Resolution of the City of Jersey City, NJ.
CityCterk FileNo. Res- 16-623
Agenda No. _lo-z-15
Approved:^
TITLE:
RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO APPRAISAL SYSTEMS, INC.
FOR THE REVALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT
PURPOSES
COUNCIL offered and moved adoption of the
following resolution:
WHEREAS, Resolution Res. 10.286, approved on May 12,2010, authorized Jersey City to use
the Competitive Contracting Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:l 1-4.1 et seq., to award a concession contract for
the revaluation of real property for assessment purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") on June 8 2016 seeking a Vendor
that is expected to complete a revaluation of real property by December 31, 2017 in order to
comply with the order issued on April 4fli, 2016 by the acting Director of the Division of
Taxation in the New Jersey Department offlie Treasury; and
WHEREAS, the competitive contracting process is considered to be a fair and open bid process
under the New Jersey Local Unit Pay-To-Play Law, NJ.SA 19:44A-20.4 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, Jersey City publicly advertised for bids and received two proposals; and
WHEREAS, a review committee appointed by Jersey City's B-usitiess Administrator pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 5:34-4.3 reviewed the proposals and prepared a report attached hereto recommending
that the contract be awarded to Appraisal Systems Inc. for an amount of $4,395,358.00; and
WHEREAS, funding shall be available to pay for the awarded contract pursuant to City
Ordinance 16.130 that authorizes the issuance of Special Emergency Notes; and
WHEREAS, City Resolution /fc. SSS^ waives flie 20 day veto period for City Ordinance 16.130;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City
that:
1. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:11-4.1 et^eq,, a concession contract for the revaluation of real
property for assessment purposes is awarded to Appraisal Systems, Inc.
2. The concession contract is awarded at a cost of up to $4,395,358.00 for a temi of two (2) years
commencing on the date the attached contract is signed by City Officials.
3. The language of the RFP, followed by the language of the bid response provided by Appraisal
Systems, Inc. constitutes the binding language of the base contract.
4. Subject to such modifications as may be deemed necessary or appropriate by Corporation
Counsel, the Mayor or Business Admirust-ator is authorized to execute additional subordinate
agreements or amendments to the awarded contract provided that such agreements do not
materially alter what was specified in the RFP.
Continuation of Resolution
Pg.#
City Clerk File No. Res. 16.623
10.Z.15
Agenda No.
TITLE:
RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO APPRAISAL SYSTEMS, INC.
FOR THE REVALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT
PURPOSES
5. Notice of this action shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
municipality within ten (10) days of this award.
6. The resolution authorizing the award of this contract and the contract itself shall be available for
public inspection.
I _:_, Donna Mauer, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify that
fimding in the amount of $4,395,358.00 shall be available pursuant to the issuance of Special
Emergency Notes authorized by City Ordinance 16.130.
APPROVED;
APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
Business Administrator
Corporation Counsel
Certification Required i-1
Not Required U
COUNCLPERSON
AYE
APPROVED
RECORD OF COUNCIL VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE 9.14.16
AYE
AYE NAY N.V. COUNC1LPERSON •
NAY N,V. COUNCILPERSON
YUN
RIVERA
HSCEfiHAN
OSBORNE
WAHERMAN
BOGG1ANO
COLEMAN
LAVARRO, PRES.
'GAJEWSKI
N,V.
N.V.-Not Voting (Abstain)
Indicates Vote
Adopted at a meeting of the iVIunicipal Council of the City of Jersey City N.J.
Rolando R. Lavarro, Jr., President of Council
NAY
Robert Byme, City Clerk
RESOLUTION FACT SHEET - CONTRACT AWARD
This summary sheet is to be attached to the front of any resolution that is submitted for Council consideration,
Incomplete or vague fact sheets will be returned with the resolution.
Full Title of Ordinance/Resolution
RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO APPRAISAL SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE
REVALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES
Project Manager
Department/Diyision
Business Administrator
Name/Title
Phone/email
Robert Kakoleski
Business Administrator
(201)547-5147
RJJCako 1 eski@j cnj. org
Note: Project Manager must be available by phone during agenda meeting (Wednesday prior to council meeting @ 4:00 p.m.)
Contract Purpose
To provide the property revaluation services as mandated by the State of New Jersey, Division of Taxation's
revaluation order.
Contract term (include all proposed renewals)
Cost (Identify all sources and amounts)
1,395,358.00
Type of award
2 years.
Concession
If 'Other Exception", enter type
Additional Information
I ceyfily that a^ihe^Facts presented lierein are accurate.
Si^natur^^^ep^rtment Director
Date'
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE TAX ASSESSOR
DATE: August 30, 2016
TO: Rolando Lavarro, Council President
FROM: Ed Toloza, City Tax Assessor ^ /y
SUBJECT RFP Evaluation Report
Background
On April 4, 2016, the New Jersey Division of Taxation ordered to implement a complete Citywide revaluation of all properties, taxable and exempt and to be completed on November 1,2017
and new values are applied to the 2018 taxing year.
The State has cited some factors why a City-wide revaluation is necessary pursuant to Law,
NJSA 54:4-1 et s'eq., The State contends that Jersey .City properties have been assessed at a rate
much lower than the prevailing market value to achieve an equitable distribution of the tax
burden. Statistics raised range from assessment ratio to coefflcient of deviation. Assessments
ratio indicates the relationship between assessed value and the indicator of market value. The
2016 assessment ratio is at 27.63% of market value where ideally should be between 85% and
100% of market value. The coefficient of deviation which measures just how much properties
are assessed, expressed in percent, are far from the average ratio which would indication a
greater lack of uniformity in the way the tax burden if distributed especially when the current
coefficient is at 37.17%.
The City consistent with the Order desires to implement a City-wide revaluation of all real estate
properties located in the taxing District. Its overall goal is to equitably distribute the tax burden.
The last time the City had conducted a City-wide revaluation was in 1988. Through the years,
values have gone up at different paces.
The following schedule indicates the City's ratio and coefficient history;
Tax
Director's
Year
Ratio
27.63
2016
Coefficient of
Deviation
Unavailable
Number of
Sales
Unavailable
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
30.02
31.24
32.72
31.35
29.43
26.75
25.64
39.17
37.57
37.35
35.82
33.27
34.72
31.14
1,537
1,400
1,164
1,030
836
936
913
Request for Proposal
The City of Jersey City, to comply with the Order sought proposals from qualified Revaluation
firms for services as described herein.
The Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City will conduct a competitive contracting process
pursuant to the Local Public Contract Law (N.J.S.A. 40A:11-4.1 et seq.) which is considered a
"fair and open" process under the "New Jersey Local Unit Pay-to-Play" Law, N.U.S.A. 19:44A"
20.4 et seq. to receive sealed proposals from qualified and experienced Revaluation Firms for
performmg a revaluation of all real property situated within the City of Jersey City, County of
Hudson, State of New Jersey, as of October 1, 2017 and to be applied for the 2018 tax year.
The RFP was sent out and advertised on June 5, 2016 with all responses returnable on July 28,
2016. There are 9 approved revaluation firms by the State and only 2 responded to the RFP to
perform the following services;
Scope of Services
• A complete revaluation of all properties within the boundaries of the City of
Jersey City to be completed on or before October 1, 2017.
• Classify and appraise each parcel of real estate and each real property
improvement which lies within the boundaries of the City of Jersey City at its fair
market value according to N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 et seq.
• A complete catalog of valuation methodology shall be provided to the Tax
Assessor outlining the methods, guidelines and procedures utilized during the
revaluation process.
• The Firm is required to adhere to all applicable requirements of Uie Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), in particular Standard 6,
entitled "Mass Appraisal, Development & Reporting."
• Work shall be required to commence within thirty (30) days of the effective date
of awarding this contract which is subject to approval by the Division of Taxation
and appropriate funding.
Proposals
There are 9 revaluation firms that were requested to bid and only 2 firms responded with their
proposals. Bid proposals received in response to the City's RFP and the corresponding cost to
perform the City-wide revaluation are as follow;
Name of Revaluation Firm Bid Price
-Appraisal Systems, Inc
$4,395,358
-Tyler Technologies ,LLC
Option A
$5,196,800
Option B
$3,602,400
These responses were evaluated by a team whose members were appointed by the Business
Administrator, Robert Kakoleski. The following were the members of the evaluation team;
Name Title Education
Bermie Anderson Deputy Tax Assessor Certified Tax Assessor
Douglas Carlucci Mayor's Aide
Matthew O'Donnell, Esq. Tax Counsel CPA, JD
Chaunelle Robinson Asst. Corp. Counsel JD
Eduardo Toloza Tax Assessor CTA, MPA, MSM
Evaluation Process
The evaluation process consisted of the following steps:
Initial independent review of proposals
Committee meeting to discuss preliminary impressions and to address technical questions
Interviews of top two choices
Final independent review of proposals and submission of evaluation matrix
The team requested that a presentation be done by the 2 revaluation firms that submitted bid
proposals. The meeting took place at the Caucus Room on August 10, 2016. Responses were
analyzed and evaluated on the following established criteria;
Written response evaluation
For each of the written response, the team applied the criteria in evaluating the proposals and
determined tfae extent to which the requirements were fulfilled. They were scored as follow:
1. Technical Criteria - 30 Points
2. Management Criteria - 30 Points
3. Cost Criteria - 40 Points
Each criterion was weighted by the extent to which the requirements are met and the resultant
scores totaled, with 100 being the highest possible score. Each evaluator then ranked the Vendors
by total score.
Evaluation Matrix
1. Technical Criteria: (30 Pomts)
(a) Proposed metfiodology: (20 Points)
1) Demonstration of a clear understanding of the scope of work and
related objectives.
2) Completeness & responsiveness to specifications and general
requirements.
3) Documentation of past performance of vendor's proposed
methodology.
4) Use of innovative technology and techniques.
(b) Public Relations; (10 Points)
. 1) The description, nature and extent of a vendor's public relations
program pre-revaluation, ongoing and post-revaluation. Include
sample(s) of work.
2) The description, nature and extent of a vendor's informal
taxpayers' hearing process.
2. Management Criteria: (30 Points)
(b) Project Management Plan: (7 Points)
1) Scheduling time-Une.
2) Proj ect management plan of work.
3) Reassessment status report compliance.
4) Description and type of quality control and assurance programs
for the accurate collection of field data.
(c) History and experience in performing the work: (8 Points)
1) The ability to demonstrate a successful record of
accomplishment of service as evidenced by on time, on budget,
and contract compliance performance.
2) Present & past litigation, threatened litigation, and alternate
dispute resolution experience arising out of the Respondents
being contracted to perform a revaluation or re-assessment
and/or the product produced by that Respondent under that
contract.
3) The demonstrated ability of having successfully completed a
recent reassessment project(s) with similar valuation
characteristics, traits and demographics to that of the City.
(d) Availability of personnel, facilities, equipment and other resources: (15
Points)
1) The ability to demonstrate the capacity to successfully complete
the revaluation of the City in time for the filing of the 2013 tax
list.
2) The vendor's current workload.
3) The availability of existing qualified, trained & competent inhouse field personnel currently available to start the City's
Reassessment. Please attach resumes.
4) The amount of actual documented experience utilizing the
MicroSystems-NJ.com,L.L.C.'s or Vital CAMA & Imaging
software.
5) The number of Certified.Tax Assessors (CTA s) on staff.
6) The number of Certified General Real Estate Appraisers
(SCGREA) on staff.
7) The number of Certified Residential Real Estate Appraisers
(SCRREA) on staff.
8) The qualifications of staff.
9) The identity and description of each of the Vendor's
prmciples/owners/shareholders role and availability in the
reassessment of the City.
10) The support of, and utilization of Minority-Owhed, WomenOwned and or locally-Owned Business Enterprises and
Minority, Women and Local Workforce consistent with the
established federal, state and City regulations.
11) The location of Firm's facilities and its proximity to Jersey City
Hall.
3. Cost Criteria: (40 Points)
1 Cost of services to be provided to be performed: (15 Points)
a. Relative cost: How does the cost compare to
other similarly scored proposals?
b. Full explanation: Is the price and its component'
charges, fees, etc. adequately explained or
documented?
c. Cost proposal to be completed. See Appendix
A-l.
Assurances of performance: (10 Points)
a. Are the suitable bonds, warranties, or guarantees
provided?
b. The type, nature, and extent of quality control
and assurance programs.
The Vendor's financial stability and strength: (15 Points)
a. The ability of the vendor to demonstrate
sufficient financial resources to meet its
obligations.
Point Scoring
Members of the evaluation team scored the 2 responses and ranked them accordingly. Below is
the scoring summary of the members' evaluation on the responses according to the above
established criteria;
Evaluator Appraisal Systems, Inc. Tyler Technologies,
LLC
Bennie
Anderson
'90
46
Douglas Carlucci 55 15
Matthew O'Donnell, Esq. 100 0
Chaunelle Robinson 89 18
Eduardo Toloza 84 45
Totals
418
Panic
124
1
2
The bid proposal submitted by Appraisal Systems was unanimously ranked highest by the
evaluation team members. Tyler Technologies, LLC's proposal was found to be unresponsive for
it provided options inconsistent with the RFP;
1. The effective date will be for 2019 taxing year rather than 2018 tax year.
2. The use of "modem practices and technologies" is subject to the approval of the State.
In accordance with the statutes for competitive contracting (NJ.S.A40A: 11 - 4J) and on the
basis of the team's analysis and conclusion, it is recommended that a contract be awarded to
Appraisal Systems, Inc. to perform the City-wide revaluation of all real property located in the
City of Jersey City.
City of Jersey City
Certification of No Conflict of Interest
Competitive Contracting Evaluation: Property Revaluation
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the conflict of interest standards in the Local Government
Ethics Law or the School Ethics Act, as appropriate, and that I do not have a conflict of interest
with respect to the evaluation of this proposal (these proposals). I further certify that I am not
engaged in any negotiations or arrangements for prospective employment or association with any
of those submitting proposals or their parent or subsidiary organization.
Bennie Andersen
Print Name
-ll^ll^
Signature Name
Date
Note: The Local Government Ethics Law in N.J.S.A 40A:9-22.1 et seq and can be reviewd on
the State ofNJ Legislative Website at httD://www,nUee.state.ni.us/. Click on "Statues" and enter
"40A:9-22.1" in the Search Box.
ANALYS ISOF1ERSEY CO-Y REVALUATION _PRQ PQSALS
Evaluator's Name: BennieAnderson
Title: _ Deputy Tax Assessor
Education:
a.-T. ^-
City of Jersey City
Certification of No Conflict of Interest
Competitive Contracting Evaluation: Property Revaluation
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the conflict of interest standards in the Local Government
Ethics Law or the School Ethics Act, as appropriate, and that I do not have a conflict of interest
with respect to the evaluation of this proposal (these proposals). I further certify that I am not
engaged in any negotiations or arrangements for prospective employment or association with any
of those submitting proposals or their parent or subsidiary organization,
Douglas Carlucci
Print Name
7-2^/fi
Signature Name
Date
Note: The Local Government Ethics Law in N.J.S.A 40A:9-22.1 et seq and can be reviewd on
the State ofNJ Legislative Website at http://www,nileg.state.ni.us/. Click on "Statues" and enter
^^T ^ z^(s'
Signature Name Date
Note: The Local Government Ethics Law in NJ.S.A 40A:9-22.1 et seq and can be revlewd on
the State ofNJ Legislative Website at http://www.ni leg, statejiLus/, Click on "Statues" and enter
"40A:9-22.1" in the Search Box.
ANALYSIS OF JERSEY CHY REVALUATJON PROPOSALS
Evaluator's Name: Matthew O'Donnell/ Esq,
Title: Outside Counsel
Education:
J^AC^cz^^ (?F ^fG^c^ /\6^^n^ ^^ /7M^/z^-
-^U^l^S P^CTO^
ASW/TIE-D pUQUC /^ccyu^r^r ^^/T' ^ ^y)
•.Crtyof'Jer^yCt-fy
Cm'trfloation ofNo QonBict oflntere-stCompetitlve'Conti-aGtn-ig Evaluation; 3h7^ ^pas^h/
i^_
I) Demonstration of a clear understanding of the scope ofworkandreiated objectives.
.Cb)
^n^t^TOtf&WP^^^G yTlc/Cfcp
1-20
z
^
~0
1_
7•7
0 -4 CA+/ /^- (y^t^l^-Vt /r 7/^£T^/
Q_
^
' ^"^
p5' ^
4) Description and type of quality control and assurance programs for the accurate collection of
filed data.
(b) History and experience in performing the work: (8 Points) . • 1-8 -
IET
t^ ^tff(^v'
£^f^
~o~ y- //i) €^/w^^ ^ /^"u- - j
fi?
1) The ability to demonstrate a successful record of accomplishment of service as evidenced by on
time, on budget, and contract compliance performance.
~s~
2) Present &. past litigation, threatened litigation, and alternate dispute resolution experience because
of being contracted to perform a reassessment or re-assessment
~ff
3) The demonstrated ability of having successfully completed a recent reassessment project(s) with
similar valuation characteristics, traits and demographies to that of the City of Jersey City.
(c) Availability of personnel, facilities, equipment and other resources: (15 Points) 1-1.5 ,
j£
^
1^_
~^~y
^ ^ ^ jr/^w /- ^r - ^ /^w''
ff^ft^wS ^ M^T
1) The ability to demonstrate the capacity to successfully complete the rodGcocGmont1 of the City in
time for the 201^" tax year.
2) Vendor's current workload.
3) The availability of existing qualified, trained & competent in-house field personnel currently
available to start the City's Reassessment. Please attach resumes.
4) The amount of actual documented experience utilizing the MikAu^.yLilUiIs CAMA & Imaging
software.
^/T^
L-
5) The number of Certified Tax Assessors (CTA's) on staff.
6) The number of Certified General Real Estate Appraisers (SCGREA) on staff.
7) The number of Certified Residential Real Estate Appraisers (SCRREA) on staff.
8) Qualifications of staff.
9) Identify and describe each of the Vendor's principles/owners/sharehqlders role and availability in
the reassessment of the City of Jersey City.
3. Cost Criteria: (40 Points)
(a) Cost of services to be provided to be perfonned: (15 Points) ' 1-15 <
1) Relative cost: How does the cost compare to other similarly scored proposals.
^^
^ (yf<^- ^i-^. 2-
c^
CLT I 7^Lt^
^' ^'^7 ^-' \^^" -^ /"^s
^^^c^f^- ^vf-^f ^('fy
2) Full explanation: Is the price and its component charges, fees, etc. adequately explained or
documented.
3) Cost proposal to be completed- See Appendix A-l.
(b)
Assurances of performance: (10 Points)
1-10
,0
~3~
zr
~y ^- ^ )^f^y^
'' ^*^7 fi'M^t^/^fc /r~ ^^ T^r YCT^S. ^i&-
1) Are the suitable bonds, warranties, or guarantees provided?
2) The typa. nature, and extent of quality control and assurance programs.
(c)
The Vendor's financial stability and strength: (15 Points)
•1-15
i) The ability of the vendor to demonstrate sufficient fmancial resources to meet its obligations.
Total Points
Rank
~y
^'
"^^C^€ /^^.f-A/UU
State's; Approved Revafuation Firm's N^fne
(Point Range)
7,1 E:yaEiriAn:MetJiodoIo^ (?P]
'Tb.© .fb'Ilo-mng ,s.£^l he .ns'ed as &riten:a for tite-evatotit^ propos'ais..under the Competitiive
Cmitr^mg process;
Tecfanica'E Criteria: <3Q Po^ts)
(a)-
Proposed Methodology: (20 PQints)
1-20
iS
^
1) .Demonstration @f:a erearmdei:s£^din;g,olft;h&.spQpe 9fwQrk.and.r^tediG:bjecti:ves.. S
2) Coinpleteae^ &.. responsiven.ess to specij5cat-iians.,an:d general re€ u:irenxefits.
3), D.o:G,a'm$ntati.lon of past .pCTfoi:maQ'ce .of ^^^GX'?IS; 'proposed mefedQ^^.
4^. Use of.tti.novafi^e.'tefihpolpgy an4. techniques*
(fc) PtiNicAIafcion-s: (rO.Mnfs)
5
5
€/^
s
€1^
1-1Q
T^TBB^escnpMQn^.Ti^turean^.;e^nt^ pre-revatuation;-ongoing..
attd.post-rev^lLiatioTi'. Inelude ^mple.(^)r o-f'work*
7^ Th:e"descpption, nature ;an.d.'ex£est0fa.V^-do.i;^s:iafotmai taxpayferjs" hea:Nng,p.ro©ess.
1.
ML
2.
Mstaagem^Mt Ctiteria: (30 Points)
(a)' P.rojept,Man%geme@'Fte .C7.P&ints)
£x
J^_
1-7
I) 'S^liedyimg'time-l'ine.
2) Projee.t martagemeht.plan of'y/pF^
•^
-^1
32%; MW:
- - -- - tam
.3?5
D?gcrip?m
la?dfity-pe ofqpaiity e'?z?i?gi? ant; assuranm for $11.5; mwr?te mnw??n .05?
{11) History. in perfizmmi?g-t?ge leg
2.1) The. ability-to 9fammpri?hmtaf?emea-as evade-med by an
"P??serzt past E-i?f?gmiam threataned I?Ii-tigafi?nh, andgaitema?a
of?beiing mo?iracied i0 pen-fem a reasg?i'ssmem?gqr re~assi??5menp
.3): ability of ?a?f?lg a mean: pre?x-wig)
similar t- and d?mgra?hfrmo' Ef?e-City: of :1 Essay
ECU :ilaheility facili?fii?g md??iie?resemces: 5-1-5
I): Theabiliiy?ta thescggagityrto- they'eity in
time: fm the ?x year,
The qualified; fie-k3 {am-Senna} canali?y
ma?a-able ire} gartmhe any-=3 $113356
4-) The dogumexfceci emm'i'encg uti?zing
soft-Ware;
The ilmmb?l? Gif?Ceirti?ed' A-ssessms?f-Em?s} :01;
The ?mb?ar Garrard Rea} Same.A?pr??sews?sm?m} gm-
7) The immh?i? Refsicimtial .j 'ier):
Qualificating ofsm?j
9} Idgntify and d??ei?i-h??aqh Qf'1h6 Rfmda?g avail-ability in
the (if? 3136}: City
3.
GW-Cz?ircri?a: (4.9- ?oim?s) -
Al
-t^ff y^^O'T-^-
State's Approved Reva:lu3t.ion Firm's Name
(PQint .Range]
7.1 X-y.atetlon Metfa^.gr (K^P)
Th'e following shaQ be used as GTit%ta for fee £va!uatm;g\pTo^osal:s 'us-der tibie Com^&titiv-?
ICpnrractag process:
Tecituncal Criteria': (3.0 Poi&ts)
Q
)gy: (XP'oists)'
i-2-0
^' T^T\
1) 'DemQnstratioE of a clear uudersianding of the scope ofworfe asG rsiated objectives2) Completeness- & i'espon'siyen&ss to spe'cixications and gsQe-i:^] requirem'ents.
E-^
3) DQOum&nration of pasr perfora^a-ace. Qf vendor's proposed meThodpIo&y.
€^L
?\^I
4) Use ol'iimovarive teehtLolGtS?/:and tbch&iQues.
(b)
PT^UC B.^aii0Qs: (1-0 PoiaT£)
ni
1-10.
1) T^& dssctj^ion, satire sad s-sssm &t''& vsiador's p^bUc :T-e!anqQ5-;.'prQsrsi.m :pr&-r@^aluation, Qn^mg-
^ .pxM"r@v&IiBatioiL Includie: sampler) Qfworfe.
The- &Sm]AE4 nature and exteM:of:a ^eBdpr^s, mformal li^payeiS'1 heana'g'pr.ocess,
.12.
7
-j'As.ffiaigement 'CrNena.':'(30 Ppmfs)'
CO' PrbjetifManagem.enrPlEBa: (7'Buiats^
•^
.1.) S.c}ieciu]ip;g':tmie"line.
M
2) Project mapagement.pl.ah bfworJfc.
A.
SSessalent.sfatgs report 'riQriipMance.
^A
4-.
L
2
7
4) Description and type of quality control and assurance programs for the accurate collection of
filed data.
(b) . History and experience m perform mg the work: (8 Points)
7
~^
3:
^-
1-8
1) The ability to demonstrate a successful record of accomplishment of service as evidenced by on
time, on budget, and contract compliance performance.
2-
2) Present & .past UtigatioiL threateDed litigation, and alternate dispute resolution experience because
of being contracted to perform a. reassessment or re-assessment.
^
J^LA^(_^
i) The demonstrated ability of having su.ccessfally completed a recent