Attachment_B_-_Criteria_for_Awarding_Points.pdf
PDF 252 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 0000038450
- Issued by
- Alameda County, Alpine County, Amador County, Butte County, Calaveras County, Colusa County, Contra Costa County, Del Norte County, El Dorado County, Fresno County, Glenn County, Humboldt County, Imperial County, Inyo County, Kern County, Kings County, Lake County, Lassen County, Los Angeles County, Madera County, Marin County, Mariposa County, Mendocino County, Merced County, Modoc County, Mono County, Monterey County, Napa County, Nevada County, Orange County, Placer County, Plumas County, Riverside County, Sacramento County, San Benito County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, San Francisco County, San Joaquin County, San Luis Obispo County, San Mateo County, Santa Barbara County, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, Shasta County, Sierra County, Siskiyou County, Solano County, Sonoma County, Stanislaus County, Sutter County, Tehama County, Trinity County, Tulare County, Tuolumne County, Ventura County, Yolo County, Yuba County, Alameda City, Alpine Village CDP, Amador City, Amador Pines CDP, Sutter Creek City, Butte Creek Canyon CDP, Butte Meadows CDP, Butte Valley CDP, Rancho Calaveras CDP, Colusa City, Contra Costa Centre CDP, Auburn Lake Trails CDP, El Dorado Hills CDP, Placerville City, South Lake Tahoe City, Fresno City, Kingsburg City, Orange Cove City, San Joaquin City, Shaver Lake CDP, Blue Lake City, Humboldt Hill CDP, Imperial City, Alta Sierra CDP, China Lake Acres CDP, Glennville CDP, Inyokern CDP, Kernville CDP, Lake Isabella CDP, Lake of the Woods CDP, Lakeside CDP, Hidden Valley Lake CDP, Lakeport City, Lower Lake CDP, North Lakeport CDP, Upper Lake CDP, East Los Angeles CDP, Elizabeth Lake CDP, Lake Hughes CDP, Lake Los Angeles CDP, Lakewood City, Los Angeles City, Marina Del Rey CDP, Monterey Park City, San Marino City, Sierra Madre City, Bass Lake CDP, Madera City, Madera Acres CDP, Madera Ranchos CDP, Yosemite Lakes CDP, Corte Madera Town, Lucas Valley-Marinwood CDP, Marin City CDP, Lake Don Pedro CDP, Mariposa CDP, Mendocino CDP, Merced City, University of California-Merced CDP, Lake City CDP, Crowley Lake CDP, June Lake CDP, Mammoth Lakes Town, Mono City CDP, Twin Lakes CDP, Virginia Lakes CDP, Marina City, Monterey City, Napa City, Lake of the Pines CDP, Lake Wildwood CDP, Nevada City, Lake Forest City, Orange City, Kings Beach CDP, Bucks Lake CDP, Lake Almanor Country Club CDP, Lake Almanor Peninsula CDP, Lake Almanor West CDP, Lake Davis CDP, Plumas Eureka CDP, Canyon Lake City, Lake Elsinore City, Lakeland Village CDP, Lake Mathews CDP, Lake Riverside CDP, Lakeview CDP, Riverside City, Orangevale CDP, Sacramento City, Big Bear Lake City, Lake Arrowhead CDP, San Bernardino City, Silver Lakes CDP, Spring Valley Lake CDP, Alpine CDP, Imperial Beach City, Lake San Marcos CDP, Rancho San Diego CDP, San Diego City, San Diego Country Estates CDP, San Francisco City, Lake Nacimiento CDP, San Luis Obispo City, Emerald Lake Hills CDP, San Mateo City, South San Francisco City, Santa Barbara City, University of California-Santa Barbara CDP, Santa Clara City, Santa Cruz City, Lakehead CDP, Shasta CDP, Shasta Lake City, Sierra Brooks CDP, Sierra City CDP, Sierraville CDP, Lake Shastina CDP, Mount Shasta City, Sonoma City, Sonoma State University CDP, Monterey Park Tract CDP, Orange Blossom CDP, Sutter CDP, Yuba City, Lake California CDP, Rancho Tehama Reserve CDP, Tehama City, Trinity Center CDP, Trinity Village CDP, East Tulare Villa CDP, Tulare City, Mono Vista CDP, Phoenix Lake CDP, Pine Mountain Lake CDP, Sierra Village CDP, Tuolumne City CDP, Lake Sherwood CDP, West Sacramento City, Yolo CDP, Plumas Lake CDP, California
About this file
This is a scoring rubric document for evaluating proposals submitted to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for Exhibit Design and Fabrication Services. The technical evaluation criteria are divided into four categories: Past Performance and Experience (18 points maximum), Understanding of Project Requirements (12 points maximum), Organization and Management Plan (5 points maximum), and Key Personnel (5 points maximum), for a combined technical score of 40 points. The Past Performance and Experience category assesses whether proposers have successfully delivered projects of similar scope and complexity, demonstrated applicable cost savings and schedule improvement methodologies, and consistently delivered high-quality products under schedule constraints. The Understanding of Project Requirements category evaluates proposers' knowledge of project specifications, analytical credibility, and capability to execute exhibit design and fabrication services with innovation and autonomy. The Organization and Management Plan and Key Personnel categories each assess the clarity of project organization, management approach responsiveness, staffing adequacy, and the qualifications and applicable experience of assigned personnel.
The proposal evaluation combines technical and cost scoring for a maximum combined score of 70 points, with the lowest cost proposal receiving the full 30 cost points and all other proposals calculated proportionally using the formula (Lowest Cost Proposal/Other Cost Proposal) × 30. Two incentive programs apply to this solicitation: a Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) incentive providing 1 to 5 percent of the lowest responsive and responsible bid based on confirmed DVBE participation levels ranging from 0.01 percent to 10 percent or more, and a Small Business (SB) preference awarding a 5 percent bidding preference to proposers subcontracting at least 25 percent of work to certified SB/MBs, applied to the highest responsive combined proposal score. The DVBE participation requirement for this re-solicitation has been waived, although the DVBE incentive remains available for qualifying participants.
View the file
Other files
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
Exhibit Design and Fabrication Services
Attachment B: Criteria for Awarding Points for the Proposal
Attachment B: Criteria for Awarding Points for the Proposal
Maximum Score
Scoring Rubric Actual Score
1. PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE
• Has the Proposer successfully delivered on past projects of similar scope and complexity?
• Has the Proposer demonstrated sufficient experience on past projects performing the tasks required under the Scope of Work?
• Has the Proposer demonstrated applicable cost savings and schedule improvement methodologies utilized on past projects?
• Has the Proposer demonstrated a successful and repeatable past approach to delivering high-quality products with schedule constraints?
18 18 – Meets all criteria on Past Performance and Experience
12 – Meets most criteria on Past Performance and Experience (Either has full years of experience or demonstrated success on past projects, but not both)
6 – Meets some criteria on Past Performance and Experience (Has some experience or some demonstrated success, but neither the required amount)
0- Meets no criteria on Past Performance and Experience (Does not provide any experience or demonstrated success)
2. UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT
REQUIREMENTS
Project Criteria
• Has the Proposer demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the project requirements?
• Is there sufficient evidence of analysis to lend credibility to the commitments made?
• Has the Proposer given clear evidence through narratives and examples of prior work that it has the capability to carry out the Exhibit Design and Fabrication Services for a project of this complexity and magnitude with innovation and autonomy?
12 12 – Fully understands project requirements through answering all three questions
8- Mostly understands project requirements, answers some but not all questions
4- Partially understands project requirements, answers one question
0 – Does not demonstrate understanding of project requirements
Attachment B: Criteria for Awarding Points for the Proposal
3. Organization and Management Plan
• Does the proposed project organization present a clear and logical framework?
• Is the management approach complementary and responsive to the RFP requirements? Does the staffing plan convey the proper level of response for the work at hand?
• Does it demonstrate a high level of commitment and resource availability?
• Does it address the full expanse of potential tasks in the scope?
5 5 – Organization and Management plan is fully defined and demonstrates ability to carry out
SOW
3- Organization and Management plan is defined or demonstrates ability to carry out SOW
0- Organization and Management Plan is not defined and does not demonstrate ability to carry out
SOW
4. Key Personnel
• Are the personal qualifications and professional skills of the Key Personnel nominees appropriate for the roles assigned?
• Is their past experience applicable and indicative of success on this project?
5 5- Key Personnel are appropriately assigned and have past successful applicable experience
3- Key Personnel are appropriately assigned or have past successful applicable experience
0- Key Personnel are not appropriately assigned and do not have past successful applicable experience
Total Technical Proposal Score 40 Total Cost Proposal Score 30 Lowest Cost Proposal will receive the full (30) points;
All other cost proposals will be calculated as follows:
(Lowest Cost Proposal/Other Cost Proposal) x 30 points = Other Cost Proposal Score
COMBINED PROPOSAL SCORE (Technical + Cost)
Preference and Incentive Points
FINAL PROPOSAL SCORE 70
See Section 5.2.3 of this RFP for calculation of the Cost Proposal Scores.
Attachment B: Criteria for Awarding Points for the Proposal
Incentive/ Preference Points Points Added
1.
DVBE Incentive The following calculation will be used in accordance with Section___ of this RFP.
Confirmed DVBE Participation of DVBE Incentive Amount for IFB
10% or more 5% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
9% - 9.99% 4% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
8% - 8.99% 3% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
7% - 7.99% 2% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
6.01% - 6.99% 1% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
Confirmed DVBE Participation of DVBE Incentive Amount for IFB
5% or more 5% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
4% - 4.99% 4% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
3% - 3.99% 3% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
2% - 2.99% 2% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
.01% - 1.99% 1% of lowest responsive and responsible bid
2.
SB Preference Proposers who subcontract at least 25% of the work proposed to a certified SB/MB will be awarded a 5% bidding preference based on the following calculation in accordance with Section___ of this RFP.
1. Five percent is applied to the highest responsive Combined Proposal Score.
2. The preference amount is added to the Combined Proposal Score of the
Certified SB/MB or non-SB Prime achieving at least 25% subcontracting from certified SB/MBs.
Total Preference and Incentive Points
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .