(a) Technical expert and ROW provider evaluation criteria.
The department will evaluate a technical expert's or ROW provider's
responsive proposal based on the following criteria, if applicable:
(1) professional qualifications;
(2) experience of the firm and the team or individuals;
(3) merits of the proposal, including unique or innovative
methods for performing the work;
(4) ability to commit personnel, time, and other resources
to the project (technical experts cannot be removed from association
with the contract without prior consent by the department);
(5) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services
to be provided, including identifying which type of work will be performed
by a subprovider, if any;
(6) demonstrated understanding of applicable rules,
regulations, policies, and other requirements associated with the
environmental or cultural studies, analyses, or document preparation
to be performed;
(7) ability to meet department scheduling requirements;
(8) past performance of the provider, specific provider
staff, or subproviders on similar contracts; and
(9) reasonableness of fee.
(b) Landscape architect evaluation. The department
will evaluate a landscape architect's responsive proposal based on
the following criteria:
(1) experience of the project manager and project team;
(2) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services
to be provided, including identifying which type of work will be performed
by a subprovider, if any;
(3) references including the ability to meet deadlines
over the past three years;
(4) ability to meet department scheduling requirements;
and
(5) reasonableness of fee.
(c) Appraiser evaluation. An appraiser must be a department-certified
appraiser. The department will evaluate a department-certified appraiser's
responsive proposal based on the following criteria:
(1) experience of the individual;
(2) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services
to be provided;
(3) references including the ability to meet deadlines
over the past three years;
(4) ability to meet department scheduling requirements;
and
(5) reasonableness of fee.
(d) Evaluation scale. The department will assign a
numerical weighting value to each evaluation criterion and then score
each criterion based upon a numerical scale.
(e) Evaluation matrix. The department will evaluate
each responsive proposal using an individual proposal evaluation matrix.
(f) Tie scores. In the event of a tie, the managing
officer will break the tie using the following method unless different
criteria have been listed in the RFP.
(1) The first tie breaker, if needed, will be references/past
performances.
(2) The second tie breaker, if needed, will be ability
to meet department scheduling requirements.
(3) If there is still a tie, the provider will be chosen
by random selection.
|
Source Note: The provisions of this §9.85 adopted to be effective March 21, 1999, 24 TexReg 1829; amended to be effective February 20, 2000, 25 TexReg 1146; amended to be effective January 4, 2001, 25 TexReg 13009; amended to be effective February 18, 2016, 41 TexReg 1127 |