WSPC12864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---;./ . e bob0127 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Hyken ~ Ruth Yeager FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: January 27, 1986 Criteria for Evaluating Statements of Qualification, National Forests Reserved Rights Claims The form on the following page is my proposed method of determining which firms should be short-listed. Each of the firms is to be rated from 0 to 5 on seven criteria: five areas of study, expert testimony and the general structure of the firm. Each of these scores is then weighted to allow a maximum of 150 points. I suggest that we do not begin with an exact cutoff score, but wait until we see how the firms group themselves. The five areas of analysis on which the firms are to be rated are fluvial geomorphology, sediment transport, hydrology, hydraulics, and water rights. From a cursory look at all the SOQ's, I would say that most of the firms are strong in the latter three areas, so that expertise in the first two areas will be the most critical. I suggest using the following standards for rating: o - no experience indicated 'in this area 1 - this area has been a component of one or two studies done by the firm 2 the firm (or people in it) have done several studies in which this area has been a major feature 3 - This is one of the firm's specialties 4 - This is one of the firm's specialties, and one or more people in the firm have experience in expert testimony, or have written some articles in the field 5 - The firm (or people in it) have a strong reputation in the field, and are established experts The seventh criterion is experience at giving expert testimony. Rating should be as follows: o - no experience indicated 1 - some experience on the part of one or two individuals 2 - inbetween 1 and 3 3 extensive experience on the part of two or more individuals 4 - extensive experience on the part of two or more people, including one widely recognized expert 5 - qualifications for #4, plus experience in reserved rights litigation