joseph Antonucci, Tax Collector; Edward J. Coleman, Comptroller; Anne DeSantis, Purchasing Agent, Kevin Dillon, Tax Assessor and John Sayers, Business Administrator, ‘The potential vendors who submitted proposal are as follows: 1. Appraisal Systems, Inc. - proposal amount was $1,143,400.00 2. Certified Valuations, Inc, — proposal amount was $1,074,130.00 3. Realty Appraisal Company — proposal amount was $985,000.00 Proposal Summaries (listed in order of evaluation) Appraisal Systems, Inc.: All Mandatory Proposal Check List items were submitted with their proposal. Under Technical Criteria, the evaluation committee scored this company with the highest ranking, The basis for this was Appraisal Systems proposal was the most comprehensive, their experience ufilizing Vital’s CAMA system was greatest among the competing companies and they appeared to be the most innovative with respect to usage of technology and techniques, Under Management Criteria, the consensus among the evaluation committce was that Appraisal Systems possessed the best overall ability to manage the West Orange revaluation given having the greatest number of experienced field inspectors, Certified Tax Asaessots (CTA’s), transpatent public relations prograin via operating an interactive website to disseminate the greatest amount of critical information to the taxpaying public and possessing a comprehensive history, level of experience and reliability in completing revaluations similar in demographics to the Township of West Orange. Under Cost Criteria, the evaluation committee ranks their cost of services lowest among the three tespondents, but ranks them the highest in the categories of assuranccs of performance and vendor's financial stability and strength. As a result, Appraisal Systems ranked second among the three companies in Cost Criteria. Realty Appraisal Company: All Mandatory Proposal Check List itorms were submitted with their proposal. Under Technical Criteria, the evaluation committee

among the three companies in Cost Criteria. Realty Appraisal Company: All Mandatory Proposal Check List itorms were submitted with their proposal. Under Technical Criteria, the evaluation committee ranked this company last among the three vendors, Their proposal indicated they would load the township's Mod-IV data into their Altos System. The township's specifications clearly indicate that the revaluation RECEIVED TINE WAR 41:49

shalt be done on the Vital CAMA system without exception and no conversation of data is permitted. In addition, this proposal appeared weakest with respect to innovative technology & techniques, ¢ Under Management Criteria, the evaluation. committee noted that Realty Appraisal’s preponderance of work was done in Monmouth County with the exception of Glen Ridge which is substantially smaller than the Township of West Orange. In addition, its web site was very basic and lacked PDF images of neighbothood maps, neighborhood sales listing and the interactive ability to calculate a property owner’s tax impact resulting from the revaluation. Lastly, the field inspection supervisor failed to have the required 10 years experience (joined Realty Appraisal in 2005) that any supervisor is required to possess in accordance with the township's bid specifications, Moreover, its proposal indicated they have four (4) ongoing revaluations and employ a total of 12 ficld inspectors. The township's bid specifications require 10 field inspectors with a minimum of six (6) months experience, Consequently, the evaluation committee became concerned that Realty Appraisal had an in adequate number of experienced field inspectors to meet the township's requirement of 10 experienced field inspectors. © Under Cost Critetia, Realty Appraisal ranked first in cost of services and assurances of performance. This proposal ranked second in vendor’s financial stability & strength. Certified Valuations, Tne e All Mandatory Proposal Check List items were submitted with their proposal. * Under Technical Criteria, Certified Valuation’s proposal was second when compared to the other two companies. The evaluation committee was most concerned that a detailed project work schedule was. not included in the proposal, Rather, Cortified stated, “scheduling. of the various parts of the program will be completed with the assessor duting the 30 day period after the contract is approved by the Director of the Division of Taxation.” Given the tight time constraints to timely complete the revaluation this was troubling. In addition, based upon the proposal submitted Certified appeared to have less experience in both utilizing Vital’s CAMA then Appraisal Systems and im utilizing innovative technology & techniques. e Under Management Criteria, Certified Valuations scored lowest among the three respondents.

in both utilizing Vital’s CAMA then Appraisal Systems and im utilizing innovative technology & techniques. e Under Management Criteria, Certified Valuations scored lowest among the three respondents. The evaluation committee, as previously mentioned noted that no detailed project work schedule was submitted with the proposal, Importantly, the evaluation conimittee was. most-concerned that Certified Valuation only listed seven (7) field inspectors in one area of their proposal (section 7, page 3) and eight (8) field inspectors on his organizational chart in another area of the proposal. In either case it is apparent that Certified lacks the required number of ficld inspectors as required by the township’s bid specifications. e Under Cost Criteria, Certified Vatuations ranked last. The evaluation committee ranked their cost of services second. Their assurances of performance ranked even with the other two companies. With respect to vendor's financial stability &- strength “the evaluation committee ranked. Certified Valuations last noting the precipitous drop in sales revenue from 2007 to 2008. RECELVED TIME WA Tam

RECEIVED TIME WAR 4, 11:530N Summary On balance the evaluation committec ranked the three companies proposals as follows (0% to 100%, 100% being the highest & best ranking): 1, Appraisal Systems, Inc, — overall ranking 95.40% 2. Realty Appraisal Company — overall ranking 82.11% 3, Certified Valuations, Inc. — overall ranking 75.86% Therefore in accordance with N.LS.A. 40A:11-4. 1 et. seq, the evaluation committee hereby recommends Appraisal Systems, ig, Inc, he awarded the revaluation contract by the Mayor & Council. Dated: February 2. 2010

Revaluation Proposal Evaluation Evaluated by: Joseph Antonucel, Tax Collactor Edward J, Coleman, Comptroller Anne DeSantis, Purchasing Agent Kevin Diiton, Tax Asseasor John Sayers, Business Administrator “Cerified ‘Appraisal Realty Appralsat| Valuations Systems [Proposal Amount $985,000.00 | $1,074,120.00 | $1,143,400.00 yes | NO | yes | NO | YES | NQ Mandatory Proposal Check Lists (Genificate/Consant of Suraly form * ea x [Non-collusian affidavit x x x Affirmative Action Forms: x x x Mandatory EO Notice x x x [Staininent of Corporate oevncrship_ x x x Sialemortt of vendor's quefiicalions x x x [Lint of current reval projects & thn average clans 2 x x x aseecsed valve. ‘Lint of raval proposals submitted in last 6 montis x x x Coptes of Financlel Statemants. x x x [NJ Buslnoss Ropistralion Ceriicete, x x x [Pesfensional Services Entity Fern Xx x x [Pay-t0- Play” Current Annual Djgclogure Statemiant x x x [Datalind prajact work schedule x x x [Statement of IRigation history: x x x enemies meet I a) Cz T Cx ‘echnical Criteria: 41 % Welaht Wel % Welsiit ftinderalands Seopa & rales a id @ ‘7 experience uttizing Vial CAMA System a 7 10 [Compinieness & responshantse of proposal 0 7 0 requirements . [Documentation of past perfomance 10, 40 10 Innovative technology & Techniques EI F 70 Description of PR procrem 19 10 40, informal Laxpayer hearlng process: 10. 10 19. [Total Technical Criteria Welght: [33.71% 34.86% 40.00% Managerivant Criteria: 30% raises ‘managerent plan 5 o 10 [History Experiance & Reliabil Ka Cl 2 [Review of Company's Wor aie ‘Antersctive?) EB 7 10 Facilites, Equioment, Tecinotogy cc 19 40 Porsonnel (qualifiertions. quantity avaliable) rd 5 10 [Tets! Management Criterta Welght: 2oao% [| 18.00% | 29.40% Gost Criteria: 30° [Cost of Services 10 EI s |Assurances of performenca 40 10 10 Hendor's financial stability & strengin, 6 bE 19 [Total Cost Criteria Weight [28.00% “[ 2a00% | 26.00% | Date/ February 3. 2010 X= Moots Criterta “RECEIVED TIME MAR 4. 11:49AM