Item4_URB 9.28.23 Final — original pdf

Backup

Implementing inclusive and equitable public development services as a non-profit partner to the City of Austin September 28, 2023 Urban Renewal Board Updated Pre Development Analysis Austin EDC 2 Evaluation Committee Scope/Timeline/Role • Scope of Evaluators (post staff evaluation of compliance): • Evaluate proposals in Phase I and II • Recommend shortlist, and then Finalist to the Urban Renewal Board. • Role of Committee/Evaluation Process • Committee will represent various viewpoints (Urban Renewal, Technical Expertise, and Community) and will work from their respective points of view to evaluate proposals. • Committee will review all proposals with an equal and consistent amount of time/mindset, assuring that each proposal is reviewed independently. The Committee will be supported in training, and technical analysis from AEDC, AHFC and consultants. The Committee will convene to address questions about proposals prior to finalize scoring. • • • Timeline--Phase I—estimated 12 -16 hour commitment Late October 2023: Training Session (1.5 hours) • • November 2023: 2-Week Review to read proposals and do initial scoring/frame questions for discussion • November-December 2023: Committee convening to review preliminary responses/questions/review with (Time varies, goal maximum 6-10 hours) technical analysis (2.5 hours) • December 2023: Final Scoring/Final Notes on Submissions (1-2 hours, if needed) Phase II estimated time is an additional 12-14 hours. Example Evaluation Criteria Detail Each criteria would have something similar to guide the Committee in their scoring. • Project Team: Past project experience of similar scope, size, quality aesthetic and construction were successfully completed (submission requirements say up to 5 projects per primary team member with a total of 10 examples—completed or nearly completed) • Excellent: Respondent has successfully completed seven to ten projects of similar scope, size, quality aesthetic and construction were successfully completed. • Acceptable: Respondent has successfully completed three to six projects of similar scope, size, quality aesthetic and construction were successfully completed. • Marginal: Respondent has successfully completed one to two projects of similar scope, size, quality aesthetic and construction were successfully completed. • Unacceptable: Respondent has successfully completed no projects of similar scope, size, quality aesthetic and construction were successfully completed.