My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-01-24_PWETCPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2017
>
2017-01-24_PWETCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2017 3:20:25 PM
Creation date
2/28/2017 3:15:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/24/2017
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
180
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
3. Detail and quality of proposed work plan, schedule, and specified products <br />4. Quality of presentation - graphics, verbal skills, time management, and <br />responses to questions, etc. <br />Value Added (10%): Scoring will be based on, but not exclusively, the following: <br />1. Services provided by the consultant that give additional value to the overall <br />proj ect. <br />2. Identify options, ideas, alternatives or suggestions that add value to the <br />Transportation and/or the Pathway Master Plan. <br />Background and Qualifications (20%): Scoring will be based on, but not exclusively, the <br />following: <br />1. Consultant qualifications - structure and organization, general background and <br />reputation, readily available resources in personnel/experience/ information <br />systems, including financial and technical resources, compliance with public <br />policy, and demonstrated competence and performance. <br />2. Personnel qualifications - education, experience, and reputation of staff members <br />assigned to the project <br />3. Experience on similar projects in regards to scale, design elements and agency <br />involvement. <br />4. Experience with the City of Roseville and other projects related to traffic studies. <br />• Past Performance Survev (10%): The average score of all respondents will be converted <br />to a score of 1-10. An average survey score of 73-80 will be given a proposal score of 10, <br />65-72 a 9, and so forth. An average survey score of 0-8 will be given a proposal score of <br />1. <br />6. The Roseville City Council will make the final decision, using recommendations by the <br />Proposal Evaluation Team. <br />B. Contract <br />1. A City professional services agreement will be executed upon selection of a consultant based <br />on the proposal and negotiations as applicable (see Attachment E for a sample agreement). <br />The contract will be based on hourly rates, overhead plus professional fee, and direct <br />expenses with a firm not to exceed total cost limit. <br />2. The agreement will include the following payment provisions: <br />"Services will be compensated on a time and materials basis up to a maximum not -to - <br />exceed cost, inclusive of fees and reimbursable expenses. Payments will be made based <br />upon monthly invoices for work performed. <br />3. Payment of interest on late payments and disputes regarding payments shall be governed by <br />the provisions of Minn. Stat. Section 471.425. <br />4. If reimbursement of expenses is included, the City will only reimburse at actual cost for out <br />of pocket expenses. Mileage will be reimbursed at the rate for City employees. <br />5. Prior to execution of a contract by the City, the successful proposer shall provide a certificate <br />of insurance acceptable to the City Attorney. <br />Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.