My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0014437
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HANSEN
>
26901
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-2100207
>
SU0014437
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2022 2:51:16 PM
Creation date
10/1/2021 3:58:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0014437
PE
2632
FACILITY_NAME
PA-2100207
STREET_NUMBER
26901
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
HANSEN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95377-
APN
20911010
ENTERED_DATE
10/1/2021 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
26901 S HANSEN RD
RECEIVED_DATE
7/8/2022 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\tsok
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Consensus Scoring <br /> The consensus decision-making process goal is to seek the agreement of most of the <br /> evaluation committee members, but also to resolve the objections of the minority to achieve the <br /> most agreeable decision. <br /> Consensus scoring of solutions has the benefit of producing a single score for each offering, as <br /> opposed to several different scores that may appear to unreasonably deviate from one another. <br /> All evaluation committee members contribute comments to a general discussion that identifies <br /> both common and divergent viewpoints among group members. The group works to resolve <br /> opposing viewpoints by emphasizing common agreement over differences to reach a <br /> consensus on comments. The discussion that takes place before arrival at a consensus score <br /> brings to light the strengths and weaknesses of different solutions. This information is <br /> documented to substantiate scoring. When a consensus cannot be reached, majority <br /> consensus will prevail. <br /> Scoring Process: Identify and record weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, <br /> errors, omissions, and other risk factors and how they impact the project to support each <br /> score. <br /> The following consensus determination Points shall be used to rate offerings. <br /> 9-10: Meets or exceeds all requirements. Offering demonstrates complete understanding of the <br /> requirement and offers a substantial chance of success. No deficiencies or weaknesses. <br /> 7-8: Meets all requirements and standards. Offering shows reasonable understanding of the <br /> requirement and offers a high chance of success. No significant deficiencies or weaknesses. <br /> 5-6: Offering indicates a basic understanding of the requirements. There are no substantive <br /> deficiencies and weaknesses. <br /> 3-4: Offering indicates only a marginal understanding of the requirements and offers only a <br /> minimal chance for success. There are significant deficiencies and weaknesses. <br /> 0-2: Offering demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the requirements. There are <br /> substantial deficiencies and weaknesses. <br /> Technical Scoring Vendor <br /> Name: <br /> % of Points <br /> Criteria total Strengths and/or Weakness <br /> score (0-10) <br /> Scope of Services <br /> • Software functional 50 <br /> requirements <br /> • Training, support and <br /> technical documentation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.