Exhibit B - Scored NonCost Fctrs 04-10-2025.docx

DOCX document 289 KB Posted

Attached to
Environmental Consulting Services
Solicitation number
2025-02
Issued by
Adams County, Asotin County, Benton County, Chelan County, Clallam County, Clark County, Columbia County, Cowlitz County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Franklin County, Garfield County, Grant County, Grays Harbor County, Island County, Jefferson County, King County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Klickitat County, Lewis County, Lincoln County, Mason County, Okanogan County, Pacific County, Pend Oreille County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Skagit County, Skamania County, Snohomish County, Spokane County, Stevens County, Thurston County, Wahkiakum County, Walla Walla County, Whatcom County, Whitman County, Yakima County, Asotin City, Clarkston City, Clarkston Heights-Vineland CDP, West Clarkston-Highland CDP, Benton City, Chelan City, Chelan Falls CDP, Clallam Bay CDP, Lewisville CDP, Rock Island City, Pacific Beach CDP, Whidbey Island Station CDP, Mercer Island City, Pacific City, Bainbridge Island City, Kingston CDP, Kitsap Lake CDP, Kittitas City, Klickitat CDP, Okanogan City, Anderson Island CDP, Fort Lewis CDP, Fox Island CDP, Herron Island CDP, Ketron Island CDP, North Fort Lewis CDP, Raft Island CDP, Stevenson City, Hat Island CDP, Lake Stevens City, Snohomish City, Spokane City, Spokane Valley City, Puget Island CDP, Garfield Town, Yakima City, Washington

About this file

Exhibit B is a scored non-cost factors document from the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) for a competitive solicitation of Environmental Consulting Services (No. 2025-02). The solicitation seeks to award one contract to a contractor providing environmental consulting services on an on-call basis for reviewing and analyzing potential environmental impacts of proposed privately funded energy production facilities. The document outlines detailed evaluation criteria for bidders, with a focus on company experience in Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) reviews, requiring bidders to demonstrate project experience in specific environmental review areas such as water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, and various energy-related domains.

The evaluation process includes a comprehensive scoring methodology with ratings ranging from 0% (does not meet minimum standards) to 100% (excellent added value), with a maximum of 30 points available for the company experience section. Bidders must submit detailed project descriptions, including two required projects completed within the last five years, with optional additional examples. The document emphasizes strict submission guidelines, including a 1,000-word response limit, prohibition of external links or embedded documents, and requirements for anonymized submissions to minimize potential evaluation bias. Bidders who fail to meet the minimum acceptable standards will be disqualified from further consideration.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Exhibit D - Contract 04-10-2025 .docx DOCX document
EFSEC Competitive Solicitation 04-10-2025.docx DOCX document
Exhibit E - Div Bus Inclu Pln Subs 04-10-2025.docx DOCX document
Pre-Bid Conf Slides.pdf PDF
Exhibit C - Bid Price 04-10-2025.docx DOCX document
Exhibit A - Bidder's Certification 04-10-2025.docx DOCX document
Amendment No. 1.docx DOCX document
Q&A No. 1.docx DOCX document

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

STATE OF WASHINGTON

ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL

EXHIBIT B – SCORED NON-COST FACTORS

Competitive Solicitation:
Environmental Consulting Services – No. 2025-02
Bidder:
________________________________________

Type/print full legal name of bidder company

Instructions:

Note: Bidders must follow the instructions outlined in this Exhibit. Unless EFSEC, at its discretion, determines that a bidder’s variance from these instructions is immaterial or timely corrected, Bids that do NOT follow these instructions will be deemed to be nonresponsive and rejected.

1. Add bidder’s business name above and follow the instructions below.

2. Review and respond to all questions. ALL bidders must respond to REQ ID1 below.

3. Provide a written response that addresses how the bidder meets or exceeds each requirement in the Written Response column.

a. Supporting Information. Please make sure to include references in Exhibit A– Bidder Certifications that align with the information provided in this exhibit. Enterprise Services may request additional information or references to help verify the information provided by the bidder in this exhibit. A bidder’s failure to provide requested information to Enterprise Services within two (2) business days may result in disqualification.

b. Bidder’s Commitments. Please note that, if bidder is awarded a contract, the bidder’s responses to some of the performance requirements below will be incorporated to the resulting contract. Accordingly, the bidder is cautioned to state only commitments that the bidder can meet throughout the term of the contract. An awarded bidder (i.e., contractor) who is not able to meet such commitments throughout the contract term will be subject to contract termination for breach of contract and damages. Please see Exhibit D – Contract.

c. Identifiable Information in Bidder’s Exhibit Response. The State intends to conduct anonymous evaluations to minimize the risk of any potential bias. Bidders must not include any business names, logos, employee’s names (replace with position title or role), or other specifically identifiable information in their responses to this exhibit. The State will review all bid submittals prior to forwarding them to evaluators. If the State finds identifying information in the submittal, Enterprise Services will notify the bidder and allow them two (2) business days to correct and return their response. Bidders will not be allowed to alter any other information other than to remove the identifying information. If the bidder does not make the required adjustments, Enterprise Services will make modifications to remove the identifying information and deduct two (2) points from the bidder’s score for this exhibit.

d. Word Limit. Bidder’s responses must fully demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Less detailed responses may receive lower scores than those that more fully demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. However, conciseness is also preferred, and the following limits are provided:

· The total word count for all written responses must not exceed 1,000 words for the response to all sections of REQ ID1 question below. Any text in excess of this limit will be deleted prior to forwarding the submittals to the evaluation team.

· Each written response must be complete and will be evaluated as written. Additional materials such as links to external content or embedded documents are not allowed and will not be evaluated.

e. Complete each response separately. Each written response will be evaluated on its own merits.

f. No External Links or Embedded Documents. Unless otherwise stated, bidders cannot include links to external content or embedded documents; such additional materials will not be evaluated.

4. Definitions. Environmental consulting is defined as professionals advising EFSEC on environmental issues and sustainability practices to help review and understand environmental impacts of facilities under review by EFSEC. Environmental compliance means conforming to environmental laws, regulations, standards and other requirements such as site permits to operate.

5. Bidders written response to the Performance Requirements will be assessed as follows:

Score
Rating
Definition
100%
Excellent added value
Bidder’s response provides outstanding added value for the state across all aspects of the performance requirement. The response demonstrates clear and extraordinary technical, or business efficiencies and advantages compared to the stated business need.
70%
Significant added value
Bidder’s response provides major added value across all aspects of the performance requirement or provides outstanding added value in some aspects of the stated business need. The response demonstrates clear and substantial technical or business efficiencies and advantages as compared to the stated business need.
30%
Sufficient added value
Bidder’s response provides minor added value across all aspects of the performance requirement or significant added value in some aspects of the stated business need. The response demonstrates vague or limited technical or business efficiencies and advantages as compared to the stated business need.
0%
Meets minimum acceptable standard
Bidder’s response meets the specified minimum acceptable standard for each performance requirement. Note: Bidder must meet the minimum acceptable standard to provide a responsive bid.
DOES NOT MEET
Does Not Meet Minimum acceptable standard
The bidder does not meet the specified minimum acceptable standard for the performance requirement and stated business need.

6. Submit the exhibit as a Microsoft Word without modifying the formatting. If you need to print out this document for any reason, please note that it is Legal 8.5” x 14”.

REQ ID
Performance Requirement and

Stated Business Need

Available Points
Written Response
1.
Company Experience. The State is seeking to award a contract to bidder with substantial company knowledge and experience in providing the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Environmental Impact Statement reviews (EIS) in support of a variety of environmental review areas.

To meet the minimum acceptable standard [0%]: Bidder must have completed and describe in their written response, at least two projects that are similar in scope to the services being procured in this solicitation. These projects must have been completed in the last five years, and should include the customers’ organization types (private, local government, etc.), scopes of services, and contracted project costs.

For the scope of the service, provide a description of tasks completed, end products, deliverables or results, and any metrics used. Bidder must demonstrate that the scope of services is similar to the range of services being procured under this solicitation. Bidders who do not meet this minimum acceptable standard will be disqualified from further consideration.

Added value: In the written response, demonstrate added value to the state that exceeds the minimum acceptable standard above by:

1) Providing additional examples (one or more examples beyond the required two (2) projects above) that closely align to the scope and value of this contract, and/or type of customers served, and

2) Company’s Years of Experience with any of the following specified areas of environmental reviews:

1) Water Quality, Spill Prevention, Control, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge

2) Public Services and Utilities

3) Land and Shoreline Use

4) Biological resources (Habitat and vegetation, fish and wildlife).

5) Cultural and Archeological resources

6) Socio-economic Impacts

7) Air Quality, Emissions Analysis, and Dust Control

8) Transportation impacts

9) Facility Site Emergency Plans

10) Facility Construction Plans

11) Construction and Industrial Noise and Vibrations

12) Site Decommissioning and Restoration

13) Nuclear Fusion and Fission

14) Geothermal, Wind, and Solar Energies

15) Gas and Oil Pipelines and Refineries

16) Energy Storage

17) Electrical Transmission

18) Other

30
Written Response Required. Provide up to 1,000 words to address the Performance Requirement and Stated Business Need.

Projects similar in scope to this solicitation’s scope completed in the last five (5) years:

(Required) Project 1 Title:

a) Customer Organization Type and/or Name:

b) Scope of Service:

c) Cost:

d) Describe the SEPA and other resources evaluated:

e) Describe SEPA documentation your company developed, particularly how that documentation would relate to the type of work on this proposed contract:

(Required) Project 2 Title:

f) Customer Organization Type and/or Name:

g) Scope of Service:

h) Cost:

i) Describe the SEPA and other resources evaluated:

j) Describe SEPA documentation your company developed, particularly how that documentation would relate to the type of work on this proposed contract:

(Optional – Value Added) Additional Examples Project 3 Title:

k) Customer Organization Type and/or Name:

l) Scope of Services:

m) Cost:

n) Describe the SEPA and other resources evaluated:

o) Describe the SEPA documentation your company developed, particularly how that documentation would relate to the type of work on this proposed contract:

Project 4 Title:

p) Customer Organization Type and/or Name:

q) Scope of Service:

r) Cost:

s) Describe the SEPA and other resources evaluated:

t) Describe the SEPA documentation your company developed, particularly how that documentation would relate to the type of work on this proposed contract:

(Optional – Value Added) Indicate years of experience and organizations you have contracting experience with in any of the following specified areas of environmental reviews:

For each item you show experience with below, list the following details:

u) Number of years of experience in subject area listed.

v) List up to three (3) organizations with whom you contracted and provided services within each area:

w) Water Quality, Spill Prevention, Control, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge

x) Public Services and Utilities

y) Land and Shoreline Use

z) Biological resources (Habitat and vegetation, fish and wildlife).

aa) Cultural and Archeological resources

ab) Socio-economic Impacts

ac) Air Quality, Emissions Analysis, and Dust Control

ad) Transportation impacts

ae) Facility Site Emergency Plans

af) Facility Construction Plans

ag) Construction and Industrial Noise and Vibrations

ah) Site Decommissioning and Restoration

ai) Fusion and Fission

aj) Geothermal, Wind, and Solar Energies

ak) Gas and Oil Pipelines and Refineries

al) Energy Storage

am) Electrical Transmission

an) Other

Return this exhibit to Procurement Coordinator at:

DESProcurementConsulting@des.wa.gov

EXHIBIT B – SCORED NON-COST FACTORS (REV 9/5/24) PAGE 2

image1.png image2.jpeg

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .