The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRFP 24-01 - Ed Dodd - Score SheetsInitial Evaluator Scoring Form RFQ #24-01, Strategic Planning Services Use a copy of this form to evaluate each individual respondent. If required, attach additional pages for comments. Respondent (Firm Name): LOCAL GOVERNMENT VISIONS Evaluation Criteria Firm Background Team Qualifications Project Approach and Philosophy References Cost Proposal Initial Evaluator's Weight Score (0 — 4) 25 3 20 L) 30 Reason / Rationale for Score (provide reference(s) / page # of Respondent's Proposal) 5 Points for this criteria will be calculated and announced at the meeting by 20 N/A the Procurement Manager after using the following formula: Lowest Proposed Amount Divided by Proposed Amount Times 20. 100 Total (sum of weighted scores) ;L bo RATING: All rating scores must be assigned only per the below table. You must provide a written explanation of why you chose each rating. Scale Weighted Score (Initial Weight times Evaluator's Score) -I is 0 Vs 0 (0%) — Non -Responsive 1 (25%) — Missing/Lacking/Insufficient Evidence Provided 2 (50%) — Partial/Basic Evidence Provided 3 (75%) — Sufficient/Adequate/Appropriate Evidence Provided 4 (100%) — Exceeds/Outstanding/High Level Evidence Provided This evaluation process shall be conducted in accordance with: Florida Statute: Title XIX PUBLIC BUSINESS, Chapter 287: PROCUREMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND SERVICEr of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties. Evaluator's Printed Name: Signature: 'l zwlv Date: G Initial Evaluator Scoring Form RFQ #24-01, Strategic Planning Services Use a copy of this form to evaluate each individual respondent. If required, attach additional pages for comments. Respondent (Firm Name): CMA ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED Evaluation Criteria Initial Evaluator's Score Reason, Rationale for Score Weighted Score (Initial Weight times Weight (0 — 4) (provide reference(s) / page # of Respondent's Proposal) Evaluator's Score) Firm Background 25 ' ",n u �`"Q ��/►� �'`y c�~' "``'k' �`� �u`► n ��` �^ �� Team Qualifications 20 LA /�`++z�� c Project Approach and d�� 5 -eC , a.` 6 `-1 O cam. L U V\C X LAA11 Philosophy 30 !moo C90 � L, e\cn� ✓ References 5 2G Points for this criteria will be calculated and announced at the meeting by Cost Proposal 20 N/A the Procurement Manager after using the following formula: Lowest Proposed Amount Divided by Proposed Amount Times 20. 100 Total (sum of weighted scores) RATING: All rating scores must be assigned only per the below table. You must provide a written explanation of why you chose each rating. Scale 0 (0%) — Non -Responsive 1 (25%) — Missing/Lacking/Insufficient Evidence Provided 2 (50%) — Partial/Basic Evidence Provided 3 (75%) — Sufficient/Adequate/Appropriate Evidence Provided 4 (100%) — Exceeds/Outstanding/High Level Evidence Provided This evaluation process shall be conducted in accordance with: Florida Statute: Title XIX PUBLIC BUSINESS, Chapter 287: PROCUREMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND SERVICES of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties. Evaluator's Printed Name: �c> (� Signature: / • Date: I �� '` �( Z(J�•p Initial Evaluator Scoring Form RFQ #24-01, Strategic Planning Services Use a copy of this form to evaluate each individual respondent. If required, attach additional pages for comments. Respondent (Firm Name): SAVIAK CONSULTING, LLC initial Evaluator's Reason Rationale for Score Weighted Score Evaluation Criteria Weight Score (provide reference(s) / page # of Respondent's Proposal) (Initial Weight times (0 - 4) Evaluator's Score) Firm Background 25 I -Tf� "ae Z- v v `4 u `0 �� L S C uw. 1'.. f-c rr Co^ro_^4C, rPsnc.n�.i.J� rr Team Qualifications 20 3 PO c�.�-�-�� • Gi �c� �� l'cr.2 �iyo C ¢ 4 Project Approach and Philosophy 30 References 5 Points for this criteria will be calculated and announced at the meeting by Cost Proposal 20 N/A the Procurement Manager after using the following formula: Lowest Proposed Amount Divided by Proposed Amount Times 20. 100 Total (sum of weighted scores) RATING: All rating scores must be assigned only per the below table. You must provide a written explanation of why you chose each rating. Scale 0 (0%) - Non -Responsive 1 (25%) - Missing/Lacking/Insufficient Evidence Provided 2 (50%) - Partial/Basic Evidence Provided 3 (75%) - Sufficient/Adequate/Appropriate Evidence Provided 4 (100%) - Exceeds/Outstanding/High Level Evidence Provided This evaluation process shall be conducted in accordance with: Florida Statute: Title XIX PUBLIC BUSINESS, Chapter 287: PROCUREMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND SERVICES of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties. Evaluator's Printed Name: a Signature: Date: 1 LA �`3 Initial Evaluator Scoring Form RFQ #24-01, Strategic Planning Services Use a copy of this form to evaluate each individual respondent. If required, attach additional pages for comments. Respondent (Firm Name): ANALYTICA Evaluator's Initial Reason Rationale for Score Weighted Score (Initial Weight times Evaluation Criteria Score Weight (provide reference(s) / page # of Respondent's Proposal) Evaluator's Score) ( 4) V F:0k"9..� `t a Firm Background 25 ( l c-, -ey . �1 �``+'�� 6 O p f t'h e,� l Utr t � �. t �� 4 ,( � k e..Q 'k-1 C__� 6 -or Team Qualifications 20 V'vq , � rc, ABM o o c c ov--P � � --- Project Approach and 30 y �u�� I�pc�7C wl^-i� l�c�.� P-^�1�+4s1'S r��,'re►�� ,tea Philosophy �, � � f E-}—� r-Pit CAP , 1 ST �%✓"C> v j�Q.P�.Q References 5 t_I d Points for this criteria will be calculated and announced at the meeting by Cost Proposal 20 N/A the Procurement Manager after using the following formula: , ct Lowest Proposed Amount Divided by Proposed Amount Times 20. Total (sum of weighted scores) 100 RATING: All rating scores must be assigned only per the below table. You must provide a written explanation of why you chose each rating. Scale 0 (0%) — Non -Responsive 1 (25%) — Missing/Lacking/Insufficient Evidence Provided 2 (50%) — Partial/Basic Evidence Provided 3 (75%) — Sufficient/Adequate/Appropriate Evidence Provided 4 (100%) — Exceeds/Outstanding/High Level Evidence Provided This evaluation process shall be conducted in accordance with: Florida Statute: Title XIX PUBLIC BUSINESS, Chapter 287: PROCUREMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND SERVICES of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties. Evaluator's Printed Name: -,,z, e 1 � Signature: (192 tp Date:. la-. 70