SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Section M - Page 1 of 12

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

RFP # 368509

Critical Utilities Infrastructure Revitalization (CUIR) Project Subproject 1 – Master Substation Annex Construction

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Basis for Contract 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 Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DEARS), and SLAC Terms and Conditions. The University 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 the University.

The University seeks to award the Offeror who gives the University the greatest confidence that it will best fulfill all 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 the University’s source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The University intends to award one best-value trade off subcontract under this RFP. The University reserves the right and has sole discretion to reject all offers.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The University may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in cost when compared to the University’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.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The University will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or

DRAFT

Section M - Page 2 of 12 uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the University. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the University’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated.

2 EVALUATION

Because this project utilizes a best-value tradeoff method to select the most qualified subcontractor, the selection process will involve:

Volume I - Technical Proposal The Offerors will submit a Technical Proposal (Volume One). Interviews will be held in accordance with Factor 4 in Section L.

Volume II – Price Proposal The Offerors will submit a Price Proposal (Volume Two) for evaluation.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the best value to the University based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors.

2.1 Volume I – Technical Proposal

Technical proposals will be evaluated based upon the evaluation of factors and subfactors below.

2.1.1 Factor 1 – Technical Approach (50 points)

Subfactor 1.1 – Project Approach (40 points) Proposals will be evaluated on the clarity and feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to completing the work, including installation of the electrical equipment, utility relocation, and roadway widening.

Proposals will be scored based on the following elements, each worth a maximum of 5 points:

• Clarity and feasibility of methodology

• Effectiveness of sequencing for installation, utility relocation and roadway widening, and integration with existing systems

• Site logistics

• Power outage execution

• Risk mitigation and safety strategies

• Quality assurance and control

• Strategies to resolve technical challenges

• Innovative solutions

Subfactor 1.2 – Schedule (10 points)

• Schedule quality: Clarity, completeness, and realism of the proposed schedule, including identification of key milestones, the critical path, review durations, and assumptions.

• Schedule management: Adequacy of resource allocations, handling of long-lead items, inclusion of key milestones, and clear identification of any deviations from anticipated milestones, negotiated power outages, or LINAC beam downtime.

Section M - Page 3 of 12

2.1.2 Factor 2 – Safety (Pass/Fail)

Offerors must pass subfactors 2.1 and 2.2 listed below in order to be considered qualified.

Subfactor 2.1 – Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Laws A Subcontractor Safety Qualification Form (SQF) is submitted for the general contractor and first tier electrical subcontractor(s). General Contractor has an Experience Modification Rate (EMR) of 1.00 or less. For EMR higher than 1.00, considerations may be given when reasonable explanation is provided.

Subfactor 2.2 – Safety Record General Contractor and first tier electrical subcontractor to provide safety history in the past 3 years.

The ideal standard for bidder qualification is zero safety, health, or environmental citations. Any citations above zero will be subject to evaluation through the Safety Qualification Form’s (SQF) evaluation framework process to determine bidder eligibility.

2.1.3 Factor 3 – Project Management and Experience (25 points)

Subfactor 3.1 – Project Team and Staffing Plan (15 points) Evaluation will consider the qualifications and relevant experience of proposed Key Personnel, clarity of roles, level of on-site commitment, and overall organizational structure. The assessment will also focus on how the proposed team structure supports the project’s needs across construction, outage coordination, commissioning, and transition to operation phases. Resumes will be evaluated for relevance and depth of experience. Key evaluation elements (up to 5 points each) are:

• Organization chart and staffing assignments

• Team collaboration and contributions

• Key personnel qualifications

Subfactor 3.2 - Project Controls (5 points) Evaluation will consider the adequacy and sophistication of the Offeror’s approach to project controls, including schedule management, safety management, RFI/submittal processes, cost/change control, and quality assurance/quality control. The use of software and demonstrated best practices will also be evaluated.

Subfactor 3.3 - Relevant Experience (5 points) Evaluation will consider each of the three (3) submitted projects. Projects will be assessed for their relevance, size, scope, and complexity relative to the current work. Consideration will be given to the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to meet schedule, manage costs, resolve challenges, and deliver quality results on similar efforts.

2.1.4 Factor 4 – Interview (20 points)

The interview and presentation will be evaluated against the following subfactors.

Subfactor 4.1 – Team Synergy (5 points) Evaluation will consider the ability of the team to communicate effectively, interact cohesively, and respond collaboratively.

Subfactor 4.2 – Project Understanding (5 points)

Section M - Page 4 of 12

Evaluation will consider the team’s clarity and depth of understanding of project requirements, technical challenges, schedule constraints, and system integration.

Subfactor 4.3 – Commitment to Project Delivery (5 points) Evaluation will consider the team’s ability to demonstrate ownership, accountability, and strategies for maintaining schedule, cost, safety, and quality performance.

Subfactor 4.4 – Responsiveness (5 points) Evaluation will consider the clarity, thoroughness, and insight of responses provided to the project team’s questions.

2.1.5 Factor 5 – Statement of Qualifications (Pass/Fail)

Offerors must pass every factor listed below in order to be considered qualified.

Subfactor 5.1 – Offeror’s and Local Presence Offeror’s submitted statement will be evaluated based on below aspects:

a. Completed with Offeror Name, type of business, incorporation year of business, address of headquarters of General Contractor.

b. Offeror is at least 5 years in business and has at least one office within 200 miles of SLAC for at least 3 years.

Subfactor 5.2 – Licenses and Certifications The Offeror has current and valid California Contractor’s Licenses; all sub-tier contractors also have valid California licenses.

Subfactor 5.3 – Compliance with Civil and Criminal Laws General Contractor license:

a. Have not been revoked in the last 5 years.

b. Have not been debarred from working on any Government contracts/subcontracts, at any time during the last 5 years.

c. Have not been convicted of a crime involving the awarding of the contract of a government construction project, or the bidding or performance of a government contract.

2.2 Volume II - Price Proposal

2.2.1 Factor 1 – Business Documentation (Pass/Fail)

Subfactor 1.1 - Bonding Capacity Maximum bonding capability for a single project and cumulative bonding capability will be evaluated to confirm sufficient capacity for this project.

Subfactor 1.2 - Dun and Bradstreet Dun and Bradstreet report will be reviewed to verify a SER score of 6 or lower. For Offerors with a Dun and Bradstreet SER score greater than 6, audited Financial Statements will be reviewed for risk.

Section M - Page 5 of 12

Subfactor 1.3 – Terms and Conditions Terms and Conditions Acceptance and/or Exceptions will be reviewed for completeness. Note that any exceptions to the SLAC Terms and Conditions will require SLAC Legal approval.

2.2.2 Factor 2 - Price Proposal and Contract Documentation (Pass/Fail)

Subfactor 2.1 Each cost submittal items will be evaluated based on the following:

• Section A (Subcontract Form) will be reviewed for completeness.

• Section B (Supplier or Service Prices) will be reviewed for completeness. Proposed price will be evaluated against SLAC’s independent estimate.

• Section H (Special Terms and Conditions) will be reviewed for completeness of Key Personnel.

• Section J, Attachment 02 (IIPP Form) will be reviewed for completeness.

• Section J, Attachment 04 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) will be reviewed for completeness.

• Section K (Representations & Certifications) will be reviewed for completeness.

• Section L, Attachment B (Proposal Breakdown Sheet) will be reviewed for completeness.

• Acknowledgement of all issued of solicitation of amendments are complete, if applicable.

Subfactor 2.2 Proposed labor rates for the GC, and their first-tier sub-contractor(s) will be reviewed for completeness.

3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The University intends to award without discussions to the Offeror that represents the best overall value to the University, based upon an integrated assessment of all the technical and business factors and subfactors. However, the University reserves the right to hold discussions if it is deemed in its best interest. In the event of a tied total final technical score, the University will hold discussions and price negotiations with all tied Offerors concurrently and the Offeror who provides the best final offer (Volume II) will be selected.

3.1 Volume I – Technical Proposal Evaluation Method

The University intends to award without discussions to the Offeror that represents the best overall value to the University, based upon an integrated assessment of all the technical and cost factors and subfactors. However, the University reserves the right to hold discussions if it is deemed in its best interest. In the event of a tied total final technical score, the University will hold discussions and price negotiations with all tied Offerors concurrently and the Offeror who provides the best final offer (Volume II) will be selected.

The technical proposal (Volume I) and interview will be evaluated by five factors (Factor 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Each member of the Source Selection Board will evaluate the technical proposal and interview performance subjectively. The averages from the independent source selection board evaluation will be used to calculate the total factor score for each factor. Weights in percentages are applied to each factor to determine the Total Final Technical Score. Refer to the formular and Table 3.1.1-1 below for details.

Section M - Page 6 of 12

Total Final Technical Score Calculation Formular

(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 1 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ÷ 45) × 50%

+ (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 3 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ÷ 25) × 30%

+ (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 4 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ÷ 20) × 20%

= 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 (%)

Section M - Page 7 of 12

Table 3.1-1 Summary of Evaluation Method

Scoring Method

Maximum Score

Weight

Volume I Factor 1 – Technical Approach 50 50% Subfactor 1.1 – Project Approach Numerical 40 Subfactor 1.2 – Schedule Numerical 10

Factor 2 – Safety Disqualify if any 2.X Subfactors failed

N/A

Subfactor 2.1 – Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Laws Pass/Fail N/A

Subfactor 2.2 – Safety Record Pass/Fail N/A Factor 3 – Project Management and Experience 25 30%

Subfactor 3.1 – Project Team and Staffing Plan Numerical 15

Subfactor 3.2 – Project Controls Numerical 5 Subfactor 3.3 – Relevant Experience Numerical 5 Factor 4 – Interview 20 20% Subfactor 4.1 – Synergy Numerical 5 Subfactor 4.2 – Project Understanding Numerical 5 Subfactor 4.3 – Commitment to Project Delivery

Numerical 5

Subfactor 4.4 – Responsiveness Numerical 5 Factor 5 – Statement of Qualifications and Certifications

Disqualify if any 5.X Subfactor failed

N/A

Subfactor 5.1 – Offeror’s Local Presence

Pass/Fail N/A

Subfactor 5.2 – Licenses and Certifications Pass/Fail N/A

Subfactor 5.3 – Compliance with Civil and Criminal Laws Pass/Fail N/A

3.1.1 Factor 1 - Technical Approach

The Offeror will be graded based on two aspects (Subfactors 1.1 Project Approach and 1.2 Schedule).

Numerical scores ranging from 1 to 5 will be assigned for each subfactor based on the rating scheme in the Table 3.1.1-1 below. The Offeror can potentially receive a maximum of 35 points for Subfactor 1.1 and a maximum of 10 points for Subfactor 1.2. The Factor 1 total score accounts for 50% weight in the final technical score.

Section M - Page 8 of 12

Table 3.1.1-1 Factor 1 Subfactors 1.1 and 1.2 Rating Scheme

Rating Description Score Excellent Outstanding project approach, execution strategies and highly reasonable proposed schedule. High confidence that Offeror will meet or exceed project requirements.

Good Good project approach, execution strategies and reasonable proposed schedule. Significant confidence that Offeror will meet project requirements.

Satisfactory Average project approach, execution strategies and proposed schedule. Satisfactory confidence that Offeror will meet project requirements with regular oversight and additional training.

Marginal Deficiencies exist within the proposed project approach, execution strategies and proposed schedule. Doubt exists whether Offeror will always meet project requirements without significant increase in oversight and training.

Unsatisfactory Poor project approach, execution strategies and unrealistic proposed schedule. No confidence Offeror will meet project requirements without extensive oversight and training.

3.1.2 Factor 2 - Safety

Factor 2 subfactors (2.1 Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Laws and 2.2 Safety Record) are all pass/fail criterion. The Offeror must pass all subfactors to be qualified.

3.1.3 Factor 3 – Project Management and Experience

A total of three subfactors (3.1 Project Team and Staffing Plan, 3.2 Project Controls, 3.3 Relevant Experience) will be evaluated and scored using a numerical method. Numerical scores ranging from 1 to 5 will be assigned for each criterion based on the rating scheme in the Table 3.1.3-1 below. The Offeror can potentially receive a maximum of 25 points for Factor 3. The Factor 3 score accounts for 30% weight in the final technical score.

Section M - Page 9 of 12

Table 3.1.3-1 Factor 3 Subfactors 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 Rating Scheme

Rating Description Score Excellent Demonstrated project structure, experience and assigned responsibilities are highly relevant to CUIR project scope. Outstanding feedback by past customers. High confidence that Offeror will meet or exceed project requirements.

Good Demonstrated project structure, experience and assigned responsibilities that are relevant to CUIR project scope. Positive feedback by past customers. Significant confidence that the Offeror will exceed expectations.

Satisfactory Project structure, experience and assigned responsibilities are not entirely relevant to CUIR project scope. No deficiencies identified by past customers. Satisfactory confidence that the Offeror will meet project requirements with close coordination and monitoring.

Marginal Project structure, experience and assigned responsibilities are not relevant to CUIR project scope. Deficiencies were identified by past customers. Doubt exists that the Offeror will execute project to meet requirements.

No Data or Unsatisfactory

Project structure, experience and assigned responsibilities of the proposed team is incomplete or does not meet requirements. No or unsatisfactory feedback were received from past customers. Significant doubt exists that the Offeror will properly execute planned scope.

3.1.4 Factor 4 – Interview

The Offeror’s interview performance will be evaluated by four Subfactors. The Factor 4 score accounts for 20% weight in the final technical score. Table 3.1.4-1 summarizes the maximum score for each Subfactors 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Each subfactor will be evaluated subjectively by each member of the Source Selection Board.

Section M - Page 10 of 12

Table 3.1.4-1 - Subfactors 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 Scoring Schemes

Description Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Good Outstanding Subfactor 4.1 – Team Synergy Ability to communicate effectively, interact cohesively, and respond collaboratively.

1 2 3 4 5

Subfactor 4.2 – Project Understanding Clarity and depth of understanding of project requirements, technical challenges, schedule constraints, and system integration.

1 2 3 4 5

Subfactor 4.3 – Commitment to Project Delivery Ability to demonstrate ownership, accountability, and strategies for maintaining schedule, cost, safety, and quality performance.

1 2 3 4 5

Subfactor 4.4 – Responsiveness Clarity, thoroughness, and insight of responses provided by Government questions.

1 2 3 4 5

The focus of the written technical proposal and interview evaluations will be to identify the individual proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The evaluation will analyze each Offeror’s resources that are available to perform under the contract, and how those resources will be utilized during contract performance. This includes the Offeror’s analysis of their resources for this project and their proven ability through demonstrated past performance to satisfy all of the requirements.

Each member of the Source Selection Board will also provide written evaluation to describe the Strengths, Deficiency and Weakness of each proposal upon completion of the written Technical Proposal evaluation and interview.

Strengths An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to SLAC during contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure including omission of the required information of a proposal to meet a SLAC requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of

Section M - Page 11 of 12 unsuccessful Subcontract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Subcontract performance.

A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful Subcontract performance. All significant weaknesses discovered will be identified to the Offeror during discussions, if conducted, and in any debriefing after award has been made. The Sr. Subcontract Administrator may not award a Subcontract to any Offeror who fails to correct significant weaknesses that are deemed essential.

3.1.5 Factor 5 – Statement of Qualifications

Factor 5 subfactors (5.1 Offeror’s History and Local Presence, 5.2 Licenses and Certifications, 5.3 Compliance with Civil and Criminal Laws) are all pass/fail criterion. The Offeror must pass all subfactors to be qualified.

3.2 Volume II – Price Proposal Evaluation Method

Volume II Price Proposal, will be evaluated based on two factors. The Offeror will be graded on a Pass/Fail basis for each subfactor, and the Offeror must receive a Pass rating on all subfactors in order to meet the requirements for the Award.

Factor 1 – Business Financial Factor 1 subfactors listed below are all Pass/Fail criterion:

Business Financial Must pass all subfactors to be awarded

Subfactor 1.1 - Bonding Capacity Pass/Fail

Subfactor 1.2 - Dun and Bradstreet Pass/Fail

Subfactor 1.3 - Terms and Conditions Pass/Fail

The Offeror must pass all three subfactors to be qualified.

Factor 2 - Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Factor 2 will be evaluated based on four subfactors. The Offeror will be graded on a Pass/Fail basis for each subfactor, and the Offeror must receive a Pass rating on all subfactors in order to meet the requirements for the Award.

Price and Contract Documentation Must pass all subfactors to be awarded

Subfactor 2.1 - Completeness Pass/Fail Subfactor 2.2 - Labor Rates Pass/Fail

Subfactor 2.1 - Completeness

Section M - Page 12 of 12

Price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror provided sufficient data as required by the solicitation. The Offeror will receive a Pass rating when the price proposal is considered complete.

Subfactor 2.2 – Labor Rates The Offeror will be evaluated using a Pass/Fail rating. Offeror will receive a Pass rating for submitting labor rate sheets for the GC and their first-tier subcontractor(s).

The Offeror must pass all three subfactors to be awarded.

The Offeror that is the highest ranked in Volume I, and also passes all factors in Volume II, will be evaluated based on completeness, realism, and reasonableness per the below table.

Completeness Price will be evaluated to determine whether the

Offeror provided sufficient data as required by the solicitation and/or SLAC during the evaluation.

Realism Prices will be evaluated to determine if they are unrealistically high or low in comparison to the independent SLAC Cost Estimate and/or other offers received.

Reasonableness Price reasonableness will be determined using acceptable price and/or cost analysis technique.

4 DEBRIEFINGS

Debriefings may be requested within 3 days after receipt of an unsuccessful award notification. The debriefings shall not include comparisons with the other proposals but will (1) include an explanation of the evaluation of significant elements in the Offeror’s proposal, (2) include a summary of the rationale for eliminating the Offeror from the competition, and (3) assure the Offeror that its proposal was treated fairly, impartially, and objectively. The Sr. Subcontract Administrator will conduct the debriefing(s). DRAFT

4 DEBRIEFINGS