[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-244704-105":53,"doc-detail-244704-en":119},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":112,"head_meta":114,"extra_data":116,"updated_unix":118},105,"en","appendix-h-criteria-for-evaluation-rfp-evaluationscoring-guidelines","Appendix H - Criteria for Evaluation - RFP Evaluation/Scoring Guidelines","","Appendix H provides structured criteria and scoring guidance for evaluating proposals under a request for proposals (RFP) process. It defines Phase 1 scoring categories and point ranges for responses labeled Superior, Good Response, Fair Response, and Failed Response, including conditions for presentation invitations. It also outlines Phase 2 selection workflow, including formation of an Augusta, Georgia scoring matrix, proposal review and cumulative scoring, price separation and confidentiality rules, and an evaluation form template with yes/no compliance checks focused on submittal quality and required elements.",{"@graph":63,"@context":111},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/appendix-h-criteria-for-evaluation-rfp-evaluationscoring-guidelines/244704/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/appendix-h-criteria-for-evaluation-rfp-evaluationscoring-guidelines/244704.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Graffin","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-09-12",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What items must pass in Phase I for continued consideration?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Submittal and quality must pass items A through I, including the project description and feasibility, schedule, financing plan, business case with direct/indirect benefits, anticipated public support or opposition, qualifications and experience, and contact information, plus any additional required information.","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":113,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":115,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":117,"site_id":56},244704,1789960617,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":120},{"doc_id":117,"user_id":121,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":122,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":123,"file_id":124,"file_url":125,"file_type":126,"file_size":127,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":47,"language":128,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":129,"faqs":130,"seo_title":131,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":132,"read_time":73},3573418547284,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Appendix H  \nCriteria for Evaluation  \nRequ e st fo r Propo s al s Template  \nPHASE 1  \nRFP- Evaluation/Scoring Guidelines  \nThe evaluator/evaluation committee will consider the following guidelines in awarding points to the evaluation criteria and the evaluations ofthe referenced questions.  \nSuperior: 675 – 750 Points exceptional – completely and comprehensively meets all of the requirements of the RFP; may provide additional information or cover areas not originally addressed within the RFP and/or include additional information and recommendations that would prove both valuable and beneficial to Augusta, Georgia.  \nGood Response: 600 – 674 Points clearly meets all the requirements of the RFP and demonstrates in an unambiguous and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the category or categories with no deficiencies noted.  \nFair Response: 525 – 599 Points minimally meets most requirements of the RFP. Respondent/Offeror(s) demonstrated some ability to comply with guidelines and requirements of the category or categories, but knowledge of the subject matter is limited.  \nFailed Response: 0 – 524 Points does not meet the requirements of the RFP. Respondent/Offeror(s) has not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the subject matter.  \nNote: Respondent/Offeror(s) receiving 600 or more points will be invited to do presentations to provide additional information if deemed necessary.  \nPHASE 2  \nSelection. After the deadline for the receipt of competing proposals, the Local Government shall reconvene the evaluation committee to review, evaluate and score the responses.  \nThe criteria to be used in the evaluation of competing proposals for a qualifying project shall be determined by the evaluation committee of Augusta, Georgia prior to submitting a request for proposal for such qualifying project. The evaluation committee of the Augusta, Georgia shall establish a scoring matrix for review of responses to a request for proposal. The scoring matrix can be weighted in any fair manner to adequately assess the critical elements of a proposal, with the most likely highest weighted categories being (a) project financing and (b) qualifications and experience.  \nThere are several factors that Augusta, Georgia may use when evaluating and selecting an unsolicited proposal, including, but not limited to, the following:  \n(1) Project Financing  \n(2) Qualifications and Experience  \n(3) Project Characteristics  \n(4) Project Benefit and Compatibility  \n(5) Other Factors  \n(6) References  \nSelection.  \nThe evaluation committee and advisor, in consultation and upon the recommendation of the head of the using agency, shall select from among the offerors no less than three (3) offerors (the \"short-listed offerors\") deemed tobe the most responsible and responsive; provided, however, that if three (3) or less offerors respond to the solicitation, this requirement will not apply. The selection of the short-listed offerors shall be made in order of preference. From the date proposals are received by Procurement Director through the date the contract is awarded, no offeror may make substitutions, deletions, additions or other changes in the configuration or structure of the offeror's teams or members of offeror's teams prior to award. The selection criteria shall include, but not be limited to, those contained in Senate Bill 59-Partnership for Public Facilities and Infrastructure Act  \nPrice information shall be separated from the proposal in a sealed envelope and opened only after the proposals have been reviewed and ranked. The names of the respondents will be identified at the proposal opening; however, no proposal will be handled to permit disclosure of the detailed contents ofthe responses until after award of contract. A record of all responses shall be prepared and maintained for the files and audit purposes.  \nCumulative Scores will include the total from Phase 1 and Phase 2. It is the intent of the Owner to conduct a fair and compr","cbCaivyRts3XFr1B","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivyRts3XFr1B","pdf",390097,"English","# Criteria for Evaluation\n## RFP Evaluation/Scoring Guidelines\n## Phase 2 Selection\n## Sample Evaluation Form\n## Advisory Committee Review\n## Phase I Review","[{\"question\":\"What items must pass in Phase I for continued consideration?\",\"answer\":\"Submittal and quality must pass items A through I, including the project description and feasibility, schedule, financing plan, business case with direct/indirect benefits, anticipated public support or opposition, qualifications and experience, and contact information, plus any additional required information.\"}]","Appendix H - Criteria for Evaluation - RFP Evaluation/Scoring Guidelines | PDF",1789220961]