Proponent s Name: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR WOOD AND ORGANIC WASTE REDUCTION. Evaluation Date: Evaluator: Step 1: YES NO

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Proponent s Name: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR WOOD AND ORGANIC WASTE REDUCTION. Evaluation Date: Evaluator: Step 1: YES NO"

Erick Bell
6 years ago
Views:

1 EVALUATION MATRIX Proponent s Name: Project Title: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR WOOD AND ORGANIC WASTE REDUCTION Evaluation Date: Evaluator: Criteria Step 1: YES NO Mandatories Proposal received prior to closing Provision of Staff Resumes Provision of Equipment List Provision of Sub-Contractors List Provision of References Sufficient number of proposal copies Acknowledgement of Addenda Step 2: TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS (40%) PROPOSAL (30%) Step 3: COST Max Qualifications of firm 5 Experience of firm 5 Past performance 10 Resources 20 Methodology 20 Scheduling 5 Innovation 5 Max PRICE (30%) TOTAL (100%) for Price = (lowest cost proposal divided by proposal being evaluated) x (30% weight) 30 EVALUATION MATRIX 1. Requests for Proposals (RFPs) will be reviewed by the Evaluation Team. 2. Each Evaluation Team member will complete the following RFP Evaluation Form for each proposal. 3. Upon completion, the Evaluation Team shall determine, by consensus, the score for each proposal and shall forward these scores to the Individual Corporate Board for consideration and award.

2 EVALUATION CRITERIA QUALIFICATIONS: (40%) (i) Qualifications of Company and Team Members Is the company and team members specialized and qualified in the nature of the work? (ii) Experience of Company and Team Members Has the Company conducted similar works during the last three (3) years? Do the proposed team members have experience with similar contracts? (iii) Past Performance Is the Company s record of past performance sound? Do reference checks reveal weaknesses? Was abnormal level of monitoring required? Does the Company consistently complete tasks on time and within specifications? (iv) Resources Does the Company have ample resources (e.g. staff, equipment, etc.) to apply to this contract? Has the Company provided financial statements including an auditor s report or a review report of a public accounting firm providing evidence that the Proponents financial strength and stability can support the anticipated project financing and long-term contractual commitments? PROPOSAL: (30%) (i) Methodology Do the proposal s, scope, work plan, equipment and prediction of results comply with the project requirements? Are the methodology and work plan clear and in sufficient detail to cover all necessary aspects? Does the proposal reflect the required understanding of the project? Is each task clearly outlined and in logical sequence? (ii) Scheduling Does the proposal indicate that the achievement of service objectives will be met according to an acceptable schedule? Is the Scheduling adequate to sustain acceptable stockpile volumes and product quality? Are alternatives or problems accounted for? (iii) Innovation Do proposed innovations reflect a unique grasp of conditions and a realistic appraisal of the tasks required to produce the desired results? PRICE: (30%) (i) Calculation (lowest cost proposal divided by proposal being evaluated) x (30% weight) 2

3 PROPOSAL FORM TECHNICAL PROPOSAL GENERAL As per Proposal Instructions, Proponents shall provide a typewritten itemized response to all the requested information for the work on which a Proposal and price are being submitted. The requested information is based on the requirements for service set out in the proposal document. When responding to the proposal, proponents are requested to review the Evaluation Matrix and Evaluation Criteria and ensure that all requested information is supplied and thoroughly detailed and addresses all listed requirements. SPECIFIC Supplemental to the basic Evaluation Criteria please provide specific answers to the questions listed below: 1) Are there contaminant tolerances and if so, what are they? 2) Please provide your process capability for minimum and maximum dimensions (length and width) for chip sizing. (Detail in Table B) 3) As per PI 3.12 do you have an alternate Performance Security proposal? 4) As per PI 4.8 do you have an alternate Price Adjustment proposal? 5) Please describe the dust suppression system. 6) Please describe the metals removal system and a percent per m 3 residual ferrous metal remaining as per OS 4.5. Please include variations in metals removal percent based on chip size. 7) Please describe the method of on-site transportation and of loading for off-site transport and indicate if there is: - an additional cost to load materials for off-site transport; - a cost for loading materials off-site for a period after the chipping event. 8) Please provide details regarding the provision of adequate water at each site for fire and dust suppression. 9) Please provide specifications for machinery and describe grinding process. 3

4 COST PROPOSAL Table A) Please indicate the price per m3. Proposal #1 is the cost per m3 for award of a single Corporation If cost is variable dependent upon number or combinations of sites acquired, please note variations (if any) by indicating costs in each proposal column for example: a) if proponent is successful on all sites indicate cost per site in all rows of Column #2. b) if proponent can offer a cost reduction if awarded 2 or more Corporations indicate price in another Column, the unit cost in Proposal #1 will be the maximum cost per corporation. Table B) Please indicate the chip dimensions available and the additional cost if any to the basic price per m3. The Corporation may evaluate the cost proposal based upon chip size and suitability to end use e.g. Biosolids Compost (BC), Yard Waste Compost (YC) Animal Bedding (AB) and Co-generation (CG). Table A) Landfill Site(s) Estimated Annual Volume m3 Proposal #1 INDIVIDUAL Proposal #2 Proposal #3 Proposal #4 Proposal #5 RDOS *68,500 Summerland *18,500 Osoyoos *12,000 Princeton *12,000 Table B) NOTE: The above quantities are estimates only. The quantities reported above are only for evaluating proposals on a uniform basis, the Corporations in no way guarantee quantities of material actually received at the landfills Chip Size W x L Cost Adjustment Recommended Use 4

5 Table C) Equipment Description Equipment Force Account Rates Model / Year Hourly Rate 5

Request For Proposals Information Technology Services IT Health Check

Request For Proposals Information Technology Services IT Health Check 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Fort St. John is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada and is located in the Peace River Region