My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014/02/12 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2014
>
2014/02/12 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2020 11:25:24 AM
Creation date
1/9/2020 11:23:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
2/12/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
8 <br /> • Prior to meeting as a committee, individual committee members were asked to initially <br /> score the Technical and Managerial Criterion and the Qualifications and Experience <br /> Criterion based on the percentage points allocated to each. <br /> • On January 8, 2013, the Evaluation Committee met to arrive at a final scoring of <br /> proposals as follows: <br /> o Brown and Caldwell first responded to specific technical questions from committee <br /> members. <br /> o For the Technical and Managerial Proposal Criterion, committee members <br /> agreed that all proposals included Proposed Acceptable Roof Systems in compliance <br /> with project performance and technical requirements <br /> o Evaluation Committee members then discussed their initial scoring for the Technical <br /> and Managerial Proposal Criterion based on a total of 50 percentage points. <br /> Following discussion, Evaluation Committee members developed their final scoring <br /> that averaged as follows: <br /> Technical and Managerial Proposal Criterion Scorin <br /> Engineering America Shearer&Assoc. T Bailey <br /> 38 out of 50% points 47 out of 50% points 38 out of 50% points <br /> • Overall technical approach • Overall technical • Overall technical <br /> and design concept: approach and approach and design <br /> Proposed design concept design concept: concept: Proposed <br /> includes non-uniform Favorable view of steel construction, the <br /> structural elements as a the proposed heaviest of the <br /> result of column placement _ design concept of proposed roofs <br /> on existing footings. using new footings • Associated expected <br /> • Ability to meet time and standard roof service life and major <br /> requirements:Provided two- elements. maintenance <br /> season construction • Ability to meet requirements: Steel <br /> schedule as allowed in the time roof could require <br /> Contract; a single-season requirements: major maintenance <br /> construction schedule was Single-season activities such as <br /> preferred by the City as construction recoating. <br /> indicated in the RFP. schedule. • Ability to meet time <br /> • Office location:The listed • Office location: requirements:Single- <br /> office location was farther Shearer located in season construction <br /> away than the office close proximity to schedule. <br /> locations of the other two City. • Office location:T Bailey <br /> proposers. located in close <br /> proximity to City . <br /> o Evaluation Committee members then discussed their initial scoring for the <br /> Qualifications and Experience Criterion based on a total of 10 percentage <br /> points. Following discussion, Committee members concluded that allproposers <br /> demonstrated met the requirements of the Qualifications and Experience Criterion, <br /> and developed their final scoring which averaged as follows: <br /> 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.