Section IV_with Attachments.pdf

Section IV

Evaluation and Basis for Award

RFP 25-042R

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 nonresponsive 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. Detailed technical evaluation criteria 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 nonresponsive 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

4. EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA

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 criteria 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

Subfactor Description Relative

Importance

1 Project Management & Staffing 35 Points Total

2 Relevant Projects 30 Points Total 3 Safety 20 Points Total 4 Quality Assurance 15 Points Total

100 Points Total

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING SYSTEM FOR EACH OF THE

FACTORS ARE PROVIDED BELOW:

Factor 1 – Project Management Staffing - (35 Points)

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

Points (35) At least one of the proposed key personnel have experience successfully managing and supervising the construction of two (2) or more projects similar in scope or complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer 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.

Points (25) At least one of the proposed key personnel has experience successfully managing and supervising the construction of one (1) or more projects similar in scope or complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer 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.

Points (15) None of the proposed key personnel have experience successfully managing and supervising the construction of the projects similar in scope or complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer Replacement 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, construction management 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.

Points (0) None of the proposed key personnel have experience successfully managing and supervising the construction of the projects similar in scope or complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer Replacement 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, construction management 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.

Factor 2 - Relevant Projects – (30) Points

“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 XQT-1 Transformer Replacement Project. Responsive Offerors shall list at least three (3) 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

Points (30) The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) three (3) or more construction projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer 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 XQT-1 Transformer Replacement project. The Offeror’s past performance provides high confidence for on-schedule and on-budget subcontract completion.

Points (20) The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) two (2) construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer Replacement 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 XQT-1 Transformer Replacement project. The Offeror’s past performance provides good confidence for on-schedule and on-budget subcontract completion.

Points (10) The Offeror has successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) one (1) construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer Replacement 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 under the subcontract.

Points (0) The Offeror has not successfully completed (from cost, scope, schedule, safety, and quality standpoints) construction of projects similar in type, scope, size and complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer Replacement 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 schedules and budget compliance is poor. The Offeror’s past performance provides little or no confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform under the subcontract.

Factor 3 – Safety Record & Program - (20 points)

(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 2022 – 2024

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

(2) Demonstrate that the Offeror’s 2022 – 2024 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 XQT-1 Transformer 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.

Points (20) The proposal demonstrates an excellent safety record, program and safety culture that significantly exceeds the project-defined targets. The record provides high confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will significantly reduce hazard risks during performance of the subcontract. The three-year average EMR is at or below 0.75 and DART/TRC case rate at or below 50% BLS DART/TRC Rate for heavy construction (DART: 1.1, TRC:1.9). The proposal has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit

PPPL.

Points (15) 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.

Points (10) The proposal demonstrates a good safety record, program and safety culture that meets the project-defined targets. The record provides confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will minimize hazard risks during performance of the subcontract. The three-year average EMR is at or below 1.0 and DART/TRC case rate at or below 75% BLS DART/TRC Rate for heavy construction (DART: 1.9, TRC:3.2).

Points (5) The proposal demonstrates a safety record, program, and a safety culture that largely but not fully meets the project-defined targets. The record provides some confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will minimize hazard risks during performance of the subcontract.

Points (0) The proposal demonstrates a safety record, program and/or a safety culture that fails to meet the project-defined targets. The record provides little or no confidence that the Offeror’s approach to job safety will minimize hazard risks during performance of the subcontract

Factor 4 – Quality Assurance – (15 Points)

Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a quality certification to the ISO 9000:2000 standard or an equivalent quality management system, along with a detailed description of the Offeror’s Quality Assurance Program.

Points (15)

The Offeror demonstrated an established quality process that systematically implements a program of inspections, tests, and production controls to 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 XQT-1 Transformer Replacement project.

Points (12) The Offeror demonstrated an established quality process that systematically implements a program of inspections, tests, and production controls to attain 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 XQT-1 Transformer Replacement project.

Points (8) The Offeror demonstrated a quality process that, if implemented, establishes a program of inspections, tests, and production controls to attain 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.

Points (4) The Offeror has demonstrated a quality process that largely but not fully provides for a program of inspections, tests, and production controls that will attain the minimal standards of quality. The Offeror’s oversight commitment should adequately identify and address quality issues.

Points (0) 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.

1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

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 CRITERIA

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

Factor 1 – Project Management Staffing - (35 Points)

At least one of the proposed key personnel have experience successfully managing and supervising the construction of two (2) or more projects similar in scope or complexity to the XQT-1 Transformer Replacement project within the past ten (10) years. T...

Points (25)

Points (15)

Points (0)

Factor 2 - Relevant Projects – (30) Points Submission Requirement

Points (30)

Points (20)

Points (10)

Points (0)

Factor 3 – Safety Record & Program - (20 points)

(b) Offeror Safety Program

Points (15)

Points (10)

Points (5)

Points (0)

Factor 4 – Quality Assurance – (15 Points)

Points (15)

Points (12)

Points (8)

Points (4)

Points (0)