66-10 Attachment

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