New Search
andrea.g.riner a@ci.e, 03:11 PM 8/4/99 -, Proposals and Scoring <br /> To: andrea.g.riner ©ci.eugene.or.us <br /> From: Bill Hirsh <hirsh @eug4ja.Iane.edu> <br /> Subject: Proposals and Scoring <br /> Cc: sanetel,halvorsen <br /> Bcc: <br /> We received two sets of proposals. <br /> Both teams qualify for the local preference points according to our definitions. <br /> I propose that we agree to a formula such that every rater gives the teams the same points for fee. Typically, for <br /> fairly large projects, we assign the lowest fee 15 points and then discount every fee above that by 1 point for <br /> every 5% that the next fee is above the low fee (based on 10 points maximum for fee). This means that fees <br /> that are 50% or more than the low fee will receive a total of 0 points on a 10 point scale. For a 15 point scale, <br /> using the same parameters, we would look at a discounting of 1 point for every 3.3% above the low fee, <br /> In this case, the low fee, submitted by the team of WRG and TBG is $524,300 (which includes a proposed 5% <br /> donation to the project). 15 points. <br /> The fee submitted by WBGS and CMG is $688,568, which is $164,268 or 32% more than the low fee. Based on <br /> a 3.3% discounting as described above, this fee would receive 15 points less 10 points = 5 points. <br /> Ron is in agreement with this approach, although he suggested that we could alternately look at a discounting <br /> based on dollar amount increments above the low fee. For example, the points could be reduced by 1 point for <br /> every $15,000 or every $20,000 above the low fee. At $15,000 per point, the WBGS /CMG fee would be 4 <br /> points. At $20,000 per point, the WBGS /CMG fee would be 15 -8.5= 6.5 points. <br /> (Since we have two reputable and experience teams, we obviously do not have an unrealistically low fee from <br /> either team. Based on the preliminary cost estimates we received from WBGS and CMG, their current fee <br /> proposal is a bit surprising on the high side. The low fee proposal, which the team suggests could even be lower, <br /> is more in line with what I would have imagined.) <br /> What is your preference? (From the perspective of being impartial, I would suggest the structure we <br /> have used in the past, which equates to the 3.3% discounting). <br /> Printed for Bill Hirsh <hirsh @eug4ja.Iane.edu> 1 <br />