The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRFP 24-01 - Karen Miller - 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 Initial Evaluator's Reason / Rationale for Score Evaluation Criteria Weight Score (provide reference(s) / page # of Respondent's Proposal) Firm Background 25 Team Qualifications 20 Project Approach and 30 Philosophy References 5 Cost Proposal 20 4 Varied public administration experience. Notes they were created for this sole purpose. 4 Varied City experience. Weighted Score (Initial Weight times Evaluator's Score) 100 80 .e 17.5 2 .5 r. J .5 RATING: All rating scores must be assigned only per the below table. You must provide a written explanation of why you chose each rating. N7 Scale f212i In Focus on spheres of influence, where the City is not in direct control, however 3 has impacts on our function and planning. Does not go into the time line or specific deliverables. Instead is a broad philosophy. Provided minimum required Form D. No reference letters or additional 3.55 information about each project was included. T Points for this criteria will be calculated and announced at the meeting by 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) 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: `_ L (��s�l Signature: 69,� � � E� ` (� l v� Date: 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 Evaluator's Weighted Score Evaluation Criteria Initial Score Reason Rationale for Score (initial Weight times Weight S0 _ 4) (provide reference(s) ! page # of Respondent's Proposal) Evaluator's Score) Firm Background 25 3.5 Does not seem to be a jointed team, but rather three consultants working together on a project. Unclear if their previous listed work includes collaboration. 87.5 Asking for cyber liability insurance exception. Included strategic planning Team Qualifications 20 3.5 certifications. Varied governmental and regulatory agency knowledge. 70 Education focused on public policy. Project Approach and Focused on SMART goals and SWOT analysis and includes all levels of staff 30 4 and constituents. Plan review allows correlation to all master plans and comp Philosophy 120 plans. Retreat allows for focused and creative work on strategic planning. Provided minimum required Form D. No reference letters or additional References 5 3.5 information about each project was included. 17.5 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: 19. 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 N� f2121 �23 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 SERVICESS of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties. Evaluator's Printed Name: ,+ `� �� Signature: C✓��s�W[. (�/� Date: 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 (Firms Name): CMA ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED Initial Evaluator's Evaluation Criteria Reason / Rationale for Score Weighted Score weight (SSco 4) (provide reference(s)1 page # of Respondent's Proposal) (Initial Weight times Evaluator's Score) Firm Background 25 4 Has additional services from just consulting (training and advisory, etc.) 100 Has a team with specific field experience assigned to each department Team Qualifications 20 4 Shows a focus on planning and economic development. Varied government 80 and private sector experience. Project Approach and Project approach is unclear. From the provided schedule of 7 months it Philosophy 30 3 seems to fall within the Tier Two Planning outlined. The Tier Three type 90 planning seems more beneficial to the City, but takes more time, and cost. No reference letters were provided but brief details of recent projects were References 5 3.5 included. Gave insight to the varied expertise of the team. 17.5 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: 9' Lowest Proposed Amount Divided by Proposed Amount Times 20. C° 100 Total (sure of weighted scores) 2 .5 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 i2Pi 12--'? 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: 4�Mr►1.11 / - lw1 signature: J % o� Date: 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 Initial Evaluator's Evaluation Criteria Weight Score (0 -4) Firm Background 25 4 Team Qualifications Project Approach and Philosophy References Cost Proposal 20 3.5 20 N/A Reason / Rationale for Score (provide reference(s) / page # of Respondent's Proposal) Has provided services to many municipalities, specifically many in Florida within the last 5 years The team is one individual. This may be helpful as ideas will not get lost in translation through a team. However, lacks varying views and opinions. Ph.D. in process facilitation Great level of staff, public and council engagement. Iterative process allows for adaptation and change. SMART goals and SWOT analysis in order to determine Objective/Goal-Strategy-Objective. Many contacts provided as references. Many of them they included multiple or many years, which shows a good sign of relationship with the City or County. No specific reference letters were included. Staff would need to contact them. Points for this criteria will be calculated and announced at the meeting by the Procurement Manager after using the following formula: Lowest Proposed Amount Divided by Proposed Amount Times 20. Weighted Score (Initial Weight times Evaluator's Score) 100 70 100 17.5 ,17.� 100 Total (sum of weighted scores) � 5 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: I \yL `� ( I, ,"� f I t Signature: CJj Date: