Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Recommendation of EvaluationCITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : FROM : Daniel J. Alfonso City Manager Jo ernandez, Chairperson Ev;;:p Committee DATE : SUBJECT: REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: October 20, 2014 FILE : Recommendation of Evaluation Committee for RFQ 414312: Municipal Bond Underwriting Services s Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee ("Committee") for the above services for the City of Miami, it is my responsibility to offer the findings and recommendation of the Committee. The City issued Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 414312 for the provision of Municipal Bond Underwriting Services. Ten (10) Proposals were received for category Haircut Before A, and one (1) Proposal for Category Before Haircut B. The Evaluation Committee ("Committee"), appointed by the City Manager, was comprised of the following individuals: 1. Jose Fernandez, Finance Director (Chairperson) 2. Miriam N. Abreu, CPA, CFO, Miami -Dade Seaport Department 3. Juan Lopez, CPA, Port Controller, Miami -Dade Seaport Department 4. Armando Blanco, Treasurer, City of Miami The Committee discussed the qualifications of the ten (10) responsive and responsible proposals for category Haircut Before A and one (1) Proposal for Category Before Haircut B, and evaluated each pursuant to the City's RFQ. Following discussion and deliberation, the Committee recommends the following Proposers as pre -qualified: Pre -Qualified Vendors Listed in Alphabetical Order for Each Category: Capital Before Haircut A: Citigroup Bank of America Merrill Lynch Jefferies, LLC J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC Raymond James and Associates Siebert Brandford Shank & Co. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Capital Before Haircut B: Estrada Hinoj osa & Company, Inc. The Committee recommended that a pre -qualified pool of vendors be established, on an as -needed project basis; and, further provide the City Manager the ability to administratively accept an assignment of a contract without further City Commission action unless the assignee of said contract is not a financial institution evaluated for both Capital Before Haircut "A" and Capital Before Haircut `B" herein. Your signature below represents your approval of the Committee's recommendation. Approved by: Daniel f Mons City Manager Date: /0 "073 i Y RFP No. 414312 SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL CAPITAL BEFORE HAIRCUT A PROPOSERS 'NMMMMMRMNIMMNMfgM EVALUATORS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience _...--............-....-- Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel ' Understanding of City Proposer's approach to providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL. SCORE FOR TECHNICAL EINIMMURNIM HIMNIRMEMSNIIKOSNIOVIM MINEIONSMEMIOSIMMINERWRROZOMMAIN IBMINWIFAMICIMME13#1MONF Citigroup . Miriam Abreu . 18 40 8 8 18 0 faIliteAkkPTEM INI Itimusopr,7 MOM Armando Blanco 20 40 8 * 8 18 0 Jose Fernandez 18 40 8 8 is 0 Juan Lopez 20 41 8 8 15 0 eigOOMM COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPCSALI 925 AMMINNIMMOT Mkankl Bank of America Merrill Lynch Miriam Abreu 18 40 10 10 15 5 Ari m'F"d° Blanco 20 40 8 8 .I 8 17 5 Juan Lopez 20 41 9 9 16 5 l'NEINCIME COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL; 97.5 Raymond James & Associates Miriam Abreu 20 45 10 10 20 0 &Wail' Armando Blanco 20 40 9 9 16 0 Jose Femandez 20 40 9 9 17 0 Juan Lopez 19 39 9 9 15 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 9625 J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC Miriam Abreu 20 40 10 10 15 5 OVIIIIMMENUI ' op Armando Blanco 20 40 9 9 15 5 Jose Fernand. 20 40 8 8 17 5'1y 9r---",, 144I jAUIRMINNK 87.75 "4 Allifill t 4PINUMNI) Juan Lopez 20 40 6 7 15 5 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: Jefferies, LLC Miriam Abreu 10 30 5 5 10 0 Armando Blanco 15 35 7 7 14 0 Jose Femandez 15 35 7 7 15 0 v: ii Juan Lopez 15 32 7 7 14 0 .0' waoko COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 73 Loop Capital Markets, LLC. Miriam Abreu 10 30 5 5 10 0 win Armando Blanco 10 30 6 6 12 0 Jo. Femandez 14 32 7 7 14 9 Juan Lopez 15 35 8 8 15 0 115111111m 69.75 ?S.IPBal4in"4 I ' '0 ir 1PIOMP , %., COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC Miriam Abreu 20 45 10 10 20 5 Armando Blanco 20 40 8 8 18 5 Jose Femandez 18 40 8 8 18 5 Juan Lopez 19 39 8 8 15 5 .09 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 100 111111114. Siebert Brandford Shank & Co. Miriam Abreu 10 30 5 5 10 5 Armando Blanco 15 35 8 8 15 5 Jose Femandez 15 33 8 8 15 5 110 Juan Lopez 15 36 7 7 15 5 l' 4. COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 80 Stlfel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. Miriam Abreu 10 30 5 5 10 0 "1r 44.1.1 PS4016 Armando Blanco 10 35 7 7 12 0 Jose Fernandez 10 30 7 7 12 0 Stille SIM 7125 Juan Lopez 19 37 7 9 16 0 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Miriam Abreu 18 40 10 10 15 5 tot sorWripe M1M, Armando Blanco 20 40 9 9 15 5 Jose Femandez 20 40 9 9 15 5 Juan Lopez 20 40 8 7 16 5 COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 97.5 't ..;y:Y #3s':3tis.3S=.i::£(Ei;w k}i:0,'£:^wk'u3i r. x; er,n# >'s'�2•'t:!n« Evaluator; Signature: RFQ NO.414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES s .......,..a:T:rF^'�v£S!4<f�EJr''^K:'ak�..�):+:�"�n"'aM:✓:Mv.'<i:.."�,.�r�'oY�C..£�Vif#iMIMMy.�f..rkr <:>?"k:ifi:.i::»Y:S: .,. tS.E#e,3t".u'"'Mee nf::f ::,i's;'».Ueti,if:.HA..,w<w.e.....4.^a,..'v�.%')trk>1'!a �.'5�����Y Sl L11S1Y:is3)`. Evaluation Committee Meeting�� TecWilcal Proposal Erpluation Form - Capital Before Haircut A Mrill ethd.h PD Date: ''tm#!i.?7. Sa. '#i':",i 15. bF< __©/ PROPOSERS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understandingapproach of City Proposer's Pp to providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK Y#. k�4'�vfF;{e .Fr'fu{&: iF .. .. ?,.',m ,q,> f... \ � Er�Y£: £€ f#iif .. ........ � •.'f:g>;"{kv; . } 3" �#i ��i+ ..... 2 � ,.kr �;' ���0 � �;fEi �# �43•�G#;r �i• k 5#3 :, 1 3R: }:i� 59 . k{ 3� i � ��� ;:,, i%rrkNl 3• 'ir �� i �k i iE $e#r3".. !' {k`Y ��4r��f� ,.k;,i f $. o-4iYF. # ' i" f,rX„ �� Ak 5,;,, 4fff ; Citigroup D Flo g ... g ..S# n Bank of America Merrill Lynch q% b ge 8 & l.$ 5. Raymond James and Associates a (] d 1 q / J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC ! Q Jefferies LLC / ( 7 Loop Capital Markets, LLC. %0 1 Q / Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC I. t% t i 0 (s) 1 tS Siebert Brandford Shank & Co. I `J 35 F 0 i / 5 Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Inc /C) 35 / 7 1 afi Wells Faro Bank N.A. O 0 go .. dd �j RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the stir scale #^�•^�d' ff�,.: i, '' i it : it #£ ,f€£e "ri4 , ,� of =: #f k f #3 i k ,'rE Y" f v, 1,3kt t': 15 Points Max Scoring Criteria loucky ucfuvv. 20 Points Max Scoring Criteria Adjective Description Score Score Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Adequate Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 10.5-11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 »>ry�MN"Sk�mrrwK°"iimib�a Evaluator: Signature: RFQ NO. 414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES r2�'miiVw �V 5:��LUffarhm^ SR"'h"ZKNYkMVYm» .sr>N:MMYvdr%asarW'.::u Evaluation Committee Meeting Technical • roposal Eval tion Form - Capital Before Haircut A 2.La .f ? i• Date: + to I ��A 6/� ) _-_, % L%T i , PROPOSERS tar Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City Propose approach to providing services Local preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK f'usy43F31i,;�s€irif+S.k',S.,U3Ekkf •:.ssais 'E k3Y",ffaT,r '^i #tkk' .......... ... .... ....r... F i,a },"C ,�i`,,,1 k§ �,,.,,},'ffyy�,I£3 '£f£ . 3� F{I:f,rFGIf 3%I'G„eC'f`f�f54s • . i S # F 7S3i'#iaF^`�f#IfFfy�f 3 3 � j;iPi�'f3#Y'1,'i �i 3 5 , , ffl ,� E{ai;,k �� r,f �'b,i .. c`3r,�i li' ,�'3h,£kE �`fifV�i � ',rf�'4 yr ,r, yh`&'3,43£F is t333 Wis .,£ Citigroup cla 0 ........ s g / l qa 1 Bank of America Merrill Lynch t 4 ,... 5- /0 0 y f Raymond James and Associates of67 / 9 I/ I J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC 0 L (0) r -7 i s"'- Jefferies, LLC ii . 7 , g 0 A Loop Capital Markets, LLC. fSm-F Morgan Stanley & Co LLC / ari ® g ! 9 1 Siebert Brandford Shank & Co- / r 4 t Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Inc l / -3 / , /. 0 i / Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 7 7 " ..�T d/ RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below. ;,ik»:fe ff� ,,� f kE ,i ✓ .k.} ,,.#..: 3ij.$.< £iiafl £y 15 Points Max Scoring Criteria 20 Points Max Scaring Criteria Adjective Description Score Score Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Adequate Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 10.5-11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 .. Mr6 UfRAMn 3Y£iMQ£.fb":'.ass£.T'.T':'£l'w-O3,iuY: Evaluator. Signature: RFQ NO.414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES ...{r;".'V>k^,S,Jzz..3i>;:,w£'..f:3%£'StiTa ':dig::'.#££}Y'^£5 2.'..k:£.,x.`M5"kr•Y`y.zv'}:%£"JikL.EU..3i.Rv'S,iri'L,"?< ..$".c£:1StLnyis�##,ski"("': :"x','.'£f') 1^;ryY,:.:..i6ti£ifs'&u:.u.,'b`>'.`,Yff Evaluation Committee Meeting Techgic Fowl Eyaluan�orm - Caital Before Haircut A �/ ( r �/''�� �"d_J�/ fj Date: �� 1� (/9G` i:nitkf.5`n i. %}fc3>,'^. ig 53#Sni J PROPOSERS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City Proposer's approach to providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK ..1:;TiM.Se:" . t£",:3.:5 32;,e...ni'l,•...<.,,..: :..£.k.r :c<svr' ".5,�3>>i£k s £# f # ££S,, ,i ,..X Fi 55'SM ,.: SF Ss«£0§.5F 1�5'i:,.:,{£i£it�<..fi£iil:�'i:?.,'I;•<f4Cllf ,. ..,,k..e.,,.,,f.e:,ref........,5,e,..... ,.v. #.?., i . E ....., n il'£iF t;M}i:�e,3u: i.,,eY',(k' ,.,,,.e<eee",,,.�•:,,..;,:,:..>,:....> 3 ; Kli 3' :.................„.:,.,,......,.r....::...,.�:.. F ,d.' ££,j�' .. �.,^' �'�S:T,ei;ii'Fi'�}WV.ie'nky5, ^"£'i::;:. ;yi,., fiiie3 s ££ ..... "res fi%ir✓'j 4 f.dU.£'vu akk`k'{f ';�313,£3,{igi�`iiYee} FA,y „£f 3 35 y „}, ah .YFi{i£i^533kii^Y Citi�group 4/4 ! /0 0 Bank of America Merrill Lynch ill 6 /62 ` ` / ........ .. :,' Raymond James and Associates �7,/�j P� / � . % / �! !k - i V r J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC �D (✓ /0 ,. „) j'•/,J' Jefferies, LLC /01 5T ,`� Loop Capital Markets, LLC. 70 Morgan Stanley & Co.,LLC Siebert Brandford Shank & Co /�li,/Bo /� / . Stifel, Nicolaus & Compan , Inc y // f � -- „--� Wells Fargo Bank N A / Sr' / �V /' RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the r fe; $ikkF 3 U� fli £sffid f}$ }Y%:{5 >k f fM iE Ri #££ £#�f,, �..N{;kl£3315 3 y kf 'i £5f`l ssst'£.%:&"i%if'f £ffi F 1f 1k'Fg ;�'� 'Y 5 ` i u,ii i 5 .k, ., s' <`Sf,y V 15 Points Max_ Scoring Criteria B 20 Points Max Scoring Criteria Adjective Description Score Score Outstandin g Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Ade uate q Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 10.5-11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and Is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 ime i:`4S'uw.34:u.x.:..d'`r�+Wv:&.IWA..aMi> 3:3.',,"r},d£'e,.nu?i'? Evaluator: Signature: RFQ NO. 414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES 'f+.'.`,�`MIx'i ..Vk:t##: # 'T`M.# ..._ „ S #£r.,..ICAMT..^,al..tii3 F3: ,,"yyE;t?S,Oi"F.fH`5`,,3'.,x,Y":E'v>`.'woks:Si`W+kux':,h.:^.s#°,a`"io'`fik�C�C"...:`''SiNTA"3S""n Evaluation Committee Meeting r' "" xTechnical Pro sa alu ti n Fop /tttt �,'�r7�apital Before Haircut A �\ e� N ¢at.7(7( �/ Date: 1 C6' D3 `" ?!„y`F.WA `K`M,:{{# ) 4 CC // PROPOSERS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City Proposer's approach to providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK �::i #£�<;iriif'% zsA?<EI`rN'�., ist .�k,a3 #', € �` .. �`. i. ? ` r ..}.ys• .R,n3"3'rt,£, ...,r {:v f s, •s s,�. a:�"£„ 3 "`k'"4�, ��kx #£3 3f >:,"n If# �� 6,#EEEy ££3 r,',t �` 33 {:'�,4"'F•`3ii, £l�ii 2X /4 �" yy�.:. ¢#, i:'�rtsr;f"`3".G ff..'3#.., $t'S4fl �'h's, ^L'[f£> {•�'� .�,��`#��,�:�''�c p'yl£ELEid3?i�xf�x Citigroup C Bank of America Merrill Lynch k 4a C., S Raymond James and Associates 2--CJ 4 r J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC 20 40 B E5 l { Jefferies LLC krs ,a5 - 1 Loop Capital Markets, LLC. l 4- a- Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC \66 6 (.8 Siebert Brandford Shank & Co 8 lc s Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc \0 (_D _.1..c7.--)) (15 Wells Faro Bank, N.A. . RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the stir I ' d' ;3 I,�iftaf �E,,,. �•# #i 3 s sE}' sw:vf# t ii' rl r` gs 13i 3 3 ssr i i3is £s sFi I's . p1E i hi3 �3. r: i aifs# .. .:.i»f. n ti I., £<,s„e#: eri"" 'i. , A #i S;;i,I,E'T3ib,:s #s3 I i i 3 ; ¢s £Ei ia £s sy € ,, , Ps1E PI w ` S° tips .£^ `£ P ar "? s §fi,;',.. ,s£,,,fs {s 'E{f i{�i „s°!„##I°„s 3 3, {,, )s �, & {# s' ..li a ,r ap£'sxn '� ff: EII# £ i 1 s.,s gscaeimme 15 Points Max Scoring Criteria ia«,y.,�,,,,,,,. 20 Points Max Scoring Criteria Adjective ..?'°, Description Score Score Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Adequate Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 10.5-11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 RFP No. 414312 SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL CAPITAL BEFORE HAIRCUT B MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES PROPOSERS EVALUATORS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Abilityto Underwrite Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City Proposer's p approach to providing providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICALl wuf ' # £ N 3IY « a M. ,r ^ i,:aso^3 .^4.rxg# >3v::�'�ii4L�w'wVAi � NsRISICIw���F, Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc. Miriam Abreu 20 35 10 10 25 10 35� Armando Blanco 20 30 8 8 20 10#15i?96 Jose Fernandez 18 30 9 9 20 10 x # as ,£ s sb Juan Lopez 14 25 6 9 17 10 it" �,,li8 ' '?"'`£'5kr�r" COMPOSITE SCORE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: 95.75 RFQ NO. 414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES mazgomyznwsmmonmvmxmzmommsgmmmroxmzmrr.wiarasarmsnwsemmsmrmmvmavuoorgragnwmvmmxaaomnmssmvawmzeammmu Evaluation Committee Meeting Technical Proposal Evaluation Form - Capital Before Haircut B Evaluator: PrM4A/6 1(4 to Date: 10 1 tit Signature: PROPOSERS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City MapPffer,RIPIOW.VIVr ...- PFROSAPPV4V0PW4",VONIOn.0, • Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc. 1111111011111111111111111 RO 30 OPOIRIOROP •SmikeittraHlrif Proposer's approach to providing services 111111101111 z Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL SE1011140110141 /O RANK 54$111301111 RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immediately below. ' 1 oporoopf • omi.w.:0 imemomm , ,..., =,,14,600,VM qopp, Noppot , I'v,. .,1 ''. , A Y:400". iAr. *1. W.00:1040044 OA ''N ,,, m: , :.#:wovib ... - .. ,•,. q,.,111,0044,010,: A <1, m .. 15 Points Max . Scoring Criteria 20 Points Max Scoring Criteria Adjective Description Score Score Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Adequate Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. • 10.5-11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 RFQ NO. 414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING UNDERWRITINGSERVIIICES SMEMOiS{1WM ij %aMHkOiL»ai;Wu iiWMN WMnaL Evaluation Committee Meeting T ch ical Pr cos aluation F m - Capital Before Haircut B , , ' (0l( A ° .-- Date: I 0 J ! SMM 3:YuN .W.ffa £K#EifhMw.iMrNa5�V., n Evaluator: Signature: PROPOSERS Firm's,Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City Proposer's approach to providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK s5• '.,,.;'.. � 'ts'sv: s ss }i;gq^ _ f . Z Y) . 1. 'r;eu3r;ir ;. y<N. £ig:%l .:+: .....sa£'s£ :�.� ,WE�'Y��¢':L ^'s^£r.: ',£ fir. :: fsf f :3y €'cv # £` ;yy�i fz: �,: � '? '. s '�s' 1• e; sf; < ,E �y ,: .j�. i=. %�', � , .. ) :`;, t. ,E tiei5n :{§'� ,€•k e,. .. .r. s t +fs+` . f £r%'. .. nr)IF£ f'a#?`; { �:s.:# ;:, qk � i'f#ri€i'i''" ! kc. i{9i £3}3}E£n' � �) 5 3• z ,.! c.fsk. .`Sh.t�it s�'s;^£ ..' Yi v�i 3'•.'y ^.<''' : .u, . ,,,. „-'s / ::F.'i"„i, � : �: k,Yv)N � ff:.'.,.:f„ ". ,£. ): s i <ar,ri. �, ) .:nn,:a. '�53.:k=k rf()'i. � J >. y; v553 » ,;¢ 3 , :', :,,..:s; ka 'vb�;,,: �.,d&&:R t � + �.n '.s� ( kk i.e, £ /� `} Estrada Hinojosa & CompanyInc JJJ �'j :r^•1 :�.,,.: , :'vx f}'v5 Y RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scale immedi ., .`;k i`; »f£G££^.�,£;a �•,,€, , ,,. r:hra f €.£. ..�£., h uV'., �.,# #M. „f,+ # e = S,{ f£ '£, :,'�F,.:.;£kf£E:v;£'£, E,<#f; 15 Points Max ScoringCriteria 20 Points Max ScoringCriteria Adjective Description Score Score Outstandin g Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Ade uate q Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 10.5 11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 onamozszramosomonommurammumanWECREEMMONNOMENEMEMEMMOMEDMMERAMEMMIMPSNAIMSZINTBEZWENMENNEMSZNEMEMT Evaluator Signature: RFQ NO. 414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES Evaluation Committee Meeting Technical Proposal Evalua 'o F rm - Capital Before Haircut B : Ati/lq i PROPOSERS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City Proposer's approach to providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK IlltttfilltillrfilliRppErIIIIVPPNIMIIIplpnp 11111101111111111110411•11111111miumsong ' • - """ ' - -„: ";:,„.. ' maRoom milion "•, , :`,L.,.,% 7 Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc. oZO b 5- /1/ /0 „v:115.....„ / to RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the ratin URaill*Nr"410001inilq' ' ' WOMO,40`00' , 4,,,V,MtWv,.p.41,1m . ,,r , P.4 ' %OW ..04 ' '0' 00 =, " It •-• l& , mi; WON qr.VAMIt. qirMek 15 Points Max Scoring Criteria 20 Points Max Scoring Criteria Adjective Description Score Score Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Adequate Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 10.5-11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5 W]F:c r" »,s.£o' £NNOv, +skvr�.k''s✓wwT s£`.�L' ',;, `us`!3srY•»a`xi wx it�5. :::: RFQ NO. 414312 MUNICIPAL BOND UNDERWRITING SERVICES sbiwra iiwe.,vw.nF3 w'Mw£t '3:<i k'n'si}MsSSi£ �d".s m '. £€' i `itw, E'F 5 F H, h•>;o-.. fASSF'.,m,`n''• v, a sKM, i f��M�� 33rT v..>,.W ssai� %Y .. .b �.Mw..»€r'`.Y,n�.uvaad.:kit�ki�w.wx���.wS2Pv>a'�''nSn'i�.x;,3S.'G£.F:�F3#,b#,f.•�s�.,a,1�'�.i.fi Evaluation Committee Meeting TechnicalProposalEvaluation Form - Capital Before Haircut B 4l -- `Y,.r:i• sME Sim:•wa% n yf,N .. r�y.5:.sr.'.t�`v:YSa'dsY"£sox?s�b##„E£}r�'^'sr�'rf£#k?xSK �' /4,,a,--r-s—. v PROPOSERS Firm's Overall Qualifications and Experience Ability to Underwrite Capacity Bonds Qualification and Experience of Personnel Understanding of City Proposer's approach to providing services Local Preference, if applicable TOTAL SCORE FOR TECHNICAL RANK Si%€:;axi'k•A'; < £Z ' £££ir^ x, Fai S r lx`xi #r3'`s'� v yy,Y `s'r Y'£ Y ip. k••i. ,ass �) •' 3 .#, t,�'£i;i= . .FvS5:, :k., ## �S ,H;aF ,•i s,l ,aV ." ss•'k^%'b 3}' F; qq ,.:5 `: £ i` ai sr{#fc I'V. £,) `ta%'i E.'3 kTb :• Ff,,, �, 4 , `4 a,`�,r^3 i! }� £'^t{,fi t `,}t fr�r' 3)) #fa"'. '3, .: '' ' i,,, i5 # n 'ISi� £"# �} W. iF ius i"? s�# Rk hqs Z A'u'., r ; o'aw 'r v ,� a $ � i 3'� � i3, ' e£Y.,� ,3,)'' @ b#33 ;;;, kahl< i, 9afe< , o- u :� m„ ta .. ,.0 £`• ,A�F'f5{31 , yx'" £8" a .s i�.lr�t•, ,:NA ''3! � < 'F 'v`e5•G� '�'r €f` "£ ,;s aaz;, 1 +£, { r # 5�.�r>%i 's,•, s( #a,'''�i, fr d 5,R £'s, 3 £k` £ f£F#' %�f £i#f ':'4,', 43,#. ,,.. .;. ", <,.a¢,•,..kk, ,,. .. ",,,,,,�k .,,rv,'„'' #. rk. ,..r.,:b. ., rf•S^rA.£,. {Ya,x„ i:,'• \., n,•a}�.' : Ru ....,., ;r• lr,,:, era.... .. ,,.,i.ir / �F,,.. Estrada Hinojosa & Company, Inc. / eg 'r v,x'.,..,., 6, % 7 A D gi k f •,%Y:buo`.ef5,f,iff rr».. S k �.::.., „Y:. ,,Mk, oY(f'2£.. rb» e<< ... "s 5 ',f'. an .,, i �"e,,'5, .,,. <, .,:.>..r.: '.<ffF ,i,.'s.....i,,, ir„ ., „r .r .. .'a .,,.,. ..: i' s,.. ,,,. r,. d, »., ,a, ,.A ,. r.,,..,. 5 £ <ase kkli,. o.. urtW RFP Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix: Scoring of evaluation criteria to be completed in accordance with the rating scat fkg #`,a.Yx s # £i€t3 .. f�b .uf t'£ , ,#•., 3if F # iFa. ',,:;)� �,'3;$,'' k,, ,f,»�` ii }} :, , i �€ , iFFiFxe�'i r3#bt#p 3 # k £ yfyd hs E 53E£' `' f } # 3f #;sss ! #r,: s<3 if ££fy, }' £ F' 15 Points Max Scoring Criteria 20 Points Max Scoring Criteria Adjective Description Score Score Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. 13.5-15 18-20 Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. 12-13 16-17.5 Adequate Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 10.5-11.5 14-15.5 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and is unacceptable. 0-10 0-13.5