Section IV. Cover page.pdf

Section IV

Evaluation Basis For Award

RFP 25-066R

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 Qualified proposal 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, schedule, and quality assurance program. Detailed technical evaluation Rating are provided in Section 4.

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 but not scored or rated. 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. PPPL will establish a competitive range among the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation factors list in Section 4. and discussions with one or more Offerors included in the competitive range may be held if in the best interest of PPPL to do so, to identify proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, as well as proposal areas that require clarification or elaboration. At the conclusion of discussions, depending on the extent of change arising from the discussions, the Offerors in the competitive range may be given the opportunity to submit a proposal revision. The revised proposals will be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

After the completion of the evaluation scoring of each proposal, a final technical ranking of the proposals will be established.

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

Subcontract award, if any and at PPPL’s sole discretion, will be made to the qualified and responsible Offeror submitting a proposal evaluated to offer the Best value to PPPL.

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 basis of this award will be made based on best value to PPPL. In the event that price and technical considerations clearly favor the same Proposal, i.e., highest technical score and lowest price, no further evaluation is required, and this offeror becomes the recommended awardee to the Selection Official. Should this not be the case, a trade-off between technical capability and price will occur. The basis of award will be made using a best value tradeoff process. Tradeoff analyses will be conducted amongst the most price competitive proposals that have relatively high technical scores to decide whether differences in technical merit outweigh differences in price. The tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors (i.e., Technical Factors) and allows PPPL to accept other than the lowest priced proposal, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Under a tradeoff process, the perceived technical benefits of the higher priced proposal may merit the additional cost in order to receive an award. In conducting the tradeoff analysis for this procurement, the best combination of low cost and technical merit will be selected. The evaluation factors, when combined, are slightly more important than price. Offerors are advised, however, that as the range of the overall technical scores among Offerors narrows, the price will become more significant in making the award decision.

In order to select the successful Offeror, PPPL will rank the Offerors from best to worst by making a series of paired comparisons among them, trading off marginal differences in capability (reflected by the technical score received) and price between the members of each pair. If one Offeror of a pair has both the better capability and the lower price, then that Offeror will be the better value. If one Offeror has the better capability and the higher price, then PPPL will decide whether the marginal difference in capability is worth the marginal difference in price. If PPPL considers the better capability to be worth the higher price, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value. PPPL will continue to make paired comparisons until the Offeror representing the best value. has been decided.

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 evaluated price for the tradeoff determination.

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

RFP 25-062R

4. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING

A. EVALUATION FACTORS:

In evaluating the Offeror’s proposal, a numerical scoring system will be utilized.

Each Offeror will receive a final technical score based on the evaluation Rating and scoring system for each of the 4 evaluation factors. PPPL will then compare the offerors’ technical scores and evaluated prices as it conducts its best value trade-off analysis (note that no weight evaluation factor is assigned to price).

Factor Number

Description Relative Importance

1 Project Management & Staffing Equal to factors 2&3 more important than 4 2 Relevant Projects Equal to factors 1&3 more important than 4 3 Technical Approach Equal to factors 1&2 more important than 4 4 Quality Assurance Less Important Than factors 1,2 &3

B. EVALUATION RATING AND SCORING SYSTEM FOR EACH OF THE

FACTORS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:

Factor 1 – Project Management Staffing

Submission Requirement

(a) The Offeror shall provide a description of methods the offeror uses in managing similar projects. This should include organizational resources and experience

(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 Lead

(ii) Support Personnel

HIGH SCORE RATING

At least one of the proposed key personnel have experience successfully managing and supervising two (2) or more projects similar in scope or complexity to the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis project within the past ten (10) years. The team has substantial experience in implementing industry best-practice Fire Hazard analytical reporting 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.

MODERATE SCORE RATING

At least one of the proposed key personnel has experience successfully managing and supervising two (2) or more projects similar in scope or complexity to the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis project within the past ten (10) years. The team has substantial experience in implementing industry best-practice fire hazard analysis 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.

LOW SCORE RATING

None of the proposed key personnel have experience successfully managing and supervising the construction of the projects similar in scope or complexity to the 2024- 2025 Fire Hazard Analysis project within the past ten (10) years but still have the necessary qualifications. The Offeror’s company experience, validated by the Relevant Projects submitted under Factor 2, Fire Hazard Analysis methodology, and proposed resources provide some confidence that the risks associated with management of the project’s safety, budget, quality, and schedule will be effectively reduced during performance of the subcontract.

ZERO SCORE RATING

The proposed key personnel have zero experience successfully performing and delivering Fire Hazard Analysis services in scopes similar in complexity to the 2024- 2025 Fire Hazard Analysis SOW within the past ten (10) years but still have the necessary qualifications. The Offeror’s company experience, validated by the Relevant Projects submitted under Factor 2, Fire Hazard Analysis methodology, and proposed resources provide some confidence that the risks associated with management of the project’s, quality and schedule will be effectively 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 projects of similar scope and/or complexity to the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis Project. Responsive Offerors shall list at two or more prior projects awarded at a minimum value of $75,000.00 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

e) A discussion of experienced delays

f) Any significant aspects worth noting

Maximum Score RATING

The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule and quality standpoints) three (3) or more Fire Hazard Analysis projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the License Site Remediation Professional 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 relevant services have been provided in the past 10 years. The Offeror has numerous significant strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL and the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis Project. The Offeror’s past performance provides high confidence for on-schedule and reliable subcontract completion.

Moderate Score RATING The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule and quality standpoints) two (2) FHA projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis Project within the past ten (10) years. Given the Offeror’s past performance, little 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 one or more strengths that will significantly benefit PPPL and the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis Project. The Offeror’s past performance provides good confidence for on-schedule subcontract completion.

Minimum Score RATING The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule and quality standpoints) one FHA project similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the 2024- 2025 Fire Hazard Analysis project within the past ten (10) years. The Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted necessary data indicating that schedules and budgets are adequate. The Offeror’s past performance provides confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform the scope referenced in the SOW.

Zero Score RATING The Offeror has not successfully completed any projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis project within the past ten (10) years. Given the Offeror’s past performance, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract. The Offeror submitted little or no data indicating that services matching this scope were provided in a timely manner. The Offeror’s past performance provides little or no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract.

Factor 3 – Technical Approach

Offeror shall describe the resource deployment and other methods utilized to efficiently provide Fire Hazard Analysis Engineering services

The proposal provides in-depth comprehensive details explaining the means, methods and utilization of resources to deliver high quality Fire Hazard Analysis Engineering services in a timely manner

The proposal provides some comprehensive details explaining the means, methods, utilization of labor and other resources to deliver Fire Hazard Analysis Engineering services in a timely manner

Minimum score RATING The proposal provides very little detail explaining the means, methods and utilization of labor and other resources to deliver Fire Hazard Analysis engineering services in a timely manner.

The proposal provides zero details explaining the means, methods, utilization of labor and other resources required to deliver Fire Hazard Analysis engineering services in a timely manner

Factor 4 – Quality Assurance

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a copy of the business quality control plan

The Offeror demonstrated an established quality process that systematically implements a program of inspections, tests and controls that exceed the required standards of quality and to preclude problems resulting from noncompliance. The Offeror commits to a level of oversight that provides reassurance that quality issues will be promptly identified and addressed. The Offeror has significant strengths that can significantly benefit PPPL and the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis

The Offeror demonstrated an established quality process that systematically implements a program of inspections, tests, and controls to meet the required standards of quality and to preclude problems resulting from noncompliance. The Offeror commits to a level of oversight that provides reassurance that quality issues will be promptly identified and addressed. The Offeror has one or more strengths that can benefit PPPL and the 2024-2025 Fire Hazard Analysis.

Minimum Score RATING The Offeror demonstrated a quality process that, if implemented, establishes a program of inspections, tests, and controls that marginally meets the required standards of quality and to preclude problems resulting from noncompliance. The Offeror commits to a level of oversight that provides reassurance that quality issues will be identified and addressed. The Offeror has demonstrated capabilities necessary for acceptable subcontract performance.

The Offeror has not demonstrated a quality process that adequately provides for a program of inspections, tests, and production controls that will attain the required standards of quality and preclude problems resulting from noncompliance. The Offeror’s oversight commitment does not provide assurance that it will adequately identify and address quality issues.

EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

2. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

Subcontract award, if any and at PPPL’s sole discretion, will be made to the qualified and responsible Offeror submitting a proposal evaluated to offer the Best value to PPPL.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING

B. EVALUATION RATING AND SCORING SYSTEM FOR EACH OF THE FACTORS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:

Factor 1 – Project Management Staffing

MODERATE SCORE RATING

ZERO SCORE RATING

Factor 2 - Relevant Projects

Maximum Score RATING

Moderate Score RATING

Minimum Score RATING

Zero Score RATING

Factor 3 – Technical Approach

Maximum Score RATING

Moderate Score RATING

Minimum score RATING

Zero Score RATING

Factor 4 – Quality Assurance

Maximum Score RATING

Moderate Score RATING

Minimum Score RATING

Zero Score RATING