Common use of Selection Rating Procedures Clause in Contracts

Selection Rating Procedures. a. ODOT’s standard consultant selection rating form is shown below. The LPA may use a modified selection rating form that meets the requirements of 23 CFR 172 and ORC 153.65 – 153.71. b. Selection evaluations should be based on collaborative discussions of the selection committee members concerning the overall strengths and weaknesses of the teams, including the relative importance of the various selection rating factors relative to the specific requirements of the project. Numerical weights are a guide as to what is important but the selection should not be a mathematical exercise consisting of the addition of scores determined by individual team members. The selection team members should work to reach consensus in determining a single selection rating including written comments that document the reasons for the numerical scores. c. For each selection rating factor, each short listed firm shall be ranked, with the highest ranked firm receiving the maximum number of points, and lower ranked firms receiving commensurately lower scores. If firms are considered to be equally qualified, the firms may receive the same score for that selection rating factor. The rankings and scores should be based on each firm’s specific proposal and project approach, including the named project manager, staff and subconsultants. Experience on similar projects, past performance for the LPA and other agencies should be considered. The selection committee may contact other ODOT Districts and outside agencies if necessary. Any subfactors identified in the RFLoI should be weighed heavily in the differential scoring. Differential scoring should consider the relative importance of a selection factor in the success of a given project. The project manager’s role in a simple project may be less important than for a complex project, and differential scoring should reflect this, with higher differential scores assigned to projects that require a larger role for the project manager. Similar consideration should be given to all selection factors 4. XXXX’s Consultant Selection Rating Form and Selection Rating Notes Project Manager 10 See Note a. below Strength/Experience of Assigned Staff including Subconsultants 25 See Note b. below Firm's Current Workload/ Availability of Personnel 10 See Note c. below Consultant's Past Performance 30 See Note d. below Project Approach 25 See Note e. below Total 100 The following discussion addresses each selection rating factor including scoring methodology, appropriate sources of information and factors that may not be considered.

Appears in 3 contracts

Samples: Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement, Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement, Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement

AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Selection Rating Procedures. a. ODOT’s standard consultant selection rating form is shown below. The LPA may use a modified selection rating form that meets the requirements of 23 CFR 172 and ORC 153.65 – 153.71. b. Selection evaluations should be based on collaborative discussions of the selection committee members concerning the overall strengths and weaknesses of the teams, including the relative importance of the various selection rating factors relative to the specific requirements of the project. Numerical weights are a guide as to what is important but the selection should not be a mathematical exercise consisting of the addition of scores determined by individual team members. The selection team members should work to reach consensus in determining a single selection rating including written comments that document the reasons for the numerical scores. c. For each selection rating factor, each short listed firm shall be ranked, with the highest ranked firm receiving the maximum number of points, and lower ranked firms receiving commensurately lower scores. If firms are considered to be equally qualified, the firms may receive the same score for that selection rating factor. The rankings and scores should be based on each firm’s specific proposal and project approach, including the named project manager, staff and subconsultants. Experience on similar projects, past performance for the LPA and other agencies should be considered. The selection committee may contact other ODOT Districts and outside agencies if necessary. Any subfactors identified in the RFLoI should be weighed heavily in the differential scoring. Differential scoring should consider the relative importance of a selection factor in the success of a given project. The project manager’s role in a simple project may be less important than for a complex project, and differential scoring should reflect this, with higher differential scores assigned to projects that require a larger role for the project manager. Similar consideration should be given to all selection factors 4. XXXXODOT’s Consultant Selection Rating Form and Selection Rating Notes Project Manager 10 See Note a. below Strength/Experience of Assigned Staff including Subconsultants 25 See Note b. below Firm's Current Workload/ Availability of Personnel 10 See Note c. below Consultant's Past Performance 30 See Note d. below Project Approach Total 25 100 See Note e. below Total 100 The following discussion addresses each selection rating factor including scoring methodology, appropriate sources of information and factors that may not be considered.

Appears in 3 contracts

Samples: Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement, Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement, Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement

Selection Rating Procedures. a. ODOT’s standard consultant selection rating form is shown below. The LPA may use a modified selection rating form that meets the requirements of 23 CFR 172 and ORC 153.65 – 153.71. b. Selection evaluations should be based on collaborative discussions of the selection committee members concerning the overall strengths and weaknesses of the teams, including the relative importance of the various selection rating factors relative to the specific requirements of the project. Numerical weights are a guide as to what is important but the selection should not be a mathematical exercise consisting of the addition of scores determined by individual team members. The selection team members should work to reach consensus in determining a single selection rating including written comments that document the reasons for the numerical scores. c. For each selection rating factor, each short listed firm shall be ranked, with the highest ranked firm receiving the maximum number of points, and lower ranked firms receiving commensurately lower scores. If firms are considered to be equally qualified, the firms may receive the same score for that selection rating factor. The rankings and scores should be based on each firm’s specific proposal and project approach, including the named project manager, staff and subconsultants. Experience on similar projects, past performance for the LPA and other agencies should be considered. The selection committee may contact other ODOT Districts and outside agencies if necessary. Any subfactors identified in the RFLoI should be weighed heavily in the differential scoring. Differential scoring should consider the relative importance of a selection factor in the success of a given project. The project manager’s role in a simple project may be less important than for a complex project, and differential scoring should reflect this, with higher differential scores assigned to projects that require a larger role for the project manager. Similar consideration should be given to all selection factors 4. XXXXODOT’s Consultant Selection Rating Form and Selection Rating Notes Project Manager 10 See Note a. below Strength/Experience of Assigned Staff including Subconsultants 25 See Note b. below Firm's Current Workload/ Availability of Personnel 10 See Note c. below Consultant's Past Performance 30 See Note d. below Project Approach 25 See Note e. below Total 100 The following discussion addresses each selection rating factor including scoring methodology, appropriate sources of information and factors that may not be considered.

Appears in 2 contracts

Samples: Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement, Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement

AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Selection Rating Procedures. a. ODOT’s standard consultant selection rating form is shown below. The LPA may use a modified selection rating form that meets the requirements of 23 CFR 172 and ORC 153.65 – 153.71. b. Selection evaluations should be based on collaborative discussions of the selection committee members concerning the overall strengths and weaknesses of the teams, including the relative importance of the various selection rating factors relative to the specific requirements of the project. Numerical weights are a guide as to what is important but the selection should not be a mathematical exercise consisting of the addition of scores determined by individual team members. The selection team members should work to reach consensus in determining a single selection rating including written comments that document the reasons for the numerical scores. c. For each selection rating factor, each short listed firm shall be ranked, with the highest ranked firm receiving the maximum number of points, and lower ranked firms receiving commensurately lower scores. If firms are considered to be equally qualified, the firms may receive the same score for that selection rating factor. The rankings and scores should be based on each firm’s specific proposal and project approach, including the named project manager, staff and subconsultants. Experience on similar projects, past performance for the LPA and other agencies should be considered. The selection committee may contact other ODOT Districts and outside agencies if necessary. Any subfactors identified in the RFLoI should be weighed heavily in the differential scoring. Differential scoring should consider the relative importance of a selection factor in the success of a given project. The project manager’s role in a simple project may be less important than for a complex project, and differential scoring should reflect this, with higher differential scores assigned to projects that require a larger role for the project manager. Similar consideration should be given to all selection factors 4. XXXX’s Consultant Selection Rating Form and Selection Rating Notes Project Manager 10 See Note a. below Strength/Experience of Assigned Staff including Subconsultants 25 See Note b. below Firm's Current Workload/ Availability of Personnel 10 See Note c. below Consultant's Past Performance 30 See Note d. below Project Approach 25 See Note e. below Total 100 The following discussion addresses each selection rating factor including scoring methodology, appropriate sources of information and factors that may not be considered.

Appears in 1 contract

Samples: Lpa Federal Odot Let Project Agreement

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!