EXHIBIT 3 - EVALUATION CRITERIA.pdf

PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

I. BASIS OF AWARD

LACMTA will award a contract under this RFP to a responsive and responsible Proposer whose offer conforms to the RFP and is most advantageous to LACMTA, with the price and other factors specified elsewhere in this RFP being considered.

II. EVALUATION PROCESS

A. The overall evaluation process will be performed by LACMTA’s Source

Selection Committee (Committee). Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation procedures contained herein.

B. Only the evaluation criteria and sub-criteria set forth in the RFP will be used by the Committee to evaluate Proposals, and these criteria and sub-criteria shall be given the weight specified in Section IV Proposal Evaluation Criteria.

C. Proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the submittal requirements and page restrictions in the RFP. Proposals that do not comply with the submittal requirements may be deemed non-responsive. Pages submitted in excess of the page number restriction may not be considered or evaluated.

D. During the evaluation period, the Committee and LACMTA staff shall determine if Proposers are Responsible. Responsibility is defined as the apparent ability of the Proposer to meet and successfully complete the requirements of the Contract. Responsibilities include but are not limited to;

consideration of a Proposer’s trustworthiness, the quality of past performance, financial resources, record of integrity and business ethics, and fitness and capacity to do the proposed Work in a satisfactory manner. A Proposer may be required to present further evidence that it has successfully performed similar work of comparable magnitude or provide other proof satisfactory to LACMTA that it is competent to successfully perform the Work.

E. Proposers submitting conforming proposals may also submit written alternative proposals to this RFP as complete separate offers. If a proposer does not submit a conforming proposal, LACMTA may determine in its sole discretion whether to consider or not consider an alternative proposal. Alternative proposals must meet the requirements in the Instructions to Proposers. Any alternative proposal accepted will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in this RFP.

F. LACMTA may evaluate Proposals and alternative proposals and award a contract without discussions or negotiations.

G. LACMTA may, in its sole discretion, give Proposers the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their Proposals or alternative proposals (e.g., the relevance of a Proposers’ past performance information and adverse past performance information which the Proposer has not had an opportunity to address) or to resolve minor or clerical errors and LACMTA reserves its right to waive errors or irregularities to the maximum extent permitted by law.

H. LACMTA, in its sole discretion, may request oral presentations to provide

Proposers an opportunity to highlight certain aspect of their written proposals, enhance the Committee’s understanding of the Proposals and facilitate the evaluation process. Oral presentations will not be used to cure Proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the Proposal and/or otherwise revise the Proposal.

LACMTA may require Proposers to provide written clarification or confirmation of statements made or information provided in the oral presentations.

Discussions, negotiations or exchanges between the Committee and Proposers are not permitted during oral presentations. Committee member(s) may adjust their evaluation scores after a Proposers’ oral presentation.

I. LACMTA, in its sole discretion, may decide to conduct discussions or negotiations after evaluation of all Proposals. If discussions are conducted, LACMTA, in its sole discretion, will establish an initial competitive range. The competitive range will be based on the ratings of each Proposal against the evaluation criteria and will include all Proposals that the LACMTA, in its sole discretion, determines to have a reasonable chance for contract award.

Discussions will be conducted with each Proposer in the competitive range. If LACMTA does not establish a competitive range but desires to have discussions, it will conduct discussions with all Proposers found responsive and responsible.

J. The primary objective of discussions is to maximize LACMTA’s ability to obtain best value based on the requirements and the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. To that end, discussions may include negotiations, bargaining, or exchanges on technical requirements, price, schedule, or contract terms.

Discussions will be tailored to each Proposer’s Proposal, or Alternative Proposal if submitted, and will address significant weaknesses, deficiencies, adverse past performance information and other aspects of the Proposal that could be modified to improve the Proposal.

Discussions shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, shall not favor one Proposer over another, and shall not reveal a Proposer’s price or proprietary information to other Proposers.

K. After discussions and the cure of all Proposal deficiencies, Proposers remaining in the competitive range will be given the opportunity to modify Proposals by submitting a Best and Final Offer (BAFO). The BAFO shall fully comply with the RFP, including all Amendments. The Committee may revise evaluation scores based on the information contained in the BAFO.

L. Committee will recommend a final selection of a Proposer whose proposal provides the Best Value to LACMTA, based on the Evaluation Criteria set forth herein.

III. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

To be considered for Contract Award, Proposers must demonstrate evidence of compliance with the following minimum qualifications:

1. Proposer shall be a systems integrator or manufacturer with at least three

(3) years’ experience in the design, installation, and testing of conditional monitoring / predictive analytics systems.

Evaluation of Minimum Qualifications will be on a Pass/Fail basis. Proposers that do not demonstrate evidence of compliance may not be considered beyond preliminary review.

IV. PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

All proposals will be evaluated on the Criteria and their sub-criteria described below. To be properly evaluated, Proposers must respond to all defined elements in the Submittal Requirements section (s) PR-1.0 through PR-4.0 of this RFP. The Evaluation Criteria consists of the following main factors in descending order of importance: Criterion #1 Technical Approach, Criterion #2 Price, Criterion #3 Past Performance, and Criterion #4 Project Management Experience. The total points available across all evaluation factors, when combined, are 1,000. The primary criteria and sub-criteria, other than Price, shall be evaluated on the point values listed below. All Price factors shall be of equal importance.

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Criteria

1. Technical Approach (500 points)

2. Price (200 points)

3. Past Performance (200 points)

4. Project Management Experience (100 points)

1. Technical Approach (500 points)

• Approach to Baseline Requirements and Expandability (200 points)

• Monitoring Switch Machines (50 points)

• Monitoring Grade Crossings (50 points)

• Monitoring Track Circuits (50 points)

• Monitoring Power Supplies (50 points)

• Software Safety, Security (100 points)

2. Price (200 points)

• Costs (200 points)

Total Price Evaluation Factors:

Proposal Scoring for Price shall be based on the following formula:

Lowest Proposed Price X 200 = Total Price Score

Proposed Price

3. Past Performance (200 points)

• Schedule Adherence (30 points)

• Work History for Furnishing Similar Equipment (30 points)

• Quality (20 points)

• Experience with Rail Vehicles (20 points)

• Experience on Operating Railroads (20 points)

• Experience Testing and Commissioning (20 points)

• Service Proven Technology (20 points)

• Change Orders (15 points)

• Spare Parts, Manuals & Training (15 points)

• CDRL Items Delivery/Acceptance (10 points)

4. Project Management Experience (100 points)

• Proposed Project Schedule (30 points)

• Proposed Cutover Plan (20 points)

• Metro Resources and Revenue Service Impacts (10 points)

• Proposed Quality Plan (10 points)

• Understanding of Live Railroad Operations (15 points)

• Approach to Systems Integration Testing (SIT) (15 points)