Laserfiche WebLink
r ,, . <br />Page Two <br /> <br />• <br />Exhibit B shows the same items as Exhibit A for the category <br />"Experience of Firm." <br />Exhibit C shows the same items as Exhibit A for the category <br />"Methodology." <br />Exhibit D summarizes the "Final Ratings" from the other exhibits, <br />totals them and ranks the thirteen (13) firms based on the total of <br />the "Final Ratings." <br />The ratings by the individuals which result in the ultimate "Total <br />Ratings" are based on guidelines on pages A-6, A-7 and A-8 of the <br />procedure previously adopted. <br />The committee has not interviewed any of the firms who submitted <br />proposals nor have they contacted any references. It is the <br />feeling of the committee that it would be a waste of time to <br />interview more than the top ranked (3 - 5) firms. Due to the <br />caliber of these firms the committee feels no need to check <br />references. <br />Based on these evaluations, the committee submits the following <br />summary and recommendations: <br />A. The five (5) highest ranked firms (in order of ranking) <br />are as follows: <br />1. Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation <br />2. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. <br />3. CRSS Sirrine <br />~. Turner, Collie & Braden <br />5. Black & Veatch <br />B. That Black & Veatch not be considered further because they <br />propose to provide these services from their Austin, Texas <br />office. <br />C. That the other four (4) top ranked firms be interviewed by <br />the LPAWA Board or a committee appointed by that Board. <br />D. That a committee of not more than three (3) members of the <br />La Porte City Council be invited as observers at these <br />interviews. <br />E. That a final report from the committee (or the Board), <br />with a final preference ranking, be the basis for <br />initialing a firm contract proposal from the highest <br />ranked firm. <br />