| A | B | C | D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Municipal Networked Geothermal Franchise | |||
2 | RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET TEMPLATE | |||
3 | ||||
4 | Please note, this scoresheet is meant only as a model. It must be tailored to meet your needs and all local, state, and federal legal requirements. The proposal should be reviewed by a committee including diverse members from various stakeholder groups to select a proposal that is meritorious yet gives special consideration to equity and workforce. Also, if you have public funding involved, then MA municipal criteria chapter 30B criteria is involved, the numeric score would need to be changed to scores of highly advantageous, advantous, etc. If construction is involved in municipal buildings, then chapters 149 is involved. If construction is involved in the rights of way, then chapters 30 and 39M would be involved. | |||
5 | Company Submitting | ______________________________ | ||
6 | ||||
7 | Technical Reviewer | ______________________________ | ||
8 | ||||
9 | Required Information | YES/NO | ||
10 | Cover letter from the lead company, stating the submittal is in response to the RFP & that that company agrees to enter into a contract if selected | |||
11 | Lead company's legal name, address, website, and main contact person's phone & email address | |||
12 | Organization chart for each company on the team, with names, titles & pertinent professional licenses of all pertinent team members | |||
13 | List of the whole team’s past and present experience on pertinent municipal & other projects | |||
14 | List of similar projects (with contact names for references) the team has worked on | |||
15 | Scoring | Score Given | Max Allowed | |
16 | Qualifications & Experience | |||
17 | Evaluate up to 5 geothermal projects of similar size and scope in the public or private sector from provided contact information. Preference given to teams that have familiarity with regional geology, as well as experience with ambient-temperature community-loop piping projects. | 20 | ||
18 | Acredidation & Processes | |||
19 | Evaluate the accredidations, as well as proposed materials, testing, commissioning, safety and environmental procedures, and contingencies. Do all meet or exceed regulatory codes and RFP stated requirements? | 15 | ||
20 | Managerial & Staff Capability | |||
21 | Evaluate the capabilities and resumes of the people assigned to the project, as well as the financial stability of the lead company. | 10 | ||
22 | Proposed Design | |||
23 | Evalute the proposed design for A) ability to maximize current system efficiency through load diversity and opportunistic design taking advantage of neighboring or available wasted thermal energy sources, B) scalability and resilience to the possiblity of heating and cooling loads changing over time, C) reduction of potential for any negative environmental impacts. | 20 | ||
24 | Equity Considerations | |||
25 | Is the maintainance of the installation well thought out? Is the customer bill reasonable? | 5 | ||
26 | Professionalism of Proposal | |||
27 | Was the response to the RFP clear, concise, professionally written,well organized, and responsive? | 5 | ||
28 | Cost & Time Proposal | |||
29 | Evaluate the team's process for ensuring the project cost is within budget and completed on time. Has the company demonstrated experience in completing similar projects on time and within budget? | 5 | ||
30 | Databank | |||
31 | Is the team willing to provide to the public GeoDataBank: normalized aggregate data, including costs, and learned lessons and best practices? | 10 | ||
32 | References | |||
33 | Evaluate the references provided from previous public and private clients with projects of similar size and scope. | 5 | ||
34 | TOTAL SCORE | #REF! | ||
35 | 5 | |||
36 | 100 | |||