Evaluation and Basis for Award_R1_RFP 25-002.pdf

RFP 25-002 Code Inspection Services Evaluation and Basis for Award

1 | P a g e

EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

PPPL will evaluate proposals submitted in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) and plans to award a subcontract to the supplier whose proposal represents the Best Value offer(s) to PPPL on the basis of the criteria outlined in the Statement of Work for Code Inspection Services, specifically:

a) Organizational Ability;

b) Technical Capability;

c) Quality Assurance

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the qualified, responsive, and responsible supplier whose evaluated proposal provides the best value to PPPL. Evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Best value will be determined by a tradeoff analysis of comparative differences in the value of technical merit with differences in cost / price. PPPL is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost / price.

2. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Suppliers’ initial proposal should contain the supplier’s best terms from a price, quality, and technical standpoint.

Upon receipt of proposals, PPPL may contact suppliers with a request for clarifications, if required. Once clarifications are received, proposals shall be screened for responsiveness. Only proposals determined to be responsive shall be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

3. ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Prior to final evaluation, competitive range suppliers may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals either remotely (video) or onsite at PPPL/Princeton University offices. Supplier participants should include all persons on the engagement team including the Engagement/Project/Program Manager and/or Director/Partner, but no more than five (5) persons who are knowledgeable of the RFP and the response submitted by the supplier’s organization and who are qualified to answer questions relating to the proposal.

If conducted, the purpose of the oral presentation will be to:

a) Provide a summary of the respective supplier’s proposal for the benefit of PPPL; and,

b) Permit the Review Team members to ask questions pertaining to the supplier’s proposal.

Suppliers will be provided no more than two (2) hours each for oral presentations, to be inclusive of a summary of the proposal contents and a question-and-answer session.

The oral presentations will provide a unified format that will be used for the selected firms to provide a detailed proposal overview. It will also address any questions for further clarification within the related weighted factors with specific emphasis on the Initial Job Order.

PPPL intends to make an award without further discussions; it reserves the right to conduct further discussions, if discussions are in its best interest of PPPL.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS / SUBFACTORS / CRITERIA

In evaluating a Supplier’s proposal, a numerical scoring system shall be utilized. Each Supplier shall receive a final technical score based on the evaluation criteria and scoring system for each of the evaluation factors. PPPL will then compare the Suppliers’ criteria scores and evaluated prices as it conducts its Best Value Trade Off Analysis.

https://www.pppl.gov/

2 | P a g e

4.1 Supplier Responsiveness (Not Rated)

Immediately after receipt, the proposal packages will be screened for “Supplier Responsiveness,” ensuring that the mandatory requirements are satisfied. A proposal will be considered “responsive” if the proposal is in compliance with all the requirements as outlined in the RFP.

PPPL reserves the right to consider any proposal “non-responsive” and reject it, in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Supplier, 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;

c) contains irregularities of any kind; or,

d) is submitted by a Supplier who does not meet the minimum qualifications.

Proposals found to be “non-responsive” will be eliminated from further consideration. Mandatory requirements are as follows:

Supplier Responsiveness Evaluation

Supplier provided a complete proposal in the required format with all the required documentation (including all signatures), as defined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) Instructions for Proposal Preparation and as stated above.

□ YES □ NO

Supplier outlined a minimum of five (5) years’ experience in providing Code Inspection Services for large-scale complex projects capabilities in similar size, scale, and complexity of PPPL. Experience within a DOE or federal government contracting is preferred, but not required.

□ YES □ NO

Supplier provided three references with contact information applicable to the size and complexity of this procurement within the past five years. If applicable, Suppliers may provide the experience or past performance of a parent, affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company) that is being otherwise proposed. The firm’s proposal must demonstrate past performance criteria is met.

□ YES □ NO

4.2 Weighted Evaluation Criteria

Only proposals that are determined to be “responsive” and meet the mandatory requirements will be distributed for evaluation. The following criteria will be used for evaluation purposes:

Evaluation Factors

Description Relative

Importance

Factor 1:

Organizational Ability

Subfactor 1 – Relevant Experience

Subfactor 2 – Past Performance

20 points

3 | P a g e

Factor 2: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1 – Technical Understand of Requirements

Subfactor 2 – Job Order Implementation and Management

Subfactor 3 – Qualifications of Personnel

70 points

Factor 3: Quality Assurance (QA) Subfactor 1 – QA Program 10 points

Total

100 points

4.3 Evaluation Criteria

4.3.1 FACTOR 1: Organizational Ability (Maximum 20 Points)

In evaluating each Supplier’s overall capability to perform the work required by this RFP, the evaluation will consider both the total relevant domain experience, project management abilities, and staffing plan to supply the required Code Inspector capabilities and services as described in the SOW. It will also consider the relevance of past performance of similar contracts. Evaluation will be based on the information conveyed in the Supplier’s proposal as well as from references and previous contracts. To determine if a Supplier possesses the professional ability to perform the work described in this RFP, the following will be considered:

Subfactor 1: - Relevant Experience (Maximum 10 points) The Supplier shall demonstrate that a capable and technically diverse organization exists to meet the expectations of this subcontract, including the Program Leader, key technical leadership personnel, teaming and supporting personnel with experience in their respective fields, as applicable. Evidence provided in the Supplier’s proposal as well as input from references from former clients and previous contracts will be considered. The proposal shall be scored according to the following standards:

Documentation provided by the Supplier must include a summary of former clients of similar size, scale, and complexity.

Subfactor 1: Relevant Experience (Maximum 10 points)

Points Description

10 points

Exceeds Expectations – Supplier’s core abilities exceed the amount of required capabilities and has demonstrated success in large scale complex engineering projects whereby multiple engineering skills are used simultaneously to meet customer requirements. Proposal provides a substantial understanding and knowledge of the scope and complexity of the technical requirements

7 points

Meets Expectations – Supplier’s core abilities satisfy most of the required capabilities and has demonstrated success in large-scale engineering projects whereby there are small engineering teams required to interact to meet customer requirements. Proposal provides some understanding and knowledge of the scope, and complexity of the technical requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable.

4 | P a g e

3 points

Partially Meets Expectations – Supplier is capable of satisfying a nominal amount of the required capabilities and has demonstrated success in engineering projects whereby engineers individually contribute to meet customer requirements. Proposal minimally meets expectations in the understanding and comprehensive knowledge of the scope, and complexity of the technical requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable.

0 points Below Expectations – Supplier is not capable of satisfying stated requirements.

Subfactor 2: Past Performance (Maximum 10 points)

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which a Supplier has satisfied its customers (including PPPL, if applicable) in the past. The evaluation team will contact select Supplier’s references to ask if: (1) the Supplier delivered a quality work product compliant with the customer’s requirements; (2) the Supplier’s performance conformed with the terms and conditions of its contract, including the delivery schedule and budgeted time/cost; (3) the Supplier was reasonable and cooperative during performance and committed to customer satisfaction; and (4) the Supplier’s team has consistently provided staff with relevant knowledge, skills and abilities.

Documentation provided by the Supplier must include a minimum of three (3) Supplier’s references (with contact information), description of past performance and summary of engineering services provided. Documentation provided by the Supplier must be included the proposal.

Subfactor 2: Past Performance (Maximum 10 points)

10 points

Exceeds Expectations – Supplier received excellent reviews on past performance as described above from clients similar to PPPL. The Supplier has demonstrated the ability to successfully estimate, staff (no gaps in coverage), manage, and oversee the work to completion and ensure the highest quality end-product is delivered on-time, budget, and within the established scope statements.

7 points

Meets Expectations – Offeror received good reviews as described above. The Offeror has demonstrated the ability to estimate, staff with small gaps in coverage (less than 80%), manage, and oversee the work to completion and ensure a quality end-product is delivered on-time, budget, and within the established scope statements with no rework of technical deliverables required other than to address comments from reviewers.

3 points

Partially Meets Expectations - Offeror received satisfactory reviews as described above. The Offeror has demonstrated some cost, schedule, and performance leading to gaps in coverage of staff (less than 50%). The need to rework technical deliverables due to quality concerns.

5 | P a g e

0 points Below Expectations - Supplier did not receive good reviews from references.

4.3.2 FACTOR 2: Technical Capability (Maximum 70 points)

The technical evaluation will consider the breadth and depth of the Supplier’s overall capability to perform the scope of work required by this RFP. The evaluation will consider professional expertise, qualifications, project management, staffing, and project planning. Evaluation will be based on the information conveyed in the Supplier’s proposal. To determine if a Supplier possesses the technical ability to perform the work described in this RFP, the following criteria will be evaluated:

Subfactor 1: Technical Understanding of Requirements (Maximum 25 points)

(Reference Statement of Work Attachment 1 Code Inspection Services CAT: Exempt per QAPD B.5

UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: FAC-010010.3.4)

The Supplier’s proposal must clearly convey an overall understanding of the scope and complexity of the technical requirements for this effort. The Supplier’s proposal must clearly demonstrate agility to implement multiple Job Orders simultaneously and show a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the various processes, procedures, and professional standards required to perform the work as specified.

The Supplier must clearly convey in their proposal, the capabilities to provide support in the identified labor categories found in Attachment 3_OFFEROR INFORMATION AND PRICING FORM with significance towards Mechanical Design, RAMI, Remote Handling, Logistics, and Safety.

Documentation shall include, in detail, how the Supplier’s technical response to the SOW addresses all the required technical areas for the implementation of managing multiple Job Orders.

Subfactor 1: Technical Understanding of Requirements (Maximum 25 points)

25 points

Exceeds Expectations - Supplier’s capabilities exceed all requirements in the SOW. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies are identified. The proposal clearly conveys a thorough breadth and depth of technical understanding in implementing multiple Job Orders simultaneously.

18 points

Meets Expectations – Supplier’s capabilities meet most requirements in the SOW at a minimum addressing Mechanical Design, RAMI, Remote Handling, Logistics, and Safety.

Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable. The proposal conveys a technical understanding in implementing multiple Job Orders simultaneously.

8 points

Partially Meets Expectations - Supplier’s capabilities satisfies some of the requirements in the SOW. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable. The proposal demonstrates a technical understanding in implementing multiple Job Orders simultaneously.

6 | P a g e

0 points Below Expectations - Supplier is not capable of satisfying stated requirements.

Subfactor 2: Job Order Implementation and Management (Maximum 20 points)

The Supplier must convey they have a sound plan and experience to conduct and complete Job Orders work scope including a comprehensive, detailed, and realistic schedule and that they possess the ability to successfully manage and oversee the work to completion and ensure a quality end product is delivered on time and within the established scope statement.

Documentation provided by the Supplier must include samples of detailed scheduling and their labor categories.

Subfactor 2: Job Order Management (Maximum 20 points)

20 points

Exceeds Expectations – Supplier’s capabilities exceed all requirements to the Initial Job Order. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies are identified. The proposal clearly conveys a sound and thorough plan and schedule that demonstrates achievability of the Initial Job Order work scope; the Supplier demonstrates the ability to successfully manage and oversee the work to completion and ensure the highest quality end product is delivered on time and within the established scope statement.

13 points

Meets Expectations – Supplier is capable of meeting all stated requirements to the Initial Job Order. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable. The proposal demonstrates achievability of the Initial Job Order work scope; the Supplier demonstrates the ability to manage the work to completion and ensure a quality end product is delivered and within the established scope statement.

7 points

Partially Meets Expectations -Supplier is capable of satisfying some stated requirements of the Initial Job Order. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable. The proposal satisfies the Initial Job Order work scope; the Supplier is capable of managing the work.

Subfactor 3: Qualifications of Personnel (Maximum 25 points)

Supplier’s proposal shall provide evidence that available in-house and subcontractor staff are exceptionally qualified to deliver the required services, based on education, professional credentials, and experience.

Supplier shall document capabilities of key in-house technical staff or subcontractors, as appropriate, in each technical area.

7 | P a g e

Documentation provided by the Supplier must include a summary of technical qualifications via resumes or CVs that include at a minimum education level and years of experience. Reference Statement of Work Attachment 1 Code Inspection Services, CAT: Exempt per QAPD B.5 UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: FAC- 010010.3.4)

Subfactor 3: Qualifications of Personnel (Maximum 25 points)

25 points

Exceeds Expectations –Supplier’s capabilities exceed all requirements in personnel qualifications. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies are identified. Supplier demonstrates a high level of staff qualification, as evidenced by education and professional credentials.

13 points

Meets Expectations - Supplier is capable of meeting most of the stated requirements in personnel qualifications. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable. Supplier demonstrates staff qualification, as evidenced by education and professional credentials.

5 points Partially Meets Expectations – Supplier is capable of satisfying some stated requirements in personnel qualifications. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable.

0 points Below Expectations – Supplier is not capable of satisfying stated requirements.

4.3.3 Factor 3: Quality Assurance (Maximum 10 points)

In evaluating each Supplier’s overall capability to provide quality assurance that will be applied to the work required by this RFP, PPPL will consider the Supplier’s Quality Assurance Plan and historical implementation.

Supplier’s proposal shall provide evidence of a Quality Assurance Plan and available staff that are exceptionally qualified to deliver the required QA, based on education, professional credentials, and experience.

Subfactor 1: Quality Assurance (Maximum 10 points) Supplier’s proposal shall provide evidence of a Quality Management Program that is sound, mature, and fully implemented.

Subfactor 1: Quality Assurance (Maximum 10 points)

8 | P a g e

10 points

Exceeded Expectations: Supplier demonstrated a high level of proficiency in Quality Assurance including QA Nuclear Regulatory Compliance-reference Statement of Work Attachment 1 Code Inspection Services CAT: Exempt per QAPD

B.5 UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: FAC-010010.3.4

The Supplier has provided evidence of quality whereby technical recommendations were found acceptable with minimal rework.

7 points Meets Expectations - Supplier demonstrated an adequate level of proficiency in Quality Assurance. The Supplier has provided evidence of quality whereby technical recommendations were accepted with substantial rework.

3 points Partially Meets Expectations - Supplier has an established quality program. The Supplier has provided evidence of quality, whereby technical recommendations are documented. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable.

5.0 Estimated Price (Not Rated)

Suppliers are required to complete and submit

• Attachment 3 Offeror Information and Pricing Form.

Proposals shall include 1. Fully burdened rates for each labor category identified and defined within the Statement of Work, reference Attachment 1_ Code Inspection Services CAT: Exempt per QAPD B.5 UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: FAC- 010010.3.4; and pricing shall include the appropriate identified labor categories. Pricing will be considered after the technical evaluation is completed and will be reviewed for fair and reasonableness.

Best value will be determined by a tradeoff analysis of comparative differences in the value of technical merit with differences in cost / price. PPPL is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost / price.