Township Council Meeting — Packet

Work item details: Local Public Agency: TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, NJ Project Location: XXX Section XXX From XXX to XXX (XXX) Federal Project Number: XXX Project Phases Included: Project Description: Construction Engineering/Inspection Sek He ***Edit the Following as needed*** The TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE's proposed work 6. will begin XXX of XXX (Station XXX) and the XXX terminus of the project is XXX of XXX (Station XXX). The proposed highway improvement work will be in-kind within the existing right-of-way, and will consist of: The roadway will be milled and resurfaced within the project limits and width of roadway pavement. (The existing concrete curb limits will be maintained throughout.) The roadway centerline will be reprofiled to provide for an appropriate cross slope and centerline grade. Traffic signage will be replaced and added throughout the entire length of the project, as applicable. Traffic striping and markings will be placed on the new roadway pavement, as appropriate. Raised pavement markers will also be installed. Drainage structures throughout the project will be upgraded, reconstructed or replaced, as applicable. If needed, in kind replacement of existing curb. Estimated Construction Amount: $ XXX Funding: Federal Funding involved forl 00% Construction and Civil Engineering/Inspection Term of Contract: DBE goal: eR HCA ok Foe Until project completion XX.X% Required NJDOT Cost Basis Approval: Construction Engineering and Inspection RFP Requirements Page 6

(prior to negotiations) (Prime Consultant and each Sub-Consultant) Request for Proposal No. Ttem No. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION I do herby certify thatit is the intention ofmy company to affirmatively seek out and consider DBEs certified in the State of New Jersey, to participate as part of this proposal. (For listing of DBE certified firms see http:/Avww.njucp.net/ Tunderstandanda gree thata ll sub consulting in connection with this proposal, whether undertaken prior to orsubsequent to the notice to proceed, shall be in accordance with therequirements forthe Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, included elsewhere in this RFP. I understandanda gree that no subcontracting shall be approved or commenced until the Department of Transportation has reviewed and approved thea ffirmative actions taken bymy company orme. T understand thatutilization of certified DBEs is in addition to allother equal employment requirements of this RFP. Tacknowledge thatthis certification is to be madean integral part of this proposal. Tunderstandanda gree thatthe submission of a blank certification may cause the proposal to be rejected. I hereby certify that contacthas been made with the certified DBEs listed in this certification, and that, if my company becomes the CONSULTANT, the certified DBEs have tentatively agreed to perform the services listed below. I understand thatneither my company nor! will be penalized foramounts achieved over or under the amount shown for voluntary DBE utilization that exceeds the goal. After contract award, any change to the firms listed in this Affirmative Action Certification under ra ce/gender conscious must have priorapproval by NJDOT’s and NJ Division of Civil Rights and Affirmative Action (DCR/AA)- SUBCONSULTANTS DBE SUBCONSULTANTS TO BE APPLIED TOWARD GOAL (RACE/GENDER CONSCIOUS) Certified DBE Name& Address Service Planned Planned percentage to be paid to DBE DBE SUBCONSULTANTS TO BE USED BEYOND GOAL (RACE/GENDER CONSCIOUS) Certified DBE Name& Address Service Planned Planned percentage to be paid to DBE Total Percentage Credited toward DBE Goal (Race/Gender Conscious): Total Percentage of Voluntary DBE Work Anticipated over DBE Goal (Race/Gender Neutral): Name of Company: By: Date: RFP Requirements Page 6

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE FOR PERFORMANCE AND DELIVERY OF SERVICES (sample insert project specific schedule !!!) RFP Requirements Page7

APPENDIX C SAMPLE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORMS & GUIDES (DESIGN & CM/CI) 60 | P a g e

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 Form which 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 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