2-06. CQ26-0158AN - Scoring Criteria Template (MEP).pdf

Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing (MEP) Services

STEP 1.A: Review Initial Qualification Criteria

QUALIFICATION CRITERIA YES NO

Was the response submitted by the deadline as specified in the RFQ?

Did the Respondent submit a response comprised of the requested information as specified in the RFQ Packet?

Respondent’s response includes all required affirmative statements, certifications and forms signed by the Respondent’s responsible representative, as described in the RFQ Packet? (See RFQ Packet for specific list).

Current copy of MEP License and Professional License, if applicable.

If a Mandatory Pre‐Submission meeting was held, evidence exists that a representative from the Respondent’s firm was in attendance.

District review of the State website verifies that the Respondent is not excluded from contracting with the District for an unresolved finding for recovery (or other required actions).

Did the review team (in its initial/cursory review of the Respondent’s response) determine that the response was free of trade secret/proprietary information as specified/restricted in the RFQ?

Q3

SELECTION SCORING CRITERIA (TEMPLATE)

RFQ No.:

Project:

Respondent Name:

Selection Committee:

The response must meet all of the following Step 1.A initial qualifying criteria for further consideration. A "no"

ITEM

Q1

Q2

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7 of the following criteria shall result in the Respondent being disqualified from consideration.

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

S1.2

The Respondent’s past project descriptions demonstrate to the Committee that the Respondent has the capability to successfully complete the scope of work described in the RFQ. The Respondent provided for past projects the following:

i. descripƟon of the project;

ii. scope of services performed;

iii. the iniƟal total project cost esƟmate;

iv. final total project cost;

v. a descripƟon of factors that influenced changes to the final total project cost;

vi. the method used to formulate contract cost (e.g. Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), Design Build, Design Bid

Build);

vii. the original project Ɵmeline and duraƟon;

viii. the final project duraƟon and CerƟficate of Occupancy date;

ix. percentage and scope of design performed with your firms own staff;

x. percentage and scope of design performed by sub‐consultants to your firm; provide names of sub‐consultants (if applicable);

xi. factors that influenced the CerƟficate of Occupancy schedule.

This data demonstrates the ability to deliver projects of similar scope and complexity of those in the RFQ on time and within budget.

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

EVALUATION OF WRITTEN RESPONSES

RATINGS

S2.4

SELECTION CRITERIA # 1 Weight: 30% PAST EXPERIENCE AND CLIENT REFERENCES

S1.3

A minimum of 3 Client References were received by the District in compliance with RFQ requirements. The content of each reference will determine the points earned. Reference responses should describe from the Client’s viewpoint the level of flexibility and collaboration of the Respondent.

S1.4

Client references provided the following:

a. project title;

b. initial project cost estimate;

c. total final project cost;

d. description of factors that influenced changes to the total final project cost;

e. document completion timeline;

f. estimate of construction cost accuracy;

g. design completion timeline;

h. overall performance on the project;

S1.1

The Respondent submitted Past Experience of at least three and no more than five, similar sized projects that have been completed in the past seven (7) years that demonstrate expertise in MEP Services for the required project.

Similar size may include square footage, cost, type of project/facility, complexity, etc. Completed School District of

Lee County projects may be included.

S2.3

The Respondent provided Resumes for team members who will be assigned to the project at least 50% of the time, and demonstrate their experience and skills in the assigned role, ability to perform in the proposed role(s), and the number of projects the Engineer and each team member will support during the School District project.

SELECTION CRITERIA # 2 Weight: 44% METHODOLOGY AND PROJECT APPROACH / RESOURCES

S2.1 The Respondent described their Methodology and Project Approach to the District project including their approach to solving potential typical problems that may occur on this project.

The Respondent described their approach to Project Management to be applied to the project defined in the RFQ.

The approach demonstrates sound business practices that are anticipated to be beneficial to the overall project implementation, for both the Respondent and the District.

S2.5

The Respondent described their approach to Cost Control and demonstrate sound business practices that are anticipated to be beneficial to the overall project implementation, for both the Respondent and the School District, to include but not limited to:

a.value engineering;

b.change orders;

c.errors and omissions.

S2.2

The Respondent provided a current Organizational Chart, specified key management and administrative personnel who will be assigned to project, and described the roles and responsibility of each. The plan identified one key staff person with project administration experience to serve as designated Engineer. (A person may, if qualified, fill multiple roles.)

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Total 100

SELECTION CRITERIA # 3 Weight 10% FINANCIALS / LITIGATION

S3.1

The Respondent has provided financial statements, either audited or unaudited, for the most recent three (3) years.

The Respondent has provided the following information:

1. Financial statement, audited or unaudited, for the most recent three (3) years.

2. A list of all liens for which the firm or its owners are liable.

3. List of all lawsuits to which the firm has been a party ‐ either as a claimant or defendant ‐ within the most recent seven (7) years.

a. Explanation or status of each

b. Indication or any judgement, claims, arbitration proceeding, suites (pending or outstanding), against the organization or its officers.

Explain the resolution or status of each.

4. For Joint Ventures, the above items are required from all parties.

5. The Response materials demonstrate that the Respondent has financial resources to start up and follow through on project(s) described in the RFQ. A minimum of two District staff from the Business Services Division will review compliant responses and score criteria S3.1. At the District’s discretion, a consultant may conduct the review and provide recommendations.

SELECTION CRITERIA # 4 Weight 12% WORKLOAD / DISTRICT PROJECTS

S4.1

The Respondent has submitted a response that describes their current and projected workload (Include School

District Projects) of the team presented. The following was provided:

a. Project name;

b. Project owner;

c. General Contractor or Construction Manager (if applicable);

d. Contract amounts;

i. total project cost;

ii. Engineer fee;

e. Percent complete of the projects;

f. Scheduled completion date of the projects;

g. Level of support for all staff supporting the project, and also proposed to support this School District project. This information has demonstrated the ability to accommodate the startup, performance, and completion of the project(s) described in the RFQ.

S5.1

The Respondent has submitted sufficient evidence to meet the Districts requirement to be considered "Local". Local shall mean:

a) any person, firm partnership, company or corporation whose place of business is located within the boundaries of

Lee County Florida; or

b) any person, firm, partnership, company or corporation that has provided goods or services to the School District of

Lee County on a regular basis for the consecutive three (3) years, and that has the personnel, equipment and materials located within the boundaries of Lee County sufficient to constitute a present ability to perform the service or provide the goods.

Evidence may include but not be limited to: Sunbiz; local business tax license; preceding consecutive three year project listing, list of personnel or equipment and materials for Lee County Office. This section is evaluated in advance by District Staff. The intent of the District is to ensure that tax revenues are reinvested into the local economy and encourage the procurement of goods and services from local vendors. The District in its sole discretion may determine whether a vendor is sufficiently furthering the local vendor preference program objectives. The local vendor preference shall be applied to District programs as allowed, except those that are federally funded directly or indirectly. Any supplier falsely claiming to be local supplier as defined above will be subject to Debarment as outlined in the Board Policy 6.071.

S4.2

The Respondent has submitted a response listing all School District Projects completed or in progress with the School

District of Lee County for the past seven (7) years, and the dollar value (Engineer Fee) of each project at its conclusion, or the current value if in progress. Continuing Contract projects must be included. Scores are ranked based on the number of Respondents for each RFQ. The highest number of points are awarded to the Respondent with the least amount of work to assist with equitable distribution.

SELECTION CRITERIA # 5 Weight 4% LOCAL PARTICIPATION

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Weight

Does Not

Meet

Partially

Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Total 100

P6 District Projects: Results are carried over from evaluation of Written Response, Section S4.2. 2

SELECTION CRITERIA # 6 Weight 2% DISTRICT PROJECTS

P2.2

The Respondent described their approach to Project Management to be applied to the project(s) defined in the RFQ.

The approach demonstrates sound business practices that are anticipated to be beneficial to the overall project implementation, for both the Respondent and the District.

P3

The Respondent described their approach to Cost Controls to be applied to the project(s) defined in the RFQ. The approach demonstrates sound business practices that are anticipated to be beneficial to the overall project implementation, for both the Respondent and the District.

P2.3

The Respondent submitted a proposed Timeline for the project, and described the steps and quality measures the

Respondent proposes to undertake in order to complete the Scope of Work. The timeline is realistic, accommodates unexpected delays, and is compatible with the District’s desired timeline.

SELECTION CRITERIA # 3 Weight 15% COST CONTROLS

SELECTION CRITERIA # 1 Weight: 22% PROPOSED PROJECT TEAM

SELECTION CRITERIA # 2 Weight: 40% METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH / PROJECT MANAGEMENT / TIMELINE

The Respondents Methodology and Approach to the project was presented, including the approach to solving potential problems. The approach was clear, demonstrated sound business practices, and is a desirable approach for the District.

The Respondent’s Proposed Project Team included key project personnel who participated in the presentation and communicated their knowledge, skills and abilities relevant to the project implementation and success.

P1.1

P2.1

SELECTION CRITERIA # 4 Weight 12% CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

P4 The Respondent presented Creative and Innovative solutions to be applied to the project. The solutions can be reasonably applied and will result in improvements to the finished project.

SELECTION CRITERIA # 5 Weight 9% KNOWLEDGE OF PROJECT SITE AND LOCAL PARTICIPATION

P5.1 The Respondent demonstrated Knowledge of the Project Site and local conditions that will impact the implementation of the RFQ project.

P5.2 Local Participation: Results are carried over from evaluation of Written Response, Section S5.1.

EVALUATION OF PRESENTATIONS

RATINGS