142-24 Attachment - Federal Aid Procedures.pdf

nd Bridge Construction” (current edition and addenda) g. the NJDOT “Supplementary Specifications for State Aid Projects” (current edition) h. the NJDOT “Supplementary Specifications for Federal Aid Projects” (current edition) i. the current design standards of the TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE Engineer’s Office. enoop and used as reference: j. the NJDOT “Sample Plans” (current edition and addenda) All required reports, documents, calculations, etc. which are necessary for the project’s design and/or approval shall conform to the standard format of the NJDOT’s “Federal Aid Handbook” Procedures for Federal Aid (federal aid projects only) to Counties and Municipalities, and the “NJDOT Procedures Manual”, as may be applicable. The consultant shall follow all applicable FHWA/NJDOT/ Page 9

SAMPLE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE CONTRACT TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE requirements for construction inspection/management/administration. DELIVERABLES: The New Jersey Licensed Engineer is responsible for submitting all deliverable work products on or before the construction project close-out date. As appropriate for the type of work ordered, the deliverables shall include all of the following or such other items as may be directed in the RFP: a. Change Orders and related explanations & documents. b. NJDOT required documents. c. Punchlist Work, Punchlist completion and Project Completion Certification. d. Original Pre-construction DVD movie of entire existing conditions for the work area and the immediate area along the sides of the project work area. e. All project related notes and documents, including as-built plans f. Red Line As-Built drawings, and similar documents. Page 10

APPENDIX C CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORMS & GUIDES Procedure for Administration and Inspection of Federal Aid Highway Projects

Appendix C-1— Design Proposal Evaluation Guide & Form Introduction These guidelines are provided to assist you in the evaluation of proposals received in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP). As amember of the Evaluation Committee, you represent the Township of West Orange and your reviews of the proposals must be conducted individually and professionally. Evaluation Committee members must follow the established evaluation format and be able to evaluate all proposals objectively and without bias. One of the most important elements in the evaluation process is the assurance that each Offeror is treated fairly and equally. Evaluation Guidelines The proposals will be evaluated in two stages. First, the submitted proposals are reviewed for responsiveness to determine if they are in compliance with the RFP submission requirements. The proposals will then be scored based upon the criteria presented on the RFP Evaluation Formwhich MUST be consistent the requirements of the RFP. Each proposal must be scored by multiplying the rating you determine it deserves by the weighted value of the RFP criterion on the Proposal Evaluation Form. Pricing The pricing is not included in this evaluation and will be negotiated once the highest scored proposal is determined. Rating TEN (10) BEING EXCELLENT AND ZERO (0) BEING UNSATISFACTORY. You should give considerable thought to the rating you award. The evaluation process is designed to value the judgment and assessment of each individual evaluator. As an evaluator, your scores must reflect your individual judgment based on the selection criteria. You must complete your evaluation and score each proposal prior to attending the Evaluation Committee meeting. Discussion among the evaluators is encouraged to ensure the best value for the Township is achieved. The scores will then be tabulated. The highest scoring offeror(s) may be required to be interviewed by the Evaluation Committee. The interview/presentation is the second stage of the process. It is not mandatory; however, it is a good tool for the Evaluation Committee to use in its evaluation. It provides an opportunity to meet the key personnel. It is subjective and is 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

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 thanadequate response - Meets 60-70% of Criteria Frequent (40% or >) 45 Adequate response, no specialinsights - Meets 40-50% of Criteria Occasional (20%) 23 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 1.0 i jemonstration of understanding of the scope of work for the a0 _ 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 om min competence with similar federally funded projects ° 5. Qualifications and relevant experience of the project manager atu cas 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 per ean 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:

sor oor (XVI) HOTS TVLOL ee ee | __ansansaw to aowarwaanca 0s SrT or (ALIS LOALOUd OL ALINIXOUd) NOLLVIOT | ‘001 s-1 - 07 SLOSLOUd UVTINIS HLIM SONATA Xa i oe ped (Z|: YADVNVIN.L9af0wd AHLL sO AONATIZAaXA az 7 SL €-T 4 LOdLOUd AHL AO ONIGNV.LSYAGNN SLNIOd IWLOL eaten Ps i LHSTAM VRGLRID *MaMAIATY AVAL LNVLTASNOD *INVN LOaroudd LaaHS DNILVA TVSOdOUd UO LSANOAA G“aAIHS ¥ ACIND ONILWA TwSOdOudd ID/Wd Oo XIGNaddv

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

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 ‘) 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 Served as an Inspector on similar projects with Local Government and/or Counties Served as an Inspector on projects different than this RFP Served as an Inspector on similar projects for more than 5 years Possesses relevant technical skills 1 1 1 (1 if yes, 0 if no)

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