Laserfiche WebLink
<br />78 <br />Page 17 <br /> <br />4. PROPOSAL EVALUATION RESULTS <br /> <br />4.1 Proposer Scoring Results <br />Proposer's evaluation scores are presented in Table 2 . Proposer Evaluation Score. Circled <br />scores represent the best scores. <br /> <br /> <br />1) Responsiveness Pass/Fail n/a P p P P <br />to the RFP <br />2) Company's @) <br />Qualifications 750 25% 551 647 661 <br />and Experience <br />3) Technical <br />Proposal for 750 25% 453 638 6 510 <br />Collection <br />Services <br />4) Cost Proposal 1,000 33.3% 802 719 @ 649 <br />5} Number and 250 8.3% 8 ~D <br />Materiality of 215 20 <br />Exceptions <br />6) Environmental 250 8.3% 40 190 e 40 <br />Enhancements <br />.. --' ,- "" -- ....... .". <br />. ....... ...."..' ., ... <br />....... "'.."._.'."'-,"". <br />TOTALp.OIt.jl'S , <br /> <br /> <br />The proposals were separately evaluated for the North District, South District, and Combined <br />Districts as prescribed in the RFP. However. with the exception of "Cost Proposal,. each <br />Proposer's respective response for the North, South, and Combined Districts was virtually <br />identical. Because of this, the scoring results (Le., Company's Qualifications and Experience, <br />Technical Proposal for Collection Services, Number and Materiality of Exceptions, and <br /> <br />SBWMA Collection Services RFP <br />Selection Committee Report: <br />Evaluation and Scoring of Proposals <br /> <br />Page 6 of 31 <br />August 21,2008 <br />