Section M-Boiler Renovation.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Boiler Renovation Construction Project
- Solicitation number
- AG-63PX-S-12-0005
About this file
Updated Section M Price Evaluation Factors For Phase II Quotes
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Section B-RH Blr Renov.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
SELECTION CRITERIA
Proposals will be evaluated using a two-phase selection process; one solicitation will be issued covering both phases. After evaluation of the Phase I proposals a maximum of five offerors will be asked to submit Phase II proposals.
One contract will be awarded using competitive negotiation.
PHASE I PROPOSAL AND FACTORS:
Offerors responding during Phase I will be evaluated based upon their responses to the following evaluation criteria:
| 1. | Project Understanding and Approach (10 points) |
| a) | Discuss generally the tasks involved in this design-build project. |
| b) | Identify any special issues or problems that are likely to be encountered. |
| c) | Demonstrate clearly and concisely the offeror’s understanding of the technical and institutional elements which the offeror must address. |
| d) | Describe the organizational structure of the project, the management approach and how each partner and major subcontractor fit into the structure. |
| e) | Outline your proposed approach for dealing with the tasks and issues of this project. |
| 2. | Past Experience (25 points) |
| a) | Identify the legal structure of the offeror and/or consortium of firm(s) preparing the proposal. |
| b) | Describe the relevant business experience of the firm(s), both independently and jointly, as it relates to carrying out the proposed project. The offeror’s past design and construction experience shall be shown on similar projects over the past five years. Experience is relevant when the offeror has been confronted with the kinds of work or challenges that will be present under the contract contemplated. The offeror will be assessed by the relevant experience on the basis of its breadth and its depth. For each relevant contract or reference, the offeror shall provide: |
· Name and location of the project.
· Contact name and phone number of customer or their agent.
· Whether the offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor.
· List of subcontractors and suppliers used.
· Brief description of project and work performed.
| 3. | Past Performance (25 points) |
| a) | Experience is relevant when the offeror has satisfied performance factors with customers in the past and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The assessment of past performance will be subjective, and based mainly on the offeror’s reputation with their customers and others. Previous references will be contacted for information regarding their opinion on the following: |
· Capability, efficiency, and effectiveness.
· Commitment to safety.
· Performance conformed to the terms and conditions of the contract.
· Reasonableness and cooperation during performance.
· Commitment to quality work and timely completion. Offeror’s with no past performance will be rated as “Neutral” in this category and not necessarily be rejected.
| 4. | Staffing (15 points) |
| a) | Provide names and title of key personnel to be assigned to the project, i.e., Design Architect, Design Engineer, Project Manager, Project Superintendent, and Project Foreman. The key personnel shall be indicated in an organizational chart relative to each person’s role. The offeror shall provide the qualifications of all key personnel, including but not limited to: experience, education, and for engineers the states they are licensed to practice. |
| b) | Evaluations will be based on the relationship of the experience and education to the needs of the specific project. Experience and education significantly beyond the requirements required for the project will not receive a higher rating. Experience and education related to elevator modernization is significant. |
| 5. | Quality Control and Quality Assurance (15 points) |
| a) | A proposed Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Plan for the project shall be submitted. At a minimum the plan should discuss the following: |
· Quality control process during design to minimize errors and omission.
· Methods to insure incorporation of Government comments, concerns, and feedback.
· Quality control process for insuring compliance with the project criteria and project’s goals and objectives.
· Constructability reviews (explain interaction between design and construction staff).
· Review process and certification for submittals.
· Name and qualifications of person responsible for QC during construction.
· Internal QC procedure to be performed during construction.
| c) | The offeror shall explain their methodology for monitoring the submittal process to insure timely submission, review, and certifications of submittals. |
| d) | The offeror’s schedule will be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, and methodology of controlling and managing the project schedule. An overall schedule of less time will not necessarily be rated higher than a longer schedule, although minimizing overall project time is desirable. |
PHASE II PROPOSAL AND FACTORS
The highest rated offerors from Phase I will be selected to submit Phase II proposals. The Government will notify those offerors that did not make the competitive range and will not be considered for further evaluations. Those offerors making the competitive range will be requested to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II proposals will be evaluated based upon responses to the following criteria:
| 1. | Proposed Systems and Equipment (30 points) |
| a) | Provide a written description of the materials, equipment, systems, and infrastructure modifications proposed; specifically addressing finish material and the characteristics of the fixtures/equipment being proposed, and the equipment which will be reused. Include manufacturers cut sheets and sales information identifying the finishes, fixtures, and equipment being proposed. |
| 2. | Innovation (20 points) |
| a) | Identify and explain issues or potential problems and what, if any, methods are proposed to deal with them. |
| b) | Identify and explain what innovative materials and equipment are proposed for this project. |
| c) | Identify any aspects of the design or construction elements that the firm considers to be innovative. Include a description of alternatives that were considered whether implemented or not. |
| 3. | Sustainability (20 points) |
| a) | Provide discussion of the offeror’s use of sustainable practices, designs, and construction. Include information on equipment energy efficiency, life-cycle costs, and the use of recycled material. |
| 4. | Maintainability (30 points) |
| a) | Describe what has been done to minimize routine maintenance costs. Identify the sources of project materials. |
| b) | Describe the use of open market and proprietary materials and equipment. |
| c) | Provide information on warranties and salient operation and maintenance features. |
| 5. | Project Schedule (10 points) |
| a) | The preliminary project schedule shall be submitted in a graphical format. It should depict the proposed start dates, durations, and end tasks. Tasks which fall on the critical path should be highlighted. As a minimum the schedule shall include the following major tasks and associated subtask: |
· Design phase
· Government review time
· Proposed dates for review meetings and preconstruction meeting
· Start construction date
· Site mobilization
| b) | The offeror shall identify their approach to monitoring and maintaining the project schedule. |
| c) | The offeror shall explain their methodology for monitoring the submittal process to insure timely submission, review, and certifications of submittals. |
| d) | The offeror’s schedule will be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, and methodology of controlling and managing the project schedule. An overall schedule of less time will not necessarily be rated higher than a longer schedule. |
| 6. | Price |
a) Price proposals shall be provided separately from the Technical Proposal. Each price proposal shall be evaluated to determine its reasonableness for the effort proposed and to determine the demonstrated understanding of the level of effort needed to successfully complete the project.
b) Price proposal shall include all fees and charges. Include at a minimum:
• Detailed cost breakdown displaying labor hours, material costs, and subcontractor costs by task.
• Completed Schedule B.
• Completed SF 1442
• Provide verification of financial status of the company, credit information.
BASIS OF AWARD
Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is (1) technically acceptable and (2) technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government. Evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price in the award decision. The critical factor in making any cost/technical trade-off is not the spread between the technical ratings, but rather, the significance of that difference. The significance of the spread of ratings will be determined on the basis of what the difference might mean in terms of the performance and what it would cost the Government to take advantage of it. Award may not necessarily be made for technical capabilities that would appear to exceed those needed for the successful performance of the work. The Government reserves the right to make cost/technical tradeoffs that are in the best interest of and advantageous to the Government.
Award may be made without further discussions. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms, from price and technical standpoint, which the offeror can submit to the government. The Government may, after evaluation of the proposals, conduct further oral or written discussions as appropriate, with any or all offerors. Failure to provide all information requested by the RFP may render the proposal as unacceptable.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .