BPM004175 Consensus Evaluation Report - signed.pdf
PDF 4 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Master Agreement AZ|CTR060743
- Contract number
- CTR060743
- Issued by
- Arizona
About this file
This document is an evaluation report for Solicitation No. BPM004175 for "Tanks Services" issued by a state procurement agency. The evaluation committee reviewed proposals from multiple environmental and engineering consulting firms, including Adams & Wendt, Atlas Technical Consultants, Brown & Caldwell, Environmental Technology, Geosyntec Consultants, Groundwater & Environmental Services, Hydro Geo Chem, Matrix New World Engineering, SCS Engineers, Stantec Consulting Services, Terracon Consultants, Terranext, Tetra Tech, Western Technologies, and Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions.
The solicitation appears to be a statewide indefinite delivery vehicle for environmental tank services, with contractors evaluated across four key categories: Experience and Capacity (50% weight), Proposed Approach (35% weight), Cost Proposal (15% weight), and a Multi-Category Bonus (up to 100 points). Evaluation criteria included project descriptions, references, organizational profiles, key personnel, proposed subcontractors, and technical capabilities in areas such as UST Permanent Closure, Site Investigation, Remediation Testing, Design & Implementation, and Risk Evaluation & Assessment. The evaluation committee recommended award to all 15 listed contractors, suggesting this is a multiple-award contract allowing state agencies to compete tasks among the pre-qualified vendors.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
Offeror Area of Service
Total Score Weight 1 - Experience and Capacity = 500 pts * Section Grade
1.1 Experience and Capacity Section Grade (0% - 100%)
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Project Descriptions 165 165 180 180 180 180 References 30 30 30 30 20 30 Organizational Profile 30 30 30 30 30 30 Key Personnel 75 75 75 75 50 60 Proposed Subs 60 60 60 60 60 60
Weight 2 - Proposed Approach = 350 pts * Section Grade
2.1 Proposed Approach
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
UST Permanent Closure 10 20 20 20 10 20 Site Investigation 30 40 40 40 20 40 Remediation Testing, Design & Implementation 30 60 10 60 0 60 Risk Evaluation & Assessment 10 20 10 20 10 20
3 - Cost Proposal = 150 points Lowest Price / Offered Price X Maximum Points = Awarded Points
4 - Multi-Category Bonus = 100 ptsAll Four Field Categories = 100 pts Three Field Categories = 50 pts Two Field Categories = 25 pts One Field Category = 0 pts
Tina LePage Sowj Chintalapati Procurement Officer Name: Evaluator Name: Evaluator Name:
Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date
Jeff Rackow Debbie Goodwin Evaluator Name: Evaluator Name:
Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date
Brown & Caldwell All
94%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
29%
50%
35%
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Atlas All
100%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
57%
Adams & Wendt
100%
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
All
57%
Meets Expectations
15%
Jorge Espinosa
The members of the evaluation committee have completed their review and reached consensus regarding the proposals received in response to Solicitation No. BPM004175 for "Tanks Services".
This evaluation report accurately and completely reflects the opinion of the committee as a whole. Therefore, in accordance with Solicitation Instructions to Offerors, Section 6.5, it is recommended that it would be in the best interest of the State to make an award to the following Contractors: Adams & Wendt, Atlas Technical Consultants, Brown & Caldwell, Environmental Technology, Geosyntec Consultants, Groundwater & Environmental Services, Hydro Geo Chem, Matrix New World Engineering, SCS Engineers, Stantec Consulting Services, Terracon Consultants, Terranext, Tetra Tech, Western Technologies, and Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions.
Below Expectations
Offer did not identify key points expected in their response.
Patricia Lorenzen
Jun 2, 2022
Jun 2, 2022
Jun 2, 2022
Jun 2, 2022
Jeff Rackow (Jun 6, 2022 07:21 PDT) Jeff Rackow Jun 6, 2022
Jun 7, 2022 https://azdeqsign.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAASU0Y1F3vw8I8m0e-1GbSJfytW-9ftORv https://azdeqsign.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAASU0Y1F3vw8I8m0e-1GbSJfytW-9ftORv https://secure.na1.adobesign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAASU0Y1F3vw8I8m0e-1GbSJfytW-9ftORv https://azdeqsign.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAASU0Y1F3vw8I8m0e-1GbSJfytW-9ftORv https://azdeqsign.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAASU0Y1F3vw8I8m0e-1GbSJfytW-9ftORv https://azdeqsign.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAASU0Y1F3vw8I8m0e-1GbSJfytW-9ftORv
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
140 180 180 180 75 150 160 180 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 65 75 75 75 55 75 45 45 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
10 20 10 20 20 20 10 20 0 40 30 40 30 40 30 40
10 60 30 60 50 60 20 60 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20
50%
Meets Expectations
GES
All 94%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
79%
Meets Expectations
GEOSYNTECH
All 72%
Meets Expectations
57%
Meets Expectations
ENTECH
All
100%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
21%
EEC
All 79%
Above Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs. Remedial Testing projects were non-UST.
Below Expectations
Offer did not present sufficient responses to questions.
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
180 180 180 180 70 180 180 180 10 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 65 75 75 75 35 45 75 75 60 60 60 60 0 60 60 60
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
20 20 20 20 0 20 20 20 10 40 40 40 0 40 20 40 30 60 10 60 10 60 0 60 20 20 20 20 10 20 10 20
36%
Below Expectations
Offer did not identify key points expected in their response.
SCS
All
100%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
14%
Unacceptable Offer provided minimal relevant responses to questions.
NICKLAUS
All 39%
Below Expectations
Project provided lacking in Remediation and Risk Evaluation. References were not provided.
64%
Meets Expectations
MATRIX NEW WORLD
All
100%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
57%
Meets Expectations
HGC
All 92%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
180 180 165 165 180 180 115 165 30 30 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 75 75 75 75 55 60 40 75 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
20 20 10 20 20 20 10 20 30 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 60 60 20 60 20 60 50 60 10 20 20 20 10 20 0 20
64%
Meets Expectations
TETRA TECH
All 71%
Meets Expectations
57%
Meets Expectations
TERRANEXT
All 99%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
57%
Meets Expectations
TERRACON
All 97%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
86%
Meets Expectations
STANTEC
All
100%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personel and qualified subs.
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
180 180 180 180 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 65 75 75 75 60 60 60 60
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
Section Grade Categorization Comments Earned Max Possible
20 20 20 20 0 40 30 40 0 60 50 60
10 20 10 20
79%
Meets Expectations
WOOD
All
100%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
21%
Below Expectations
Offer did not identify key points expected in their response.
WESTERN TECH
All 97%
Exceeds Expectations
Demonstrated relevant projects, experienced personnel and qualified subs.
| 2022-06-07T09:52:51-0700 | |
| Agreement certified by Adobe Acrobat Sign |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .