RFP REVIEWER CRITERIA FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION

The Evaluation Committee will review and individually score each written proposal based solely on these guidelines. 

Once all proposals have been scored individually, the Committee will meet to develop consensus scores for each respondent.

The Committee will then select the top scoring proposals for an interview.

The final award will be made to the most qualified respondent following interviews and the successful negotiation of the contract for services.

Unsuccessful respondents will be notified as soon as possible.

Generally, the criteria used in the evaluation of qualifications includes:

• ·      Conformance with the terms of the RFP
• ·      Quality, completeness, and clarity of proposal and methodology
• ·      Demonstrated competence and technical expertise in the project area
• ·      Organization, management, and technical approach to the project
• ·      Demonstrated staffing capacity, expertise and availability of key personnel
• ·      Experience in performance of comparable engagements
• ·      Reasonableness of cost

RATING FACTOR

1. Quality, completeness and clarity of proposal and methodology

Overall quality, clarity, creativity and thoroughness of response and its compatibility with the RFPs stated objectives and submission requirements; Does the proposal generally reflect a good understanding of the scope of work?

2. Organization, management and technical approach to the project; Staffing capacity; Resources available

Overall experience, qualifications, accreditation and specialized knowledge of respondent team; Meets minimums as listed in full RFP

Clear description of how the work will be managed and coordinated; Assignment of a qualified Project Manager

Clear description of proposed timeline and project milestones

Respondent team’s availability and ability to commit individuals with required experience and expertise; Prime individuals and subcontractors with project until completion

Qualifications and experience of proposed sub-consultants both over time and recently

3. Demonstrated understanding of the project area and requirements; Demonstrated experience in technical expertise required to complete the project

Respondent(s) knowledge of, and demonstrated recent experience with, state/federal grants and contracts; Demonstrated fiscal and administrative compliance with federal and state regulations both over time and recently

Respondent(s) demonstrated experience with and successful completion of HSRs and CLRs for mid-19th century residential buildings and landscapes; Number and quality of samples presented

Knowledge of the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; How readily the respondents’ work has been approved by the SHPO in the past

Respondent(s) team’s overall knowledge of, and experience with, monitoring Davis-Bacon wage rate; National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Buy-American, MWBE regulations

Respondent(s) team’s overall knowledge of and demonstrated success working with state and federal historic preservation agencies; Team’s experience with properties listed on the National and/or a State Register of Historic Places

Respondent(s) team’s overall experience in developing similar studies in New York both over time and recently

4. Review of references

Results of information gathered from client reference checks; Are the reference checks supportive of the respondent(s) technical abilities and ability to work within original budgets and timelines?

5. Cost to provide the requested services and deliverables

Competitiveness of the firm’s fee structure, contingency requirements, out of pocket expenses, travel, other reimbursable, etc.; Willingness of the firm to accept the conditions and form of contract to be provided and copyright provision

Bonus/minus

Attended the walk-through of the properties

Proximity to site; NYS based firm

Intangibles (+/-)