EXHIBIT 3A - EVALUATION CRITERIA.pdf

RFP NO. PS136577

SELF-PERFORMING CONSTRUCTION WORK FEASIBILITY STUDY

EXHIBIT 3A - EVALUATION CRITERIA

I. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Metro will review and evaluate proposals received for this RFP according to the following evaluation criteria:

Phase I Evaluation – Minimum Qualification Requirements: Metro shall perform an initial responsiveness review to determine compliance with Minimum Qualifications Requirements as defined herein and notify all disqualified Proposers. The Minimum Qualifications Requirements will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Proposers that are deficient in meeting the minimum qualifications at the time of Proposal submittal shall be deemed non-responsive to this RFP and no further consideration shall be granted.

Phase II Evaluation - Weighted Evaluation: Proposals that meet the Phase I Minimum Qualifications Requirements will be evaluated based on the Phase II evaluation criteria herein. The sub-criteria will be equally weighted.

II. PHASE I - MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Proposers must meet the following Minimum Qualification Requirements at the time of proposal submittal:

A. The Project Lead must have:

1. Minimum 10 years in construction management including project delivery, controls, and scheduling for public and private owners in both traditional and/or alternative delivery construction projects; and

2. Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering, Construction Management, Legal, Business, or a closely related field.

B. All proposed project support staff must, individually, have:

1. Minimum of 2 years of experience in construction management on public and private projects; and

2. Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering, Construction Management, or a related field.

III. PHASE II – WEIGHTED EVALUATION

CRITERION DESCRIPTION WEIGHT

1. Experience &

Qualifications of the Prime Contractor/ Team

a. Demonstrated capacity, corporate skill, competence, and qualifications in performing feasibility studies, construction cost analysis, and organizational assessments for transit infrastructure or comparable capital projects.

b. Relevant track record of satisfactory performance on engagements similar in size and complexity to the scope of services, including experience with public transit agencies, self-performance evaluations, or construction delivery method assessments.

c. Depth of experience with California construction regulations, prevailing wage requirements, Cal/OSHA compliance, and Project Labor Agreements (PLAs).

20%

2. Qualification and Experience of Proposed Key Personnel

a. Depth of knowledge, qualifications, and experience of Project Lead in construction management, cost estimating, scheduling, and risk analysis relevant to heavy civil, transit, or infrastructure construction.

b. Degree of relevant experience and experience of the Project Lead in heavy civil construction projects within the last five years.

c. Project Lead’s depth of knowledge and experience identifying safety hazards, assessing risks that prevent harm, protecting people, property, and the environment through planning, communication, and accountability.

e. Depth Project Lead’s financial acumen and experience in evaluating costs, margins, and cash flow to quantify the return on investment (ROI) of self-performed construction activities.

h. Project Lead’s depth of experience in job-cost analytics to maximize ROI and profitability on self-performed construction scopes of work.

i. Project Lead’s depth of experience in conducting make-versus-buy evaluations using ROI, life-cycle cost considerations, and risk impacts to determine when self-performance provides the most significant overall value.

j. Availability and commitment of key personnel to commence work shortly after contract award, including percentage of time dedicated to this project and capability to complete the assignment within the specified timeframe.

30%

CRITERION DESCRIPTION WEIGHT

3. Comprehensiveness of Work Plan and Technical Approach and Analytical Rigor

a. Depth of understanding of SOW objectives, including evaluation and capability to self-perform construction scopes (concrete, structural steel, earthwork, utilities, interior finishes) and comparative analysis against subcontracting.

b. Feasibility of proposed approach in managing potential issues and obstacles that include (legal authorization, federal funding impacts, SBE/DBE community considerations, union requirements, liability exposures) and feasibility of proposed methods to address them.

30%

c. Comprehensiveness of proposed approach in schedule analysis using Critical Path Method (CPM), identification of Key Performance Indicators (SPI, CPI, labor productivity metrics), and resource leveling/crew allocation assessments.

d. Feasibility of proposed approach in risk management, conducting assessments, including quantitative techniques (Monte Carlo simulation), risk matrix development (probability, impact, detectability), and mitigation strategy formulation.

e. Viability of proposed approach in benchmarking against comparable projects, peer agency research, and developing actionable recommendations with supporting evidence per acceptance criteria.

4. Price Proposal The Price Proposal will be factored into the Proposer’s final evaluation score in the following manner:

Proposer Price Score = Lowest Price Proposal X 20% Proposer’s Price Proposal

20%