National Academies Press: OpenBook

Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects (2006)

Chapter: Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies

« Previous: Appendix C - Questionnaires
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Best-Value Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13982.
×
Page 169

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

D-1 A P P E N D I X D Best-Value Case Studies

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

D-9 Case 4—Swedish Highway Administration Asphalt Paving Bids Project Information Asphaltic Paving Bids VÄGVERKET—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

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.

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: Normalized Technical Proposal Score (NTPS) = All fixed price is normalized using the following formula: Normalized Fixed Price (NFPS) = 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 (Proposer’s Technical Proposal Score) (Highest Technical Proposal Score) (Lowest Fixed Price) (Proposer’s Fixed Price)

D-12 Enhancements to Minimize Life-cycle Costs Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring All items were scored on a direct point scoring system totaling 100 points.

D-13 Case 6—University of Nebraska Cleanroom Project Information University of Nebraska Walter Scott Engineering Center—Class I Cleanroom Lincoln, Nebraska Project Number C086P121 Project Description The proposed project consists of the design and construction of an approximately 385 net square foot Class I cleanroom, 198 square feet of Class 10 cleanroom and all associated HVAC and electrical systems required for cleanroom operation. The construction will also include additional support and office areas. Best-Value Parameters BV = B.0 + P.0 + P.2 + P.4 + D.1 Best-Value Award Algorithm Fixed Price—Best Proposal The evaluation committee will review all proposals received and each committee member will rank each proposal based on the Evaluation Criteria. The scores as determined by each evaluation committee member will be averaged to determine the evaluation score for each Design/Build Firm. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Schedule Qualifications Project Personnel Management Plan Technical Design Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring Final score is an average of the evaluation committee scores.

D-14 Case 7—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Project Information U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Olmsted Dam Olmsted, IL DACW27-02-R-0014 Project Description The project consists of five tainter gate bays, with hydraulic operated tainter gates, navigable pass, two-boat abutments, four isolation joints founded on pipe piles, and placement of scour protection. The dam is to be built using in-the-wet construction techniques. The estimated cost range of the project is $250,000,000 to $500,000,000. This project is being procured under source selection procurement method. Proposal submittal requirements and evaluation factors are described in Sections 00115 and 00130. The selected proposal will become a part of the contract upon award. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 + P.4 Best-Value Award Algo rithm Qualitative Cost-Technical Tradeo ff A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), comprised of representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will evaluate the proposals. The Board will consist of two parts—a Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) and a Price Evaluation Board (PEB). The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the Tradeoff Process. The evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical/quality evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical tradeoff analysis. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Schedule Past Performance Personnel Experience Subcontractor Information Management Approach Safety

D-15 Small Business Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Satisficing and Adjectival Rating The TEB will evaluate and rate those proposals passing the first review. Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP requirements. Some factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system. Others will be rated on a “go, no-go” basis.

D-16 Case 8—Spanish Road Association Asphaltic Paving and Highway Maintenance Project Information Asphaltic Paving and Highway Maintenance Spanish Road Association Madrid, Spain Project Description The project involved a five-year performance contract for the maintenance of highways including asphalt paving, stripping, landscaping, emergency response, etc. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 + P.4 Best-Value Award Algorithm Weighted Criteria The criteria considered for award included economic offer and quality of the technical solution. The weights used were 30% and 70%, respectively. Global Score The global score (PG) of every offer was defined as: PG=0.7(PT) + 0.3 (PE) Where, PT: Technical Score PE: Economic Score The bidder with the highest Global Score will be defined as potential awarded. Technical Score The maximum technical score is 100 points. Economic Score The economic offer, PE, is determined from the N economic offers in the following way: 1) For each responsive offer, scores are calculated based on a linear interpolation between points P1 and P2. These points are defined as follows: P1: the point corresponding to the lowest priced proposal, to which a maximum score of 100 points is assigned P2: the point corresponding to the solicitation budget, to which the minimum score would be applied. The minimum score is calculated as follows:

D-17 Minimum score = 100 x lowest price / Solicitation Budget If only one economic offer were received, its PE would directly be 100 points. In the exceptional case of every economic offer having the same price, the DOT would assign a PE of 100 points to each offer. 2) The average and standard deviation of the economic offers are calculated in the manner described below. Variables are defined as follows: BM = Average of economic scores, with every economic offer numbered from 1 to n σ σ σ σ = Standard deviation Ofi = Economic offer i, with i defined as an integer from 1 to n P.L. = Solicitation budget BOi = percent respect P.L. 100 P.L. Of1BO ii × –= n BO BM n 1 iΣ Σ = = i ( ) ( ) 21n 11 22 i n BMnBO – – – = = 3) With the values BM and , the next step is filtering the economic offer by the next formula: BMBO j Now, j is an integer, generic, from 1 to n’ (0 < n’ < n). 100 P.L. Of 1BO jj × = Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Technical approach Management plan Facilities and equipment ≤

D-18 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.

D-19 Case 9—Minnesota DOT Highway Project Information Minnesota Department of Transportation T.H. 100 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota State Project 2735-172 Project Description This project generally consists of grading, surfacing, ponds, noise walls and retaining walls, signals, lighting, signing, and Bridge 27283 on T.H. 100 from 0.19 mile south of Duluth Street to just south of Bassett Creek of Duluth Street in Golden Valley. The Project also contains work on Duluth Street, known as CSAH 6, from Lilac Drive to 0.15 miles east of T.H. 100. The Project also includes the construction of a fully designed pedestrian bridge just south of Bassett Creek. The preliminary estimate of the design-build project (in 2001 U.S. dollars) is between $15 and $20 million. The duration of the design-build portion of the project is anticipated to be approximately two years. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + P.0 + P.1 +Q.0 + D.1 Best-Value Award Algorithm Meets Technical Criteria—Low Bid Under the low bid selection process being used for this project, Mn/DOT will award the design-build contract to the short-listed proposer whose technical proposal is responsive to the RFP technical requirements as determined by the TRC and whose price proposal is the lowest bid. The proposers technical and price proposals will become contract documents. After the proposal submittal deadline has passed, but before the public bid opening, the technical proposal package and price proposal package submitted by each short-listed proposer will be separated. The price proposal packages will not be opened, but will be kept stored in a locked container until the public bid opening. Using this process, no price proposal will be opened until the TRC reviews all technical proposals and determines whether each technical proposal is either responsive or non-responsive. Technical proposal packages will be opened so that proposals can be distributed to the TRC and other technical staff if necessary. The TRC will examine each proposal, discuss the contents of each, and determine whether each proposal complies with the objective requirements of the RFP and is responsive. The TRC will not rank or score any of the technical proposals.

D-20 If the TRC determines that a technical proposal does not comply with or satisfy any of the objective requirements of the RFP, that proposal will be considered non-responsive. The price proposal corresponding to a non-responsive technical proposal will not be opened at the public bid opening, but will be returned unopened, along with the non- responsive technical proposal, to the proposer. A proposer that submits a non-responsible technical proposal will not be eligible to receive any stipend. Mn/DOT will open the price proposals corresponding to the technical proposals that the TRC has determined to be responsive. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Schedule Qualifications Technical Design Warranty Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Satisficing Proposals are evaluated as responsive or non-responsive. RFP states that there is no scoring or ranking of proposals. They are only evaluated for responsiveness to technical criteria.

D-21 Case 10—Missouri DOT Bridge Seismic Isolation System Project Information Missouri Department of Transportation Retrofit Seismic Isolation System for Bridges No. 15017, A15172, and A15231; US 40/Interstate I-64; St. Louis City, Missouri Project Number J6I0985B Project Description The proposed project consists of the design, testing, fabrication, and certification of the installation of a Seismic Isolation System for existing structures. The contractor can propose design alternates that meet state specifications. The construction will also include installation of bent column steel casings, retrofit of selected foundations, retrofit of selected cross frames, installation of force transmitters, and PTFE sliding bearing assemblies. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + A.1 + B.0 + P.1 + P.3 + Q.0 + D.0 Best-Value Award Algorithm Meets Technical Criteria—Low Bid The selection panel will review the qualifications, schedule, and technical information and assign one of the following classifications to each bidder: Qualified to Bid or Not Qualified to Bid. Public opening of the bids identified as Qualified to Bid will be held, and the award will be made to the lowest responsible bidder. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Life-cycle Cost Past Project Performance Subcontracting Plan DBE Utilization Schedule Warranty (10 year minimum) Technical Design Alternate

D-22 Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Satisficing Each proposal rated as responsive or non-responsive to RFP evaluation criteria. Price proposal to contain bid price for design, fabrication and installation plus warranty and contain an Added Cost Worksheet that contains the sum of Present Values for initial installation, routine inspection, and routine maintenance costs for the life of the proposed warranty. Total Cost shall be determined by the selection panel as the summation of the proposed cost of the isolation system and the published estimated costs for installation of isolation system, delays and inconvenience to the motoring public due to construction related activity, and maintaining the retrofitted structure.

D-23 Case 11—Washington State DOT Interchange Project Information Washington Department of Transportation SR 500 Thurston Way Interchange Vancouver, Washington Project Description The SR 500 Thurston Way Interchange in Vancouver, WA, is a redevelopment of the “at grade” interchange of SR 500 and Thurston Way located in the southwest region of WSDOT. The project lies between the SR 500 Andresen Road Interchange and the SR 500 I-205 Interchange, in a tight corridor that creates many challenges and opportunities for innovative approaches to the logistical transportation concerns of the area. Traffic volumes on the mainline, the proximity of the main entrance to Vancouver Mall, and another plaza on the south side, along with challenging weave requirements, made this project demanding for traffic control. This is a design-build project. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + B.2 + P.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.4 + Q.0 + Q.4 Best-Value Award Algorithm Adjusted Score Evaluation of the Technical Components represents a design review, and selecting a proposal represents acceptance of the proposed design as well as the proposed construction process. Upon receipt of the Best and Final Proposals (BAFPs), the Price Components will be put in a locked vault until the public opening. Personnel from Office of Contract Services (OCS) Contract Ad & Award and OCS Consultant Services will make an initial determination as to whether the BAFP is responsive without opening the Price Component. The scoring begins with each Technical Evaluation Team (TET) member reading relevant areas of the Technical Component individually to gain an understanding of the subject matter, then determining a preliminary raw score for each area they are responsible for. Concurrent with this phase, the Proposal Evaluation Board (PEB) members will read all Technical Components individually, to gain a basic understanding of each. The TET members will then complete their evaluation, adjust the raw scores and add to their draft summary. During this phase of the evaluation, the TET members will also list any minor defects in the BAFPs. The raw scores, draft summary, and list of minor defects for each BAFP will be transmitted to the PEB for review; the Evaluation Process Manager will coordinate this transmittal. After review of the raw scores, draft summary, and minor defects by the PEB, the TET members will meet individually with the PEB members, for discussion of each technical area. Using pre-established weighting criteria, and best professional judgment as needed

D-24 in some areas, the PEB then develops final scores for each technical area. The weighted raw scores are then combined using a pre-determined formula to arrive at a composite Technical Solution score. The PEB will review the list of minor defects, discuss and agree upon changes with TET, and transmit this list to the Evaluation Process Manager. The recommendations are then presented to the Selecting Official (SO). At this point, the Price component of the BAFP is publicly opened and combined with the Technical Component score as follows: Total Score = (Technical Score x 10,000,000) Bid Price ($) Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Key Personnel Management Plan Schedule Technical Solution Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring All items were scored on a direct point scoring system totaling 1,000 points. • Management = 100 • Schedule = 100 • Technical Solution = 800

D-25 Case 12—U.S. Army Corps Air Freight Terminal/Airfield Project Information Multi-Modal Transportation Terminal Development U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District New York, New York Project Description Design-build air-freight terminal: building renovation/construction. Including paving, interface with air, ground, and rail. McGuire AFB, New Jersey. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 + P.4 + Q.0 + Q.4 + D.0 Best-Value Award Algorithm Meets Technical Criteria—Low Bid This is a best-value, lowest priced, technically acceptable, one-step solicitation for the design and construction of the airfreight terminal. The government will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror with the lowest priced proposal response who has no red rating in any factors (see below). Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Schedule Past Performance Personnel Performance Management Plans Technical Approach Quality Management Plan Subcontracting Plan Small Business Utilization Warranty Management

D-26 Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Modified Satisficing Color Rating Definition: Green/Acceptable: The proposal essentially satisfies the standards; minor weaknesses, even if not corrected, do not render this proposal/factor unacceptable. Yellow/Marginal: Reasonably susceptible to becoming acceptable. The proposal/factor fails to adequately satisfy the standards. However, significant weaknesses/deficiencies can be corrected through exchanges. Weaknesses/Deficiencies are such that failure to correct may render this major proposal/factor unacceptable. Red/Unsatisfactory: The proposal fails to meet stated criteria and is not capable of becoming acceptable without major revisions.

D-27 Case 13—U.S. Forest Service Highway Project Information U.S. Forest Service Coffman Cove Highway Project Solicitation No.R10-01-17, April 26, 2001 Project Description The Project consists of upgrading an approximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) segment of single- lane logging road to a double-lane public highway. Work includes grading, drainage, base, aggregate surfacing, and other work. Additionally, work includes maintaining 30 km (18 mi) of single-lane bypass road. This project is a separate phase of construction on the FH44 project, which includes reconstruction of approximately 20 miles. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + B.0 + B.2 + P.0 + P.1 + P.2 + P.3 + P.4 + Q.4 + D.1 Best-Value Award Algorithm Quantitative Cost-Technical Tradeoff The technical score will be determined by each Board member first determining a numerical rating for each evaluation criteria in the Technical Proposal. The consensus method will then be used by the Board to determine a final numerical rating for each evaluation criteria. The revised numerical ratings will then be summed to determine the overall technical score for each Offeror’s Technical Proposal. The maximum possible overall technical score is 1,000 for each proposal. After the overall technical scores are assigned, the Price Proposals will be opened. A best-value cost-technical tradeoff will be determined as follows: 1. The proposals will first be ranked in order of price (Contract Bid Price plus Contract Administration Cost), starting with the lowest price. The following is an example of the initial ranking according to price:

D-28 Offeror Contract Bid Price Plus Contract Admin. Cost* Overall Technical Score C $5 $5 ,600,000 845 D ,905,000 912 A ,300,000 880 B $6 $6 ,470,000 965 * Contract Admin Cost = Contract Days x $1,400/day A cost-technical tradeoff will then be performed by comparing the top two (2) initially ranked proposals. A Price Increment (P.I.) and a Technical Score Increment (T.I.) will be computed by the following equations: P.I. = (PriceOfferor D - PriceOfferor C) ÷ (PriceOfferor C) x 100% = (5,905,000 – 5,600,000) ÷ (5,600,000) x 100% = 5.45% T.I. = (Tech. ScoreOfferor D – Tech. ScoreOfferor C) ÷ (Tech. ScoreOfferor C) x 100% = (912 – 845) ÷ (845) x 100% = 7.93% The T.I. over P.I. ratio will then be examined. If the ratio is greater than one (1), as in this example, than the second-ranked Offeror (D) is considered to provide a greater value to the Government: T.I. ÷ P.I. = 7.93% ÷ 5.45% = 1.46 1.46 > 1.00 ; therefore, Offeror D is considered to provide a greater value (Technical Increment outweighs the Price Increment). Offeror D is retained for the next step, while Offeror C is eliminated. If the T.I. over P.I. ratio had been less than one (1), then Offeror C would have been considered to provide a greater value to the Government. 2. A cost-technical tradeoff will then be performed by comparing the higher-ranked proposal from Step No. 2 above (Offeror D) to the next proposal listed in the initial ranking chart (Offeror A). A P.I. and T.I. will be computed similar to the above: P.I. = (PriceOfferor A - PriceOfferor D) ÷ (PriceOfferor D) x 100% = (6,300,000 – 5,905,000) ÷ (5,905,000) x 100% = 6.69% T.I. = (Tech. ScoreOfferor A – Tech. ScoreOfferor D) ÷ (Tech. ScoreOfferor D) x 100%

D-29 = (880 – 912) ÷ (912) x 100% = -3.51% The T.I. over P.I. ratio will then be examined: T.I. ÷ P.I. = -3.51% ÷ 6.69% = -0.52 Since the ratio in this example is less than one (1), Offeror D continues to be considered as providing a greater value to the Government. In this case, the Technical Increment decreased while the Price Increment increased. Offeror D is retained for the next step, while Offeror A is eliminated. 3. Lastly, a cost-technical tradeoff will be performed by comparing the higher- ranked proposal from Step No. 3 above (Offeror D) with the next proposal listed in the initial ranking chart (Offeror B). A P.I. and T.I. will be computed similar to the above: P.I. = (PriceOfferor B – PriceOfferor D) ÷ (PriceOfferor D) x 100% = (6,470,000 – 5,905,000) ÷ (5,905,000) x 100% = 9.57% T.I. = (Tech. ScoreOfferor B – Tech. ScoreOfferor D) ÷ (Tech. ScoreOfferor D) x 100% = (965 – 912) ÷ (912) x 100% = 5.81% The T.I. over P.I. ratio will then be examined: T.I. ÷ P.I. = 5.81% ÷ 9.57% = 0.61 Since the ratio in this example is less than one (1), Offeror D continues to be considered to provide a greater value to the Government. In this case, the Technical Increment did not outweigh the Price Increment. Offeror D is retained, while Offeror B is eliminated. The proposal offering the best-value to the Government (Offeror D in the above example) will be forwarded to the Selection Official. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Schedule Past Project Performance Key Personnel Subcontracting Plan Small Business Utilization Plan Project Management Plan Quality Management Plan

D-30 Environmental Protection Approach Schedule Technical Solution Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Point Scoring All items were scored on a direct point scoring system totaling 1,000 points.

D-31 Case 14—Maine DOT Bridge Project Information Bath/Woolwich Bridge Project Maine Department of Transportation Augusta, Maine Project Description The Bath-Woolwich Bridge is a bridge that spans the Kennebec River between the City of Bath and the Town of Woolwich near the existing Carlton Bridge, together with the Bath approach to the bridge. The project consists of the design and construction of a trapezoidal concrete box girder bridge. Best-Value Parameters BV = A.0 + A.1 + B.0 + B.2 + P.0 + P.4 + Q.0 + Q.2 + Q.3 + Q.4 + D.1 Best-Value Award Algo rithm Adjusted Bid The Value Quotient = Price /Score. This formula is generically known as the adjusted bid method. The department publicly opens and reads responsive lump sum price proposals and divides each price by the score of that firm’s design-build proposal, yielding an overall value rating for each firm. The department shall award the contract to the firm with the lowest responsive overall value rating. The department’s award decision is final and is not subject to review or appeal. The request for proposals may provide for the payment of a stipend upon specified terms to unsuccessful firms that submit responsive proposals. Best-Value Evaluation Criteria Price Lifecycle Cost Schedule Maintenance of Traffic Management Plan Quality of Construction Technical Solution Best-Value Evaluation Rating System Direct Scoring A direct scoring method is used as noted in the description of the best-value algorithm above. The following scale was used on the evaluation.

D-32 Raw Score Definition 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marginal Average Exceptional

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

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.

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 weighting 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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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. • •

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 exceed some delivery targets 8-9 Acceptable standard Workable proposals likely to achieve all or most delivery targets 5-7 Poor standard Significant reservations on service delivery targets but not sufficient to warrant exclusion of bid 1-4 Not acceptable Bid excluded from further consideration 0

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 C D score A X B X C X D X E X EA B

Next: Appendix E - Advisory Board Survey »
Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 561: Best-Value Procurement Methods for Highway Construction Projects examines procurement methods, award algorithms, and rating systems for use in awarding best-value highway construction contracts. The report also explores screening criteria for selecting projects for application of best-value procurement, implementation strategies, and a model best-value specification.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!