Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 128


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 127
D-1 APPENDIX D Best-Value Case Studies

OCR for page 127
D-2 Case Study Index Evaluation Case Parameters Award Algorithm Rating Scales 1. Air Force Base Pedestrian A.0 + P.1 Qualitative Cost-Technical Adjectival Rating Bridge Tradeoff 2. NASA Johnson Space A.0 + P.0 + P.1 Qualitative Cost-Technical Adjectival Rating Center Tunnel System Tradeoff 3. Corps of Engineers Canal A.0 + P. 1 + P.2 + P.4 Qualitative Cost-Technical Not stated Tradeoff 4. Swedish Highway A.0 + P. 1 + P. 2 + P. 4 + D.0 Weighted Criteria Direct Point Scoring Administration Asphalt Paving Bids 5. Alaska DOT Interchange A.0 + A.1 + P. 0 + P. 4 + Weighted Criteria Direct Point Scoring D.1 6. University of Nebraska B.0 + P. 0 + P. 2 + P. 4 + D.1 Fixed Price--Best Proposal Direct Point Scoring Cleanroom 7. U.S. Army Corps of A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 Qualitative Cost-Technical Satisficing and Engineers Dam + P.4 Tradeoff Adjectival Rating 8. Spanish Road Association A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 Weighted Criteria Direct Point Scoring Asphaltic Paving and + P.4 Highway Maintenance 9. Minnesota DOT Highway A.0 + B.0 + P. 0 + P. 1 + Meets Technical Criteria-- Satisficing Q.0 + D.1 Low Bid 10. Missouri DOT Bridge A.0 + A.1 + B.0 + P. 1 + Meets Technical Criteria-- Satisficing Seismic Isolation System P.3 + Q.0 + D.0 Low Bid 11. Washington State DOT A.0 + B.0 + B.2 + P.0 + Adjusted Score Direct Point Scoring Interchange P.1 + P.2 + P.4 + Q.0 + Q.4 12. U.S. Army Corps Air Freight A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 Meets Technical Criteria-- Modified Satisficing Terminal/Airfield + P. 4 + Q.0 + Q.4 + D.0 Low Bid 13. U.S. Forest Service Highway A.0 + B.0 + B.2 + P. 0 + Quantitative Cost-Technical Direct Point Scoring P.1 + P.2 + P.3 + P.4 + Q.4 Tradeoff + D.1 14. Maine DOT Bridge A.0 + A.1 + B.0 + B.2 + Adjusted Bid Direct Point Scoring P.0 + P.4 + Q.0 + Q.2 + Q.3 + Q.4 + D.1 15. Sea to Sky Highway A.0 + B.0 + B.2 + Q.3 + Meets Technical Criteria-- Satisficing Improvement Project: Sunset Q.4 + P.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.4 Low Bid Beach to Lions Bay + D.1 16. RFP Form of the A.0 + P. 0 + P. 2 + D.1 + Adjusted Bid Direct Point Scoring Government of Ontario Q.4 17. RFP Form of the A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + Weighted Criteria Direct Point Scoring Government of the Yukon D.1 + Q.3 18. Model Contract Document in A.0 + B.2 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 Weighted Criteria Direct Point Scoring England + D.1 + Q.3 + Q.4 19. Forth Road Bridge Toll A.0 + B.2 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 Weighted Criteria Direct Point Scoring Equipment Replacement + D.1 + Q.3 + Q.4 Project in Scotland 20. Valuascollege Project in the A.0 + P. 1 + P. 2 + P. 4 + Q.3 Weighted Criteria Adjectival Rating Netherlands + Q.4 + D.0 + D.1

OCR for page 127
D-3 Case 1--Air Force Base Pedestrian Bridge Project Information United States Air Force Improve Military Family Housing Area Safety McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas Project Number PRQE 98-9129 Project Description The project entails the construction of a pedestrian bridge from military family housing across Rock Road to McConnell AFB Kansas. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + P.1 Best-Value Award Algo rithm Qualitative Cost-Technical Tradeoff This is a competitive best-value source selection in which competing offerors' past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations ... The evaluation process shall proceed as follows: A. Initially offers shall be ranked according to price, including the option prices. The price evaluation will document for the offers evaluated, the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed price for each line item including options. B. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek performance information on the lowest priced technically acceptable offerors (usually the lowest five to seven) based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Generally, the contracting officer shall not seek information on the evaluated higher priced offers unless it is determined none of the lower offers are acceptable for award. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror's ability to perform the project described in this RFP, based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past performance. C. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have an exceptional performance risk rating, that offer represents the best-value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. D. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if that offeror is judged to have a performance risk rating of "very good" or lower.

OCR for page 127
D-4 In that event, the contracting officer shall make an integrated assessment best-value award decision. E. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify aspects of their proposal (i.e., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. This type of communication or that which is conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussion. The contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Past Performance Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Adjectival Rating The assessment process will result in an overall risk rating of Exceptional, Very good, Satisfactory, None, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "none," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably no unfavorably.

OCR for page 127
D-5 Case 2--NASA Johnson Space Center Tunnel System Project Information National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center, Tunnel System Houston Texas RFO # 9-BJ33-T13-0-03P Project Description This project is a continuing upgrade to the Johnson Space Center tunnel system (Phase 111--Utility Tunnel System Modifications). The Government estimated price range of this project is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + P.0 + P.1 Best-Value Award Algorithm Qualitative Cost-Technical Tradeoff This procurement shall be conducted under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program utilizing Best-Value Selection (BVS), which seeks to select an offer based on the best combination of price and qualitative merit of the offers submitted and reduce the administrative burden on the Offerors and the Government. BVS takes advantage of the lower complexity of Mid-Range procurements and pre-defines the value characteristics which will serve as the discriminators among the offers. BVS evaluation is based on the premise that, if all offers are of approximately equal qualitative merit, award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest evaluated price (fixed-price contracts). However, the Government will consider awarding to an Offeror with higher qualitative merit if the difference in price is commensurate with added value. Conversely, the Government will consider making award to an Offeror whose proposal has lower qualitative merit if the price (or cost) differential between it and other proposals warrants doing so. Step One - An initial evaluation will be performed to determine if all required information has been provided and the Offeror has made a reasonable attempt to present an acceptable offer. Step Two - All acceptable offers will be evaluated against the specifications in the model contract and the value characteristic listed above. Each Offeror will be evaluated on its past performance, and that of its significant subcontractors or teaming partners, if any, under existing or prior contracts for similar projects. Past performance information will be used to assess the extent to which

OCR for page 127
D-6 contract objectives (including technical, management, safety/quality control, cost, and small disadvantaged subcontracting goals) have been achieved on related projects. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Past Performance Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Adjectival Rating The evaluation team will assign one of the following adjective ratings for each past performance questionnaire/survey received. Excellent - Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. Performance which, in addition to fully satisfying contract and/or customer requirements, features above-average innovation or efficiency and rare or nonexistent deficiencies. Very Good - Very effective performance, which is fully responsive to contract or customer requirements, accomplished in a timely, efficient and economical manner; for the most part, only minor deficiencies; deficiencies do not affect overall performance. Good - Effective performance, fully responsive to contract requirements, reportable deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Satisfactory - Meets or slightly exceeds minimum contract requirements, reportable deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Poor/Unsatisfactory - Performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards, fails to meet contract requirements and/or customer expectations and which includes deficiencies that impact other areas of work performance.

OCR for page 127
D-7 Case 3--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Canal Project Information U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hurricane Protection Project of West Algiers Canal Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Solicitation # DACW29-02-R-0017 Project Description The work consists of fabricating, transporting, setting down, and ballasting a float-in sector gate structure consisting of a pile founded reinforced concrete (post-tensioned) monolith structure with structural steel sector gates; constructing a casting facility for the fabrication of the float-in structure (a graving site is provided, the Contractor can elect to use an alternative site or facility); driving a sheet pile cutoff wall below water and accurately excavating within the cutoff wall area; constructing floodwalls (cantilever 1- walls and pile founded inverted T-walls); dredging, constructing guidewalls, pile clusters and dolphins; and placing stone for erosion control and all other incidental work. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.4 Best-Value Award Algorithm Qualitative Cost-Technical Tradeoff The Government will select the offer that represents the best-value to the Government by using the tradeoff process described in FAR Part 15. This process permits tradeoffs between price and technical merit/quality and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The award decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. All non-cost (i.e., technical) evaluation factors, when combined are approximately equal to price. The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between Technical Merit (i.e., quality) and cost to the Government (i.e., price). The degree of importance of price could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the non-price technical evaluation factors. Where competing technical proposals are determined to be substantially equal, price could become the controlling factor. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Past Performance

OCR for page 127
D-8 Personnel Experience Project Management Plans Technical Approach Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Not stated.

OCR for page 127
D-9 Case 4--Swedish Highway Administration Asphalt Paving Bids Project Information Asphaltic Paving Bids VGVERKET--Swedish Highway Administration Region Mitt, Sweden Project Description The best-value procurement method described was used on all asphalt resurfacing projects in the Mitt Region of Sweden in the calendar year 2001. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.4 + D.0 Best-Value Award Algorithm Weighted Criteria The best-value selection system is based on a 75 point score for price and a 51 point score for the technical aspects of the proposal as translated below. Price Proposal 0-75 Bid amount for main proposal Points for bid amounts by contractors under consideration are given on a diminishing scale starting at 75 points for the lowest bid to 0 points for twice the amount of the lowest bid. Technical Proposal 0-4 Main bid and alternative bids/proposals 0-1 The contractor submits a clean bid for the desired product 0-3 The contractor offers interesting/relevant side proposals/side bids 0-12 Offering organization with references 0-5 Main organization (primary project team management plan) 0-5 Additional organization (secondary project team management plan) 0-2 In charge of marking 0-5 Quality (for mass groups) 0-3 Measures 0-2 Control methods 0-5 Quality of pavement operation plans 0-4 Environment--environmentally adjusted work methods Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price

OCR for page 127
D-10 Past Performance Personnel Experience Project Management Plans Alternate bids Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring A direct scoring method is used as noted in the description of the best-value algorithm above.

OCR for page 127
D-11 Case 5--Alaska DOT Interchange Project Information Alaska Department of Transportation Glenn Parks Interchange Anchorage, Alaska 53065/NH-I-OA1-5(1) Project Description Located 40 miles north of Anchorage, the Glenn-Parks Interchange project provides two lanes of continuous flow in each direction and completes the final phase of interchange construction for the Glenn Highway from Eklutna to Parks Highway. The project entails construction of overpasses over the Alaska Railroad. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + A.1 + P.0 + P.4 + D.1 Best-Value Award Algorithm Weighted Criteria Short-listed firms prepare and submit technical and price proposals. The price proposals are submitted following the evaluation of the technical proposals. All technical scores are normalized using the following formula: (Proposer's Technical Proposal Score) Normalized Technical Proposal Score (NTPS) = (Highest Technical Proposal Score) All fixed price is normalized using the following formula: (Lowest Fixed Price) Normalized Fixed Price (NFPS) = (Proposer's Fixed Price) A final score is then determined using the following formula: Final Score = [(0.25 x NTPS) + (0.75 x NFPS)] x 100 The Proposer with the highest score is awarded the contract. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Project Approach Plan Technical Solutions Environmental Work Plan Project Staffing Plan

OCR for page 127
D-33 Case 15--Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project: Sunset Beach to Lions Bay Project Information Ministry of Transportation Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Contract No. 09902 WP2 Project Description The scope of work is to re-align and widen Highway 99 to four lanes from Sunset Beach to Lions Bay in Canada. The total length is 6.9 km. This work is a part of Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project, a project having a total estimated capital cost of $600 million. The whole project will be completed by 2009 and will meet the population growth and travel demands until 2020, with additional improvements phased in as required over approximately 20 years. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + B.2 + Q.3 + Q.4 + P.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.4 + D.1 Best-Value Award Algorithm Meets Technical Criteria--Low Bid Evaluation of Proposals will be conducted by a committee formed by the Ministry and other representatives. The proposal evaluation consists of three steps: transmittal package evaluation, technical proposal pass/fail evaluation, and price envelope evaluation. Transmittal Package Evaluation (Step 1): The transmittal package includes proposal cover letter, proposal security, consent of surety, and insurance undertaking. Each document will be opened and evaluated to determine whether each proposer has met the requirements. Technical Proposal Pass/Fail Evaluation (Step 2): If the proposers pass the first evaluation, technical proposals will be opened and subject to an initial pass/fail evaluation to determine whether each proposer has, in the sole opinion of the Ministry, consistently demonstrated an overall approach, which is considered by the Ministry to meet the purpose, intent, and the terms of this RFP. All price envelopes will remain sealed until the second step has been finalized. Price Envelope Evaluation (Step 3): In the final step, the proposal with the lowest contract price will be deemed to be the preferred proposal. Then, the Ministry may enter into discussions with that proposer to clarify any outstanding issues and to identify and finalize those portions of the proposal, including negotiation of any changes, which will form part of the agreement. If the Ministry determines, in its sole discretion, that

OCR for page 127
D-34 discussions are unsuccessful, the Ministry may, in its sole discretion, enter into discussions with the proposer of the next lowest contract price, cancel this RFP process, or elect to not award a contract. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Schedule Key Personnel Core Team Organization/Structure Coordination Highway, Structure Design Report Quality Management System Construction Methodology Traffic Management Plan Environment Management Plan Construction Method Safety Plan Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Satisficing Transmittal packages are evaluated as yes or no. A "no" on any administrative requirement will result in a proposal being subject to disqualification. In addition, technical proposals are evaluated as pass or fail. A "fail" on any technical proposal evaluation criterion will result in a proposal being subject to disqualification.

OCR for page 127
D-35 Case 16--RFP Form of the Government of Ontario Information Government of the Ontario Maintenance Office, Construction and Operations Branch, Ministry of Transportation St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + P.0 + P.2 + D.1 + Q.4 Best-Value Award Algorithm Adjusted Bid A three-envelope system is applied. Phase 1 Financial Pre-Qualification (Envelope 1): The first phase of the assessment process will evaluate the contents of Envelope 1 to determine whether the proposer has the financial capability to support and perform operations throughout the term of the contract. Phase 2 Work Plan (Envelope 2): In this phase, the Ministry will assess the contents of Envelope 2 and the proposer's work plan to determine how the work will be completed and whether the proposal meets the mandatory technical requirements of the maintenance special provisions and the RFP. The wei ghting of the key components provides the weighting and the minimum requirement that must be achieved. Failure to meet the minimum will result in an unsatisfactory proposal that will not be assessed further. In addition, the proposal must also meet the overall minimum score of 70 or the proposal will not be assessed further. Phase 3 Price Analysis (Envelope 3): The Ministry will assess the contents of Envelope 3 for only those proposers achieving at least the required minimum scores for the work plan. Each proposer's actual bid price will be adjusted for evaluation purposes. 1 Proposal Factor Adjustment (PFA) PFA = [(107 -A)/37 x .05] x Annual Lump Sum Price Where A = score of the proponent's Work Plan, and 37 is the difference between the maximum score of 107 and the minimum overall requirement of 70 2 Total Evaluated Bid Price 3 Total Evaluated Bid Price = Annual Lump Sum Price + PFA

OCR for page 127
D-36 Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Staffing plan accountability, qualifications and numbers Winter and non-winter maintenance strategy Quality control Training and staff skills Communication Innovation/Enhanced deliverables Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring All items except Innovation/Enhanced Deliverables are scored on a direct point scoring system totaling 100 points. If the minimum requirements are met, Innovation/Enhanced Deliverables will then be included in a proposer's total points prior to the calculation of the proposal adjustment factor.

OCR for page 127
D-37 Case 17--RFP Form of the Government of the Yukon Information Government of the Yukon Contract Service, Ministry of Transportation Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + D.1 + Q.3 Best-Value Award Algorithm Weighted Criteria The Government of the Yukon employs a two-envelope submission process. The white price envelope is enclosed in the large, green tender envelope. After the closing date, the green, tender envelopes will be opened and separated with the proposal being forwarded to the project manager for the evaluation. The white price envelopes will be retained in safe keeping until the technical evaluation is complete. When the technical evaluation is complete, those proposals that meet or exceed the minimum acceptable score identified will have the white price envelope opened. Price will then be scored according to the evaluation criteria. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Experience with similar contracts Qualifications Schedule Knowledge of local technical conditions, environmental, cultural or other special requirements Construction methods Yukon content: knowledge of Yukon, Yukon resident, Yukon resources Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring All items are scored on a direct point scoring system totaling 1,200 points. 1) Qualification & Experience = 300 2) Methodology = 250 3) Scheduling/Workplan = 150 4) Yukon Content = 200 5) Price = 300

OCR for page 127
D-38 Proposals scoring less than 475 points on the items 1) + 2) + 3) will be considered technically unacceptable, and the price envelope will be returned to the proposer unopened. Lowest price proposal = 300 points # of points awarded to proposals other than lowest price proposal: (lowest price/proposal price) x 300 points

OCR for page 127
D-39 Case 18--Model Contract Documents in England Project Information Highways Agency Federated House, London Road Dorking, Surrey RH4 1SZ Note: This is a model contract document for design-build contracts in England from May of 2000. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.2 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 + D.1 + Q.3 + Q.4 Best-Value Award Algorithm Weighted Criteria The Highways Agency in England applies a two-envelope submission process. The offer must be submitted in two parts, consisting of a "Quality Submission" contained in Envelope A and a "Financial Submission" contained in Envelope B. The highest scored proposal from quality assessment will be awarded a mark of 100, with all other proposals scored pro-rata. Any tenderer whose pro-rata score is less than 60 or who is awarded zero against any of the items will have its Financial Submission returned unopened. The initial financial ranking of compliant tenders will be based on the tendered price. The lowest tendered total will be given 100 marks and all other totals will have one mark deducted for each percentage point by which the total exceeds that of the lowest. Percentage calculations will be to one decimal point. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Technical proposals for structures, layout, drainage, earthworks Quality plans Traffic management, health and safety Environmental proposals Innovation Construction methods Commitment to partnering Key personnel Staff training Subcontractors Customer care/public relations

OCR for page 127
D-40 Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring An evaluation committee will evaluate the proposal. Proposals will be evaluated only on the information provided prior to tender closing.

OCR for page 127
D-41 Case 19--Forth Road Bridge Toll Equipment Replacement Project in Scotland Project Information Forth Estuary Transport Authority Forth Road Bridge Administration Offices South Queensferry, West Lothian EH30 9SF Project Description The toll registration equipment in use at the Forth Road Bridge was installed in 1991, since which time the original manufacturer went out of business. Although some serviceable spares were recovered in the move to one-way 7-lane tolling in 1997, some vital components are in short supply, and the facility is exposed to an increasing possibility of catastrophic failure and consequent revenue loss. The work is divided into two Phases, which are referenced throughout the documents as: Phase 1 : Design, construction, installation and commissioning of new toll equipment and toll plaza improvements; and Phase 2 : Maintenance of the toll plaza equipment and systems for five years following the completion of Phase 1. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.2 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 + D.1 + Q.3 + Q.4 Best-Value Award Algorithm Weighted Criteria A two-envelope submission process is applied. The tender must be submitted in two parts, comprising a "Quality Submission" contained in Envelope A and a "Financial Submission" contained in Envelope B. The quality threshold below which tenders will be returned to the tenderer with the Commercial Submission (Envelope B) unopened is 50 out of the available weighted mark of 100 or a zero mark against any one quality sub-question. Team, Organization and management: 50 Implementation: 50 The lowest estimated total will be awarded a score of 100. Other tenders will be allocated a score on the basis of a reduction of 5 units of score for each percentage point that their notional total estimated final Price for Work Done to Date is higher than the lowest.

OCR for page 127
D-42 Example: Score of Second Lowest = 100 [(Second Lowest Lowest) x 100 / Lowest] x 5 The final tender assessment will be based on a weighting of the final quality score and final commercial score in the ratio 80:20 respectively. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Organization and management Operation and working arrangements Informal partnering Key staff and experience Quality plans Project program FETA and public interface Open book accounting Construction methodology Health and safety Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring An evaluation panel will evaluate the proposal. Proposals will be evaluated only on the information provided prior to tender closing. The following are the standard marks for quality questions. Standard Service Delivery Level Mark Very high standard Proposals likely to exceed all delivery targets 10 Good Standard Proposals likely to meet all delivery targets and 8-9 exceed some delivery targets Acceptable Workable proposals likely to achieve all or most 5-7 standard delivery targets Poor standard Significant reservations on service delivery targets 1-4 but not sufficient to warrant exclusion of bid Not acceptable Bid excluded from further consideration 0

OCR for page 127
D-43 Case 20--Valuascollege Project in the Netherlands Project Information Onderwijsgemeenschap Venlo & Omstreken t.a.v. de heer ir. P.W.G. Maas Hogeweg 26a Postbus 270 5911 EB Venlo 5900 AG Venlo Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.4 + Q.3 + Q.4 + D.0 + D.1 Best-Value Award Algorithm Weighted Criteria All tenderers should give a presentation about their vision on the sketch design and the action plan in the presence of the selection committee. After presentations by five tenderers, an evaluation matrix will be established based on the submitted fee and the technical aspects. In the eventual evaluation, the weighting ratio of the submitted price and the quality is 40% : 60%. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Past Performance Key Staff Project Coordination Management/Organization Plan Construction Method Design Alternate/Experience Quality Management Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Adjectival Rating The comparison will be carried out by means of the matrix shown below. After comparing one proposal to another, +1, 0, or -1 will be scored: If A is better than B on Quality, A will be given +1. The total score will be the sum of each score. Two evaluation matrices will be made for comparing. X A B C D E score A X B X C X D X E X