Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway AdministrationSearch FHWAFeedback

Construction

Printable Version (.pdf, 87 kb)

District of Columbia Department of Transportation Traffic Services Administration Lighting Asset Management Program

A. Introduction

The District of Columbia Department of Transportation Traffic Services Administration (DDOT/TOA) submits this work plan for review as a Best Value Award project under the provisions of Special Experimental Project No. 14 (SEP 14) for the use of alternative contracting practices. Through the Best Value Award process, DDOT/TOA contemplates to award one (1) firm-fixed price contract. Alternatively, DDOT/TOA may award one contract that provides innovative strategies which align with the District's core value and provide a better long term value to the District by achieving substantial energy and cost savings while maintaining the good service quality.

DDOT/TOA managed this project including the Request for Proposals (RFP), advertising, awarding and performing performance measurement and project monitoring as well as reporting.

Although DDOT/TOA typically awards asset maintenance contracts on a low-bid basis, the scope and complexity of maintaining and improving the District's 70,000 street and alley lights, specialty lights, and the supporting infrastructure lead DDOT to pursuing an innovative strategy for the next lighting asset management contract as: Competing the lighting asset management work using Best-Value rather than low-bid.

DDOT/TOA will award this performance-based asset management via best value, because a low bid award will not provide adequate information on the Offerors' qualifications or allow DDOT to evaluate Offerors' technical approaches. DDOT is experienced with best-value awards and is currently concluding a 5-year (two base years and three option years) performance-based contract for asset management services to rehabilitate and maintain specific lighting assets within the District of Columbia. After the overall success of the contract, DDOT/TOA wishes to continue employing the best-value award for the performance-based asset management contract.

DDOT/TOA plans to make one (1) firm-fixed-price contract for one year base period and four option years (a total of 5 years) with incentives and disincentives (Firm-Fixed-Price-Plus-Incentive-Fee Contract) to maintain the District's lighting system. DDOT/TOA will also entertain proposals from contractors willing to incorporate energy efficient lighting technology into the District lighting system in return for benefitting from the resultant energy savings. To achieve a significant upgrade of the District lighting system, DDOT/TOA would make one city-wide award for lighting asset management services.

Through this contract, a private firm will assume the responsibility for managing lighting assets along all of DDOT/TOA's alleys, streets (including streetlights on traffic signal combination poles), highways, underpasses, bike trails, tunnels, bridges (including underdeck lights and navigation lights), special lights, such as on China Town Arches, Radio Towers, overhead guide signs, and Welcome to Washington signs. Other related assets include handholes and manholes. A number of other lighting systems and the electrical control systems for the Douglass Bridge are also included. Everything from the PEPCO power source out is included. All electrical components such as panels and junction boxes that contain equipment/materials covered by the contract are under the Contractors responsibility, regardless of the types of equipment or materials.

B. Purpose

Using the Best Value award process for performance-based asset management contracts is not new to DDOT. In fact, DDOT established themselves as a leader in this field by procuring through a Best Value award process, a private contractor to preserve and maintain all DDOT assets (from right of way to right of way, excluding traffic signals) on the National Highway System (NHS) segments of the District. At the time, that contract was the first urban performance-based asset preservation effort of its kind in the United States.

DDOT/TOA extended that concept to its lighting services throughout the entire District, and entered into five-year contract (two-base years plus three option years) in 2006. Historically, these services have been covered by a number of separate contracts covering the different types of lighting work, with DDOT/TOA acting as the asset manager. Under the asset management contract, a number of the individual contracts will be merged into one, with the successful Contractor acting as the asset manager under DDOT/TOA supervision.

Since the project will hand over the management of the lighting assets to a private contractor, it is essential that DDOT/TOA choose the best value available to them, not just the lowest price. The safety of the residents depends on a reliable, functioning lighting system, and DDOT will need to be comfortable with the Offeror's technical approach, management plan, staffing plan, QA/QC plan, past performance and facilities, innovative approach, and plan to reduce DDOT's total cost of system ownership, as well as their price. Therefore, DDOT/TOA proposes to use a Best Value award for the project. DDOT/TOA is also interested in rapidly incorporating energy efficient lighting into the District lighting system. If a contractor's proposal provides an innovative and cost effective solution to achieve this goal, DDOT/TOA will deem the contract as offering the Best Value to the District.

C. Scope

Through this contract, a private firm will assume responsibility for managing all District lighting assets from the PEPCO power source out. This includes lighting assets along all of District alleys, streets, highways, underpasses, tunnels, bridges (including navigation lights), overhead guide signs, special lights, such as radio tower lights, China Town Lights, Welcome to Washington signs (after rehabilitation work is completed), and other assets including manholes and handholes. A number of other lighting systems and the electrical control systems for the Douglass Bridge are also included.

The activities required under this contract include:

  • Regularly monitoring, recording and reporting the condition of all lighting assets within the covered system and informing the District of that condition;
  • Repairing, rehabilitating, and maintaining the lighting assets, as defined in this contract, within the covered system;
  • Ensuring that the District is notified immediately of all maintenance needs for which the Contractor is not responsible under this contract; and,
  • Regularly monitoring, recording and reporting the condition of, exercising, repairing and maintaining the electrical control systems for the Douglass Bridge.

In addition to the tasks above, if DDOT/TOA selects an alternative proposal that offers an innovative and cost saving approach, the activities required under this contract will include:

  • Upgrading the DDOT lighting system to reduce energy costs through reduced energy use, improved technology, and reduced overall maintenance and replacement cost.

The Contractor's personnel will work with the District and will be held accountable to the same standards of behavior (as a minimum), confidentiality, and workmanship as District personnel. All work performed by Contractor personnel must be in accordance with District and other applicable rules, guidelines, and standards.

The successful Contractor must supply all of the labor, materials, and equipment necessary to perform all tasks and meet the performance standards under this contract. The performance standards are the acceptable level of service for each of the performance measures provided in the RFP, and are defined as the "Good" or "4" level for each performance measure. Labor, materials and equipment supplied must meet the standards of the Titles listed in the RFP.

Offerors are encouraged to propose innovative techniques and materials, including techniques and materials not currently used by the District. By encouraging the use of innovation, the District hopes to enhance safety and the value of the assets under this contract, while minimizing maintenance and other costs.

The Contractor will assume full responsibility for managing, maintaining, and preserving the assets described in the RFP.

The COTR will monitor the Contractor's work to ensure compliance with the contract and to ensure that all work conforms to performance standards contained in the contract. Subject to COTR oversight, the Contractor is free to choose the most effective and efficient techniques for meeting those performance standards. Materials must meet DDOT/TOA standards.

D. Schedule

The goal is to advertise the RFP [date], with proposals due 45 days after advertisement. It is DDOT/TOA's intent to award the contract by September 2011 with 60 days mobilization without fieldwork and payment under this contract. The project will run for up to 5 years including the mobilization period, with a guaranteed 1-year base period and 4 option years.

The Best Value selection process will have the following stages:

  • DDOT/TOA will advertise the RFP;
  • DDOT/TOA will hold a pre-bid meeting;
  • The Selection Committee will review the proposals and identify technically acceptable Offerors based on the criteria listed in part E.
  • For technically acceptable Offerors, the CO will compute the scores for price based on the criterion listed in part E and will compute a total score.
  • DDOT/TOA may negotiate with technically acceptable offerors in the competitive range (total score greater than 70) and request a Best and Final Offer.
  • DDOT/TOA will execute a contract with the Best Value Offeror (highest total scores of technically acceptable Offerors) and issue a notice-to-proceed for the Offeror. However, if one Offeror is unable to execute a contract, DDOT/TOA may offer the contract to other Offeror with the second highest total score.

E. Measures: Proposal Evaluation

DDOT/TOA will use the best value selection procedure laid out in the RFP (included Section Mof the RFP below). DDOT/TOA provides instruction to the offerors on what to submit elsewhere in the RFP.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS

M.1 EVALUATION FOR AWARD

The contract will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer is technically acceptable to DDOT/TOA, and offers the best value to the District as determined by the total overall score from the evaluation criteria specified below.

M.1.1 Ward-Based proposals under CLINS 0001-0009, Innovative Proposals under CLIN 0010, and batch CLINs 00011-0013 as well as Option CLIN 0014 will be evaluated using the scale and criteria described in Section M. For a detailed explanation and example of the evaluation procedure to be used during this procurement see Appendix X.

M.2 TECHNICAL RATING

The Technical Rating Scale is as follows:

The Technical Rating Scale is as follows:
Numeric Rating Adjective Description
1 Unacceptable Fails to meet minimum requirements; major deficiencies which are not correctable.
2 Poor Marginally meets minimum requirements; significant deficiencies which may be correctable.
3 Acceptable Meets requirements; only minor deficiencies which are correctable.
4 Good Meets requirements; no deficiencies.
5 Excellent Exceeds most, if not all requirements; no deficiencies.

For example, if a factor has a point evaluation of 0 to 20 points, and (using the Technical Rating Scale) the District evaluates as "good" the part of the proposal applicable to the factor, the score for the factor is 16 (4/5 of 20).

M.3 EVALUATION STANDARDS

DDOT/TOA's proposal evaluation panel will find the Offeror to be technically acceptable if its Technical Proposal receives at least 60% of the 30 points available (see Section M.4.1) and its Staffing/ Management/ QC/QA / Past Performance Proposal receives at least 60% of the 40 points available (see Section M.4.2). DDOT/TOA will only evaluate a Offeror's Price Proposal if DDOT/TOA's proposal evaluation panel finds that Offeror to be technically acceptable. DDOT/TOA will check those Price Proposals evaluated for price reasonableness.

M. 4 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following technical evaluation factors.

M.4.1 TECHNICAL/INNOVATION (30 Points)

Technical proposals will be rated based upon the extent to which Offerors demonstrate, in clear and concise language, their experience, knowledge and understanding of issues relating to preservation and maintenance of the assets covered by the RFP. Offerors shall refer to section L.2 of the RFP for instructions regarding the format of technical proposals.

In evaluating proposals, the following criteria will be used:

  1. The extent to which Offerors provide a clear, concise, high probability for success work plan for meeting all of the performance standards set forth in Appendix B (or Performance Standards proposed for CLIN0014) for all of the tasks set forth in Section C. This includes staffing, materials, and equipment, as well as work methods, environmental protection, functional efficiency and flexibility, traffic management and protection, coordination with utilities, government agencies, and other organizations, and quick response and/or emergency asset management and maintenance activities to make the roadway safe for the traveling public
  2. The extent to which the proposed Prime Contractor demonstrates experience, knowledge, and understanding of preservation, and maintenance for all of the lighting assets referenced in the RFP. Experience, knowledge, and understanding should be demonstrated in each of the specific task areas identified in Section C of the RFP.
  3. The extent to which proposed subcontractors, for the specific activities that they will conduct, demonstrate experience, knowledge and understanding of operations and maintenance for the assets referenced in the RFP.
  4. The extent to which the proposed Prime Contractor and subcontractors demonstrate experience, knowledge and understanding of key safety issues, including work zone safety, worker protection, safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-vehicle uses, and the safety implications of poorly maintained or repaired assets.
  5. Experience, knowledge and understanding in using innovative techniques, processes, or materials related to operations and maintenance of the assets referenced in the RFP, including whether the Offeror's potential use of innovation is likely to enhance the ability to meet the performance standards set forth in the RFP.
  6. The extent to which Offerors demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the type and level of effort necessary to ensure that all assets covered by the RFP meet the performance standards as quickly as possible, preferably within the first year of performance.
  7. The extent to which Offeror's Traffic Control Plan demonstrates experience in controlling traffic in a busy urban environment.
  8. The extent to which the Offeror has presented an adequate plan for keeping an adequate supply of materials.
  9. The extent to which Offerors demonstrate the ability to respond to emergency maintenance repairs.
  10. The extent to which assumptions and deviations made by the Offeror threaten the probability of success of the contract.
  11. The extent to which Offerors have provided high probability for success proposals for resolving any technical uncertaintiesthat they raised.
  12. The extent to which Offeror'sInnovation Plan provides a detailed, plausible, and creative approach to reducing the District's total cost of lighting (TCO) system ownership. The offeror's approach to reducing TCO should address, but is not limited to: energy costs, maintenance costs, and identifying new technology to extend the expected lifespan of District Lighting System equipment. DDOT's goals and the required elements of the innovation plan are described in detail in sections B.2.3 and L.2.5.B.5.
  13. DDOT will assess offerors' CLIN 0014 proposed modified performance measures as follows:
    1. For Time Critical Performance Measures: Assessing the additional days out of service (based on the 2010 workload data in Appendix E) that would result from the proposed modified performance measures.

      Example 1: A performance measure with 30,000 annual work orders and a proposed performance standard change of from 3 days to 4 days would be assessed as 30,000 additional days out of service.

      Example 2: A performance measure with 500 annual work orders and a proposed performance standard change from 4 days to 6 days would be assessed as 1,000 additional days out of service.
    2. It is expected that offerors' proposed reduced performance measures from CLIN 0014 will negatively affect offerors' technical scores and positively affect cost/price scores. DDOT will rate offerors who elect to propose CLIN 0014 modified performance measures proposals both with and without the modified performance measures. During the Technical Evaluation phase reviewers will deduct no more than 5 points for acceptable modifications to the performance measures.

      Example 1: Offeror A's proposal scores 55 points during the technical evaluation and 26 points during the cost/price evaluation (81 points total). Incorporating Offeror A's CLIN 0014 proposed modifications to the performance standards the proposal scores 50 points during the technical evaluation and 28 points during cost/price evaluation (78) points total. In this situation, DDOT will consider only Offeror A's proposal WITHOUT the CLIN 0014 proposed modifications to the performance standards for award.

      Example 2: Offeror B's proposal scores 55 points during the technical evaluation and 21 points during the cost/price evaluation (76 points total). Incorporating Offeror B's CLIN 0014 proposed modifications to the performance standards the proposal scores 53 points during the technical evaluation and 27 points during cost/price evaluation (80) points total. In this situation, DDOT will consider only Offeror A's proposal WITH the CLIN 0014 proposed modifications to the performance standards for award.
M.4.2 STAFFING/ MANAGEMENT/ QC/QA/ PAST PERFORMANCE (40 Points)

Note - Subcategories are listing in descending order of importance.

  1. Past Performance
    1. The extent to which the Prime Contractor's and subcontractor's experience and past performance on asset preservation, maintenance, and management contracts of comparable size demonstrates a likelihood of successfully performing all of the tasks set forth in the RFP.
    2. The relevancy of the past performance management experience examples provided by the Offeror.
    3. The quality of references provided by the identified contact personnel.
    4. The extent to which personnel from the referenced projects are proposed on this project.
  2. Staffing
    1. The adequacy and relevance of the qualifications and experience of the proposed program manager.
    2. The qualifications and experience of key personnel by task area, for the proposed Prime Contractor and the subcontractors, related to rehabilitation and maintenance of the lighting assets referenced in the RFP.
    3. The extent to which key and non-key personnel are available for the term of the proposed contract.
    4. The adequacy of the Offeror's plan to ensure adequate training and understanding of requirements.
    5. The extent to which certified disadvantaged business enterprises are represented.
  3. Management
    1. The extent to which the Prime Contractor's management plan demonstrates the ability to maintain and preserve lighting assets in compliance with the performance standards set forth in the RFP.
    2. The extent to which the Prime Contractor's management plan demonstrates the ability to effectively manage the proposed subcontractors.
    3. The extent to which the management plan demonstrates the ability to control prices and reduce financial risks to the government.
    4. The extent to which the management plan demonstrates an adequate approach for ensuring the availability of staff and resources, over the term of the contract, for routine and emergency/fast response activities.
    5. The extent to which the management plan demonstrates a process that will ensure availability of materials, the adequacy of the specified amount of materials that the Offeror proposes to keep on hand, and a demonstrated knowledge of lighting material supply times.
    6. The extent to which the management plan demonstrates an understanding of the need for a good management relationship with PEPCO.
    7. The extent to which the management plan demonstrates a good working relationship with PEPCO.
    8. he extent to which the management plan demonstrates a proactive management approach.
    9. The adequacy of the Offeror's ability to attend project meetings on short notice.
  4. Quality Control/Quality Assurance
    1. The extent to which the Prime Contractor's quality control/quality assurance plan is likely to ensure that all tasks meet the performance standards set forth in the RFP, including tasks performed by the subcontractors.
    2. The extent to which the Prime Contractor's quality control/quality assurance plan represents a proactive approach that will identify needs in a timely manner.
    3. The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for ensuring quality work.
    4. The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for ensuring that equipment remains in good working order.
    5. The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for ensuring that materials meet specifications and are readily available.
  5. Facilities
    1. The extent to which the proposed Prime Contractor's and major subcontractor's facilities, equipment and materials demonstrate a likelihood of successfully performing all of the tasks set forth in the RFP. The District will perform a physical inspection of proposed facilities.
M.4.3PRICE CRITERIA (30 Points)

Price evaluation will be conducted in two stages (see Appendix X). In the first stage, price evaluations for Proposals responding to Ward-based Approach and Proposals for Innovative Approach will be conducted within each approach. The Offeror with the lowest cost/price within each approach will receive the maximum price points (30 points). All other proposals will receive a proportionately lower total score. A proposal with the highest score is selected from within each Approach.

For the second stage, cost/price evaluation will be conducted for the Ward-Based and Innovative proposals with the highest total score. The Ward-based proposal's price will include DDOT's projected energy bill. The Innovative proposal's price will include the energy bill proposed by the Offeror. Price proposed by Offerors is evaluated by deducting the cost savings from the price proposed under Ward-based CLINs 0001-0009 plus Batch CLINs 0011-0013, or Innovative CLIN0010 plus Batch CLINs 0011-0013.

A maximum of 30 points will be added to the proposal with the lowest combined price and proportional score for the proposal with the higher price. The price score is added to each proposal's subtotal score of Technical/Innovative and Staffing/Management/Past Performance score. The proposal with the highest combined score will be considered to provide the best-value to DDOT.

M.4.4 TOTAL (100 Points)

F. Reporting

The District's alternative contracting practice for the lighting asset management program will be evaluated of its identifiable effects on the program as well as the contracting and program management aspects. The evaluation result will be summarized in three reports: Initial, Intermediate, and Final Reports.

  • The initial report will be prepared approximately at the time of the contract award. Industry reaction to the innovative contracting and any identifiable effects on the offer received are the components of the initial report.
  • Intermediate report will be prepared during the Option Year 2. The report will discuss the effects on work performance, cost (intermediate results), monitoring, quality, completion time, claims and other contract administrative or legal issues. Problems and the solutions identified should also be documented.
  • The final report will be prepared upon completion of the project, and shall contain an overall evaluation of the innovation. Lessons learned, overall improvements in the cost and maintenance practices, adverse impacts if identified, and suggestions for improvements for the future innovative contracting will be the major components of the final report.

Contact

Jerry Yakowenko
Office of Program Administration
202-366-1562
E-mail Jerry

 
 
Updated: 07/19/2011
 

FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration