Evaluation Factors.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons

Facilities Management

Washington, DC 20534

March 13, 2026

MEMORANDUM FOR CONTRACTING OFFICER, FIELD ACQUISITIONS OFFICE

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Ethan Derr, Facility Manager FMC Rochester

Submission of Evaluations Criteria of Commercial Construction Requirements Project 26Z4AM8 Install Above Ground Fuel Tanks

BPQ #15B41226PR000157

FMC Rochester

This memorandum transmits the Facilities Department’s recommended evaluation criteria for inc lusion in the solicitation of the above reference commercial construction requirement. These evaluation criteria are submitted as a required component of the Requirements Packet / Request for Contract Action (RCA) to ensure the solicitation contains clear, objective, and defensible standards for evaluating contractor capability, technical risk, and pricing.

Facilities confirm that this requirement constitutes a commercial construction service. The proposed evaluation’s structure is intended to support streamlined commercial procedures while retaining construction specific technical safeguards necessary for work performed at an active Bureau of Prisons institution.

Facilities recommend use of one of the following evaluation methodologies, as determined appropriate by Contracting based on the final acquisition strategy:

A. Two-step Sealed Bidding (Technical Acceptability / Price) Under this method, the Government will first evaluate technical submissions on a pass/fail basis without consideration of price. Only bidders determined technically acceptable for all Step One factors will be eligible to submit a price bid under Step Two.

Step One – Technical Evaluation Factors (Acceptable / Unacceptable) Facilities recommend the following minimum technical factors be evaluated for acceptability:

Ability to meet bonding and insurance requirements Comprehensive list of materials proposed Construction schedule (Gantt chart) demonstrating sequencing and completion Demonstrated experience with similar construction and work in occupied or secure facilities Detailed work proposal demonstrating understanding of scope, phasing, and execution

Failure to receive an Acceptable rating for any factor shall result in elimination from further consideration.

B. RFQ (SAP) – Best Value Tradeoff Under this method, the Government will evaluate quotes using the best value trade-off approach. Facilities recommend the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:

Factor I – Technical / Management Approach: Evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the work, co nstruction phasing, site coordination, staffing plan, safety and quality control approach, and ability to perform while the facility remains operational.

Factor II – Specialized Experience: Evaluation of the relevance and depth of experience on projects of sim ilar size, scope, complexity, and security environment.

Factor III – Schedule: Evaluation of the realism, completeness, and feasibility of the proposed construction schedule, including identification of critical path activities.

Factor IV – Past Performance: Evaluation of prior performance information obtained from CPARS, PPQs, and other Government sources for similar construction projects.

Factor V – Price: Evaluation of price for reasonableness and consistency with the proposed technical approach.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

Facilities recommends that non-price factors, when combined, be approximately equal to price unless otherwise determined by Contracting. Award should be given to the offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government.

PROGRAM OFFICE RECOMMENDATION

Facilities recommend incorporation of the above evaluation criteria into the solicitation to ensure adequate assessment of technical risk, contractor capability, and schedule feasibility for construction performed within an operational correctional environment.

Concurrence Name / Title Signature / Date Facilities Manager Construction Management Contracting Officer

Ethan Derr, Facility Manager