1. (a) Technical expert and ROW provider evaluation criteria. The department will evaluate a technical expert's or ROW provider's responsive proposal based on the following criteria, if applicable:

   1. (1) professional qualifications;
   2. (2) experience of the firm and the team or individuals;
   3. (3) merits of the proposal, including unique or innovative methods for performing the work;
   4. (4) ability to commit personnel, time, and other resources to the project (technical experts cannot be removed from association with the contract without prior consent by the department);
   5. (5) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services to be provided, including identifying which type of work will be performed by a subprovider, if any;
   6. (6) demonstrated understanding of applicable rules, regulations, policies, and other requirements associated with the environmental or cultural studies, analyses, or document preparation to be performed;
   7. (7) ability to meet department scheduling requirements;
   8. (8) past performance of the provider, specific provider staff, or subproviders on similar contracts; and
   9. (9) reasonableness of fee.

2. (b) Landscape architect evaluation. The department will evaluate a landscape architect's responsive proposal based on the following criteria:

   1. (1) experience of the project manager and project team;
   2. (2) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services to be provided, including identifying which type of work will be performed by a subprovider, if any;
   3. (3) references including the ability to meet deadlines over the past three years;
   4. (4) ability to meet department scheduling requirements; and
   5. (5) reasonableness of fee.

3. (c) Appraiser evaluation. An appraiser must be a department-certified appraiser. The department will evaluate a department-certified appraiser's responsive proposal based on the following criteria:

   1. (1) experience of the individual;
   2. (2) demonstrated understanding of the scope of services to be provided;
   3. (3) references including the ability to meet deadlines over the past three years;
   4. (4) ability to meet department scheduling requirements; and
   5. (5) reasonableness of fee.
4. (d) Evaluation scale. The department will assign a numerical weighting value to each evaluation criterion and then score each criterion based upon a numerical scale.
5. (e) Evaluation matrix. The department will evaluate each responsive proposal using an individual proposal evaluation matrix.

6. (f) Tie scores. In the event of a tie, the managing officer will break the tie using the following method unless different criteria have been listed in the RFP.

   1. (1) The first tie breaker, if needed, will be references/past performances.
   2. (2) The second tie breaker, if needed, will be ability to meet department scheduling requirements.
   3. (3) If there is still a tie, the provider will be chosen by random selection.

Source Note:The provisions of this §9.85 adopted to be effective March 21, 1999, 24 TexReg 1829; amended to be effective February 20, 2000, 25 TexReg 1146; amended to be effective January 4, 2001, 25 TexReg 13009; amended to be effective February 18, 2016, 41 TexReg 1127.