Evaluation_Guidelines_Small_AE_BOA1.20.26.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Small A&E Project
- Solicitation number
- 98586
- Issued by
- Prince George's County, Maryland
About this file
Evaluation Guidelines Summary
This document contains evaluation guidelines for a Small Architecture & Engineering Services contract issued by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) in Maryland. The contractor shall provide architectural and engineering services for existing WSSC office buildings, depots, laboratories, and other occupied vertical facilities. Sealed responses must be submitted via WSSC's eProcurement Portal at https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/wsscwater prior to 2:00 pm on Tuesday, March 31, 2026. The submission shall not exceed 48 pages for Sections 1, 2, and 3, with specifications for single-sided 8.5 by 11 inch pages in Arial font, 10 pt size or greater. Proposers must identify team members by specific role descriptions including Principal, Project Manager, Project Engineer, Engineer or Architect, CADD Technician, and Surveyor to ensure consistent price proposal evaluation.
Evaluation criteria are weighted as follows: Firm Experience (40%), Technical Approach (30%), Key Personnel & Staffing Plan (20%), and Price (10%). Price evaluation uses a cost efficiency analysis based on team member role weighted average hourly cost loaded rates, with proposals ranked from highest to lowest cost efficiency on a 100-point scale. All proposals must meet minimum qualifications before non-price evaluation proceeds using a 0-5 scoring scale. The Team Multiplier and salary rate averages are assessed relative to standard deviations from other proposers' submissions, with additional consideration for construction sequence constraints to maintain occupied facilities throughout the project.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Small Architecture & Engineering Services Evaluation Guidelines and Factors Page 1 of 5 Small Architecture & Engineering Services
Contract No. TBD
Evaluation Guidelines and Factors
Evaluation Guidelines
The following definitions apply to these evaluation guidelines:
Cost Efficiency – price analysis using team member role weighted average hourly cost loaded rate.
Cost Loaded Rate – hourly billing rate including overhead and profit.
No Disruption – construction sequence constraints defined to maintain existing occupied office building and/or other facilities throughout construction.
Page(s) - Single-sided, 8.5 by 11 inch. Text shall be Arial font, 10 pt size or greater. (Note: Arial, 10 pt is consistent with the default font in the downloadable, editable version of SF330 forms). The submission addressing Evaluation Guidelines and Factors Sections 1, 2, and 3 shall not exceed a total of 48 pages.
Prime Consultant - refers to qualifications that shall be demonstrated specifically by the Prime.
Prime Consultant’s Team - refers to qualifications that apply to the Prime or Subconsultants.
Team Member Role Descriptions – The proposer shall use the following role descriptions in their proposal:
1) Principal – directs and oversees administration of the Contract
2) Project Manager – individual responsible for managing the overall design project quality, schedule, cost, and risk
3) Project Engineer – lead technical designer for each relevant engineering discipline
4) Engineer or architect – design engineer for each relevant engineering discipline
5) CADD technician – CAD drafting preparer
6) Surveyor – licensed and experienced in land, control, and construction surveys
*Note: These role descriptions are required for consistency of evaluating price proposals, only.
*The Labor Classification with Salary Schedule will apply once the Contract is awarded.
A.
| Rating |
| Unsatisfactory |
(20) Marginal (40) Satisfactory (60) Good (80)
| Excellent |
| (100) |
Price The Team price proposal has the highest cost efficiency.
| The Team price proposal has the second highest cost efficiency. |
| The Team price proposal has the median cost efficiency. |
| The Team price proposal has the second lowest cost efficiency. |
| The Team price proposal has the lowest cost efficiency. |
Total points: 100
1. This factor will evaluate the team multiplier and average salary rates submitted by each consultant.
| Rating |
| Unsatisfactory |
(1) Marginal (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)
| Price Proposal |
| The Team Multiplier is greater than or equal to two standard deviations above the average of multipliers submitted by the other proposers, and the Team has the highest salary rate average. |
| The Team Multiplier is greater than or equal to one standard deviation above the average multipliers submitted by the other proposers, and the Team has a high salary rate average. |
| The Team Multiplier is within one standard deviation above or below the average of multipliers submitted by the other proposers, and the Team salary rate average is reasonable. |
| The Team Multiplier is less than or equal to one standard deviation below the average of multipliers submitted by the other proposers, and the Team salary rate is reasonable. |
| The Team Multiplier is less than or equal to two standard deviations below the average of multipliers submitted by the other proposers, and the Teams salary has the lowest salary rate average. |
EVALUATION FACTORS
All Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with WSSC Procurement Regulation Chapter 6.15.320, Competitive Sealed Proposals. Accordingly, Offerors must note that a number of factors will be considered by WSSC in making an award. Price will not be the sole determining criterion.
Evaluation Criteria Technical Approach 30% Firm Experience 40% Key Personnel & Staffing Plan 20% Price 10%
PROPOSAL EVALUATION
All Proposals meeting the Minimum Qualifications will be evaluated in accordance with WSSC Water Procurement Regulation Chapter 6.15.320, Competitive Sealed Proposals. Price will not be evaluated at this stage.
Scoring Scale (0–5)
· 5 – Excellent: Exceeds requirements; comprehensive, detailed, and well-documented; very low risk.
· 4 – Good: Meets requirements; minor weaknesses; low risk.
· 3 – Satisfactory: Generally meets requirements; moderate risk.
· 2 – Marginal: Partially meets requirements; significant weaknesses; high risk.
· 1 – Poor: Does not adequately meet requirements; major weaknesses; very high risk.
· 0 – Unacceptable: Fails to meet requirements; insufficient information; not eligible for award.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .