Description of Selection Process. A. Written proposals must be received in the Finance Department, Bladen County Schools, PO Box 37, 0000 XX Xxx 000 X. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000, no later than February 24, 2023 at 12:00 p.m. Sealed proposals will be opened and reviewed at that time.
Description of Selection Process. Written proposals must be received in the Finance Department, Kannapolis City Schools, 000 Xxxxxx Xx, Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000, no later than March 8, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Sealed proposals will be opened and reviewed at that time. Proposals will be submitted in two sections. The first section will be comprised of the audit firm’s prior experience and qualifications of its personnel in performing school system audits. The Finance staff will evaluate the auditor/firm on school system experience, educational and technical qualifications. The top five firms from the first section will have their second section opened and evaluated. The firm best meeting the BOARD’s expectations for experience, audit approach, and cost requirements will be selected. Recommendations are scheduled to be made to the Board of Education at the May board meeting. The results of the evaluation will be available upon request after the May board meeting. Each original should be signed and dated by an official authorized to bind the firm in legal matters. Responses, inquiries, or correspondence relating to or in reference to the RFP, and all other reports, charts, displays, schedules, exhibits, and other documentation submitted shall become the property of the Kannapolis City Board of Education when received and shall become public record upon their delivery to the Board. Any and all costs associated with the preparation of a response to this request are the responsibility of the proposer, and are not to be passed on to the Board. Proposals will be evaluated as follows:
Description of Selection Process. PG&E designed its selection process around a partial ordering concept that incorporated the quantitative and qualitative factors in developing a ranking. This partial ordering process is described in PG&E’s Least Cost Best Fit (LCBF) filing.4 To summarize, this partial ordering process allowed PG&E to segregate all offers into a superior group (i.e., those whose metrics and scores were at least equal to other bids’ values and better in at least one category), an inferior group (i.e., those whose metrics and scores were at best equal to other bids’ values and worse in at least one category), and an indeterminate group where the metrics and scores were a mixture of better and worse values. PG&E indicated that it would use the partial ordering process to develop a ranking and select a sufficient number of offers for shortlisting that would allow it to meet its procurement target while recognizing a number of factors that might cause projects to drop off the short list. Such factors could include: • a shortlisted bidder’s failure to post the required bid deposit, • the subsequent determination by PG&E (after additional due diligence) that a project would not be viable or would face insurmountable transmission complications, • an inability to reach mutually-agreeable terms and conditions with PG&E for a PPA, and/or • a failure of a bidder to reduce an offer price in the context of more competitively- priced offers. Thus, the selection of offers would need to be sufficiently deep to allow for unforeseen project risks, future due diligence, and adequate counterparty diversity. Assessment of Fairness of Evaluation Process Design Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx concluded that PG&E’s evaluation design was rigorous and fair. It was consistent with evaluation approaches that Sedway Consulting has seen applied in 4 Report on Evaluation Criteria and Selection: 2006 Renewable Portfolio Standard Request for Offers (2006 RPS RFO), filed September 29, 2006 in response to CPUC Rulemaking 00-00-000. Sedway Consulting, Inc. other utilities’ solicitations. In evaluating the fairness of PG&E’s process, Xxxxxx Consulting employed the following principles:
