125-22 Attachment - Admin Procedures Appendices Final Revised March 2022.pdf

not scored. You will be asked to rank the firms interviewed after all the interviews are completed. At the end of the interviews, the Evaluation Committee will have a discussion and do a final ranking of the proposals. RFP Title: ___________________________________ Consultant: ___________________________________ Technical proposals will be evaluated on based on the evaluation criteria as stated below. The cost proposal will not be part of this evaluation. After the review committee evaluates all of the proposals and qualifications points are awarded, the cost proposal for the highest ranked technical proposal will be opened. A 10-point scale will be used to create the final evaluation recommendation. When assessing points, utilize a 1-10 scale which will then be multiplied by the weight assigned.

Appendix C-1 – Design Proposal Evaluation Guide & Form Points Guidance Expected Occurrence 10 Excellent, insightful response- Meets all Evaluation Criteria for each 1 thru Rare (<5%) 8 below 8-9 Very Good, thoughtful response – Meets 80-90% of Criteria Occasional (20%) 6-7 Good, More than adequate response - Meets 60-70% of Criteria Frequent (40% or >) 4-5 Adequate response, no special insights - Meets 40-50% of Criteria Occasional (20%) 2-3 Inadequate response - Meets 20-30% of Criteria Infrequent (< 10%) 0-1 Totally inadequate response, No response given - Meets 0-10% of Criteria Rare (< 5%) Evaluation Possible Points Weighted Total Criteria Points Awarded Multiplier Points 1. Demonstration of understanding of the scope of work for the 0-10 0.15 project 2. Technical approach to the project, including the application and degree of innovation and creativity of the proposed concepts to 0-10 0.20 meet the project’s goals and objectives 3. Demonstration of the team’s ability to outline public outreach strategies and successfully perform the public outreach and 0-10 0.10 stakeholder task 4. Firm’s professional qualifications, experience and technical

h strategies and successfully perform the public outreach and 0-10 0.10 stakeholder task 4. Firm’s professional qualifications, experience and technical 0-10 0.10 competence with similar federally funded projects 5. Qualifications and relevant experience of the project manager 0-10 0.15 6. Project specific qualification, and demonstrated knowledge and experience of team leaders and key staff members on the proposed 0-10 0.15 study 7. Ability to successfully perform work, including availability of resources, project management expertise and experience in similar 0-10 0.10 project, and quality assurance/control management ability of both the consultant firm and the project manager 8. Quality, clarity, content and thoroughness of proposal in addressing required tasks and compliance with submission 0-10 0.05 guideline, including profession presentation TOTAL SCORE 1.00 Evaluator: ________________________ Title/Affiliation: ________________________ Date Evaluated: ___________

APPENDIX C CM/CI PROPOSAL RATING GUIDE & SHEET REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RATING SHEET PROJECT NAME: CONSULTANT TEAM: REVIEWER: MAXIMUM MULTIPLIER REVIEWER CRITERIA WEIGHT TOTAL TOTAL POINTS POINTS POINTS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT 25 1-3 75 EXPERIENCE OF THE PROJECT MANAGER 20 1–4 80 EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS 20 1-5 100 LOCATION (PROXIMITY TO PROJECT SITE) 10 1-5 50 EXPERIENCE OF RESIDENT 25 1-4 100 ENGINEER/INSPECTOR TOTAL SCORE (MAX) 100 405 REVIEWER’S SCORE 1

RFP RATING GUIDE PROJECT UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA SCORE Demonstrates thorough and comprehensive understanding of the scope presented in the RFP. Identifies important issues, describes how they will be resolved, comment 3 on key components of the project. Demonstrates basic understanding of scope presented in the RFP. 2 The RFP is not specific, providing no evidence of project understanding. This rating also applies for a RFP that include assumptions, which are inappropriate for the 1 project scope. PROJECT MANAGER SCORE CRITERIA (1 if yes, 0 if no) Served as a Project Manager on similar projects with Local Government and/or 1 Counties Served as a Project Manager on projects different than this RFP 1 Served as a Project Manager on similar projects for more than 5 years 1 Possesses relevant technical skills 1 EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS CRITERIA SCORE Key personnel worked on 4 or more active or completed similar projects in the last 5 5 years for Local Governments and/or Counties Key personnel worked on 2 or 3 active or completed similar projects in the last 5 years 4 for Local Governments and/or Counties Key personnel worked on 1 active or completed similar project in the last 5 years for 3 Local Governments and/or Counties Experience with work elements of this

last 5 years for 3 Local Governments and/or Counties Experience with work elements of this project. 2 No similar experience. 1 2

LOCATION CRITERIA SCORE Consultant’s office located within 10 Miles from Project Site 5 Consultant’s office located more than 10 miles but less than 20 miles from Project Site 4 Consultant’s office located more than 20 miles but less than 30 miles from Project Site 3 Consultant’s office located more than 30 miles but less than 40 miles from Project Site 2 Consultant’s office located more than 40 miles from Project Site 1 EXPERIENCE OF RESIDENT ENGINEER / INSPECTOR SCORE CRITERIA (1 if yes, 0 if no) Served as an Inspector on similar projects with Local Government and/or 1 Counties Served as an Inspector on projects different than this RFP 1 Served as an Inspector on similar projects for more than 5 years 1 Possesses relevant technical skills 1 3

APPENDIX D CONSULTANT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE RATING FORMS Procedure for Administration and Inspection of Federal Aid Highway Projects

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE WEST ORANGE Design Consultant Performance Evaluation Form APPENDIX D Engineering Division PROJECT INFORMATION: Project Name: CONSULTANT INFORMATION: Consultant Name: Type of Work: Consultant Address: Project Manager (P.M.): P.M Office Location: Subconsultant Name(s): Type of Work: CONTRACT INFORMATION: Contract Ceiling Price: Original No. of C.A. Final Notice to Proceed Date: Completion Date: Original Extension Actual TOTAL PROJECT SCORE SUMMARY PROJECT MANAGEMENT (A) 0 0.00% STAFF & PERSONNEL (B) 0 0.00% TECHNICAL EVALUATION (C) 0 0.00% PRODUCT EVALUATION (D) 0 0.00% Total 0 OVERALL PROJECT SCORE 0% COMMENTS: Evaluator(s): Title: Division: Date: Rev. 6/1/2009 Appendix D-1 Sample West Orange Design Consultant Performance Rating Form.xls

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE Design Consultant Performance Evaluation Form APPENDIX D PROJECT MANAGEMENT (A) SCORE 1 Timeliness with which work was accomplished and meeting established schedules: 2 Cooperation in meeting Township requests and making revisions: 3 Degree of difficulty in negotiating changes in Scope or Contract: 4 Coordination exhibited by the consultant communicating with Township, sub-consultants, agencies, and others to accomplish tasks and resolve problems: 5 Responsive to email or phone calls: 6 Were claims for extra work or change in scope timely and well supported: 7 Was original description of work in the contract adequate for the project: 8 Were the man-hours used in the most effective ways: 9 Quality of letters, invoices, and publications: COMMENTS: Total 0 Project Management (A) Score 0.00%