10-13-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

3 classifications of “poor” ranging from 0-6 points, “good” ranging from 7-13 points, and “excellent” ranging from 14-20 points. 7. Financial Capability: The Evaluation Team evaluated each Respondent’s financial capability by considering whether each Respondent team has the overall financial strength and capability to carry out the Project responsibilities potentially allocated to it as evidenced by financial statements and information contained in the Financial Officer Certificates and Surety Letter, and whether the Equity Members have funding capacity and the ability to invest equity capital in a manner that is consistent with the contemplated contractual and financial structure of the Project as evidenced by the Equity Funding Letters. Financial Capability was worth a maximum of 10 points, with classifications of “poor” ranging from 0-3 points, “good” ranging from 4-6 points, and “excellent” ranging from 7-10 points. V. Reviews and Interviews Upon receipt of the SOQs, each member of the Evaluation Team was provided a copy of each Respondent’s SOQ and given ample opportunity to review the material. Each Evaluation Team member was also provided the Evaluation Criteria. The purpose of this individual review was not for the Evaluation Team members to score each SOQ, but instead, to note the strengths and weaknesses, as well as information needing additional clarifications. The scope of the Evaluation Team’s review was limited to the information contained within the SOQs and they were specifically instructed to refrain from making any comments or references to information obtained from sources other than the SOQs. After individual reviews, the Evaluation Team met to evaluate the SOQs, with support from its Advisors and observers. This discussion began with an explanation of how the evaluation would proceed and a recap of the Evaluation Criteria. The Evaluation Team then proceeded to evaluate each SOQ, considering the Respondents in alphabetical order and considering them all within one Evaluation Criteria before moving to the next. Within each Evaluation Criteria, the Evaluation Team discussed each point of consideration and the strengths and weaknesses of each SOQ. The Evaluation Team further tried to avoid comparing the Respondent teams, but instead, assessed each team on its own qualifications. After completing the assessment of an Evaluation Criteria for each SOQ, the Evaluation Team assigned a “poor minus, poor, poor plus,” “good minus, good, good plus,” or “excellent minus, excellent, excellent plus” score based upon that team’s qualifications. The Evaluation Team compiled a list of questions or needed clarifications for the various Evaluation Criteria for each SOQ to be asked prior to, or during, the interview. The Evaluation Team followed the discussion of the SOQs with interviews of the Respondent teams and allowed the Respondent teams to bring eight (8) individuals of their choosing to the interview. General Counsel for the Authority served as the moderator for the interview, and each interview was formatted to allow the Respondent up to thirty (30) minutes to present its SOQ and to allow the Evaluation Team and Advisors up to forty-five (45) minutes to ask questions. Interviews spanned over a two (2) day period, with four (4) interviews the first day and two (2) interviews the second day. Following each day of interviews, the Evaluation Team held a debriefing session and discussed whether, based upon the information from each SOQ clarified during the interviews, any movement, either upward or downward, was warranted for a Respondent’s score for any Evaluation Criteria. During the interviews, the Authority took the opportunity to ask Respondents certain questions regarding the RFP process; responses to those questions from Respondents were not taken into consideration for evaluation purposes.