2012-10-04_PR_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3 proposal information reviewed by the team included project capability, risk assessment, value 34 added plans and past performance information. All firms were within the $194,500 anticpated 35 budget, although costs and firm names were not known to the evaluation team until the interview 36 time. 37 38 The best value process uses six selection criteria: 39 * Past Performance Information (PPI) 40 • Project Capability 4 1 • Identification and Mitigation of Risk 42 • Value Added 43 • Cost 44 • Interview of Key Personnel 45 The submittal evaluation process is "blind" (no bias from knowledge of consultant names by the 46 selection committee), minimizes the decision making of the selection committee, and forces the 47 consultants to show dominant and clear reasons as to why they should be hired. The process 48 connects value with price, forcing consultants to show dominant value. A rating of"10" is given 49 if the verifiable performance metrics are used to support consultant claims of capability, risk 50 mitigation, and value. To further minimize the bias of the selection committee during the 51 submittal evaluation process, the selection committee does the following: 52 1. Rates all criteria separately. 53 2. Justifies any high rating. 54 3. Does not see the price breakout and PPI until after the prioritization of the consultants. 55 4. Does not see the prioritization of consultants until after the prioritization is completed. 56 On August 28th, 2012 interviews were conducted with the project lead only from all six firms. 57 The purpose was for them to describe their proposed plan and approach to the evaluation team. 58 59 On August 31St, 2012, the highest ranked Potential Best Value Lead Consultant was identified as 6o LHB Consulting, at which time the clarification phase began. The clarification phase consisted 6 1 of understanding better; their scope, milestone schedule, financial arrangements, assessment of 62 risks and mitigation plans and value added plans of the proposal. The following list includes all 63 6 firms and their total evaluation score and base cost: 64 Firm Total Evaluation Score Base Cost 65 LHB Consulting 996.3 $172,338 66 Stantec 923.6 $16900 67 SEH 838.8 $17300 68 HGA 782.6 $193,100 69 SRF Consulting Group 740.4 $19000 WSB and Associates 706.2 $185,500 71 "72 LHB Consulting offered a strong recommendation on a well thought out Value Added Plan that "73 will help to facilitiate continued discussion with staff, community groups and other consultants 74 for an additional cost not to exceed $22,080. This proposal specifically offices the lead project "75 manager from LHB at City Hall 2 days per month throughout the contract to provide that "76 ongoing coordination. "7 8 Community input has been a very significant part of the Master Plan Update, Implementation Page 2 of 3