Exhibit G Evaluation Tool

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%

RFP No. HHS0016834 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet

Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool

Proposed Methodology

Relevant Construction Service Ability and Experience

Quality and Safety Programs

Pricing

Subtotal

TOTAL (%)

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

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

Response mentions requirement, but is not responsive to the elements of the requirement.

Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0016834

Evaluation Scoring Guide

Description

Response does not address requirement. Response is completely unacceptable.

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.

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. HHS0016834

GC RFP, V1.7 Dec 10, 2024 3 of 3