RFP 27-005JR

Evaluation and Basis for Award

EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

PPPL will evaluate proposals submitted in response to this RFP and plans to award a Firm Fixed Price Subcontract to the Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to PPPL on the basis of 1) responsiveness; 2) Offeror’s capability; 3) “responsibility” determination; and 4) price, as explained below:

A. RESPONSIVENESS. PPPL will determine the responsiveness of each proposal on a pass/fail basis. A proposal will be considered to be “responsive” if it is in compliance with all the requirements of the RFP. PPPL reserves the right to consider any proposal “nonresponsive” and reject in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Offeror, if the proposal (a) is not submitted in the format specified in the RFP or does not include all of the information requested by PPPL;

(b) is not in accordance with the instructions contained in the RFP; or (c) contains material irregularities of any kind. Proposals determined non-responsive will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

B. OFFEROR’S TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. In evaluating each Offeror’s overall capability to perform the work required by this RFP, PPPL will consider their technical approach, facilities and supply chain, schedule, and quality assurance program.

C. RESPONSIBILITY. PPPL will determine if an Offeror is a “responsible” prospective subcontractor, as the term is used in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 9.1. Offerors determined not to be a responsible prospective subcontractor will not be eligible for award.

D. PRICE. Price will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. Unreasonably high or unrealistically low prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from consideration for award.

2. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Upon receipt of proposals, PPPL may contact Offerors with a request for clarifications.

Proposals will then be screened for responsiveness. Offerors whose proposals were determined to be non-responsive will be eliminated from further consideration. Proposals determined to be responsive will be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

After receipt of proposals, PPPL intends to complete its evaluation without further discussions with Offerors. Therefore, Offerors’ initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms and complete response from a price, schedule, quality, and technical standpoint.

PPPL reserves the right to request discussions if subsequently PPPL determines it to be in the best interests of PPPL to do so.

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

Subcontract award, if any and at PPPL’s sole discretion, will be made to the qualified and responsible Offeror submitting the lowest priced proposal.

PPPL reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal at its sole discretion, in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Offeror.

The “Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable” standard shall be utilized to select the successful offeror.

PPPL will use the prices of the Base Scope submitted in the Offeror Information and Pricing Form as summarized in the below table to determine the lowest price.

Price Item Description Price 1 Base Scope $(Offeror Information and Pricing Form) Total Evaluated Price

4. EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA

A. EVALUATION FACTORS:

The Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) standard shall be used in evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA ARE PROVIDED BELOW:

Factor 1 – Project Management Staffing

Submission Requirement

(a) The Offeror shall provide a description of methods the offeror uses in managing construction on similar projects, including lower-tier subcontractor coordination.

This should include organizational resources and experience in utilizing industry standard construction management software.

(b) A consolidated list to include the name, position title, description of project responsibilities, full-time percentage, and resume for the following key personnel:

(i) Project Manager

(ii) Construction Superintendent

(iii) Certified Safety Professional

Proposed key personnel must have experience successfully managing and supervising the construction of two (2) or more projects similar in scope or complexity to the RF Roof Replacement Project within the past ten (10) years. The team has substantial experience in implementing industry best-practice construction management methodology, and sufficient project staff and resources are proposed to provide high confidence that risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be significantly reduced during performance of the subcontract.

Factor 2 - Relevant Projects

“Past performance” refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner’s perspective. Offerors will be evaluated in terms of their relevant performance on construction projects of similar scope and/or complexity to the RF Roof Replacement Project. Responsive Offerors shall list at least two (2) prior projects with references completed within the past ten (10) years that are of similar type, size, scope, and complexity to that described in the RFP. Offerors shall include the following information about each project:

a) Project title

b) Contract amount at start and completion

c) Description of work and location (project type, scope, size, etc.)

d) Name, address, and telephone number of Owner or Owner’s Representative and

Architect of Record

e) A discussion of experienced delays and cost growth

f) Any significant aspects worth noting

The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) two (2) or more construction projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the RF Roof Replacement Project within the past ten (10) years. Given the Offeror’s past performance, no doubt exists that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted meaningful data indicating that schedules and budgets are met or improved on. The Offeror has numerous significant strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL and the RF Roof Replacement Project. The Offeror’s past performance provides high confidence for on-schedule and on-budget subcontract completion.

Factor 3 – Safety Record & Program

(a) Offeror Safety and OSHA Compliance

(1) Three-year average EMR of 1.00 or less and a total recordable and DART case rate at or below 85% BLS TRC/DART Rate for heavy construction. These rates will be utilized as set forth in section 6.3.2 - Evaluation Criteria:

Lost time frequency rate (DART) Total Recordable Cases (TRC)

85% of 2.2 85% of 3.8

(a) Lost time frequency rate

(DART)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 ( ) ( ) ( )

(b) Recordable incident rate = ( ) ( ) ( )

Submit copy of OSHA Forms 300 and 300A for 2024 – 2026

Submit explanation and/or supplemental data for periods that are out of tolerance.

(2) Demonstrate that the Offeror’s 2024 – 2026 Insurance Experience Modification

Rating averages equal to or less than 1.0 over a three-year period.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

(a) Experience Modification Rating = ( ) ( ) ( )

Provide backup documentation from an independent source, such as the insurance carrier, to verify ratings.

(3) Joint ventures or teams shall submit the above information for each corporate entity in the joint venture or team.

(b) Offeror Safety Program The Offeror must submit their corporate ES&H Program (and discuss its application on the RF Roof Replacement Project) and Part 1 of the Construction Environmental Safety and Health Plan (Div. 1 Spec Section 013100), that includes acknowledgement regarding Worker Safety 10 CFR 851. Identify current and past projects that were certified under the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program.

The proposal demonstrates a good safety record, program and a safety culture that exceeds the project-defined targets. The record provides high confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will reduce hazard risks during performance of the subcontract. The three-year average EMR is at or below 0.90 and DART/TRC case rate at or below 70% BLS DART/TRC Rate for heavy construction (DART: 1.5, TRC:2.7). The proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit PPPL.

Factor 4 – Quality Assurance

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror’s corporate quality program description shall be submitted along with the completed PQA Supplier Quality Survey. PPPL is interested in demonstrable capabilities to assure and control quality and information regarding how the Offeror will implement its Quality Assurance Program on this project