Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />having regard for the Project’s size and complexity. Considerations included whether the Respondent <br />identified major management and leadership functional areas in the management structure, whether the <br />Respondent identified critical support elements and relationships between management areas of the Project, whether the Respondent’s Major Participants had previously worked together as an integrated <br />team on comparable projects, whether the proposed organizational structure and approach showed <br />ability to provide value and benefits to the Authority, and the qualifications and experience of the <br />Respondent’s Key Personnel. Organization and Management was worth a maximum 20 points, with <br />classifications of “poor” ranging from 0-6 points, “good” ranging from 7-13 points, and “excellent” ranging from 14-20 points. <br /> <br />2. Technical Experience: The Evaluation Team evaluated each Respondent’s technical <br />experience by considering the extent and depth of the experience of each Respondent with the delivery <br />of comparable projects, both foreign and domestic. Considerations included the Respondent’s and Major Participants’ experience in projects of similar size, nature of works, and conditions, and the <br />Respondent’s and Major Participants’ participation in those projects, the success of delivering those <br />projects, and the date and location of those projects. Technical Experience was worth a maximum of <br />15 points, with classifications of “poor” ranging from 0-5 points, “good” ranging from 6-10 points, and <br />“excellent” ranging from 11-15 points. <br />3. Technical Capability: The Evaluation Team evaluated each Respondent’s technical capability <br />by considering the extent and depth of their capabilities for heavy civil earthwork/earth moving, open <br />channel conveyance, road and railway bridges, geotechnical engineering in the Red River Valley, and <br />hydraulic modeling using HEC-RAS. Technical Capability was worth a maximum of 20 points, with classifications of “poor” ranging from 0-6 points, “good” ranging from 7-13 points, and “excellent” <br />ranging from 14-20 points. <br /> <br />4. Safety: The Evaluation Team evaluated each Respondent’s safety record and commitment to <br />safety by considering the Respondent’s and Major Participants’ insurance Experience Modification Rate (EMR) and occupational health and safety programs. Safety was worth a maximum of 2.5 points, <br />with classifications of “poor” as 0, “good” ranging from 0.5-1.0 points, and “excellent” ranging from <br />1.5-2.5 points. <br /> <br />5. Project Understanding: The Evaluation Team evaluated each Respondent’s project understanding by considering the extent to which a Respondent demonstrated a clear understanding of <br />the Project’s scope and complexity, demonstrated a clear understanding and commitment to the P3 <br />delivery method, and demonstrated an understanding of Project risks and mitigation during all Project <br />phases. Project Understanding was worth a maximum of 12.5 points, with classifications of “poor” <br />ranging from 0-3.5 points, “good” ranging from 4.0-8.0 points, and “excellent” ranging from 8.5-12.5 points. <br /> <br />6. Financing Experience: The Evaluation Team evaluated the financing experience for each <br />Respondent’s Equity Members by considering the extent and depth of the Equity Members’ experience <br />investing equity and structuring financing sources to obtain firm financing commitments for proposals for, and achieving financial close on, similar projects using a diverse range of financial products, the <br />Equity Members’ experience as equity members in successfully bringing comparable projects through <br />construction completion, and the Equity Members’ track record of submitting proposals on projects for <br />which they have been short-listed. Financing Experience was worth a maximum of 20 points, with