Exhibit G - Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 58 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HHS0017654
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This document is an Evaluation Tool (Exhibit G) for RFP No. HHS0017654, a Texas state contract opportunity for Fire Alarm Panel Upgrades at a health and human services facility. The evaluation tool establishes the criteria and scoring methodology that will be used to assess general contractor proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The evaluation process will employ a 10-point scoring scale with defined performance levels ranging from "Unacceptable" (scores 1-3) to "Exceptional" (score 10), with intermediate categories for "Marginal" (scores 4-6) and "Acceptable" (scores 7-9).
The evaluation will be conducted using a best-value approach, with four primary criteria weighted as follows: Relevant Construction Service Ability and Experience at 30% (encompassing past project experience, key personnel qualifications, and team member responsibilities); Quality and Safety Programs at 5% (including quality assurance programs and workers' compensation experience rates); Proposed Methodology at 25% (covering implementation approach, subcontractor coordination, critical path items, schedule management, and budget management); and Pricing at 40% (proposed project cost). Each subcriteria within these categories will be individually scored and weighted, with evaluators required to document their assessments with comments. The master score sheet will aggregate all individual criterion scores to calculate a final weighted total score for each respondent proposal, with pricing carrying the highest evaluation weight in the selection decision.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
Evaluator Respondent
# Criteria Weight Score Comments
1.1 Evaluate the relevance of the Respondent's past and present experience for completed construction Projects that are similar to this Project. 15%
1.2 Evaluate the previous experience of the Respondent's Project Superintendent, Project Manager, and other employee's assigned to this Project.
10%
1.3 Evaluate the Respondent's designated team member responsibilities in relation to previous experience and/or working together on similar Projects.
5%
30%
2.1 Evaluate Respondent's approach to quality and safety including its quality assurance program, requirements, means of measurement, and workers' compensation experience rate (EMR).
5%
5%
3.1 Evaluate the Respondent's proposed plan and methodology for the implementation and realization of the Project. 5%
3.2
Evaluate the Respondent's proposed approach to managing and coordinating work with subcontractors; or, if no subcontracting, evaluate the Respondent's proposed approach to managing and coordinating work with designated staff assigned to the Project.
5%
3.3 Evaluate the Respondent's identified major critical path items and milestones that are necessary for the completion of the Project in the proposed timeline.
5%
3.4 Evaluate the Respondent's plan and methodology for maintaining the schedules required to implement the Project. 5%
3.5 Evaluate the Respondent's plan and methodology for maintaining budgets related to the Project. 5%
25%
4.1 Evaluate Respondent's proposed pricing. 40%
40% 100%
Pricing
Subtotal
TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
RFP No. HHS0017654 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool
Proposed Methodology
Relevant Construction Service Ability and Experience
Quality and Safety Programs
GC RFP, V1.7 Dec 10, 2024 1 of 3
Score Level
Unacceptable 1
Unacceptable 2
Unacceptable 3
Marginal. Fails to meet evaluation standards but failures are correctable. 4
Marginal. Fails to meet evaluation standards but failures are correctable. 5
Marginal. Fails to meet evaluation standards but failures are correctable. 6
Acceptable 7
Acceptable 8
Acceptable 9
Exceptional 10
For the purposes of this exhibit, “the agency” means the contracting state agency as specified in the solicitation.
Response satisfies requirements and has some benefits above requirement.
Response far exceeds all aspects of requirement.
Response addresses requirement, but response described does not allow the agency to fulfill mission.
Response meets fundamental requirements, however could not be implemented as described (would require both the agency and Respondent to make significant changes not currently anticipated).
Response meets fundamental requirements, however could not be implemented as described (implementation would require both the agency and Respondent to make minor changes not currently anticipated).
Response meets fundamental requirements, however could not be implemented as described (implementation would require changes to be made by Respondent only).
Response clearly satisfies requirement but has some minor weaknesses.
Response clearly satisfies requirement.
Response mentions requirement, but is not responsive to the elements of the requirement.
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0017654
Evaluation Scoring Guide
Description
Response does not address requirement. Response is completely unacceptable.
GC RFP, V1.7 Dec 10, 2024 2 of 3
No. Best Value Criteria Weight 1 Relevant Construction Service Ability and Experience 30% 2 Quality and Safety Programs 5% 3 Proposed Methodology 25% 4 Pricing 40%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0017654
GC RFP, V1.7 Dec 10, 2024 3 of 3
| Master Score Sheet Template |
| Scoring Guide |
| Evaluation Criteria |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .