HomeMy WebLinkAboutEvaluation Score SheetProposer: CivlcPlus (Select)
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 3
(Initial Review)
(Initial Review)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
a. Quality of RFP response submitted by Proposer
1 0,35
0,25
0,45
0,40
0,45
Qualifications11. Experience and
Ia. Experience of project team dedicated to project
0.70
0,60
0,90
0.80
0,90
b.Abflfty of project team to best meet project goals
1 0.35
0,30
0,40
0.40
0,50
Ic
Ill. Understandinq of Scope of Work (40'.)
a. Project understanding
0.70
0.60
0,90
0,80
1.00
b. Approach and methods used to meet Scope of Work
1,40
1.20
1,80
1,60
1.80
c. Experience with comparable projects for similar public agencies
0.40
0.30
0,45
0,40
0.50
d. Implementation schedule
0,40
0.30
DA0
0,35
0,45
IV. Proposed Technoloqy Solution r
Ia. Quality of overall proposed technology solution
1 0,70
1 0,60
1 0.90
0,70
0,90
V. Functional Requirements (20')
a. Ability of proposed system to best meet the functional requirements as an "Out-
1,40
1,40
1,80
1.60
1,60
Of -The -Box" and/or with an "Appropriate Configured" solution
VI. Reasonableness of Pricinq r
a. Initial Project costs
0,45
0.40
0.50
0.40
0,50
b. Ongoing System + Annual Maintenance/Subscription Costs
0,45
0.45
0.50
0A0
0.50
Total Score Out of 10 Possible Points
7,30 6,40
9.00
7,85
9.10
Proposer: ClerkBase (DocAssembler)
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 3
(Initial Review)
(Infftal Review)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
a. Quality of RFP response submitted by Proposer
0.35
1 0,20
0,35
0.30
0,35
Qualifications/I. Experience and
Ia. Experience of project team dedicated to project
1 0,40
1 0,60
0,70
0,40
0.90
b.Abllity of project team to best meet project goals
0,20
0,30
0,35
0,20
0,40
1/1. Understandinq of Scope of Work r
a. Project understanding
0.50
0.60
0.80
0.60
0.80
b. Approach and methods used to meet Scope of Work
1.00
1,20
1.60
1.00
1,40
c. Experience with comparable projects for similar public agencies
0.15
0.30
0,35
0,15
0,35
d. Implementation schedule
0.15
0,30
0.40
0,15
0.15
r
a. Quality of overall proposed technology solution
I 0.50
1 0,60
1 0.70
1 0,40
0.60
V. Functional Requirements r.
a. Ability of proposed system to best meet the functional requirements as an "Out-
1,40
1.60
1.20
1,40
1.40
Of -The -Box" and/or with an "Appropriate Configured" solution
VI. Reasonableness of Pticinq r
a. Initial Project costs
0.35
0,40
0,30
0.25
0.30
b. Ongoing System + Annual Maintenance/Subscription Costs
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.25
0.30
Total Score Out of 10 Possible Points
7 1:1
5.10
6.95
Proposer. eScribe
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 3
(Initial Review)
(Initial Review)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
a. Quality of RFP response submitted by Proposer
1 0.40
0,15
0,35
0.40
0.40
QualificationsII. Experience and
a. Experience of project team dedicated to project
0,90
0,60
0,70
0,90
0,80
b.Ability of project team to best meet project goals
0,45
0,30
0,35
0,45
0,40
Ill. Understandinq of Scope of Work 0
a. Project understanding
0,60
0,50
0.70
0.70
0.80
b. Approach and methods used to meet Scope of Work
1,20
1.00
1,40
1,40
1.80
c. Experience with comparable projects for similar public agencies
0,35
0.25
0.40
0,35
0,40
d. Implementation schedule
0,30
0,25
0,30
0.35
0,25
IV. Proposed Technoloqy Solution (107.)
a. Quality of overall proposed technology solution
0.70
0,50
0,70
0,70
0.80
V. Functional Requirements r
a. Ability of proposed system to best meet the functional requirements as an "Out-
1,40
0.80
1.40
1.40
0.80
Of -The -Box" and/or with an "Appropriate Configured" solution
VI. Reasonableness of Pricinq r
a. Initial Project costs
0.35
0.25
0,30
0.25
0,35
b. Ongoing System + Annual Maintenance/Subscription Costs
0.25
0.25
0.35
0.25
0.35
Total Score Out of
10 Possible Points
6.90 4.85
6,95
7,15
7.15
Proposer: Granicus (OneMeeting + Granicus Video)
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 3
(Initial Review)
(initial Review)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
(Evaluation Committee)
a. Quality of RFP response submitted by Proposer
0.35
0.30
0,35
0,40
0.40
Qualifications11. Experience and
a. Experience of project team dedicated to project
0.90
0.60
0,90
0,90
0,90
b.Abllity of project team to best meet project goals
0,45
0,30
0.45
0,45
0,50
Ill. Understandinq of Scope of Work r.
a. Project understanding
0.70
0,50
1.00
0.80
0,80
b. Approach and methods used to meet Scope of Work
1,40
1.00
2,00
1.60
1.60
c. Experience with comparable projects for similar public agencies
0,35
0,25
0,50
0,40
0,50
d. Implementation schedule
0,35
0,25
0,40
0,40
0.30
IV. Proposed Technoloqy Solution (10')
a. Quality of overall proposed technology solutfon 1
0.90
0.60 1
0.80
0,90
0.90
V. Functional Requirements r
a. Ability of proposed system to best meet the functional requirements as an "Out-
1,40
1.60
1,40
1,60
1,60
Of -The -Box" and/or with an "Appropriate Configured" solution
VI. Reasonableness of Pricinq r.
a. Initial Project costs
0.00
0.05
0,15
0,00
0.00
b. Ongoing System + Annual Maintenance/Subscription Costs
0,00
0,05
0.15
0.00
0.00
Total Score Out
of 10 Possible Points
o
Average Score
0.38
0.78
0.39
0.80
1.56
Al
.7608,38
0
56
0.45
0.46
7.93
Average Score
0.31
0.60
0.29
0.66
1.24
0.26
0 .236
0.56
1.40
0.32
0.33
6.20
Average Score
0.34
0.78
0.39
0.66
1.36
0.35
0.29
0.68
1.16
0.30
0.29
6.60
Average Score
0.36
0.84
0.43
0.76
1.52
0.40
0.34
0.82
52
0.04
0.04
7.07
VENDOR
Civic Plus
CompBase, Inc.
eScribe Software Ltd
Granicus, LLC
$CORE
7.93
1 6,20
6,60
7,07
RANKING BASED ON AVERAGES
1st
CivicPlus
2nd
Granicus, LLC
3rd
eScribe Software Ltd
4th
CompBase, Inc.
Proposer: Granicus (OneMeeting) - Wednesday, Oct. 16 (8930 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.)
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 3
Evaluator No. 4
Evaluator No. 5
Evaluator No. 6
Evaluator No. 7
Evaluator No. 8
• • •
Software navigation functionality.
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
User input menus ease of use.
3.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
Reporting tools of the software.
3.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
Ability to export and use reports.
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
CAM011'!. , . • .
Implementation approach of the vendor.
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
Training approach of the vendor.
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
Support level provided by vendor after implementation.
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
�. LAY LAIC "mj"IF14
Creation and organization of agenda and agenda items.
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
Ability to attach corresponding documents to staff reports.
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Review workflow/routing process and tracking/audit log for staff reports.
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Ability to compile agenda packet.
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
Ability to publish agendas.
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
Ability to distribute agendas.
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
5.00
Staff report interface ease of use.
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
Ability to capture meeting actions.
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
2000
2.00
5.00
Ability to generate meeting minutes.
111
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00 2000
3.00 5.00
. ,
Ability to livestream meetings.
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
How would you rate the product's ability to meet your departmental needs?
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00 3.00
3.00 5.00
How would you rate the product's ability to being a good fit for Diamond Bar?
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
How would you rate the overall vendor demo?
3.00
4.00
3.50
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
Total Score Out of 100 Possible Points 71.00 72.00 71.50
77.00
8100
60.00
67.00
MOO
Proposer: CivicPlus (Select) -Thursday, Oct. 17 (8:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.)
Evaluator No. 1
Evaluator No. 2
Evaluator No. 3
Evaluator No. 4
Evaluator No. 5
Evaluator No. b
Evaluator No. 7
Evaluator No. 8
• • , •
13M
Software navigation functionality.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
User input menus ease of use.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
'•' A 1 jj•
Reporting tools of the software.
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Ability to export and use reports.
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
• . , . • .
Implementation approach of the vendor.
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
Training approach of the vendor.
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
Support level provided by vendor after implementation.
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
Creation and organization of agenda and agenda items.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Ability to attach corresponding documents to staff reports.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Review workflow/routing process and tracking/audit log for staff reports.
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Ability to compile agenda packet.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Ability to publish agendas.
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Ability to distribute agendas.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Staff report interface ease of use.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Ability to capture meeting actions.
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
Ability to generate meeting minutes.
5.00 5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
5.00
Ability to livestream meetings.
4.00 4.00 5.00
4.00 5.00
4.00 5.00
5.00
a•'
How would you rate the product's ability to meet your departmental needs?
5.00 5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
5.00 5.00
5.00
How would you rate the product's ability to being a good fit for Diamond Bar?
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
How would you rate the overall vendor demo?
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
Total Score Out of 100 Possible Points 94.00 99.00 MOO
90.00
84.00
97.00
90.00
94.00
Average Scores
3.75
3.75
3.38
3.63
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.50
4.00
3.63
3.88
4.13
4.00
3.50
3.50
3.63
3.63
3.50
3.38
3.69
74.06
Average Scores
4.88
4.75
4.25
4.50
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.88
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.88
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.50
4.75
4.75
4.63
92.75