REER_Wiring_Replacement_Evaluation.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 78 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Wiring Replacement for NPS, Reconstruction Era NHP Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140P5126Q0029
About this file
This is a Best Value Technical Evaluation Support Tool designed to help the National Park Service organize and document technical evaluations for contractor quotes on the REER Wiring Replacement project (PR 0044037426). The workbook provides a standardized framework for scoring and comparing multiple contractor proposals using a 0-5 rating scale across five weighted evaluation factors: Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection (35%), Relevant Experience (25%), Key Personnel (20%), Past Performance (10%), and Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management (10%). Evaluators are instructed to document strengths, weaknesses, acceptability concerns, and clarifications needed for each contractor, then provide a final technical recommendation to the Contracting Officer.
The evaluation template accommodates up to five contractors and establishes specific scoring definitions and expectations for each rating level. Contractors must submit between three and five prior project examples demonstrating experience with electrical retrofit work in historic, older, public, institutional, or government buildings. A site visit is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 10:00 AM ET with an alternate date of Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 10:00 AM ET. The workbook explicitly notes that price is evaluated separately from technical scoring and should be assessed for fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 13. This is a support tool for park technical review and does not replace the Contracting Officer's official evaluation process or final award decision.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Site_Visit_Question_Log_0001.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P5126Q0029_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| Sol_140P5126Q0029.pdf | ||
| Darrah_Outlet_Switch_Light_Fixture_Diagram.pdf | ||
| REER_Wiring_Replacement_Evaluation.pdf | ||
| Beaufort_County_SC_-_Wage_Determinations.pdf | ||
| Electrical_Diagram_Darrah_Hall.pdf | ||
| SOW_Electric_Upgrades_-_REER_Darrah_Hall.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
How to Use
| How to Use This Evaluation Workbook |
| PR 0044037426 – REER Wiring Replacement | Best Value Technical Evaluation Support Tool |
| Project | REER Wiring Replacement | Recommended Method | Best Value Tradeoff |
| PR Number | 0044037426 | Primary Use | Park technical review / CO support |
| 1. Purpose of the Workbook | |
| This workbook is intended to help the Park organize and document technical evaluations for contractor quotes. It supports the recommended Best Value Tradeoff approach by giving the evaluation team a consistent place to score factors, document strengths and weaknesses, note acceptability concerns, compare prior project examples, and provide a final technical recommendation to the Contracting Officer. |
| 2. Workbook Layout | ||
| Tab / Section | How to Use It | |
| Evaluation Summary | Use this tab to compare contractors side-by-side after individual contractor tabs are completed. | |
| Contractor Tabs | Use one tab per contractor. Replace the example contractor name with the actual vendor name once quotes are received. | |
| Definitions | Use this tab as the rating guide for score meanings, factor descriptions, and general evaluation expectations. |
| 3. Evaluation Factors and Weights | |||
| Factor | Weight | What the Evaluator Should Look For | |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | 35% | Code-compliant electrical approach, protection of historic fabric, safety, cleanup, dust control, and coordination with the COR. | |
| Relevant Experience | 25% | At least 3 but no more than 5 relevant projects, preferably electrical retrofit work in historic, older, public, institutional, or government buildings. | |
| Key Personnel | 20% | Qualifications and similar experience of the project manager, lead electrician, quality control representative, and other major project personnel. | |
| Past Performance | 10% | Quality and relevance of prior performance, including references and any available Government or client performance information. | |
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management | 10% | Realistic schedule, staffing availability, materials/equipment readiness, site security, daily cleanup, and communication plan. |
| 4. Scoring Guide | |||
| Score | Rating | Meaning | |
| 5 | Outstanding | Exceptional understanding, detailed approach, strong relevant experience, and very low performance risk. | |
| 4 | Good | Solid understanding, clear approach, relevant experience, and low to moderate performance risk. | |
| 3 | Acceptable | Meets the basic requirements and demonstrates the ability to perform the work. | |
| 2 | Marginal | Shows weaknesses, limited detail, limited relevant experience, or increased performance risk. | |
| 1 | Unacceptable | Does not demonstrate adequate understanding or presents unacceptable performance risk. | |
| 0 | Not Addressed | No meaningful information was provided for the factor. |
| 5. What to Document in Comments | ||
| Area | What to Enter | |
| Basis for Rating | Explain why the score was selected. Tie comments directly to the evaluation factor and the contractor’s submitted quote. | |
| Strengths | Identify clear advantages, strong experience, strong personnel, detailed methods, or lower performance risk. | |
| Weaknesses / Concerns | Identify missing information, unclear methods, schedule risk, lack of relevant experience, safety concerns, or historic protection concerns. | |
| Clarifications Needed | List specific items the CO may need to clarify before award, if applicable. |
| 6. Prior Work Examples | |
| For Relevant Experience, contractors should provide at least three (3), but no more than five (5), prior project examples. Each example should include the project title, client/customer, location, year completed, approximate contract value, scope performed, prime/subcontractor role, and client point of contact. Projects involving historic buildings, older buildings, government/public facilities, electrical retrofit work, or protection of existing finishes should be considered more relevant. |
| 7. Acceptability, Price, and Final Recommendation | ||
| Acceptability | A contractor may be considered technically unacceptable if the quote does not adequately address code-compliant electrical work, historic structure protection, safety, coordination, staffing, or ability to complete the required scope. | |
| Price Review | Price should be reviewed separately from the technical score. The Park may note if price appears fair and reasonable, high but justified by technical advantages, low and potentially risky, or needing clarification. | |
| Final Recommendation | Use the recommendation area to state whether the contractor is recommended for award, acceptable but not strongest technically, clarification needed, not recommended, or technically unacceptable. |
| 8. Note for the Contracting Officer | |
| This workbook is a Park technical evaluation support tool. It is intended to help organize the Park’s technical review and recommendation. It does not replace the Contracting Officer’s official evaluation process, responsibility for price reasonableness, or final award decision. |
Evaluation Summary
| REER Wiring Replacement | Best Value Evaluation Workbook |
| Use this sheet as the overall summary. Enter detailed notes and factor scoring on each Contractor tab. Summary fields pull from those tabs automatically. |
| Method: Best Value Tradeoff | Basis: Technical factors are more important than price | Site Visit: Tue, May 12, 2026 at 10:00 AM ET | Alternate: Wed, May 13, 2026 at 10:00 AM ET |
| Offeror / Vendor | Technical Approach & Historic Protection | ||||||
| 35% | Relevant Experience | ||||||
| 25% | Key Personnel | ||||||
| 20% | Past Performance | ||||||
| 10% | Schedule / Resources | ||||||
| 10% | Weighted Technical Score | ||||||
| 0-100 | Technical Rating | Proposed Price | Price Reasonable? | Acceptable? | Recommendation | Consensus / CO Notes | |
| Contractor 1 | 2 | ||||||
| Contractor 2 | |||||||
| Contractor 3 | |||||||
| Contractor 4 | |||||||
| Contractor 5 | |||||||
| Quick Scoring Guide / Use | |||||||
| Score | Rating | Meaning | Factor | Weight | What to Look For | ||
| 5 | Outstanding | Exceptional response; very low risk. | Technical Approach & Historic Protection | 35% | Code-compliant wiring replacement; protection of historic fabric; dust control; cleanup; safety; COR coordination. | ||
| 4 | Good | Strong response; low to moderate risk. | Relevant Experience | 25% | At least three and no more than five similar projects from the last five years. | ||
| 3 | Acceptable | Meets requirement; acceptable risk. | Key Personnel | 20% | Project manager, lead electrician, QC, licenses/certifications, and similar project roles. | ||
| 2 | Marginal | Weaknesses or limited detail; may need clarification. | Past Performance | 10% | Quality/relevance of prior work and client references. | ||
| 1 | Unacceptable | Does not adequately address the requirement. | Schedule / Resources | 10% | Staffing, materials, schedule, cleanup, site security, and ability to respond to field conditions. | ||
| 0 | Not Addressed | No meaningful information provided. | Price | Separate | Evaluate fairness, reasonableness, affordability, and balance in accordance with FAR 13. |
Contractor 1
| Contractor 1 Detailed Evaluation | PR 0044037426 - REER Wiring Replacement |
| Complete this sheet for one offeror. Use score 0–5 for each factor, then add detailed notes explaining whether the proposal is acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. |
| Offeror / Vendor | Evaluator |
| Proposed Price | Price Reasonable? |
| Weighted Technical Score | Technical Rating |
| Overall Recommendation | Acceptability Determination |
| Factor Scoring | ||||
| Evaluation Factor | Weight | Score | ||
| 0–5 | Auto Rating | Acceptable? | Notes / Basis for Rating | |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | 35% | 2 | Marginal | |
| Relevant Experience | 25% | |||
| Key Personnel | 20% | |||
| Past Performance | 10% | |||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management | 10% |
| Detailed Comments / Evaluator Notes | |||||
| Factor | Strengths | Weaknesses / Risks | Clarifications Needed | Acceptability Notes | Consensus Notes |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | |||||
| Relevant Experience | |||||
| Key Personnel | |||||
| Past Performance | |||||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management |
| Relevant Prior Work Examples - Offeror Should Provide 3 to 5 | |||||
| Example # | Client / Agency | Year / Location | Approx. Value | Scope / Relevance to Historic Electrical Work | Reference / POC Notes |
| Project 1 | |||||
| Project 2 | |||||
| Project 3 | |||||
| Project 4 | |||||
| Project 5 |
| Final Determination / Award Recommendation Support |
| Acceptable / Not Acceptable Determination |
| Basis for Recommendation |
| Price Notes |
| Consensus Notes / Items for CO |
Contractor 2
| Contractor 2 Detailed Evaluation | PR 0044037426 - REER Wiring Replacement |
| Complete this sheet for one offeror. Use score 0–5 for each factor, then add detailed notes explaining whether the proposal is acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. |
| Offeror / Vendor | Evaluator |
| Proposed Price | Price Reasonable? |
| Weighted Technical Score | Technical Rating |
| Overall Recommendation | Acceptability Determination |
| Factor Scoring | |||
| Evaluation Factor | Weight | Score | |
| 0–5 | Auto Rating | Acceptable? | Notes / Basis for Rating |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | 35% | ||
| Relevant Experience | 25% | ||
| Key Personnel | 20% | ||
| Past Performance | 10% | ||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management | 10% |
| Detailed Comments / Evaluator Notes | |||||
| Factor | Strengths | Weaknesses / Risks | Clarifications Needed | Acceptability Notes | Consensus Notes |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | |||||
| Relevant Experience | |||||
| Key Personnel | |||||
| Past Performance | |||||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management |
| Relevant Prior Work Examples - Offeror Should Provide 3 to 5 | |||||
| Example # | Client / Agency | Year / Location | Approx. Value | Scope / Relevance to Historic Electrical Work | Reference / POC Notes |
| Project 1 | |||||
| Project 2 | |||||
| Project 3 | |||||
| Project 4 | |||||
| Project 5 |
| Final Determination / Award Recommendation Support |
| Acceptable / Not Acceptable Determination |
| Basis for Recommendation |
| Price Notes |
| Consensus Notes / Items for CO |
Contractor 3
| Contractor 3 Detailed Evaluation | PR 0044037426 - REER Wiring Replacement |
| Complete this sheet for one offeror. Use score 0–5 for each factor, then add detailed notes explaining whether the proposal is acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. |
| Offeror / Vendor | Evaluator |
| Proposed Price | Price Reasonable? |
| Weighted Technical Score | Technical Rating |
| Overall Recommendation | Acceptability Determination |
| Factor Scoring | |||
| Evaluation Factor | Weight | Score | |
| 0–5 | Auto Rating | Acceptable? | Notes / Basis for Rating |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | 35% | ||
| Relevant Experience | 25% | ||
| Key Personnel | 20% | ||
| Past Performance | 10% | ||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management | 10% |
| Detailed Comments / Evaluator Notes | |||||
| Factor | Strengths | Weaknesses / Risks | Clarifications Needed | Acceptability Notes | Consensus Notes |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | |||||
| Relevant Experience | |||||
| Key Personnel | |||||
| Past Performance | |||||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management |
| Relevant Prior Work Examples - Offeror Should Provide 3 to 5 | |||||
| Example # | Client / Agency | Year / Location | Approx. Value | Scope / Relevance to Historic Electrical Work | Reference / POC Notes |
| Project 1 | |||||
| Project 2 | |||||
| Project 3 | |||||
| Project 4 | |||||
| Project 5 |
| Final Determination / Award Recommendation Support |
| Acceptable / Not Acceptable Determination |
| Basis for Recommendation |
| Price Notes |
| Consensus Notes / Items for CO |
Contractor 4
| Contractor 4 Detailed Evaluation | PR 0044037426 - REER Wiring Replacement |
| Complete this sheet for one offeror. Use score 0–5 for each factor, then add detailed notes explaining whether the proposal is acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. |
| Offeror / Vendor | Evaluator |
| Proposed Price | Price Reasonable? |
| Weighted Technical Score | Technical Rating |
| Overall Recommendation | Acceptability Determination |
| Factor Scoring | |||
| Evaluation Factor | Weight | Score | |
| 0–5 | Auto Rating | Acceptable? | Notes / Basis for Rating |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | 35% | ||
| Relevant Experience | 25% | ||
| Key Personnel | 20% | ||
| Past Performance | 10% | ||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management | 10% |
| Detailed Comments / Evaluator Notes | |||||
| Factor | Strengths | Weaknesses / Risks | Clarifications Needed | Acceptability Notes | Consensus Notes |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | |||||
| Relevant Experience | |||||
| Key Personnel | |||||
| Past Performance | |||||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management |
| Relevant Prior Work Examples - Offeror Should Provide 3 to 5 | |||||
| Example # | Client / Agency | Year / Location | Approx. Value | Scope / Relevance to Historic Electrical Work | Reference / POC Notes |
| Project 1 | |||||
| Project 2 | |||||
| Project 3 | |||||
| Project 4 | |||||
| Project 5 |
| Final Determination / Award Recommendation Support |
| Acceptable / Not Acceptable Determination |
| Basis for Recommendation |
| Price Notes |
| Consensus Notes / Items for CO |
Contractor 5
| Contractor 5 Detailed Evaluation | PR 0044037426 - REER Wiring Replacement |
| Complete this sheet for one offeror. Use score 0–5 for each factor, then add detailed notes explaining whether the proposal is acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. |
| Offeror / Vendor | Evaluator |
| Proposed Price | Price Reasonable? |
| Weighted Technical Score | Technical Rating |
| Overall Recommendation | Acceptability Determination |
| Factor Scoring | |||
| Evaluation Factor | Weight | Score | |
| 0–5 | Auto Rating | Acceptable? | Notes / Basis for Rating |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | 35% | ||
| Relevant Experience | 25% | ||
| Key Personnel | 20% | ||
| Past Performance | 10% | ||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management | 10% |
| Detailed Comments / Evaluator Notes | |||||
| Factor | Strengths | Weaknesses / Risks | Clarifications Needed | Acceptability Notes | Consensus Notes |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | |||||
| Relevant Experience | |||||
| Key Personnel | |||||
| Past Performance | |||||
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management |
| Relevant Prior Work Examples - Offeror Should Provide 3 to 5 | |||||
| Example # | Client / Agency | Year / Location | Approx. Value | Scope / Relevance to Historic Electrical Work | Reference / POC Notes |
| Project 1 | |||||
| Project 2 | |||||
| Project 3 | |||||
| Project 4 | |||||
| Project 5 |
| Final Determination / Award Recommendation Support |
| Acceptable / Not Acceptable Determination |
| Basis for Recommendation |
| Price Notes |
| Consensus Notes / Items for CO |
Definitions Definitions and Rating Guidance | PR 0044037426 - REER Wiring Replacement
| Technical Rating Scale | ||
| Score | Rating | Definition |
| 5 | Outstanding | Exceptional understanding of the requirement; highly detailed, realistic approach; strong relevant experience; very low performance risk. |
| 4 | Good | Solid understanding of the requirement; clear acceptable approach; relevant experience; low to moderate performance risk. |
| 3 | Acceptable | Meets the basic requirements and demonstrates ability to perform the work. Weaknesses, if any, do not create unacceptable performance risk. |
| 2 | Marginal | Weaknesses, limited detail, limited relevant experience, or approach may increase performance risk. Clarification may be needed. |
| 1 | Unacceptable | Does not demonstrate adequate understanding of the requirement or presents unacceptable performance risk. |
| 0 | Not Addressed | The proposal did not provide meaningful information for this factor. |
| Evaluation Factor Definitions | ||
| Factor | Weight | Definition / Evaluation Focus |
| Technical Approach and Historic Resource Protection | 35% | Evaluate the method for completing code-compliant electrical wiring replacement while protecting historic materials, finishes, walls, trim, flooring, and other character-defining features. |
| Relevant Experience | 25% | Evaluate at least three and no more than five relevant projects completed within the last five years. Similar electrical retrofit work in historic, older, public, institutional, or government buildings may be rated more favorably. |
| Key Personnel | 20% | Evaluate qualifications and experience of the project manager, lead electrician, quality control representative, and other personnel expected to play a major role. |
| Past Performance | 10% | Evaluate the quality and relevance of submitted project performance, client references, and available past performance information. |
| Availability of Resources, Schedule, and Project Management | 10% | Evaluate staffing, labor availability, material/resource plan, schedule realism, daily cleanup, site security, communication, and ability to respond to field conditions. |
| Technically Unacceptable Quote Reminder |
| 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. Price is evaluated separately for fairness, reasonableness, affordability, and balance in accordance with FAR 13. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .