RFP_Proposal_Evaluation.pdf

Company Name:

RFP P2540008

Proposal Evaluation

Peterson, Holly@Wildlife Evaluation Date

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

I certify that I have no personal or financial interest and no present or past employment or activity which would be incompatible with my participation in the evaluation process for this solicitation, and that I am able to give full, fair, and impartial consideration to all qualifications.

I certify that I will hold in the strictest confidence all qualifications, correspondence, memoranda, working papers, or any other media which has any bearing on, or discloses any aspect of, any qualifier’s response to the solicitation.

I fully understand that any disclosure prior to completion of the evaluation process will jeopardize and/or compromise the contracting process.

Signature____________________________________ Date__________

Scoring Summary

Proposer’s Company Name:

Scoring Criteria Reviewed By Score

Attended Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference (Yes/No) Contract Manager

Phase I: Administrative Evaluation (Pass/Fail)

BMB Contract Analyst

Phase II, Part I: Minimum Qualifications (Pass/Fail) CDFW Review Committee

Phase II, Part II:

Technical Evaluation (100 points possible;

min. 70 points to pass)

70 pts Technical Questions CDFW Review Committee (Technical Questions) /70

30 pts Cost Evaluation BMB Contract Analyst (Cost Evaluation) /30

+ Preferences & Incentives Phase III: References (Pass/Fail) CDFW Review Committee

Phase IV: Interview (Pass/Fail) CDFW Review Committee

Final Combined Score /100

All proposals and all evaluation and scoring sheets must be available for public inspection at the conclusion of the scoring process (PCC § 10342).

Phase 1: Administrative Evaluation Phase I is scored as a pass or fail according to the criteria indicated below. All items listed must be completed and provided in this phase to be considered responsive and continue to the next phase.

Administrative Criteria Pass or Fail

1) Proposal

2) Submittal Checklist

3) Proposer Certification Sheet

4) Payee Data Record (STD 204/205)

5) Contractor Certification Clause (CCC 04/2017)

6) Bidder Declaration Form (GSPD-05-105)

7) DVBE Declarations (DGS-PD-843)

8) Commercially Useful Function (CUF) Certification

9) California Public Contract Code Section 10162

10) Darfur Contracting Act Certification 2008

11) GenAI Disclosure & Factsheet (STD 1000)

12) Proposer References

13) CA Civil Rights Law Attachment

14) Iran Contracting Act

15) Copy of Business License or articles of incorporation

16) Proposer is registered with California Secretary of State

Phase 2, Part 1: Minimum Qualifications The evaluation team will first assess each Proposer’s minimum qualifications on a Pass/Fail basis.

The evaluation team will continue to score each response that has “Passed” all minimum qualifications according to the criteria listed below.

Scoring System:

Evaluation General Basis for Evaluation

Pass The proposal addresses the minimum qualifications.

Fail The proposal does not address the minimum qualifications.

Minimum Qualifications Pass or Fail

1) The Proposer has a current, valid, 501(c)3 status.

2) The Proposer’s mission is primarily promoting hunter education and firearm safety.

3) The Contractor has shown they have the ability to provide at least (1) Range Safety Officer(s) per range at all times, on ranges where the discharge of firearms or archery equipment is occurring. All RSOs provided by Contractor must be certified in gun and range safety by a State or Nationally recognized RSO certification organization.

4) The Proposer meets all requirements to set up and operate the Automated License Data System (ALDS).

5) Compliance Record:

Pass: The Proposer has no history of failed State audits or significant adverse findings related to organizational or facility operations. Any past audit findings, if present, have been fully resolved with documentation demonstrating corrective actions taken and compliance restored.

Fail: The Proposer has a history of failed State audits, unresolved adverse findings, or ongoing issues from any audit (State or otherwise) related to organizational or facility operations. Lack of sufficient documentation demonstrating resolution may also result in a failing score.

Phase 2, Part 2: Technical Evaluation The Evaluation Team will review and score each proposal according to the criteria outlined below.

This evaluation phase has a maximum value of 100 points, divided as follows:

• Technical Questions – 70 points

• Cost Evaluation – 30 points (Note: costs must represent 30% of the total technical score)

Proposers must pass all Minimum Qualifications and achieve a minimum of 70 points in the Technical Evaluation to advance to the next phase.

Instructions for Evaluators:

While scoring, please provide clear and specific comments to justify your scoring decisions.

Reference particular sections or content within the proposal that supports your rationale. All scoring must be grounded in objective, factual evidence presented in the proposal (not personal opinions or assumptions).

Please keep in mind that this document becomes part of the public record and may be shared with the Proposer and/or made available to the public upon request.

Scoring system:

Points Interpretation General Basis for Point Assignment

0 Insufficient

Proposal response (i.e., content and/or explanation offered) is inadequate or does not meet CDFW’s needs/requirements or expectations. The omissions(s), flaw(s), or defect(s) are significant and unacceptable.

1-2 Below

Standard

Proposal response (i.e., content and/or explanation offered) meets CDFW’s minimum needs/requirements although may not meet ideal expectations. The omissions(s), flaw(s), or defect(s) are inconsequential and acceptable.

3-4 Standard

Proposal response (i.e., content and/or explanation offered) is more than adequate or fully meets CDFW’s needs/requirements or expectations. No omissions(s) or flaw(s) are apparent. The proposal response is not considered outstanding but is above the average quality that is expected from a qualified proposer.

5 Exemplary

Proposal response (i.e., content and/or explanation offered) is well above average or exceeds CDFW’s needs/requirements or expectations. Proposer offers one (1) or more enhancing feature, method or approach that will benefit the State. Response represents the best proposal that can be expected of any Proposer. Any present weakness is minor and unrelated to a performance requirement.

Technical Questions:

Scoring Criteria Score

1. Resumes and Organization Chart

a. Provides current detailed resumes of all proposed team members, including members from subcontracted firms.

b. Provides an organizational chart of all team members on the project, including subcontractors, their titles and job descriptions, and estimated number of hours each team member will spend on the project.

/5

2. Team Description, Experience Narrative, and Allocation of Time

a. Project Leadership Designation: Designates a single individual to serve as the primary POC for all project communications.

This individual must have full authority to act on behalf of the contractor for all matters related to the contract. This person will be identified in Exhibit A – Scope of Work as the Contractor Project Director, and will be responsible for overseeing the entire project, including invoicing and contractor staffing coordination.

b. Team Experience and Qualifications: Provides a narrative summary outlining the background, education, and relevant experience of the proposed project team in relation to the Scope of Work. This may include members from both the prime contractor and any subcontractors. Score reflects degree of experience demonstrated.

c. Availability: Confirms that the proposed team is able to incorporate this project into their current workload and existing obligations without compromising quality or timeliness.

d. Organizational Capacity and Capabilities: Describes the firm’s organizational structure and demonstrates its capacity to manage and execute the project. This includes management capability, technical competency, and availability of fiscal and personnel resources.

e. Staffing Sufficiency: allocates a sufficient number of qualified staff members to effectively fulfill the project requirements.

Demonstrates that sufficient personnel can be provided on site to provide public use five days a week.

f. Project Leadership: Describes Project Leadership Team presence on site to address operational and safety requirements.

/5

(weighted x2)

Commented [KF1]: These categories need to match the categories we are asking in the RFP (section 2.N.) of proposers to include in their proposals to ensure all information is captures and can be scored. I made some rearranging based on this, but didn’t remove anything.

• Full points: Project leadership team member will be on site every day during public use and three or more of project leadership live within 45 minutes of the shooting range.

• Partial points: Project leadership team member will be on site every day of public use and two individuals in project leadership live within a 45-minute drive of the shooting range.

• No points: Project leadership team member will not be on site every day, or less than two members of project leadership live more than 45 minutes away.

3. Detailed Work Plan

a. Work Plan Clarity and Completeness: Evaluates how well the plan outlines the steps and timeline needed to fulfill all tasks and deliverables listed in the Scope of Work.

• No points: Tasks and steps are vague or incomplete;

little alignment with the Scope of Work.

• Partial points: Work plan is mostly clear and aligns with deliverables; some minor gaps in sequence or scheduling.

• Full points: Detailed, logical, and well-structured plan that fully addresses all deliverables and timelines.

b. Defined Tasks and Milestones: Assesses how clearly major tasks and measurable milestones are identified.

• No points: Tasks and milestones are unclear, missing, or too general to track progress.

• Partial points: Most major tasks are listed; measurable milestones are present but may lack precision.

• Full points: Tasks are clearly defined; milestones are specific, measurable, and well-aligned with the work plan.

c. Proposed Additional Activities: Evaluates the quality and relevance of any proposed activities beyond the required scope.

• No points: Additional activities are irrelevant, vague, or lack clear value.

/5

(weighted x4)

• Partial points: Activities are somewhat aligned with CDFW goals but may lack innovation or clear impact.

• Full points: Activities are innovative, clearly mission-aligned, feasible, and demonstrate strong added value.

d. Anticipated Operating Costs Breakdown: Evaluates the detail, clarity, and sustainability of the cost breakdown for operations funded by ALDS fees.

• No points: Cost estimates are missing, unclear, or disconnected from contract tasks.

• Partial points: Breakdown is present but lacks depth or long-term clarity.

• Full points: Comprehensive and well-justified breakdown showing sustainability across the full five-year term.

e. Cost Alignment and Feasibility: Assesses how well the anticipated costs align with proposed work and the feasibility of supporting operations through user fees.

• No points: Costs appear unrealistic or unsupported by the work plan.

• Partial points: Costs are somewhat aligned with planned activities; sustainability is uncertain.

• Full points: Cost structure is realistic, transparent, and clearly demonstrates long-term viability via user fee support.

4. Draft Plans

a. Environmental Stewardship Plan:

The Environmental Stewardship Plan will be evaluated to the extent on which it demonstrates a clear understanding of environmental responsibilities, particularly regarding lead management and range cleanup. Strong submissions will align with established best practices as outlined in authoritative sources such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s manual (Appendix C) and the EPA’s Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges (Appendix E), incorporating proven, feasible lead remediation techniques and a practical implementation schedule.

The plan should reflect a proactive, committed approach to environmental stewardship, outlining clear methods for minimizing ecological impact. Reviewers will assess the degree

(weighted x4) to which the proposer addresses regular removal of shotgun wads and other debris, showing both operational capability and an ongoing commitment to maintaining a clean, compliant environment.

Preference will be given to plans that are well-organized, realistic, and demonstrate long-term sustainability in range management practices.

b. Shooting Range Operations Plan:

The Shooting Range Operations Plan will be evaluated based on the overall completeness, clarity, operational feasibility, and responsiveness of the submission. Reviewers will assess whether the plan clearly outlines day-to-day range operations, includes a detailed and realistic schedule of planned or recurring matches, and provides all required elements such as mapped rifle target locations, comprehensive safety protocols, and procedures for recordkeeping and data retention.

Plans should demonstrate a strong understanding of range management practices, including clearly defined staff roles, emergency response measures, and adherence to safety standards. Submissions will also be scored on the quality and usability of the operations calendar, as well as the organization and readability of the plan itself.

Particular emphasis will be placed on the level of detail and practicality of safety procedures and compliance processes.

Finally, reviewers will evaluate how well the plan is structured to accommodate feedback from CDFW, including the proposer’s ability to revise and finalize the plan in a timely and collaborative manner.

5. Proposal Overview

a. Understanding of CDFW’s Needs: Demonstrates a clear understanding of CDFW’s goals, the nature of the required services, and the specific elements outlined in the Scope of Work.

b. Non-Profit’s Mission: Proposer’s mission is aligned with CDFW’s wildlife conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation mission.

c. Clarity and Problem-Solving Approach: Presents a well-organized and coherent overview of the project requirements and offers practical, effective solutions aligned with the project’s objectives.

(weighted x3)

d. Responsibility and Accountability: Demonstrates a commitment to responsible project management, transparency, and accountability throughout the duration of the contract.

e. Overall Proposal Quality: Evaluate the overall clarity, organization, professionalism, and responsiveness of the proposal to the solicitation requirements.

Total Score for Technical Questions (includes weighted points) /70

Cost Evaluation (See calculation requirements on next page)

/30

Total Technical Evaluation Points (Technical Questions + Cost Evaluation)

/100

Total Technical Evaluation Points with Incentives Applied

(SB/DVBE/TACPA)

/100

Cost Evaluation The BMB Contract Analyst will review the Cost Sheets for all qualified solicitation responses.

Proposer’s total costs will be ranked from low-to-high. The response with the lowest cost will receive the maximum number of available points for the cost evaluation. The remaining responses will receive an incrementally lower score based on the percentage difference of their cost to the response with the lowest cost as indicated in the example below. The cost evaluation is worth a total of 30% of total points for a maximum amount of 30 points possible.

30% of total Technical Evaluation points (100) = 30 (30 cost points available)

How to calculate cost points: Example:

1. Lowest proposal receives full cost points

2. Other proposals use the following formula:

• (lowest proposal $/evaluating proposal $)= #

• # X 30 = Cost Points Awarded

Proposal A = $75,000 (Lowest)

Proposal B = $100,000

• Proposal A’s Score:

$75,000/$75,000=1

1 X 30 = 30 Cost Points Awarded

• Proposal B’s Score:

$75,000/$100,000=.75

.75 X 30 = 22.5 Cost Points Awarded

Proposal Amount Cost Point Calculation Cost Points Awarded

Incentives and Preferences Preferences and Incentives % Points

Small Business (SB)

Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Incentive (DVBE)

Phase 3: References The references provided as part of the solicitation response will be contacted by the evaluation team.

The evaluation team will make a reasonable effort to contact the references, but it is the sole responsibility of the Proposer to ensure that the provided reference is available to respond in a timely manner. The reference check will consist of asking the reference to verify the details the Proposer has provided in their proposal and to describe their overall experience working with the Proposer.

References will be evaluated as “Pass” or “Fail”. If a reference cannot verify the details provided by the Proposer or describes a negative experience in working with the Proposer, that reference check will be considered a failure. Failing a reference check may result in disqualification of the Proposer.

Reference #1 Name and Organization:

Date and Method contacted:

1. The Proposer listed you as a reference for a previous project where your organization was the client. Can you confirm whether they successfully completed that work?

2. Did the Proposer satisfy the project and contract requirements?

3. Did the Proposer meet project deadlines and complete the project on time?

4. Did the Proposer produce a product that met or exceeded your expectations?

5. Did the Proposer stay within their cost proposal?

6. Would you utilize the Proposer again in the future for comparable work?

Reference #2 Name and Organization:

Date and Method contacted:

1. The Proposer listed you as a reference for a previous project where your organization was the client. Can you confirm whether they successfully completed that work?

2. Did the Proposer satisfy the project and contract requirements?

3. Did the Proposer meet project deadlines and complete the project on time?

4. Did the Proposer produce a product that met or exceeded your expectations?

Reference #3 Name and Organization:

Date and Method contacted:

1. The proposer listed you as a reference for a previous project where your organization was the client.

Can you confirm whether they successfully completed that work?

2. Did the Proposer satisfy the project and contract requirements?

3. Did the Proposer meet project deadlines and complete the project on time?

4. Did the Proposer produce a product that met or exceeded your expectations?

Phase 4: Interview

1. Proposers who successfully pass all preceding evaluation phases will be invited to participate in an interview conducted via Microsoft Teams. Interviews will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis, with consideration given to clarity, conciseness, quality of responses, and overall professionalism. A “Fail” in any interview evaluation may result in disqualification from further consideration.

2. The interview will consist of a presentation by the Proposer, followed by a Q&A session in which the Proposer will respond to interview questions asked by CDFW. All Proposing Firms will be asked the same set of questions. Firms advancing to this phase will receive the interview agenda, instructions, and the interview questions in advance to facilitate preparation.

3. The Proposing Firm must not introduce any new proposals during the interview that were not included in the original submitted proposal. Any such new proposals will not be considered or evaluated.

4. Interviews will be conducted by the same evaluation team that assessed the written proposals.

Interview Structure (Total: 60 minutes)

1. Introduction (5 minutes): CDFW will begin the session with brief introductions of panel members and outline the interview format.

2. Presentation by Proposing Organization (20 minutes): Proposers will deliver a structured presentation covering the topics listed below. The presentation should be concise, well-organized, and focused on demonstrating the organization’s readiness and alignment with CDFW’s goals.

3. Q&A and Clarifications (5 minutes): CDFW panel members may ask follow-up questions or request clarification on specific elements of the presentation or submitted proposal.

4. Interview Questions (25 minutes): CDFW will ask a set of standard interview questions to further assess the proposer’s experience, strategic vision, and approach to key aspects of the contract. Proposers may also be asked scenario-based or operational questions relevant to contract implementation.

5. Closing Remarks (5 minutes): Proposers will have the opportunity to make closing remarks, provide final thoughts, or address any points not previously covered. CDFW will also outline next steps in the selection process.

Presentation Topics (to be covered in the 20-minute proposer presentation): Proposers should focus their presentation on the following three key areas:

1. Non-Profit’s Mission and Organizational Overview:

Describe the mission, core values, and primary focus areas of the organization. Provide a high-level overview of the organization’s history, governance structure, and overall approach to community service and public benefit. Emphasize alignment with CDFW’s conservation and public access objectives.

2. Relevant Experience and Expertise:

Highlight past projects or partnerships that demonstrate the organization’s experience managing shooting range operations or similar public-use facilities. Focus on qualifications that establish the proposer’s ability to meet contractual obligations, implement safety and environmental protocols, and engage effectively with diverse stakeholders.

3. Understanding of CDFW’s Needs and Objectives:

Explain how the organization understands CDFW’s mission, the specific requirements of this contract, and the broader public interest being served. Share how the proposer’s approach, values, and strategies will support CDFW’s goals for safety, environmental stewardship, community outreach, and long-term operational sustainability.

Interview score (Pass/Fail):

Interview date/time:

Interview notes:

Basis for score:

1. Non-Profit’s Mission & Organizational Overview

• Pass: Mission, core values, and focus areas clearly described; provides credible history, governance, and community service/public benefit approach; demonstrates clear alignment with CDFW’s conservation and public access objectives.

• Fail: Mission, values, or focus areas unclear/missing; omits key organizational details; no clear alignment with CDFW goals.

☐ Pass ☐ Fail

Comments:

2. Relevant Experience & Expertise

• Pass: Provides specific examples of past projects/partnerships relevant to shooting range operations or similar public-use facilities; demonstrates qualifications to meet contractual obligations, safety and environmental protocols, and stakeholder engagement.

• Fail: No relevant past experience; examples are vague/unrelated; fails to show capacity for safety, environmental compliance, or stakeholder engagement.

3. Understanding of CDFW’s Needs & Objectives

• Pass: Clearly explains CDFW’s mission and contract requirements; shows how approach, values, and strategies support CDFW’s goals for safety, environmental stewardship, community outreach, and sustainable operations.

• Fail: Little to no understanding of CDFW’s mission; misunderstands contract requirements;

fails to connect approach/values to CDFW’s goals.

Overall Result:

• Pass = All three sections marked “Pass”

• Fail = Any section marked “Fail”