BPM004287-Eval_Consensus_Report-Abatement_Services_.pdf

Solicitation No. BPM004287

Rating Definitions for Criteria 1 and

Formula for Scoring Overall Price (Criteria 3)

Rating Definitions for Criteria 4

Does not comply - Several Exceptions

COMPREHENSIVE RISK

SERVICES

SOUTHWEST HAZARD

CONTROL

EAST VALLEY DISASTER

SERVICES, INC

NATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL LLC KARY ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES INC

PHOENIX ENVIRONMENTAL

GROUP, LLC

SPRAY SYSTEMS OF ARIZONA

INC

CIRCADIAN ENTERPRISES, INC VIKING SPECIALTY

CONTRACTING

TITAN RESTORATION OF AZ LLC GO TO SERVICES,LLC

Total Score 600 568 566 550 549 529 528 517 351 263 260

Weight 1 - Method of Approach = 600 points 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 150 150 150

600 1.1 Method of Approach Meets Expectations 300 Meets Expectations 300 Meets Expectations 300 Meets Expectations 300 Meets Expectations 300 Meets Expectations 300 Meets Expectations 300 Meets Expectations 300 Below Expectation 150 Below Expectation 150 Below Expectation 150 Unacceptable 0

Did not provide a narrative of the questions asked, but rather submitted a standard operating procedure . Limited information on project management Reporting.

Limited information on Report writing and on Quality assurance approach. Did not mention any involvement in working with third-party consultants. Inadequate method of approach for developing a scope of work for Asbestos.

Limited description of QA/QC process. Limited information on Report writing and on Quality assurance approach. Did not mention any involvement in working with third-party consultants

Weight

2 - Experience, Expertise, Reliability, Capacity of Organization and Key Personnel = 200 points 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50

2.1 Experience, Expertise and Reliability

of Offeror's Key Personnel and Organization Meets Expectations 100 Meets Expectations 100 Meets Expectations 100 Meets Expectations 100 Meets Expectations 100 Meets Expectations 100 Meets Expectations 100 Below Expectation 50 Below Expectation 50 Below Expectation 50 Below Expectation 50 Below Expectation 50

Submitted 2 expired worker's certificates.

more than 50% of listed key personnel are fairly new to the company (<3.5 years.). Did not provide staff references, certificates/licenses.

Limited information provided on key personnel, license certificates, business licenses, staffing/organization chart.

No organizational chart provided. Did not make statements in response to experience and capacity questionnaire. No or very little description of experience.

Weight 3 - Overall Price Proposal = 200 points 200 168 166 150 149 129 128 167 151 63 60

200 (33.67/33.67)*200 200 (33.67/40.19)*200 168 (33.67/40.56)*200 166 (33.67/44.99)*200 150 (33.67/45.11)*200 149 (33.67/52.22)*200 129 (33.67/52.40)*200 128 (33.67/40.24)*200 167 (33.67/44.70)*200 151 (33.67/106.94)*200 63 (33.67/113.06)*200 60 (33.67/124.35)*200 54

Comments

· COMPREHENSIVE RISK SERVICES

· SOUTHWEST HAZARD CONTROL

· EAST VALLEY DISASTER SERVICES INC

· NATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL LLC

· KARY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC

· PHOENIX ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LLC

· SPRAY SYSTEMS OF ARIZONA INC

· CIRCADIAN ENTERPRISES INC

(DEQ Sr. Procurement Specialist) Date

Evaluator Name:Travis Barnum(ADEQ) Date

Evaluator Name:David Jaggers(DES) Date

Evaluator Name: Kenneth Morris(DOT) Date

"Abatement Services" For each evaluation criteria that follows, a determination was made regarding how well the proposals satisfied the stated requirements. The rating definitions, found below, formed the basis for determining the scores assigned to each proposal. The comments fields were used to note strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.

EVALUATION REPORT

KUSTOM US

Unacceptable = Elements of the proposal that are unacceptable to the State.

Lowest Price / Offered Price X Maximum Points = Awarded Points

Complies with no exceptions Complies with minimal exceptions

Experience is limited to restoration as a result of an emergency. Lacked experience on Abatement projects. Listed a good number of personnel, however, did not provide information on staff's qualifications and capabilities.

The Supplier's methodology does not seem to engage the business owner in the development of the scope. Stated they would comply with the regulations, but did not explain how they would . QA/QC process was lacking. No methodology for Class 3.

Merrilyn Forbin

Description: Statewide Asbestos, Lead and Mold Consultant And Abatement Services

The members of the evaluation committee have completed their review and reached consensus regarding the proposals received in response to Solicitation No. BPM004287 for "Statewide Asbestos, Lead and Mold Consultant And Abatement 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 5 (Responsibility, Responsiveness, and Susceptibility) and , Section 6 (Evaluation of Offers)and Section 7,(Award of Contract) it is recommended that it would be in the best interest of the State to make an award to the following Contractors:

Below Expectation = Proposal doesn’t fully meet or doesn’t completely address requirement(s) of the RFP

Offerors

Exceeds Expectations = Proposal is very detailed, indicates a clear understanding of the RFP and provides innovative or exceptional responses.

Above Expectations = Proposal meets all requirement(s) outlined in the RFP but also provides a response that goes beyond what is required.

Meets Expectations = Proposal meets requirement(s) outlined in the RFP.

5/26/2023

Abatement Services