District of Columbia Department of Transportation
Traffic Services Administration
Lighting Asset Management Program
The District of Columbia Department of Transportation Traffic Services Administration (DDOT/TSA) 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 innovative contracting practices. DDOT/TSA has traditionally used a Low Bid method for their lighting projects. However, with this effort, DDOT/TSA is moving to a performance-based asset management approach, and feels that the low bid process will not provide adequate information on the Offerors' qualifications or provide a measure of the adequacy of how the Offeror plans to accomplish the work. DDOT/TSA will manage this project including the Request for Proposals (RFP), advertising, awarding and performing performance measurement and project monitoring.
Under this effort, DDOT/TSA intends to enter into a performance-based contract to obtain asset management services to rehabilitate and maintain specific lighting assets within the District of Columbia.
Through this contract, a private firm will assume the responsibility for managing lighting assets along all of DDOT/TSA's alleys, streets, highways, underpasses, tunnels, bridges (including navigation lights), overhead guide signs, and Welcome to Washington signs. A number of miscellaneous lighting systems and the electrical control systems for the Douglass Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge are also included.
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/TSA now wishes to extend that concept to its lighting services throughout the entire District. Historically, these services have been covered by a number of separate contracts covering the different types of lighting work, with DDOT/TSA acting as the asset manager. Under this new contract, a number of the individual contracts will be merged into one, with the successful Contractor acting as the asset manager under DDOT/TSA supervision.
Since this project will hand over the management of the lighting assets to a private contractor, it is essential that DDOT/TSA choose the best value available to them, not just the lowest price. The safety of the residents depends on a reliable, functioning lighting system, so DDOT will need to be comfortable with the Offeror's technical approach, management plan, staffing plan, QC/QA plan, past performance and facilities as well as their price. Thus, DDOT/TSA proposes to use a Best Value award for the project.
Through this contract, a private firm will assume the responsibility for managing lighting assets along all of DDOT's alleys, streets, highways, underpasses, tunnels, bridges (including navigation lights), overhead guide signs, and Welcome to Washington signs. A number of miscellaneous lighting systems and the electrical control systems for the Douglass Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge are also included.
The activities required under this contract include:
- Regularly monitoring and recording 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 the condition of, exercising, repairing and maintaining the electrical control systems for the Douglass Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
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, however, 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.2
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/TSA standards.
The goal is to advertise the RFP within the next month, with proposals due 45 days after advertisement. It is DDOT/TSA's intent to award the contract by January 2005. The project will run for up to 5 years, with a guaranteed 2-year base period and 3 option years.
The Best Value selection process will have the following stages:
- DDOT/TSA will advertise the RFP;
- DDOT/TSA 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/TSA may negotiate with technically acceptable offerors in the competitive range (total score greater than 70) and request a Best and Final Offer.
- DDOT/TSA will execute a contract with the Best Value Offeror (highest total score of technically acceptable Offerors) and issue a notice-to-proceed. However, if the parties are unable to execute a contract, DDOT/TSA may offer the contract to the Offeror with the second highest total score.
E. Proposal Evaluation
DDOT/TSA will use the best value selection procedure laid out in the RFP (included below). DDOT/TSA 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/TSA, and offers the best value to the District as determined by the total overall score from the evaluation criteria specified below.
M.2 TECHNICAL RATING
The Technical Rating Scale is as follows:
|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 criterion 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/TSA's proposal evaluation panel will find the Offeror to be technically acceptable if its Technical Proposal receives at least 60% of the 20 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/TSA will only evaluate an Offeror's Price Proposal if DDOT/TSA's proposal evaluation panel finds that Offeror to be technically acceptable. DDOT/TSA 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 - (20 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 this RFP. Offerors shall refer to section L.2. 1. of this RFP for instructions regarding the format of technical proposals.
In evaluating proposals, the following criteria will be used:
- 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 A 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
- 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 this RFP. Experience, knowledge, and understanding should be demonstrated in each of the specific task areas identified in Section C of this RFP.
- 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 this RFP.
- 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.
- Experience, knowledge and understanding in using innovative techniques, processes, or materials related to operations and maintenance of the assets referenced in this RFP, including whether the Offeror's potential use of innovation is likely to enhance the ability to meet the performance standards set forth in this RFP.
- The extent to which Offerors demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the type and level of effort necessary to ensure that all assets covered by this RFP meet the performance standards as quickly as possible, preferably within the first year of performance.
- The extent to which Offeror's Traffic Control Plan demonstrates experience in controlling traffic in a busy urban environment.
- The extent to which the Offeror has presented an adequate plan for keeping an adequate supply of materials.
- The extent to which Offerors demonstrate the ability to respond to emergency maintenance repairs.
- The extent to which assumptions and deviations made by the Offeror threaten the probability of success of the contract.
- The extent to which Offerors have provided high probability for success proposals for resolving any technical uncertainties that they raised.
M.4.2 STAFFING/ MANAGEMENT/ QC/QA/ PAST PERFORMANCE (40 Points)
Note - Subcategories are listing in descending order of importance.
- Past Performance
- 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 this RFP.
- The relevancy of the past performance management experience examples provided by the Offeror
- The quality of references provided by the identified contact personnel.
- The extent to which personnel from the referenced projects are proposed on this project.
- The adequacy and relevance of the qualifications and experience of the proposed program manager.
- 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 this RFP.
- The extent to which key and non-key personnel are available for the term of the proposed contract.
- The adequacy of the Offeror's plan to ensure adequate training and understanding of requirements.
- The extent to which certified disadvantaged business enterprises are represented.
- 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 this RFP.
- The extent to which the Prime Contractor's management plan demonstrates the ability to effectively manage the proposed subcontractors.
- The extent to which the management plan demonstrates the ability to control prices and reduce financial risks to the government.
- 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.
- 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.
- The extent to which the management plan demonstrates an understanding of the need for a good management relationship with PEPCO.
- The extent to which the management plan demonstrates a good working relationship with PEPCO.
- The extent to which the management plan demonstrates a proactive management approach.
- The adequacy of the Offeror's ability to attend project meetings on short notice.
- Quality Control/Quality Assurance
- 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 this RFP, including tasks performed by the subcontractors.
- 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.
- The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for ensuring quality work.
- The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for ensuring that equipment remains in good working order.
- The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for ensuring that materials meet specifications and are readily available.
- 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 this RFP. The District will perform a physical inspection of proposed facilities.
M.4.3 PRICE CRITERIA (40 Points)
The price evaluation will be objective. The Offeror with the lowest cost/price will receive the maximum price points. All other proposals will receive a proportionately lower total score. The following formula will be used to determine each Offeror's evaluated cost/price score: Lowest cost/price proposal x weight= evaluated cost/price score cost/price of proposal being evaluated
M.4.4 TOTAL (100 Points)
DDOT/TSA will prepare and submit initial, interim, and final reports on this project. The initial report will be prepared at the approximate time of award of the contract. The initial report will include industry reaction to the Best Value award process, any identifiable effects on the proposals received, and a summary of the Offeror's scores.
DDOT/TSA will submit an interim report at the end of the 2-year base period of the project.
DDOT/TSA will submit a final report upon completion of the contract and final DDOT/TSA acceptance. The final report will contain an overall evaluation of the project along with any suggestions and recommendations for improving the process.