Evaluation and Basis for Award (draft).pdf

RFP 21-006C

Evaluation and Basis for Award

EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

PPPL will evaluate proposals submitted in response to this RFP and plans to award a Firm Fixed Price Subcontract to the Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to PPPL on the basis of 1) responsiveness; 2) Offeror’s capability; 3) “responsibility” determination; and 4) price, as explained below:

A. RESPONSIVENESS. PPPL will determine the responsiveness of each proposal on a pass/fail basis. A proposal will be considered to be “responsive” if it is in compliance with all the requirements of the RFP. PPPL reserves the right to consider any proposal “nonresponsive” and reject in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Offeror, if the proposal

(a) is not submitted in the format specified in the RFP or does not include all of the information requested by PPPL; (b) is not in accordance with the instructions contained in the RFP; or (c) contains material irregularities of any kind. Proposals determined nonresponsive will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

B. OFFEROR’S TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. In evaluating each Offeror’s overall capability to perform the work required by this RFP, PPPL will consider their technical competence, technical approach, safety program and quality assurance program. Detailed technical evaluation criteria are provided in Section 4.

C. RESPONSIBILITY. PPPL will determine if an Offeror is a “responsible” prospective subcontractor, as the term is used in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 9.1.

Offerors determined not to be a responsible prospective subcontractor will not be eligible for award.

D. PRICE. Price will be evaluated but not scored or rated. Price will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. Unreasonably high or unrealistically low prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from consideration for award.

2. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Upon receipt of proposals, PPPL may contact Offerors with a request for clarifications. Proposals will then be screened for responsiveness. Offerors whose proposals were determined to be nonresponsive will be eliminated from further consideration. Proposals determined to be responsive will be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

After receipt of proposals, PPPL intends to complete its evaluation without further discussions with Offerors. Therefore, Offerors’ initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms and complete response from a price, schedule, quality, and technical standpoint. PPPL reserves the right to request discussions if subsequently PPPL determines it to be in the best interests of PPPL to do so. PPPL will establish a competitive range among the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation factors list in Section 4. and discussions with one or more Offerors included in the competitive range may be held to identify proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, as well as proposal areas that require clarification or elaboration. At the conclusion of discussions, depending on the extent of change arising from the discussions, the Offerors in the competitive range may be given the opportunity to submit a proposal revision. The revised proposals will be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

Oral Presentation. PPPL will require the Offerors in the competitive range to present their proposal orally with the team they are proposing for this scope of work as part of the evaluation process in order to confirm PPPL’s understanding of the proposals prior to final ranking. Offeror participants shall include the proposed project manager, project superintendent and safety manager, but no more than seven (7) persons who are knowledgeable of the RFP and the response submitted by the Offeror’s organization, and who are qualified to answer questions relating to the proposal.

The purpose of the oral presentation will be to:

A. Provide a summary of the respective Offeror’s proposal for the benefit of PPPL; and B. Permit PPPL staff to ask questions pertaining to the Offeror’s proposal.

Offerors will be provided no more than 2 hours each for their oral presentations, to be inclusive of a summary of the proposal contents and a question and answer session with PPPL.

This presentation may be in-person or via video conferencing at PPPL’s discretion.

After the completion of the oral presentations, the final technical ranking of the proposals will be established.

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

Subcontract award, if any and at PPPL’s sole discretion, will be made to the qualified and responsible Offeror submitting a proposal evaluated to offer the Best Value to PPPL.

PPPL reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal at its sole discretion, in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Offeror.

The basis of this award will be made based on best value to PPPL. In the event that price and technical considerations clearly favor the same Proposal, i.e. highest technical score and lowest price, no further evaluation is required, and this offeror becomes the recommended awardee to the Selection Official. Should this not be the case, a trade-off between technical capability and price will occur. The basis of award will be made using a best value tradeoff process. Tradeoff analyses will be conducted amongst the most price competitive proposals that have relatively high technical scores to decide whether differences in technical merit outweigh differences in price.

The tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors (i.e. Technical Factors) and allows PPPL to accept other than the lowest priced proposal, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Under a tradeoff process, the perceived technical benefits of the higher priced proposal may merit the additional cost in order to receive an award. In conducting the tradeoff analysis for this procurement, the best combination of low cost and technical merit will be selected. The evaluation factors, when combined, are slightly more important than price.

Offerors are advised, however, that as the range of the overall Technical scores among Offerors narrows, the price will become more significant in making the award decision.

In order to select the successful Offeror, PPPL will rank the Offerors from best to worst by making a series of paired comparisons among them, trading off marginal differences in capability (reflected by the technical score received) and price between the members of each pair. If one

Offeror of a pair has both the better capability and the lower price, then that Offeror will be the better value. If one Offeror has the better capability and the higher price, then PPPL will decide whether the marginal difference in capability is worth the marginal difference in price. If PPPL considers the better capability to be worth the higher price, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value. PPPL will continue to make paired comparisons until the Offeror representing the best value has been decided.

Options will be part of the proposal evaluation process. PPPL will use the prices of the Base Requirement and Option Items submitted in the Offeror Information and Pricing Form as summarized in the below table to determine the lowest evaluated price for the tradeoff determination.

Price Item Description Price 1 Base Requirement $(Offeror Information and Pricing Form) 2 Option 1 - Phase 2 Construction

Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) Services

$(Offeror Information and Pricing Form)

3 Option 2 - Phase 3 Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) Services

$(Offeror Information and Pricing Form)

Total Evaluated Price $

PPPL reserves the right to award only the Base Requirement of the project. PPPL may award any or all of the Option Items at the time of award or exercise the Option(s), if at all, at a later date specified in the Subcontract if it is in the best interest of PPPL to do so. The award of the Option Items or the exercise of the Option(s) is solely at the discretion of PPPL.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA

Mandatory Requirement will be evaluated as a part of the initial review of proposals on a yes or no basis with no weighting factors:

Mandatory Requirement Evaluation

The Offeror must have the capacity to furnish payment and performance bonds in accordance with the sample subcontract. The Offeror must include in its proposal evidence from Offeror’s surety of Offeror’s capacity to obtain payment and performance bonds up to the amount of $75 million.

□ YES □ NO

Proposals, which meet the mandatory requirement, will be rated using a point scoring methodology for the Offeror Capability Factor and associated sub-factors as described in this section.

A. EVALUATION FACTORS:

In evaluating the Offeror’s proposal, a numerical scoring system will be utilized. Each Offeror will receive a final technical score based on the evaluation criteria and scoring system for each of the 5 evaluation factors. PPPL will then compare the offerors’ technical scores and evaluated prices as it conducts its best value trade-off analysis (note that no weight evaluation factor is assigned to price).

Factor Number Description

Relative Importance

1 Project Management 20 points total 2 Relevant Projects 25 points total Past Performance – 20 points total Current Performance – 5 points total 3 Key Personnel 30 points total 4 Offeror Safety Record and Program 15 points total 5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 10 points total 100 points total

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING SYSTEM FOR EACH OF THE SUBFACTORS ARE

PROVIDED BELOW:

1) Factor 1 – Project Management

Submission Requirements - Project Management Approach, Methods, and Resources

(a) A description of methods the offeror uses in managing construction on similar projects, including lower-tier subcontractor coordination and quality control. This includes coordination between several ongoing projects (by offeror or others) on one campus.

(b) A description of methods the offeror uses in construction management including estimating techniques, constructability reviews, value engineering, and construction techniques that the offeror will use during the pre-construction portion of this project.

(c) A description of methods used and in-house expertise available to the project for the purpose of obtaining delivering LEED certified buildings.

(d) A description of the offeror’s approach and methods used to assure successful BIM Coordination and commissioning of the building. Offeror should describe any in house staff available for this task, any outsourced resources that the offeror would expect to use, and the offeror’s approach to involving those resources in the total project plan.

(e) Corporate resources and expertise that can be called upon to provide assistance and enhancement to the offeror’s assigned project team personnel when needed.

(f) Offeror’s organizational approach to management of this Subcontract, including reporting relationships and involvement of the firm’s executive management.

Evaluation Criteria

PPPL will evaluate:

(a) The strength of the overall Offeror experience and application of project controls, document control systems, and other cost control or management systems utilized in the management of projects of similar size and/or complexity, budget and schedule.

(b) The strength of the overall Offeror experience and application of pre-construction services utilized in the design phase of projects of similar size and/or complexity, budget and schedule

(c) The strength of the overall Offeror approach and methods to achieve LEED goals and effective management of BIM Coordination & building commissioning.

(d) The Offeror’s Project Management staffing, its qualifications, organization and experience and ability to support project requirements.

The demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) on or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will also contribute to additional points.

Scoring for Project Management Total Points (20) The Offeror has successfully used project management techniques to manage projects of similar size, scope and/or complexity to the PPIC project.

Points (20) The Offeror demonstrated advanced project management experience and has successfully managed the construction of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Experience levels demonstrate the capabilities necessary for superior subcontract performance. The record provides high confidence that the risks associated with management of the project budget and schedule can be significantly reduced during the performance of the subcontract. The Offeror’s advanced pre-construction techniques demonstrate past and future project success. The Offeror has demonstrated advanced methods and in-house experience on LEED certified buildings, BIM and commissioning for similar projects. The Offeror has a robust project management staff (including corporate resources/expertise and involvement of executive management) and a PPIC implementation plan. Offerors with demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not. The Offeror has numerous significant strengths that can significantly benefit PPPL and the PPIC project.

Points (15) The Offeror demonstrated project management experience and has successfully managed the construction of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Experience levels demonstrate the capabilities necessary for good subcontract performance. The record provides confidence that the risks associated with management of the project budget and schedule can be significantly reduced during the performance of the subcontract. The Offeror’s pre-construction techniques demonstrate past and future project success. The Offeror has demonstrated methods and in-house experience on LEED certified buildings, BIM and commissioning for similar projects. The Offeror has good project management staff (including corporate resources/expertise and involvement of executive management) and a PPIC implementation plan. Offerors with demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not.

The Offeror has one or more strengths that can significantly benefit PPPL and the PPIC project.

Points (10) The Offeror demonstrated project management experience and has successfully managed the construction of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Experience levels demonstrate the capabilities necessary for good subcontract performance. The record provides confidence that the risks associated with management of the project budget and schedule can be significantly reduced during the performance of the subcontract. The Offeror has good project management staff (including corporate resources/expertise and involvement of executive management) and a PPIC implementation plan. The Offeror has one or more strengths that can significantly benefit PPPL and the PPIC project.

Points (5) The Offeror demonstrated project management experience and has successfully managed the construction of projects of lesser size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Experience levels demonstrate the capabilities that marginally meet those required for acceptable subcontract performance. The record provides confidence that the risks associated with management of the project budget and schedule will be minimally acceptable during the performance of the subcontract. The Offeror has project management staff and a PPIC implementation plan that largely but not fully meets project requirements.

Points (0) The Offeror fails to identify adequate project management capabilities necessary to meet the requirements for acceptable subcontract performance. The Offeror has project management staff and a PPIC implementation plan that fails to meet project requirements.

2) Factor 2 – Relevant Projects

Description Relative Importance Past Performance 20 points total Current Performance 5 points total 25 points total

Submission Requirements “Past performance” refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner’s perspective. “Current performance” refers to the quality of current project experience from the owner’s perspective. Offerors will be evaluated in terms of their relevant performance in the construction of facilities similar in scope and/or complexity to the PPIC Project that have been performed in a Federal Government or University environment. Responsive Offerors will list all projects completed in the past ten (10) years that are of similar type, size, scope and complexity as described in the RFP. PPPL will use the specific project references submitted as part of its past performance evaluation. PPPL may contact and interview the points of contact and reserve the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference if the listed reference is not available.

Offerors shall submit a list of all qualifying projects, as defined above, constructed during the past ten (10) years. Include the following information: for each project:

(a) Project title

(b) Contract amount at start and completion

(c) Description of work and location (project type, scope, size, etc.)

(d) Name, address and telephone number of Owner or Owner’s Representative and Architect of Record

(e) A discussion of experienced delays and cost growth

(f) Any aspect of significance worth noting (project delivery type, BIM, LEED, etc.)

(g) Project proximity (in miles) to PPPL

Evaluation Criteria PPPL will perform an assessment of completed and ongoing projects, considering scope, size, and/or complexity; schedule performance; budget performance; and owner/customer satisfaction for each project offered, and the degree of success of the Offeror’s relevant performance on these projects within a period of ten (10) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

Projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity as PPIC is defined as:

(a) At least 25,000 GSF

(b) Minimum construction value of $30M

(c) Include laboratory, office and support spaces

(d) Include work performed for Federal Government or University environment

(e) Delivered with pre-construction services (CMAR, CM/GC, etc.)

(f) Utilize Building Information Modeling (BIM) by the Offeror

(g) Achieve minimum of LEED Certified (40-49 Points) status

Successful construction of multiple projects with a size, scope, and/or complexity equivalent to or greater than PPIC will carry a higher rating then construction of a single project. Completion of projects within or below budget will carry a higher rating than those projects experiencing overruns. PPPL will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. More recent and more comparable projects are more indicative of the Offeror’s current capabilities and may, therefore, have greater impact on the past performance evaluation than less recent, less comparable projects. During the evaluation process, site visit(s) to an Offeror’s ongoing jobsite(s) may be conducted to validate information submitted. In evaluating joint ventures, teams, or firms having multiple divisions, PPPL will only evaluate past performance of the business entities comprising the joint venture or team, and for firms with multiple divisions, the division or unit submitting the offer. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction; change management; monthly reporting; timeliness;

management of the work; subcontractor management, including timely payment to lower tier subcontractors or suppliers; safety; relations between the owner and contractor; and the level of support for such things as Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manuals, as-built documentation, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc.

In order for PPPL to obtain candid, unbiased interview comments, PPPL will not release the interview forms to Offerors at any time. PPPL will place a higher value on projects that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation or personal knowledge. PPPL will place a higher value on projects that provide particularly difficult or unique challenges, and in the innovative methods Offerors used to resolve problems successfully. PPPL’s evaluation is not limited to past and current performance information on the cited example projects.

Offerors who have successful past and current project performance in the last ten (10) years within 150 miles of PPPL will be graded higher than those who do not.

The demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not.

Scoring for Record of Past Performance In Technical, Schedule and Budget Compliance

Total points (20) Performance will be evaluated on the complexity, scope, schedule performance, budget performance, and owner satisfaction for each project identified in the Offeror proposal. More recent and more comparable projects are more probative of the Offeror’s current capabilities and may, therefore, have greater impact on the past performance evaluation than less recent comparable projects.

Points (20) The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) three (3) or more construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Given the Offeror’s past performance, no doubt exists that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted meaningful data indicating that schedules and budgets are met or improved on. The Offeror has numerous significant strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL and the PPIC project. The Offeror’s past performance provides high confidence for on-schedule and on-budget subcontract completion. Offerors who have successful past performance in the last ten (10) years within 150 miles of PPPL will be graded higher than those who do not. Offerors with demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (15) The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) two (2) construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Given the Offeror’s past performance, little doubt exists that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted meaningful data indicating that schedules and budgets are met or improved on. The Offeror has one or more strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL and the PPIC project. The Offeror’s past performance provides good confidence for on-schedule and on-budget subcontract completion. Offerors who have successful past performance in the last ten (10) years within 150 miles of PPPL will be graded higher than those who do not. Offerors with demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (10) The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) one (1) construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The

Offeror submitted necessary data indicating that schedules and budgets are adequate.

The Offeror’s past performance provides confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. Offerors who have had successful past performance in the last ten (10) years within 150 miles of PPPL will be graded higher than those who do not. Offerors with demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (5) The Offeror has not successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Given the Offeror’s past performance, some doubt exists that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted some data indicating that schedules and budget compliance is lacking.

The Offeror’s past performance provides some confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract.

Points (0) The Offeror has not successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. Given the Offeror’s past performance, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract.

The Offeror submitted little or no data indicating that schedules and budget compliance is poor. The Offeror’s past performance provides little or no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract.

Record of Current Performance In Technical, Schedule and Budget Compliance

Total Points (5) Performance will be evaluated on the complexity, scope, schedule performance, budget performance, and owner satisfaction for each project identified in the Offeror proposal.

Points (5) The Offeror is successfully performing (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) one (1) construction project similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within 150 miles of PPPL. Given the Offeror’s current performance, no doubt exists that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted meaningful data indicating that schedules and budgets are being met or improved on. The Offeror has numerous significant strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL and the PPIC project. The Offeror’s current performance provides high confidence for on-schedule and on-budget subcontract completion. Offerors with demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (3) The Offeror is successfully performing (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) one (1) construction project of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within 150 miles of PPPL. The Offeror’s current performance demonstrates that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted necessary data indicating that schedules and budgets are adequate. The Offeror’s current performance provides confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. Offerors with demonstrated ability to manage multiple complex projects (performed by the Offeror) or coordination with other complex projects (performed by others) on a single campus will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (0) The Offeror is not successfully performing (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) one (1) construction project of similar or lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within 150 miles of PPPL.

3) Factor 3 – Key Personnel

The Offeror shall provide a consolidated list to include the name, position title, description of project responsibilities, and a resume for the following key personnel:

(a) Project Executive (7 Points)

(b) Project Manager (9 Points)

(c) Construction Superintendent (8 Points)

(d) Project Safety Manager (6 Points)

The Offeror shall demonstrate that it has the necessary structure and experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control, administer, and execute construction operations, and subcontracts. The Offeror shall provide information and details on each of the Key Personnel’s experience, education, and certifications;

information on at least two (2) successfully completed or current Relevant Projects, as defined under Factor 2 above; and current contact information for Owner or Owner’s Representative knowledgeable of and authorized and willing to disclose and discuss details of the proposed Key Personnel performing that role on that Relevant Project.

By identifying these personnel, the Offeror is making a commitment that, barring unforeseen circumstances, they are the personnel who will be assigned to the project.

Key personnel submitted shall not be changed after award without the prior written approval of PPPL. In the event the selected Offeror decides to utilize personnel in the performance of the subcontract for which resumes were not submitted prior to award, the Offeror shall, prior to the utilization of these personnel, submit their resumes to PPPL for written approval. The qualifications of the substituted personnel must be equal to or superior than those whose resumes were submitted. PPPL may, at its sole discretion, reject proposed replacement personnel which would require the firm to submit another candidate.

PPPL will evaluate the required information to determine if the Offeror’s key personnel meet the qualifications necessary, which includes performance on completed or ongoing projects of similar scope, size and/or complexity and the ability to manage, control, and perform construction both safely and efficiently. References on cited project(s) may be asked about the performance of key personnel proposed for this project. Each key person will be evaluated individually and the scores for each will be tallied to arrive at the final score for this factor. Key personnel that have worked together on successfully completed or current projects will be graded higher than those who do not.

Proposed Project Executive’s Experience and Technical Competence Total points (7) The Offeror’s proposed Project Executive has successfully overseen the construction of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project in the past seven (10) years. Successful performance will be defined as an on-time, on-budget, safely performed, high quality project. The Project Executives’ experience and successful completion of multiple projects similar in size, scope, and /or complexity to the PPIC Project will carry a higher rating than construction of a single project or projects of lesser scope and complexity. Projects that were delivered on time or early, under budget, with an excellent safety record and without quality issues will be rated higher than those delivered late, over budget, with a lesser safety record, and/or quality issues. Key personnel that have worked together on successfully completed or current projects will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (7) The Offeror’s proposed Project Executive has successfully overseen the construction of two or more projects referenced in Factor 2 similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Project Executive has extensive experience with large, high-profile projects, with complex scope. The record provides high confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract. The individual has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (5) The Offeror’s proposed Project Executive has successfully overseen the construction of one or more projects referenced in Factor 2 similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Project Executive has substantial experience with large, high-profile projects, with complex scope. The record provides good confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract. The individual has one of more strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (3) The Offeror’s proposed Project Executive has successfully overseen the construction of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Project Executive has some experience with large, high-profile projects, with complex scope. The record provides some confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract.

Points (0) The Offeror’s proposed Project Executive has overseen the construction of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten

(10) years. The proposed Project Executive has little or no experience with large, high-profile projects, with complex scope. The record provides little or no confidence that risks associated with the project’s safety, budget, and schedule will be acceptable during performance of the subcontract.

Proposed Project Manager’s Experience and Technical Competence Total points (9) The Offeror’s proposed Project Manager has successfully managed the construction of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project in the past seven (10) years. Successful performance will be defined as an on-time, on-budget, safely performed, high quality project. The Project Manager’s experience and successful completion of multiple projects similar in size, scope, and /or complexity to the PPIC Project will carry a higher rating than construction of a single project or projects of lesser scope and complexity. Projects that were delivered on time or early, under budget, with an excellent safety record and without quality issues will be rated higher than those delivered late, over budget, with a lesser safety record, and/or quality issues. Key personnel that have worked together on successfully completed or current projects will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (9) The Offeror’s proposed Project Manager has successfully managed the construction of two or more projects referenced in Factor 2 similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Project Manager has extensive experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides high confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract. The individual has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (6) The Offeror’s proposed Project Manager has successfully managed the construction of one or more projects referenced in Factor 2 similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Project Manager has substantial experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides good confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract. The individual has one of more strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (3) The Offeror’s proposed Project Manager has successfully managed the construction of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Project Manager has some experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides some confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract.

Points (0) The Offeror’s proposed Project Manager has managed the construction of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten

(10) years. The proposed Project Manager has little or no experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides little or no confidence that risks associated with the project’s safety, budget, and schedule will be acceptable during performance of the subcontract.

Proposed Construction Superintendent’s Experience and Technical Competence Total Points (8) The Offeror’s proposed Construction Superintendent has successfully supervised the construction of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project in the past seven (10) years. Successful performance will be defined as an on-time, on-budget, safely performed, high quality project. The Construction Superintendent’s experience and successful completion of multiple projects similar in size, scope, and /or complexity to the PPIC Project will carry a higher rating than construction of a single project or projects of lesser scope and complexity. Projects that were delivered on time or early, under budget, with an excellent safety record and without quality issues will be rated higher than those delivered late, over budget, with a lesser safety record, and/or quality issues. Key personnel that have worked together on successfully completed or current projects will be graded higher than those who do not.

Points (8) The Offeror’s proposed Construction Superintendent has successfully supervised the construction of two or more projects referenced in Factor 2 similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Construction Superintendent has extensive experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides high confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract.

The individual has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (6) The Offeror’s proposed Construction Superintendent has successfully supervised the construction of one or more projects referenced in Factor 2 similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Construction Superintendent has substantial experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides good confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract.

The individual has one of more strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (3) The Offeror’s proposed Construction Superintendent has successfully supervised the construction of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Construction Superintendent has some experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides some confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract.

Points (0) The Offeror’s proposed Construction Superintendent has supervised the construction of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The proposed Construction Superintendent has little or no experience with large, high-profile, complex projects, projects involving management and coordination of multiple sophisticated trades, and projects whose scope focuses on ground-up construction. The record provides little or no confidence that risks associated with the project’s safety, budget, and schedule will be acceptable during performance of the subcontract.

Proposed Project Safety Manager’s Experience and Technical Competence Total Points (6) The Offeror’s proposed Project Safety Manager has successfully managed construction safety of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC project in the past ten (10) years and is preferably a Certified Safety Professional. Successful performance will be defined as having a project safety performance level that is less than the OSHA-established industry rate. The Project Safety Manager’s experience and successful safety record of multiple projects similar in size, scope, and /or complexity to the PPIC Project will carry a higher rating than construction of a single project or projects of lesser scope and complexity. Projects with safety records better than the BLS incidence targets, as defined in this RFP, will be rated higher than those that meet or fail to meet the BLS incidence targets. Multiple projects with excellent safety records will be rated higher than those meeting or missing the BLS incidence targets.

Experience following 10CFR851 (DOE) will be rated higher.

Points (6) The Offeror’s proposed Project Safety Manager has successfully managed construction safety of two or more projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years and is a Certified Safety Professional. The project(s) demonstrate an excellent safety record and safety culture that significantly exceeds the PPIC project-defined targets. The record provides high confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will significantly reduce hazard risks during performance of the subcontract. The individual has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (4) The Offeror’s proposed Project Safety Manager has successfully managed construction safety of one or more projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The project(s) demonstrate a good safety record and safety culture that meets or exceeds the PPIC project-defined targets. The record provides confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will significantly reduce hazard risks during performance of the subcontract. The individual has one of more strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (2) The Offeror’s proposed Project Safety Manager has successfully managed construction safety of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years. The project(s) demonstrate a satisfactory safety record and safety culture that largely but not fully meet the PPIC project-defined targets.

The record provides some confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will significantly reduce hazard risks during performance of the subcontract.

Points (0) The Offeror’s proposed Project Safety Manager has successfully managed construction safety of one or more projects of lesser type, scope, size and complexity to the PPIC project within the past ten (10) years and/or the proposal demonstrates a safety record and safety culture that fail to meet the PPIC project-defined targets. The record provides little or no confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will minimize hazard risks during performance of the subcontract.

4) Factor 4 – Safety Record and Program

(a) Offeror Safety and OSHA Compliance

(1) Three-year average EMR of 1.00 or less and a total recordable and DART case rate at or below 85% BLS TRC/DART Rate for heavy construction. These rates will be utilized as set forth in section 6.4.2 - Evaluation Criteria:

Lost time frequency rate (DART) = 85% of 2.2 Total Recordable Cases (TRC) = 85% of 3.8

2018 2019 2020

(a) Lost time frequency rate (DART) = ( ) ( ) ( )

(b) Recordable incident rate = ( ) ( ) ( )

Submit copy of OSHA Forms 300 and 300A for 2018 – 2020

Submit explanation and/or supplemental data for periods that are out of tolerance.

(2) Demonstrate that the Offeror’s 2019 – 2021 Insurance Experience Modification Rating averages equal to or less than 1.0 over a three-year period.

2019 2020 2021

(a) Experience Modification Rating = ( ) ( ) ( )

Provide backup documentation from an independent source, such as the insurance carrier, to verify ratings.

(3) Joint ventures or teams shall submit the above information for each corporate entity in the joint venture or team.

(b) Offeror Safety Program The Offeror must submit their corporate ES&H Program (and discuss its application on the PPIC Project) and Part 1 of the Construction Environmental Safety and Health Plan (Div. 1 Spec Section 013100), that includes acknowledgement regarding Worker Safety 10 CFR 851. Identify current and past projects that were certified under the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program.

Offeror’s Safety Record

PPPL will evaluate the required information for conformance with the requirements set forth in the RFP. In evaluating Offeror proposals, safety performance records which are better than the target rates for the years that the Offeror performed work on multiple projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the PPIC Project will carry a higher rating than for years they performed work on a single project or projects of lesser scope and complexity. The Offerors OSHA Form 300 and 300A will be utilized to evaluate the trend in the Offeror’s safety performance. For periods not meeting the targets set forth, explanations and supplemental data as to the facts surrounding the periods that are out of tolerance will be reviewed. In those circumstances, PPPL will evaluate any mitigating factors and corrective actions. Demonstration of continuous improvement and program changes may serve to mitigate out-of-tolerance periods.

In evaluating joint ventures, teams, or firms having multiple divisions, PPPL will only evaluate the safety record of the business entities comprising the joint venture or team and, for firms with multiple divisions, the division or unit being proposed. Scores for the business entities comprising the joint ventures, teams, or firms having multiple divisions will be combined to formulate a final score for the joint venture, team, or firm having multiple divisions. All safety record scores will be considered, and one very low score may result in a severely reduced technical score

Offeror Safety Program PPPL will evaluate the Offeror’s overall approach toward maintaining a safe worksite and the significant aspects of its safety and health program. Particular attention will be paid to the Offeror’s approaches relating to safety evaluation of lower-tier subcontractor bidding/award, site safety management, safety incentive distribution, site inspections, incident reviews, program reviews, and any other programs/practices used to promote a safety culture at the work site. During the evaluation process, site visit(s) to an Offeror’s ongoing jobsite may be conducted to validate information submitted.

Offeror Safety Record and Program Total Points (15)

Points (15) The proposal demonstrates an excellent safety record, program and safety culture that significantly exceed the project-defined targets. The record provides high confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will significantly reduce hazard risks during performance of the subcontract. The three-year average EMR is at or below 0.75 and DART/TRC case rate at or below 50% BLS DART/TRC Rate for heavy construction (DART:

1.1, TRC:1.9). The proposal has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL.

Points (12) The proposal demonstrates a good safety record, program and a safety culture that exceed the project-defined targets. The record provides high confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will reduce hazard risks during performance of the subcontract. The three-year average EMR is at or below 0.90 and DART/TRC case rate at or below 70% BLS DART/TRC Rate for heavy construction (DART: 1.5, TRC:2.7). The proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit PPPL.

Points (8) The proposal demonstrates a good safety record, program and safety culture that meets the project-defined targets. The record provides confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will minimize hazard risks during performance of the subcontract.