Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEvaluation form - Summary AllAudit firm: White Nelson Diehl Evans Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Reviewer 4 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 1 - Understanding of the work required by the City 25 25 25 20 25 2 - Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal 20 18 20 17 18 3 - Demonstrated competence and profesional qualifications necessary 10 10 10 15 10 4 - Recent experience in successfully performing similar services 10 10 10 10 10 5 - References 20 0 20 0 6 - Background and related experience of the specific individuals assigned 20 17 20 15 18 7 - Proposed approach in completing the work 15 15 15 15 15 8 - Proposed compensation 15 10 10 12 10 9 - Adherence to form 25 20 20 22 20 Total Scores - written proposals 160 125 130 146 126 Reviewer comments: Audit firm: Vavrinek, Tine, Day & Co. Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Reviewer 4 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 1 - Understanding of the work required by the City 25 25 25 20 25 2 - Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal 20 20 20 20 16 3 - Demonstrated competence and profesional qualifications necessary 10 10 10 15 10 4 - Recent experience in successfully performing similar services 10 10 10 10 10 5 - References 20 10 0 20 0 6 - Background and related experience of the specific individuals assigned 20 15 20 15 18 7 - Proposed approach in completing the work 15 15 10 15 15 8 - Proposed compensation 15 15 13 15 13 9 - Adherence to form 25 25 23 22 24 Total Scores - written proposals 160 145 131 152 131 Reviewer comments: Audit firm: Glenn Burdette Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Reviewer 4 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 1 - Understanding of the work required by the City 25 25 25 25 25 2 - Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal 20 10 18 15 10 3 - Demonstrated competence and profesional qualifications necessary 10 7 7 15 5 4 - Recent experience in successfully performing similar services 10 10 10 7 10 5 - References 20 0 0 10 0 6 - Background and related experience of the specific individuals assigned 20 18 20 15 18 7 - Proposed approach in completing the work 15 10 15 15 13 8 - Proposed compensation 15 5 7 5 7 9 - Adherence to form 25 25 24 22 24 Total Scores - written proposals 160 110 126 129 112 Reviewer comments: Audit firm: Badawi & Associates Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Reviewer 4 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 1 - Understanding of the work required by the City 25 25 25 20 25 2 - Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal 20 20 20 15 18 3 - Demonstrated competence and profesional qualifications necessary 10 10 10 15 10 4 - Recent experience in successfully performing similar services 10 10 10 10 10 5 - References 20 20 0 20 0 6 - Background and related experience of the specific individuals assigned 20 20 20 15 18 7 - Proposed approach in completing the work 15 20 15 15 15 8 - Proposed compensation 15 15 15 15 15 9 - Adherence to form 25 25 25 22 25 Total Scores - written proposals 160 165 140 147 136 Reviewer comments: Audit firm: LSL Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Reviewer 4 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 1 - Understanding of the work required by the City 25 20 25 20 25 2 - Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal 20 17 18 17 18 3 - Demonstrated competence and profesional qualifications necessary 10 10 10 15 10 4 - Recent experience in successfully performing similar services 10 10 10 10 10 5 - References 20 10 0 20 0 6 - Background and related experience of the specific individuals assigned 20 15 20 15 20 7 - Proposed approach in completing the work 15 10 15 12 15 8 - Proposed compensation 15 10 15 12 11 9 - Adherence to form 25 24 25 22 24 Total Scores - written proposals 160 126 138 143 133 Reviewer comments: Audit firm: Moss Levy Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Reviewer 4 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 1 - Understanding of the work required by the City 25 20 25 20 20 2 - Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal 20 8 18 15 5 3 - Demonstrated competence and profesional qualifications necessary 10 8 7 15 5 4 - Recent experience in successfully performing similar services 10 10 10 7 10 5 - References 20 0 10 0 6 - Background and related experience of the specific individuals assigned 20 15 18 15 15 7 - Proposed approach in completing the work 15 10 13 12 10 8 - Proposed compensation 15 8 9 12 9 9 - Adherence to form 25 20 20 25 20 Total Scores - written proposals 160 99 120 131 94 Reviewer comments: