Proposal Evaluation Clause Samples

Proposal Evaluation. Proposals will be evaluated and scored by an evaluation team using the criteria specified in RFP Supplement C – Proposal Evaluation Criteria. Compiled scores from all eligible proposals will form the basis for recommending a contract award.

Proposal Evaluation. City reserves the right to secure additional information from the Offeror in various forms and to award based on submitted information.

Proposal Evaluation. All proposals in response to this RFP will be evaluated in a manner consistent with the Utah Procurement Code, Administrative Rules, policies and the evaluation criteria in this RFP. Offerors bear sole responsibility for the items included or not included within the proposal submitted by the Offeror. Each area of the evaluation criteria must be addressed in detail in the proposal. Each product category will be awarded separately. Offeror’s may respond to one or any of the product categories.

Proposal Evaluation. A selection committee will evaluate and score, according to weighted schedule listed below, each responsive proposal as follows: A) Relevant business experience at operating an airport parking management operation and financial qualifications - 100 points B) Thoroughness of proposal to meet the requirements of the Commission - 100 points C) Proposed management fee - 300 points D) Proposed operating budget (pro forma) - 300 points • While the financial performance of the parking program is a high priority for MBS, there is also a qualitative aspect to the management of the parking program. Proposers are encouraged to submit “proposed” budgets that are realistic, achievable, and represent the most efficient way to meet the terms and conditions of the contract. The Commission will evaluate the proposed budget in the context of other comparable programs to determine the probability of the budget providing the most cost-effective quality program that the Commission expects. E) Proposed revenue (cash and credit cards) management plan and suggestions on how to increase net revenue to the Commission exclusive of parking rates - 100 points F) Materiality of exceptions noted to the sample contract - 100 points G) Total - 1000 points The top ranked proposer with whom a contract can be agreed to will be recommended to the Commission for the award of the Contract. The Commission will select a proposal that in the Commission's sole judgment deemed most advantageous for the public and the Commission and its determination shall be final.

Proposal Evaluation. A Sourcing Team will perform the evaluation of proposals. This process will take place as quickly as possible subsequent to the Closing Date as listed in the Schedule of Events above. During this time, the Procurement Manager may initiate discussions with Offerors who submit responsive or potentially responsive proposals for the purpose of clarifying aspects of the proposals. However, proposals may be accepted and evaluated without such discussion. Discussions SHALL NOT be initiated by the Offerors.

Proposal Evaluation. The PSA proposal evaluation committee will evaluate proposals received based on the criteria and point system detailed below. The following conditions apply: A. It is understood that PSA, through its management, may use all means at their collective disposal to evaluate the proposals received based on the stated criteria, and the final decision as to the best overall value, both as to price and to suitability of the products and/or services offered to fit the needs of PSA and its members, will rest solely with the Executive Director of the BVCOG or his designee. B. PSA has the right to award to multiple companies supplying comparable products or items, also known as a multiple award schedule, but reserves the right to make a single award to the highest ranked Offeror. C. By submission of a Response, Offeror indicates acceptance of the evaluation technique, and recognizes and accepts that PSA may at its sole discretion make subjective judgments during the evaluation process. D. In evaluating RFP responses, PSA has no obligation to consider information that is not provided in the Offeror's response. PSA may, however, consider additional information outside of the Offeror's response. This research may include such sources as the Offeror's website, industry publications, listed references and user interviews. E. PSA reserves the right to request and test equipment/products and related services and to seek clarification from the Offerors. Offerors must make reasonable efforts to supply test Custodial Supplies and Equipment products promptly. All Offeror products remain property of the Offeror, and PSA will return such products after the evaluation process. F. An Offeror's past performance under previously awarded contracts to schools, governmental agencies, and not-for-profit entities is relevant in evaluating an Offeror's current response. Past performance includes the Offeror's record of conforming to published specifications and to standard good workmanship, as well as the Offeror's history for reasonable and cooperative behavior and for commitment to member satisfaction. Incumbency as an awarded Vendor does not, by itself, merit positive consideration for a future Contract award.

Proposal Evaluation. The following factors will be considered in the evaluation of proposals and are listed in the order of importance.

Proposal Evaluation. Should an error be discovered in the estimated quantities during the advertisement period, every effort will be made to issue an addendum correcting the discrepancy. If, in the opinion of the County Engineer an addendum cannot be issued prior to the filing of the proposals, the County reserves the right to evaluate the proposals based on the known quantities at the time the proposals are opened.

Proposal Evaluation. The Council shall approve or disapprove the application after receiving the recommendations of the Board of Public Works and the Telecommunications Commission. If the Council disapproves the application, it shall make a written record supporting its decision. The Council shall consider the following when deciding whether to approve or disapprove the application: (a) the extent to which the Applicant has substantially complied with the applicable law; (b) whether the quality of the Applicant’s service, including signal quality, response to customer complaints, billing practices and the like has been reasonable in light of the needs and interests of the communities served; (c) whether the Applicant has the financial, technical, and legal qualifications to hold a cable franchise; which qualifications require that the Applicant can be relied upon to perform as promised and in accordance with applicable law; (d) whether the application satisfies requirements established by the City under this Ordinance or in an RFP or is otherwise reasonable to meet the future cable-related needs and interests of the community, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests; (e) whether, to the extent not considered as part of this Ordinance, the Applicant will provide adequate public, educational, and governmental use capacity, facilities, or financial support thereof; (f) whether issuance of a franchise is in the public interest considering the immediate and future effect on the public Rights-of-Way and private property that would be used by the Cable System, including the extent to which installation or maintenance as planned would require replacement of property or involve disruption of property, public services, or use of the public Rights-of-Way; and the comparative superiority or inferiority of competing applications; and (g) whether the approval of the application may eliminate or reduce competition in the delivery of Cable Service in the City.