Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC IW/ORKS <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Clark Langstraat <br />FROM: Richard Hefti <br />DATE: May 15, 2014 <br />RE: Transmission Line 5 Replacement Crossing Pilchuck River, Scoring and Proposer <br />Selection <br />CC: City Council <br />The following summarizes the City's evaluation, scoring, and selection of a proposer for the City of <br />Everett's Transmission Line 5 Replacement Crossing Pi!chuck River. This summary constitutes the <br />selection summary required under RCW 39.10.330. <br />1) Evaluation Committee <br />The City assigned an Evaluation Committee.to evaluate, score and rank proposals. The Evaluation <br />Committee included City staff representing Project Management, Engineering, and Operations. URS <br />provided technical support to the Evaluation Committee. <br />The evaluation criteria and percentage points are included in Attachment 1. <br />2) Initial Proposal Evaluations and Requests for Clarifications <br />On April 15, 2014, proposals were received from Frank Coluccio Construction Company and IMCO <br />Construction. The Evaluation Committee, assisted by URS, conducted a preliminary review of the <br />proposals to determine if clarification or additional information was required from proposers. <br />On April 16, 2014, the Evaluation Committee held a teleconference to discuss initial RFP review <br />comments. Because there were questions about all the proposals, the committee decided to issue <br />letters requesting clarification on certain items. Letters were issued on April 24, 2014 to both <br />proposers. <br />By April 30, 2014, the City received responses to the requests for clarification from each proposer. <br />3) Additional Proposal Evaluations and Scoring <br />Evaluation and Scoring followed the following process: <br />• Evaluation Committee members reviewed proposals along with responses to the requests <br />for clarification. <br />• Prior to meeting as a committee, individual committee members were asked to initially score <br />the Technical and Managerial Criterion and the Qualifications and Experience Criterion based <br />on the percentage points allocated to each. <br />• On May 7, 2014, the Evaluation Committee met to arrive at a final scoring of proposals as <br />follows: <br />o URS first responded to specific technical questions from committee members. <br />o For the Technical and Managerial Proposal Criterion, committee members agreed <br />that both proposals included Proposed Acceptable Conceptual Designs in compliance <br />with project performance and technical requirements. <br />118 <br />Page I 1 <br />