SECTION 9.85. Evaluation

(a) Technical expert and ROW provider evaluation criteria. The department will evaluate a technical expert's or ROW provider's responsive proposal based on the following criteria, if applicable:

(1) professional qualifications;

(2) experience of the firm and the team or individuals;

(3) merits of the proposal, including unique or innovative methods for performing the work;

(4) ability to commit personnel, time, and other resources to the project (technical experts cannot be removed from association with the contract without prior consent by the department);

(5) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services to be provided, including identifying which type of work will be performed by a subprovider, if any;

(6) demonstrated understanding of applicable rules, regulations, policies, and other requirements associated with the environmental or cultural studies, analyses, or document preparation to be performed;

(7) ability to meet department scheduling requirements;

(8) past performance of the provider, specific provider staff, or subproviders on similar contracts; and

(9) reasonableness of fee.

(b) Landscape architect evaluation. The department will evaluate a landscape architect's responsive proposal based on the following criteria:

(1) experience of the project manager and project team;

(2) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services to be provided, including identifying which type of work will be performed by a subprovider, if any;

(3) references including the ability to meet deadlines over the past three years;

(4) ability to meet department scheduling requirements; and

(5) reasonableness of fee.

(c) Appraiser evaluation. An appraiser must be a department-certified appraiser. The department will evaluate a department-certified appraiser's responsive proposal based on the following criteria:

(1) experience of the individual;

(2) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services to be provided;

(3) references including the ability to meet deadlines over the past three years;

(4) ability to meet department scheduling requirements; and

(5) reasonableness of fee.

(d) Evaluation scale. The department will assign a numerical weighting value to each evaluation criterion and then score each criterion based upon a numerical scale.

(e) Evaluation matrix. The department will evaluate each responsive proposal using an individual proposal evaluation matrix.

(f) Tie scores. In the event of a tie, the managing officer will break the tie using the following method unless different criteria have been listed in the RFP.

(1) The first tie breaker, if needed, will be references/past performances.

(2) The second tie breaker, if needed, will be ability to meet department scheduling requirements.

(3) If there is still a tie, the provider will be chosen by random selection.

Source Note: The provisions of this §9.85 adopted to be effective March 21, 1999, 24 TexReg 1829; amended to be effective February 20, 2000, 25 TexReg 1146; amended to be effective January 4, 2001, 25 TexReg 13009; amended to be effective February 18, 2016, 41 TexReg 1127