157-25 Exhibit.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 >) 45 Adequate response, no specialinsights - 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 eS Possible Points Weighted | Total Criteria a : f 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 oa ni competence with similar federally funded projects ; 5. Qualifications and relevant experience of the project manager 6 ois 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 ats ein 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 00r TUOIS SAMAMATATA (XVI) AAOOS TVLOL St YOLIAdSNI/YAANIONA wr |e iz INACISAY JO FONATAAAXA os s-1 or (ALIS LOALOUd OL ALINIXOUd) NOLLVOOT oor s-1 0z SLOALOUd UV TINTS HLIM FONATdXA 08 bo 0z YAOVNVW LOafOud AHL 4O AONATAAdXA SL €-1 4 IOafOUd AHL AO ONIGNVLSUTGNN. SINIOd SINIOd SLNIOd IW.LOL IVLOL LHOIAA VIAL MIMAARE | tary | VATA IAW RIAMALATY AVAL LNVLTASNOO *GINVN LOGLoud LaaHS ONILVU TVSOdOUd AOA LSANOAA LaaHS % AdIND ONILWA TwSOdOUd ID/WO Oo XIGNdddv

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

LOCATION CRITERIA SCORE Consultant’s office located within 10 Miles from Project Site =) 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

APPENDIX D SAMPLE CONSULTANT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE RATING FORMS (CM/CI) 66 | P a g e

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% 0 COMMENTS: Evaluator(s): Title: Division: Date: Rev. 6/1/2009 Appendix D-1 Sample West Orange Design Consultant Performance Rating Form.xis

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 revision 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: Project Management (A) Score

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE Design Consultant Performance Evaluation Form Engineering Division STAFF & PERSONNEL(B: 1 2 11 COMMENTS: Knowledge of Township standards, policies, and procedures: Did Staff attempt to learn the Township standards, policies, and procedures: Initiative in identifying important design or construction issues and developing alternative solutions: Did staff make a recommendation when alternate solutions were to be developed: In proposing alternatives, was sound engineering used in original design: Were the most qualified staff used to develop plans: Was the designated staff contact person completely knowledgeable and able to discuss plans and design or construction issues: Extent Township staff was used to develop acceptable product: Extent of personnel changes during life of contract: How staff conduct itself in meetings and in the public: Responsive and thorough in making revisions: SCORE

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE Design Consultant Performance Evaluation Form Engineering Division TECHNICAL EVALUATION (C SCORE 1 Quality and adequacy of Preliminary Plans: 2 Quality and completeness of computations, calculations, and schedules: 3 Quality and completeness of responses to Township review comments 4 Quality and adequacy of Final Plans: 5 Quality and adequacy of Special Provisions and other documents: 6 Quality and completeness of sub-consultant’s work: COMMENTS: