Section M 7-28-08.doc

RFP Number DTFT60-08-R-00010

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

(a) This acquisition will be conducted using the policies and procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. A Source Evaluation Board (SEB) will evaluate the proposals using the criteria in this Section M. A Source Selection Official (SSO) will select an Offeror(s) for contract award(s) using the best value analysis described in this Section M. Multiple awards may be expected for this acquisition.

(b) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a Contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines discussions to be necessary. Any exceptions or deviations by the Offeror to the terms and conditions stated in this solicitation for inclusion in the resulting Contract may make the offer unacceptable for award without discussions. If an Offeror proposes exceptions to the terms and conditions of the Contract, the Government may make an award without discussions to another Offeror that did not take exception to the terms and conditions of the Contract.

(c) After evaluation and prior to selection for award by the SSO, a finding will be made by the Contracting Officer whether any possible Organizational and Individual Conflict of Interest exists with respect to the apparent successful Offeror or whether there is little or no likelihood that such conflict exists. In making this determination, the Contracting Officer will consider the Offeror’s representation required by the Contract’s Section L.2.8 provision entitled “Organizational and Individual Conflicts Of Interest”. An award will be made if there is no conflict or if any conflict can be appropriately avoided or mitigated.

M-2

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government intends to award multiple (approximately 15-25) contracts to responsible Offerors whose proposals contain the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by comparing differences in the value of technical and management features with differences in cost to the Government. In making this comparison the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical or management features than making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical or management features. Of the approximate 15to 25 awards, the government intends to award, as a minimum, five contracts to small businesses using the same procurement strategy described above when making an award.

M-3

OVERALL RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation criteria listed below is in descending order of importance.

(a) Technical and Management Criteria Technical & Management Evaluation Criteria

Criterion 1

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

Criterion 2

TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE

Criterion 3

MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

Criterion 4

PAST PERFORMANCE

(b) Cost / Price Criteria

(c) Socioeconomic Criteria

M-4

TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

The individual indicators which comprise the following Technical and Management criteria are listed in descending order of importance and will be individually weighted, then considered as a whole in developing an overall point score for the TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT criteria.

(a) Criterion 1. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS The Government shall evaluate the proposed Key Personnel and support staff qualifications, competency, experience, demonstrated performance, pertinent education, leadership, and capability to perform the Statement of Work relevant to their proposed position; improve performance; meet commitments to customers; and, adapt to changing requirements. Key Personnel shall include the following skilled positions and disciplined areas of expertise: Program Manager, Task Order Manager, Civil Engineer (PE), Systems Integration Management, and Risk Assessment. Submission of minimum qualifications for the designated key personnel positions and disciplined areas of expertise are provided in Section L of this RFP. The Government shall also evaluate and assess the Offeror’s strategy to retain proposed Key Personnel throughout the contract’s lifecycle.

The Government shall evaluate Offeror’s technical proposal to ensure the Offeror has the specialized experience, professional qualifications of staff and consultants including all principals and key staff of the firm, its consultants, and project personnel to perform the requirements of this contract. Key personnel positions / disciplined areas of expertise and required engineering and construction management disciplines are listed in Section J, Attachment J-2 “Required Skill Sets (Disciplines)”. With respect to each project management or specific discipline listed in “Required PMO Skills for 2009 Contract”, the Government shall consider an Offeror’s Key Personnel experience as follows: rail experience shall be weighted more than bus; multiple modes shall be weighted more than single mode experience; and public sector (local, state or federal) experience shall be weighted more than non-public sector experience. The Government shall assess and evaluate the following sub-factors, not in any particular order of importance:

1. availability of qualified personnel in the minimum “key” areas defined in Section L,

2. years of relevant experience and skill sets in relevant fields,

3. possession of certifications relevant to the proposed work,

4. ability of the individual to remain on the PMO program throughout the contract’s lifecycle,

5. level of engineering management experience,

6. level of engineering design management experience;

7. level of construction management experience, and

8. level of federal grant management process, compliance and regulatory experience.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the proposed key personnel and support staff are available and committed to perform throughout the contract’s period of performance. The Offeror must propose new personnel should the originally proposed personnel become unavailable.

(b) Criterion 2. TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE The Government shall evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s technical proposal in terms of meeting the contractual requirements, including those requirements contained in the Statement of Work. Technical Excellence shall be evaluated taking into consideration the sub-criteria noted below, not in any particular order of importance. Section L provides the Offeror with information on what written documentation must be submitted in the Offeror’s proposal.

(1) Technical Understanding and Approach: In its proposal, the Offeror’s analysis of the contract’s technical requirements must be explained in detail. The Offeror must clearly demonstrate its technical understanding and ability to meet the contract’s requirements. In its proposal, the Offeror must clearly identify the techniques or methodologies to be employed to successfully satisfy the Offeror’s proposed technical approach.

(2) Technical Planning: In its proposal the Offeror shall demonstrate and clearly identify the scheduling and sequencing of its planned effort and its ability to successfully meet the technical requirements of the contract, including those requirements contained in the Statement of Work. The Offeror shall demonstrate, through development of a quality control plan, its ability to provide all required deliverables: at the required frequency; at the designated time, and in conformance with the specified quality standards.

(3) Prior Experience: The Offeror must provide a minimum of one contract, and a maximum of five contracts, it has had within the last 5 years in the area of project management oversight. The work experience must have been in one of the following areas of interest: civil engineering project; fixed guide-way project; or transit or railroad project. The contract must have or had a construction value equal to or greater than $20,000,000. Prior experience shall be used to evaluate the Offeror’s technical expertise and determine whether the Offeror has performed such work in the past.

(c) Criterion 3. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY The Government shall evaluate and assess how well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the Offeror can effectively manage all aspects of contract performance. The management proposal shall be evaluated considering such elements as:

1. How well the management plan demonstrates that the work effort will be managed effectively and establishes well-defined lines of authority, responsibility and communication,

2. The establishment of management techniques that will facilitate early identification and resolution of problems and the prompt response to changes,

3. The extent to which the staffing represents an appropriate level and labor mix and reflects the technical input and ability for successful and timely contract performance,

4. The Offeror’s ability to react to workload fluctuations, and

5. The Offeror’s ability to meet the 20% goal for participation of small disadvantage, women-owned, HubZone, and Veteran and Service Disabled Veterans.

(d) Criterion 4. PAST PERFORMANCE The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s past performance during the last five-years to determine the degree to which the past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract requirements, including the Statement of Work. The Offeror’s past performance shall be evaluated on the basis of how well the Offeror performed the same or similar effort on past or current contracts and how that past performance is likely to affect the current effort. The evaluation shall take into consideration the currency and relevance of an offeror’s past performance, the source and validity of the past performance information received from the Offeror, the context of the data, and the general trend of the Offeror’s past performance. The specific sub-factors or areas of interest relevant to past performance within the last five years shall include cost control, quality of work, business relations and compliance with performance schedules. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available, the Offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance. In such a case, the Offeror will receive a neutral rating, which is half of the points allocable to this criterion.

Proposal preparation instructions on what information the Offeror shall submit as past performance information is included in Section L of the RFP.

M-5

COST EVALUATION CRITERIA

The cost proposal shall be used in determining the best value to the Government in accordance with M-2 of this Section. The Government shall evaluate and assess the cost proposal to determine that all items proposed have been included in the cost proposal in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.4-Contracting Pricing. The Government shall also evaluate and assess all proposal costs for cost reasonableness and realism. An unrealistic cost proposal may be evidence of the Offeror’s lack of, or poor understanding of, the requirements of the solicitation and thus may adversely affect the Offeror’s rating on the Technical and Management Criteria. The Government shall evaluate both price and non-price evaluation factors and award a contract to an Offeror that is perceived to have the best value considering all of the factors.

M-6

SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION CRITERIA

The company’s socioeconomic status will be considered when identifying contractors for award. The government intends to award, as a minimum, five contracts to small businesses to foster the achievement of the Department’s and Agency’s goals. Firms certified as a small business, regardless of socioeconomic status will receive the maximum points for this evaluation criterion. Firms not certified as a small business will not receive any points for this criterion. Additional points based on socioeconomic status of the prime (i.e service disabled vets, hubzone, sdb, etc) may be awarded and taken into consideration at the task order award phase.

M-7

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

(a) Oral Presentations: For those proposals that have been determined to be in the competitive range (those proposals that are most highly rated) by the SEB based upon the evaluation criteria contained in this Section M, the Offeror’s Key Personnel shall be required to participate in oral presentations to demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform the proposed contract. During the Oral Presentations the Government shall evaluate and assess the Offeror’s Key Personnel’s responses to three (3) technical and/or managerial problems. The three questions shall not be provided in advance and shall be made available at the time of the Oral Presentation. The Government shall provide one sample technical or managerial problem at the appropriate time to those Offeror’s identified to be in the competitive range. In evaluating the Offeror’s Key Personnel’s response to each problem during the Oral Presentation, FTA shall consider:

1. Whether the Offeror’s Key Personnel understand the management challenges created in the problems.

2. The interaction and participation of the Offeror’s Key Personnel in dealing with the three problems as an integrated management team.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s Key Personnel’s oral response is consistent with the Offeror’s written proposal.

(b) Organizational and Individual Conflicts of Interest: The Government shall evaluate the availability of firms to work on FTA projects based upon responses received from the Offeror, including its sub-consultants. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to review and complete the Conflict of Interest matrix of projects provided as an attachment in Section J of this RFP. The Offeror’s written response (filling in the COI matrix table) will not be scored but rather used to identify the Offeror’s availability for project assignments. Offeror’s are to refer to Section L for further instructions pertaining to organizational and individual conflicts of interest.

(c) The Government reserves the right to award a contract to a technically compliant proposer that is the only proposer with an un-conflicted interest in a grantee identified in the listing provided in section J-5.

PAGE

Amendment 1