Laserfiche WebLink
IX. Minimum Evaluation Criteria <br /> • Each proposer shall indicate his/her agreement with each of the following <br /> questions as part of the required "Summary Statement." <br /> • To merit further consideration of a proposal by the Town, proposer must <br /> indicate "yes" and comply, where appropriate, with each statement below. <br /> 1. Has the Proposer conformed in all material <br /> respects to the submission requirements as set <br /> forth in the RFP? YES NO <br /> 2. Is the Proposer familiar with the <br /> Construction/renovation of Senior Centers? YES NO <br /> 3. Does the Proposer meet all minimum <br /> Qualifications as set forth in Section V <br /> Of the RFP? YES NO <br /> • After evaluating the minimum criteria, remaining proposals shall be evaluated by the <br /> Committee based solely on the comparative evaluation criteria specified below. In <br /> analyzing responses to the evaluative criteria, the Committee shall consider the <br /> qualifications of proposers and made any investigations deemed relevant to the <br /> selection process. Attributes of services proposed, investigations into qualifications <br /> of the project team, prior relevant experience, past performance, financial stability, <br /> ability to meet project time schedules and responsibility of the proposer may also be <br /> considered. The Town will confirm claims of past experience and may request that ' <br /> finalists attend an interview to further explain or clarify their summary statement of <br /> qualifications or other elements of their proposals. <br /> Proposals will be rated on criteria as follows: <br /> • Highly Advantageous Proposal excels on specified criteria. <br /> • Advantageous Proposal fully meets the evaluation <br /> Standard which has been specified. <br /> • Not Advantageous Proposal does not fully meet the evaluation <br /> Standard, is incomplete or unclear, or both. <br /> • Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the specified criteria. <br />