The Evaluation Committee will conduct a substantive evaluation of each Technical Proposal against the quality factors and subfactors set forth in ITP Section 6.4.1. The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each quality factor and subfactor using the adjectival rating method set forth in ITP Section 6.4.2.
6.4.1 QUALITY FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS AND EVALUATION WEIGHTING The Evaluation Committee will base its substantive evaluation of the Technical Proposal on the following quality factors:
A. Maintenance of Traffic (20%) B. Management Approach (25%)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C. Other Technical Solutions (55%) 6.4.1.1 Maintenance of Traffic
The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each Technical Proposal’s quality with respect to Maintenance of Traffic based on each of the following subfactors:
A. Proposed approach to minimize disruption to mainline traffic B. Proposed approach to minimize ramp closures and durations C. Proposed approach to facilitate construction activities
D. Proposed approach to minimize impacts to streets and adjacent properties
E. Proposed overall Traffic Management Plan, including public outreach, and incident management
Subfactor A, above, is of greater importance than Subfactors B through E. Subfactors B through E are of equal importance.
Specific Maintenance of Traffic information to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Appendix A, Section A4.0.
6.4.1.2 Management Approach
The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each Technical Proposal’s quality with respect to Management Approach based on each of the following subfactors:
A. Organization and Communications Structure B. Key Personnel not identified in the SOQ C. Construction Management Plan
D. Design Management Plan E. Quality Plan
F. Public Outreach
Subfactor A, above, is of greater importance than Subfactor B and of significantly greater importance than Subfactors C through E. Subfactor B is of greater importance than Subfactors C through F. Subfactors C through F are of equal importance.
Specific Management Approach information to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Appendix A, Section A5.0.
6.4.1.3 Other Technical Solutions
The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each Technical Proposal’s quality with respect to other technical issues based on the following subfactors.
A. Roadway Design and Traffic Operations B. Structure Type and Construction
C. Permanent Signs and Sign Structures D. Drainage
E. Landscape and Aesthetics F. Permanent Striping
Subfactors A through F above are listed in order of relative importance.
Specific other technical solutions information to be submitted with the Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Appendix A, Section A7.0.
6.4.2 USE OF ADJ ECTIVAL RATINGS FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION The Evaluation Committee will use an adjectival rating system to evaluate each Technical Proposal against the quality factors and subfactors set forth in ITP Section 6.4.1 (not the “Pass/-Fail” factors and subfactors set forth in ITP Section 6.3). Specifically, the Evaluation Committee will use a detailed set of adjectives to describe each Technical Proposal’s conformance to the Project’s goals and requirements in with respect to each quality factor and subfactor set forth in ITP Section 6.4.1. After the Evaluation Committee completes its evaluation of the Technical Proposal, the Department will convert the adjectival rating to a weighted numerical score.
The Evaluation Committee will use the following adjectival ratings to evaluate the Technical Proposal:
• EXCEPTIONAL. The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial (providing advantages, benefits, or added value) to the Department. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that the Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the Contract Documents. There are essentially no Weaknesses.
• GOOD. The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated criteria.
This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little or moderate risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the Contract Documents. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor.
• ACCEPTABLE. The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria and requirements of the Contract Documents. This rating indicates an acceptable
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
level of quality. The Proposal demonstrates a reasonable probability of success. Weaknesses are moderate and can be readily corrected.
• UNACCEPTABLE. The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that indicates significant Deficiencies, unacceptable quality or noncompliance with the requirements of the Contract
Documents. The Proposal fails to meet the stated criteria and/or lacks essential information and is conflicting and/or unproductive. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; Deficiencies are so major and/or extensive that a major revision to the Proposal would be necessary.
The Evaluation Committee may assign a “+” or “–” (e.g., “Exceptional –”, “Good +”, “Acceptable +”) to the ratings to differentiate within a rating in order to more clearly differentiate between the Proposals.
6.4.3 TECHNICAL SCORE
During the evaluation, each subfactor as described above will be assigned a consensus adjectival rating by the Evaluation Committee, which will be converted to points. The sum of the points for each subfactor will be calculated to determine the Technical Proposal’s score for each of the corresponding evaluation factors. The sum of the score of each of the evaluation factors will then be calculated to arrive at the overall Evaluation Committee score for the Technical Proposal, with 100 maximum possible points. The Technical Score will be calculated using the following formula:
Technical Score = Evaluation Committee score for Technical Proposal (maximum 100) * 0.30
6.4.4 SCHEDULE AND TIME REASONABLENESS EVALUATION
Each Technical Proposal shall contain the Schedule and Time Information requested in ITP Appendix A7.0. The Evaluation Committee will conduct a review and evaluation of the Schedule and Time Information submitted by each Proposer to determine its reasonableness. The Department reserves the right to reject any Technical Proposal if the Department determines, in its sole discretion, that the Schedule and Time Information contains:
A. Any information that does not conform with all requirements set forth in the ITP; or B. An unreasonable or unrealistic Proposed Baseline Progress Schedule, including a
Proposed Baseline Project Schedule that fails to correspond to the number of days from NTP to Substantial completion identified by the Proposer.