As I have stated earlier, the toughest part of judging is to come up with an arbritrary set of criteria that relatively all-encompassing.
Because their were so many entries to plow through and I wanted to get the rankings back ASAP (I know how frustrating it can be waitng for a response to an RFP). I tried to come up with a set that would spread the weight around to things that have been the focus (or problematic) in past projects. So, to provide some feedback to all, not just Nick, I'm posting what those criteria are and who were the top point getters in each. As you can see, I didn't rate the submittals against one another (ie 1-13) rather against a 10 point scale. You will have to cross-reference names with #'s.
Just to get it off the table, although we were asked to not be overly swayed by presentatiion, I felt some points needed to be awarded here as part of GCA is the ability to convey your ideas. This also allowed me to completely disregard it when assesssing the other criteria.
Therefore:
*Presentation - 1,10
*Use of Land - 8
*Routing Variety - 8,12
*Continuity/Playabliity - 8,9
*Walk in the Park - 11
*Ease of Construction - 1,5,8,10,12
*Auxillary Elements - 9, (followed closely by 4 & 7)
*Circulation - 1,6,7,13
*Strategic Options - 1
*Clubhouse Location - 5,6
*Maintenance ($$$) - 6,8
*Irrigation Source - 1,8
So, as you can see, all but 2 submittals managed to garner a top score in one or more of the criteria.