PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. The contract will be awarded to the best proposer as determined by the District. It is appropriate to emphasize that the lowest proposer may not be the best. The District recognizes the complicated nature of delivering safe, reliable, efficient school transportation. In accordance with Section 156.12 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, in order to adequately measure the capabilities of the proposer, the District will evaluate and score each proposal in accordance with the criteria presented below. The maximum point allowance for each category is indicated. Total possible points are 100. A successful proposer must receive a minimum threshold score of at least 60 points. If no proposer receives at least this minimum score, then the District may, in its discretion, not award a contract as a result of this Request for Proposals. Category Points
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. A. Administrative Ability - 12 points The applicant demonstrates evidence of administrative capacity to meet federal, state, and county administrative requirements. Applicant demonstrates an ability to provide timely and accurate monthly client and financial reports. Applicant demonstrates an ability to be responsive to crisis situations, including, but not limited to, variations in client referral volume and serving exceptional cases. In scoring proposals, for agencies currently under contract with DHHS, reviewers will consider the on time and accuracy rate of applicant in prior year’s required submissions. For new applicants, reviewers will consider the on time and accuracy rate of applicant as described by the person providing the required Performance Assessment report (item 18c or 18c-2). Additionally, in scoring proposals for Administrative ability, reviewers will consider the accuracy and completeness of the proposal. Inaccurate or incomplete proposals will receive reduced scores. For new applicants (existing agencies without current or recent-within last two years-DHHS contracting experience), the provided Performance Assessment for New Applicant Agency report must attest to the applicant’s level of timeliness and accuracy of required submissions. This letter must be completed by an authorized representative of a prior fundor. For new agencies without an agency contracting history of any kind, the Performance Assessment for New Applicant Leadership report is subject to the same requirements as above, but will be for the head of the organization and senior fiscal and program staff. This document may be completed either by a prior fundor or by prior employer. Performance Assessment reports for agencies with non-DHHS contracting history and for new applicants without any agency contracting history must use Item 18c or 18c-2. The applicant shall describe its history, if any, as well as proposed strategy for handling crisis situations, as defined above, using specific examples. For full points, applicant must have an existing system in place that addresses crisis situations. For applicants without previous experience handling crisis situations, proposal will be scored based on the quality of proposed strategy. Examples of strategies to respond to crisis situations can include, but are not limited to: referral networks, flexible staffing arrangements-such as contingency workers, on call staff, or “pool” workers, and other strategies to expand or reduce ph...
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. The City will review and evaluate all proposals after deemed responsive. To receive proper consideration, the proposal must meet the requirements of this RFP. The evaluation process will provide credit only for those capabilities and advantages that are clearly stated in the written proposal(s). In other words, advantages that are not stated will not be considered in the evaluation process.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. A. It is the County’s intent to select the most responsive and responsible Respondent that offers the County the greatest value based on an analysis involving several criteria, including but not necessarily limited to the following:
1. Commission Rates: Detailed description of the commission that will be offered to the Santa Xxxx Sheriff’s Office. Commission to cover all items sold. Break out different items if Commission varies. 25
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. As a general rule, the level of innovation and novelty, the quality of the proposed experiment and of the executing team will play a major role in the selection process. All proposals will be ranked based on general criteria: • Excellence • Impact • Implementation Those general criteria are further elaborated in Table 1. Excellence Impact Implementation Criteria Technical and Innovation Merit Contribution to the creation of a SoftFIRE-based Ecosystem Business Impact and considerations Practical Feasibility on SoftFIRE testbeds Technical Soundness Weight 0,35 0,15 0,20 0,30 P r o p e r t i e s Relevance of the proposal for SoftFire federated testbeds Potential to increase knowledge at the European level and differentiate the proposition Desirability/need of the proposed service/function and market perspective Implementability on the SoftFIRE infrastructure Clarity and quality of the proposal Appropriateness of technical and methodological approach (interoperability, programmability and security) Clarity and Quality of the Technological benefits for an European Ecosystem Alignement of the Project with respect to SoftFIRE constraints Quality of the proposing group Originality and innovative value of the proposed features/tests and their relation to the status of the art Contribution to standards or open interfaces Quality of the workplan Potential of exploitaiton/inclusio n in SoftFire of [proposed functionalities and features (including legal/admin aspects)] Quality of the team The proposals submitted by parties who have not yet been or are not participating in FIRE- projects or Open Calls from FIRE-projects will receive an extra “1” point on top of the criteria “Contribution to the creation of a SoftFIRE- based Ecosystem”. This measure is introduced to positively discriminate such new players and open the SoftFIRE federated testbed to a wider community. Based on the received scores, proposals will be ranked and shortlisted. Shortlisted proposals will be invited to negotiate the final terms of the agreement, including the workplan, budget and relevant results/achievements.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. (a) Quality and cost-based selection criteria will be applied for evaluation of proposals and selection of the Consultant for the Services. This will be based on the respective corporate and personnel capability and experience, the quality of the technical proposals and the corresponding cost of the Services to be provided.
(b) The proposals for the Services will be ranked using a combined technical/financial score, as indicated below.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. A committee will evaluate proposals against the following weighted criteria. Each area of the evaluation criteria must be addressed in detail in proposal. All proposals in response to this RFP will be evaluated in a manner consistent with the Utah Procurement Code, rules, policies and the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. WEIGHT EVALUATION CRITERIA 40 % Revenue sharing proposal 25 % Demonstrated ability to meet the scope of work and proposed solution 25 % Demonstrated technical capability 5 % Qualification and expertise of staff proposed for this project. 5 % References Understandability and comprehensiveness of information supplied in this RFP will affect the evaluation of the above criteria.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. A committee will evaluate proposals against the weighted criteria provided on the RFP Evaluation Score Sheet. Each area of the evaluation criteria must be addressed in detail in proposal. See RFP Evaluation Score Sheet. Understandability and comprehensiveness of information supplied in this RFP will affect the evaluation of the above criteria.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. IFAD will conduct a fair and transparent process to select successful organizations. Below is the scoring that will be used to rank the proposals:
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. Minimum Requirements
1. Demonstrate complete conformance with all submission requirements as previously stated in the RFP.
2. If the building proposed to house the classrooms/offices is determined historically significant, then the proposal must show the historic nature of the structure being preserved.
3. The applicant must be able to provide the Town with approximately 10,000 square feet of office space in one building and up to 20,000 – 30,000 sq. ft. of useable classroom space. The space should include the areas stated in the RFP.
4. The applicant must show the ability of the landlord to prepare the proposed space for occupancy and to provide the services required in the RFP in accordance with the accepted standards. It must be shown that the landlord has the ability and the finances to substantially complete the tenant improvements and any other building improvements required for occupancy by the Public Schools of Brookline by the desired occupancy date as represented in the RFP. The Committee will evaluate each proposal for conformance with the objectives, submission requirements, and threshold criteria outlined in this Request for Proposals. Criteria have been established for the purpose of further distinguishing competitive proposals. In addition, the criteria will be used to compare the relative advantages of each competing proposal. The following criteria must be addressed in the proposal:
1. The Town requires space located in Brookline near currently overcrowded schools. The leased office and/or classroom space should be within close proximity to the following locations: Town Hall and the Brookline Village area, including the Xxxxxx School Area. The leased classroom space should be within close proximity to the following locations: the Xxxxxxxx Corner School Area and Xxxxx School Area. Proposed leased space next to, or closer proximity to, these areas is preferred and shall be ranked accordingly.