B2.10.00_DRAFT-RFP_Sec_M_Evaluation_Criteria_RFP_369905.docx

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

RFP 369905

Cryomodule Repair & Maintenance Facility (CRMF) Cleanroom Construction

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

A. Basis for Subcontract Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Department of Energy Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DEARS), and SLAC Terms and Conditions. SLAC will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of all the technical factors and subfactors to include Price.

The subcontract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to SLAC.

SLAC seeks to award to the Offeror who gives SLAC the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While SLAC’s source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the sources election process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Number of Subcontracts to be Awarded SLAC intends to award one firm-fixed price subcontract under this RFP.

C. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers SLAC may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, subcontract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in cost when compared to SLAC’s estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

D. Correction Potential of Proposals SLAC will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of SLAC. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet SLAC’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to SLAC based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Refer to Subcontract Section L for full description of evaluation factors.

VOLUME 1 - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Technical Factor 1 – Technical Approach Offeror will be evaluated as set forth below.

Sub-factor 1.1 Project Delivery Approach: The Offeror shall be evaluated on the degree to which their project delivery approach aligns with the project goals and requirements stated in the SOW. The proposal should demonstrate a clear and comprehensive understanding of the project scope, key technical challenges, and risks, as well as the clarity and completeness of the proposed methodology towards successful project execution.

Sub-factor 1.2 Project Schedule: The Offeror shall be evaluated on the completeness and inter-dependencies of their proposed schedule, which must include pre-construction, construction, and post-construction activities, as well as long lead-time materials/equipment, utilization of lower tier subcontractors, and the project close-out phase. The Offeror will be assessed on how well the project schedule aligns with the required project timeline outlined in the SOW.

Sub-factor 1.3 Current and Potential Workload: The Offeror shall be evaluated on the relevance and scope of concurrent non-SLAC projects and the potential impact on resource availability and capacity to perform the work.

Sub-factor 1.4 Assumptions & Clarifications: The Offeror shall be evaluated on the appropriateness, clarity, and potential impact of the assumptions and clarifications presented in the proposal. Unreasonable or ambiguous assumptions may negatively affect the evaluation.

Sub-factor 1.5 Post-Award Activities: The Offeror shall be evaluated on how well the proposed approach to immediate post-award activities, including construction readiness review, mobilization, and startup demonstrates readiness to commence the project.

Sub-factor 1.6 Proposed Resources: The Offeror shall be evaluated on the adequacy, qualifications, and availability of proposed internal and external resources, including self-performed labor, subcontractors, and physical resources required to construct the facilities and infrastructure.

Sub-factor 1.7 Cost Management: Offeror’s cost management approach will be evaluated for clarity, proactiveness, trackability and transparency.

Sub-factor 1.8 Communication Plan: Offeror’s communication plan will be evaluated for clarity, acceptability and thorough inclusion of stakeholders and personnel.

Sub-factor 1.9 Cleanroom Execution Strategy: The Offeror shall be evaluated on the completeness, feasibility, and effectiveness of its proposed approach for cleanroom construction, contamination control, system integration, testing, commissioning, certification, and turnover. The evaluation will consider the Offeror's understanding of project-specific technical risks and the adequacy of proposed mitigation strategies.

Sub-factor 1.10 Project Management Approach: The Offeror shall be evaluated on the soundness, effectiveness, and feasibility of its proposed project management approach, including coordination of subcontractors, cost and schedule control, risk management, issue resolution, and management of construction, commissioning, and turnover activities.

Technical Factor 2 – Safety The offeror will be evaluated on the criteria set forth below.

Sub-factor 2.1 ES&H Program Implementation: Offeror’s ES&H program will be evaluated for how well it meets the requirements outlined in SLAC terms and conditions, Article 15, “ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY, AND HEALTH PROTECTION – CODES AND STANDARDS.”

Sub-factor 2.2 Environmental Compliance History: Information provided by Offeror will be validated and checked for non-compliance and/or criminal or civil enforcement activity.

Sub-factor 2.3 Lock-Out / Tag-Out Program: Offeror’s LOTO Program will be evaluated on clarity and acceptability.

Sub-factor 2.4 Work Planning Control Activities: Offeror’s proposed approach for completing safety Work Planning Controls (WPC) activities will be evaluated on clarity and acceptability.

Sub-factor 2.5 Safety Culture and Initiatives: Offeror’s program/initiative will be evaluated on clarity and demonstrating that provided documentation supports the program, as well as demonstrating a clear, logical process for addressing safety concerns and implementing corrective actions.

Sub-factor 2.6 Safety Qualification Form (SQF): Offeror will be required to submit and obtain SLAC’s approval for Offeror’s completed Subcontractor Construction Safety Qualification Form (SQF):

· Using Offeror’s Experience Modification Rate (EMR) offer will be evaluated on whether it’s EMR is equal to or below 1.0; and

· Offeror’s OSHA 300 logs for self- performed work performed over the past 3 years will be reviewed for any fatalities or serious injuries.

· If the Offeror has an approved SQF valid through February 2025 the SQF form and related documents do not need to be completed, but the Offeror should state that is already and approved SQF on file.

Technical Factor 3 – Key Personnel and Experience Sub-factor 3.1 Company Experience: Offeror will be evaluated on how well Offeror’s and proposed Sub-subcontractors’ (including joint venture partners and consultants) experience demonstrates their ability to perform the scope of work defined in the Subcontract.

Sub-factor 3.2 Key Personnel Qualifications: Key personnel resumes will be evaluated for individual and team experience on comparable projects (size, scope, and complexity) within the past 5 years.

Sub-factor 3.3 Team Experience: Team project experience will be reviewed and confirmed to include members of the proposed project team, for how similar in scope and budget the projects described are, and level of involvement from the proposed key personnel.

Sub-factor 3.4 Team Integration and Collaboration: Offeror’s descriptions of intra-personnel communication will be evaluated for thoroughness, team inclusiveness and level of documentation.

Sub-factor 3.5 Cleanroom and Comparable Facility Experience: Offeror will be evaluated on demonstrated experience successfully constructing, commissioning, and certifying cleanroom or similarly complex technical facilities. Evaluation will consider the relevance, complexity, size, scope, and performance of submitted project examples, including successful completion within schedule and budget constraints, quality of execution, problem resolution, and customer satisfaction. Particular consideration will be given to experience with cleanroom facilities, contamination-controlled environments, specialty process utilities, and system commissioning activities.

Sub-factor 3.6 Organization Structure: Offeror’s proposed organization chart will be evaluated for clarity relative to roles and responsibilities.

Sub-factor 3.7 Lessons Learned: Offeror's lessons learned will be evaluated for clarity, accountability and implementation of lessons illustrated.

Technical Factor 4 – Statement of Qualifications

Sub-factor 4.1 Licensing: Qualification information received will be evaluated to confirm Offeror has an active California General contractor’s license and all appropriate licenses applicable for the project.

Sub-factor 4.2 Business Qualifications: Offeror’s written statement will be reviewed to ensure:

· Offeror’s contractor’s license has not been revoked within the past five (5) years;

· Offeror’s company has not been debarred within the past five (5) years from working on any U.S. government contracts/subcontracts

· Neither the Offeror’s firm, nor any of its owners or officers have been convicted of a crime involving the awarding of the contract of a government (U.S. Federal, State, and City) construction project, or the bidding or performance of a government contract

· Offeror has an established local office for a minimum of 2 years in the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay Area is defined as the following 10 counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, and Santa Cruz Counties

· Offeror has not had any U.S projects within the past five (5) years terminated for default.

· Offeror has previous experience working at Department of Energy (DOE) and/or Department of Defense (DOD) Facilities

Technical Factor 5 – Interview

Sub-factor 5.1 Interview and Presentation Evaluation: The Offeror shall be evaluated based on the clarity, completeness, and relevance of responses provided during the interview, as supported by the accompanying presentation. The evaluation will consider how well the Offeror addresses the questions posed by the Source Selection Board (to be provided prior to the interview), demonstrates alignment with project requirements, and articulates their team’s understanding, readiness, and proposed approach.

Volume 2 - BUSINESS PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Clearly stamp all company financial documents as “Business Sensitive” or equivalent language, if applicable, on any included documents.

Business Factor 1 – Financial Standing

Sub-factor 1.1 Bonding Capacity: Bonding ability will be evaluated for the project and Offeror’s overall bonding capacity letter from the primary’s Surety.

Sub-factor 1.2 Dun & Bradstreet Evaluation: The Dun and Bradstreet report will be reviewed for risk and evaluated as meeting the criteria with a D&B Supplier Evaluation Risk Rating of 6 or below. Offeror will be graded on reporting that either “Meet Requirements” or “Does Not Meet Requirements.”

For Bidders with a Dun and Bradstreet SER score greater than 6, or offerors who choose not to participate in Dun and Bradstreet, audited Financial Statements from the previous three years will be reviewed for risk using three financial ratios – Current Ratio (Working Capital), Debt to Equity Ratio, and General and Administrative (G&A) Expense to Revenue Ratio.

Business Factor 2 - Price Proposal and Subcontract Documentation

Sub-factor 2.1: Submitted RFP Section A (Subcontract Form) will be reviewed for completeness, and amendment forms will be reviewed for submission of signed acknowledgment.

Sub-factor 2.2: RFP Section B (Supplier or Service Prices)

· Submitted RFP Section B will be reviewed for completeness.

· Submitted preliminary schedule of values and preliminary expenditure profile will be reviewed for completeness.

· Submitted Price Breakdown Form (B2_09.2_CRMF_Cleanroom_Construction_Bid_Breakdown_Form) will be reviewed for completeness.

· Submitted company’s labor rate sheet will be reviewed for thoroughness and validity through end of the period of performance

Sub-Factor 2.3: Additional Required Subcontract Documentation (Sections A-K) to be completed as indicated below. Additional Documents required of this solicitation will be reviewed for completeness.

· RFP Section H (Special Terms and Conditions) Completes with Key Personnel names

· RFP Section J (List of Attachments):

· Injury and Illness Prevention Program Acknowledgement Form (B2_07.3_RFP_Section_J_Subcontractor_Form_IIPP) completed and signed.

· Subcontractor Safety Qualification Form (B2_07.5_RFP_Section_J_SubcontractorFormSQF) completed and submitted with documentation identified on the form, or a statement that an approved SQF is valid through 6/30/2028.

· RFP Section K (Representations & Certifications) Completed and signed.

Business Factor 3 – Terms and Conditions Acceptance and/or Exceptions

Acceptance and/or Exceptions to SLAC Terms and Conditions, including all attachments and documents incorporated by reference, will be reviewed for completeness. This includes all SLAC Terms and Conditions, Technical Specifications, Drawings, Statement of Work, and requirements within the forms listed above under Business Factor 2.

Note that all exceptions to the SLAC Terms and Conditions will require SLAC Legal approval.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Although price is important, it will not be used for the sole basis for award. A qualitative assessment of the proposal will take place. The focus of the proposal evaluation and selection process will be to identify the individual proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

All technical proposals shall be evaluated utilizing an adjectival technical rating based on “Exceeds, Meets, or Does Not Meet” the technical requirements:

deficiency(ies) or involves a moderate to high risk.

The Offeror’s Volume II proposal will be evaluated utilizing a business rating based on “Meets” or “Does Not Meet” the business requirements.

funding profile.

Pricing may be evaluated as part of the overall Best Value Trade-off assessment and will be reviewed for completeness, realism, and reasonableness.

received.

analyses technique.

4. DEBRIEFINGS

Debriefings will be done within 3 days at the request of any Offeror wishing to understand the reasons for the University’s selection. The discussion shall not include comparisons with the other proposals. An explanation of the evaluation of significant elements in the Offeror’s proposal, summary of the rationale for eliminating the Offeror from the competition and assure the Offeror that its proposal was treated fairly, impartially and objectively. The Procurement Specialist will conduct debriefing(s).