Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> PUBLIC WORKS <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: Clark Langstraat <br /> FROM: Richard HeftiJq i—DATE: January 30, 2014 <br /> RE: Everett Reservoir 6 Proposal Evaluation, Scoring and Proposer Selection <br /> CC: City Council <br /> The following summarizes the City's evaluation, scoring, and selection of a proposer for the City <br /> of Everett's Reservoir 6 Project. This summary constitutes the selection summary required <br /> under RCW 39.10.330. <br /> 1) Evaluation Committee <br /> The City assigned an Evaluation Committee to evaluate, score and rank proposals. The <br /> Evaluation Committee included City staff representing Project Management, Engineering, and <br /> Operations. Brown and Caldwell provided technical support to the Evaluation Committee. <br /> 2) Evaluation Committee Meeting Prior to Receipt of Proposals <br /> Prior to the proposal submittal date, the Evaluation Committee met on December 3, 2013, to <br /> review the proposal evaluation criteria and weighting, the process for reviewing the proposals <br /> as outlined in the RFP, and related RCW 39.10 requirements. The evaluation criteria and <br /> percentage points are included in Attachment 1. <br /> 3) Initial Proposal Evaluations and Requests for Clarifications <br /> On December 10, 2013, proposals were received from all three of the short-listed firms: <br /> Engineering America, Shearer&Assoc., and T BAILEY. The Evaluation Committee, assisted by <br /> Brown and Caldwell, conducted a preliminary review of the proposals to determine if <br /> clarification or additional information was required from proposers. <br /> On December 19, 2013, the Evaluation Committee held a teleconference to discuss initial RFP <br /> review comments. Because there were questions about all three proposals, the committee <br /> decided to issue letters requesting clarification on certain items. Letters were issued on <br /> December 23, 2013 to all three proposers. <br /> On December 30, 2013, the City received responses to the requests for clarification from each <br /> proposer. <br /> 4) Additional Proposal Evaluations and Scoring <br /> Evaluation and Scoring followed the following process: <br /> • Evaluation Committee members reviewed proposals along with responses to the <br /> requests for clarification. <br /> 24 <br />