REER_Wiring_Replacement_Evaluation.pdf

National Park Service – Reconstruction Era NHP

PR 0044037426 – REER Wiring Replacement | Best Value Evaluation Criteria

REER Wiring Replacement Recommended Best Value Evaluation Criteria

Project REER Wiring Replacement

PR Number 0044037426

Recommended Method Best Value Tradeoff

Site Visit Preferred: Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 10:00 AM ET; Alternate: Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at

10:00 AM ET

Recommended Award Basis

The Park recommends that this requirement be evaluated using a Best Value Tradeoff method. Technical factors, when combined, should be more important than price because the work involves code-compliant electrical wiring replacement within a historic structure. The Government may select a quote that is not the lowest-priced quote if the technical advantages justify the price difference and provide the best overall value to the Government.

Price shall still be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, affordability, and balance in accordance with FAR 13. To receive consideration for award, the offeror should receive a rating of no less than Acceptable for the technical factors and price.

Recommended Evaluation Factors

Factor Description Weight

1 Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection 35%

2 Relevant Experience, including 3–5 prior project examples 25%

3 Key Personnel 20%

4 Past Performance 10%

5 Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management 10%

1. Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection – 35% The offeror should demonstrate a clear understanding of the electrical scope of work and describe how the wiring replacement will be completed in a code-compliant, safe, and preservation-sensitive manner.

• Method for completing code-compliant electrical wiring replacement.

• Protection of historic materials, finishes, walls, trim, flooring, and other character-defining features.

• Approach to minimizing unnecessary disturbance to the historic structure.

• Dust control, daily cleanup, work-area protection, and safety measures.

• Coordination with the COR and Park staff if unforeseen field conditions are encountered.

• Understanding of working in an occupied or public-facing National Park Service environment.

2. Relevant Experience – 25% The offeror should provide at least three (3), but no more than five (5), relevant project examples completed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of the RFQ.

• Electrical wiring replacement, electrical upgrades, or electrical retrofit work in existing buildings.

• Work in historic, older, public, institutional, government, or preservation-sensitive buildings.

• Projects requiring protection of existing finishes, walls, trim, flooring, or building fabric.

• Projects requiring coordination with a Government or institutional client.

• For each project, include project title, client/customer, location, year completed, approximate contract value, scope performed, whether work was performed by the prime contractor or subcontractor, and a client point of contact.

3. Key Personnel – 20% The offeror should identify key personnel proposed for this project, including the project manager, lead electrician, quality control representative, and any other personnel expected to play a major role in project performance.

• Relevant licenses, certifications, and years of experience.

• Previous similar project roles and responsibilities.

• Experience performing electrical work in historic, older, public, institutional, or government buildings.

• Ability of proposed personnel to manage safety, quality control, field coordination, and daily communication with the

COR.

4. Past Performance – 10% The Government should assess the relevancy and quality of the offeror's past performance by comparing submitted projects to this requirement and determining how well the contractor performed.

• Client points of contact should be provided for submitted project examples.

• The Government may use available past performance information from Government sources or other references.

• Past performance that is relevant, recent, and of higher quality may be rated more favorably.

5. Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management – 10% The offeror should demonstrate the ability to provide the labor, supervision, materials, equipment, and schedule needed to complete the project safely and efficiently while coordinating with Park operations.

• Proposed schedule and estimated duration of work.

• Staffing availability and resource plan.

• Daily cleanup, site security, and access control.

• Communication plan for coordination with the COR and Park staff.

• Ability to respond to unforeseen field conditions without unnecessary delay.

Price Evaluation

Price will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, affordability, and balance in accordance with FAR 13. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Price may also be determined reasonable by comparison with competitive quotes received.

Price is important; however, technical factors, when combined, are more important than price. The Government may select a higher-priced quote if the technical advantages justify the price difference and provide the best overall value to the Government.

Recommended Technical Rating System

Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the requirement, provides a highly detailed and realistic approach, shows strong relevant experience, and presents very low performance risk.

Good Proposal demonstrates a solid understanding of the requirement, provides a clear and acceptable approach, shows relevant experience, and presents low to moderate performance risk.

Acceptable Proposal meets the basic requirements and demonstrates the ability to perform the work. Weaknesses, if any, do not create unacceptable performance risk.

Marginal Proposal shows weaknesses, limited detail, limited relevant experience, or an approach that may increase performance risk. Clarification or additional information may be needed.

Unacceptable Proposal does not demonstrate adequate understanding of the requirement, fails to address important scope, safety, electrical, or historic protection requirements, or presents unacceptable performance risk.

Technically Unacceptable Quote

A quote should be considered technically unacceptable if it does not adequately address code-compliant electrical work, protection of the historic structure, safety, project coordination, or the ability to complete the required scope.

Recommended Site Visit Language

The Park recommends including a site visit so interested vendors can review existing conditions before submitting quotes. Preferred site visit date: Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 10:00 AM ET. Alternate date: Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 10:00 AM ET.