Evaluation of Proposals - Contract No. TRN-3681 Part 1 - Technical Proposal Evaluation - Detailed Sub-Criteria Sub-Part A&B A.1 A.2 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 Description Maximum Score Comment 60 Main Criterion Proposed Vehicle 80 80 30 30 30 30 40 80 40 40 40 80 600 60 General Description System Requirements Carbody and Couplers Operator's Cab Doors and Bridgeplates HVAC and Lighting Auxiliary Electric Propulsion and Braking Trucks Communication Electronic Controls and Software Onboard Energy Storage System Sub-Total, Sub-Part A & B Total Points, Sub-Part A & B C Management Approach and Schedule C.1 C.2 C.3 10 Management Approach & Org Charts Manufacturing & Test Plans Schedule and Schedule Assurance Sub-Total, Sub-Part C Total Points, Sub-Part C D & D1 D.1 D1.1 System Support Plan Sub-Total, Sub-Part D & D1 Total Points, Sub-Part D & D1 E Qualifications, Experience, and References E.1 E.2 E.3 Sub-Total, Sub-Part E Total Points, Sub-Part E F Ability to conform to Buy America F.1 F.2 Main Criterion Sub-criteria to be rated and scored 10 sub-points = 1 Point Total of sub-points Total Points = Total of sub-points / 10 50 50 100 10 Main Criterion Sub-criteria to be rated and scored 10 sub-points = 1 Point Total of sub-points Total Points = Total of sub-points / 10 10 Capacity & Past Performance Staff Commitment References Main Criterion 50 20 30 100 10 Sub-criteria to be rated and scored 10 sub-points = 1 Point Total of sub-points Total Points = Total of sub-points / 10 70 30 100 10 Main Criterion Sub-criteria to be rated and scored 10 sub-points = 1 Point Total of sub-points Total Points = Total of sub-points / 10 10 Plan to meet component cost requirement Final Assembly Plan Sub-Total, Sub-Part F Total Points Sub-Part F Technical Score Total of sub-points Total Points = Total of sub-points / 10 40 30 30 100 10 10 System Support Plan Onsite Inspection of Assembly Facility Sub-criteria to be rated and scored 10 sub-points = 1 Point 100 Page 1 SDOT 05_03.xls Each sub-criterion will be evaluated according to the rating system outlined below: Rating Description Scoring Guideline Superior The subsection of the proposal demonstrates an approach that is considered to significantly exceed the RFP requirements/objectives in several beneficial ways (providing advantages, benefits, or added value to the Project), and provides a consistently outstanding level of quality. The subsection of the proposal has significant strengths, and few, if any, minor weaknesses, with very little or no associated risk 90% – 100% Excellent The subsection of the proposal demonstrates an approach that is considered to exceed the RFP requirements/objectives in a beneficial way (providing advantages, benefits, or added value to the Project) and offers a very good level of quality. This subsection of the proposal has significant strengths, and only minor weaknesses, with little risk. Strengths/benefits significantly outweigh weaknesses/risks 80% - 90% The subsection of the proposal demonstrates an approach that is considered to meet the RFP requirements/objectives and offers a good level of quality. This subsection of the proposal has good strengths, and may have some weaknesses and minor associated risk. Strengths/ benefits outweigh weaknesses/risks 70% - 80% Average The subsection of the proposal is considered acceptable overall, but may be lacking full evidence of meeting the criteria in terms of the basic content and/or amount of information provided for evaluation. The subsection of the proposal contains minor strengths as well as minor weaknesses or deficiencies, and may have some associated risk. Strengths/benefits equal weaknesses/risks 50% - 70% Below Average The subsection of the proposal is considered acceptable overall, but may be lacking full evidence of meeting the criteria in terms of the basic content and/or amount of information provided for evaluation. The subsection of the proposal contains minor strengths as well as minor weaknesses or deficiencies, and may have some associated risk. Weaknesses/risks outweigh strengths/benefits. 30% - 50% Good Deficient The subsection of the proposal does not meet some aspects of the RFP requirements, and offers an insufficient level of quality. The subsection of the proposal has major weaknesses or deficiencies, few strengths and substantial associated risk. < 30% Evaluation of BAFO Proposals - Contract No. TRN-3681 Part 1 - Technical Proposal Evaluation Details Sub-Part A&B A.1 A.2 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 Description Proposed Vehicle Maximum Score Brookville CAF Inekon 60 31.3 49.7 35.8 80 80 30 30 30 30 40 80 40 40 40 80 600 60 General Description System Requirements Carbody and Couplers Operator's Cab Doors and Bridgeplates HVAC and Lighting Auxiliary Electric Propulsion and Braking Trucks Communication Electronic Controls and Software Onboard Energy Storage System Sub-Total, Sub-Part A & B Total Points, Sub-Part A & B C Management Approach and Schedule C.1 C.2 C.3 10 Sub-Total, Sub-Part C Total Points, Sub-Part C D & D1 D.1 D1.1 System Support Plan 10 Sub-Total, Sub-Part D & D1 Total Points, Sub-Part D & D1 E Qualifications, Experience, and References E.1 E.2 E.3 10 Sub-Total, Sub-Part E Total Points, Sub-Part E 0 F Ability to conform to Buy America F.1 F.2 10 Technical Score 100 5.1 35 26 25 86 8.6 75 7.5 5.2 44 40 84 8.4 3.9 40 15 23 78 7.8 5.1 56 27 83 8.3 82.8 Page 3 15 12 12 39 3.9 8.3 55 22 77 7.7 61 27 25 52 5.2 7.8 38 15 22 75 7.5 20 15 16 51 5.1 8.4 35 40 7.7 70 30 100 10 Plan to meet component cost requirement Final Assembly Plan Sub-Total, Sub-Part F Total Points Sub-Part F 70 7 48 52 18 22 22 20 28 42 21 30 30 25 358 35.8 8.6 28 20 22 7.5 50 20 30 100 10 0 Capacity & Past Performance Staff Commitment References 70 70 25 22 25 24 32 64 31 34 35 65 497 49.7 7.5 50 50 100 10 System Support Plan Onsite Inspection of Assembly Facility 313 31.3 7 40 30 30 100 10 Management Approach & Org Charts Manufacturing & Test Plans Schedule and Schedule Assurance 42 40 22 20 15 20 10 40 24 24 20 36 Comments 30 21 51 5.1 55.1 SDOT 05_03 Letter Score Deficient 0% - 30% Below Average 30% - 50% Average 50% - 70% Good 70% - 80% Excellent 80% - 90% Superior 90% - 100% Points 20 0 - 6 6 - 10 10 - 14 14 - 16 16 - 18 18 - 20 30 0 - 9 9 - 15 15 - 21 21 - 24 24 - 27 27 - 30 40 0 - 12 12 - 20 20 - 28 28 - 32 32 - 36 36 - 40 50 0 - 15 15 - 25 25 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 80 0 - 24 24 - 40 40 - 56 56 - 64 64 - 72 72 - 80 Part 2 - Price BAFO Proposal Evaluation Details Sub-Part A Description Price Score Proposed Base Contract Price Proposed Price for Proposal Evaluation Lowest Proposed Price Sub-Total Part 2 Maximum Score 100 Brookville 98.9 $49,923,951.00 $71,629,952.00 CAF 87.8 $52,189,395.00 $79,471,752.00 Inekon 100.0 $49,530,000.00 $70,834,152.00 Lowest Price receives 100 Points. Higher prices pro-rated $70,834,152.00 100 98.9 87.8 100.0 Maximum Score 100 100 Brookville 61 98.9 CAF 82.8 87.8 Inekon 55.1 100.0 200 159.9 170.6 155.1 Summary Part 1 2 Description Technical Proposal Price Proposal GRAND TOTAL Page 5 SDOT 05_03.xls Evaluation of BAFOs - RFP No. TRN-3681 Proposer: Brookville Technical Proposal Evaluation Details Sub-Part A&B C Description Proposed Vehicle Maximum Score Original Score BAFO Score 60 30.5 31.3 A.1 General Description 80 42 42 Low passenger capacity (99@AW2); high car weight; low ceiling height in high floor; longitudinal seating; no end door; dynamic envelope provided, but different parameters than spec. A A.2 System Requirements 80 40 40 Brake rates in MB & EB still below spec; still no detailed performance simulations( graph!) provided; adequate service proven history (few cars). BA+ A.4 Carbody and Couplers 30 22 22 Carshell: not much details provided; re-design for bridgeplate cutout required; no hinged skirts. Coupler ok. G- A.5 Operator's Cab 30 20 20 No floor area plan or dimensioned elevation drawings provided; very wide A-pillar (sight issues for operator). A+ A.6 Doors and Bridgeplates 30 15 15 Doors: adequate info provided, good door system. proposer has never used a bridgeplate; requires removal of top plate to manually extend. A A.7 HVAC and Lighting 30 20 20 Lighting ok; HVAC vendor ok; ducting arrangement unclear; A+ A.8 Auxiliary Electric 40 10 10 No redundant auxiliary power; requires speed restriction if one unit fails. Number of minor noncompliance issues. A- A.9 Propulsion and Braking 80 40 40 Lacking propulsion system diagnostics; EMI control section largely a repeat of specs, very little information provided; PLC propulsion controller; no split disc; A- A.10 Trucks 40 24 24 Truck changed to spring suspension, but absolutely no information provided. A A.11 Communication 40 24 24 Init Passenger Counters provided; AVL unit not as specified, but supposedly compatible. No discussion of wifi capability. A A.12 Electronic Controls and Software 40 18 20 Still no network topology provided; confusing description of bus arrangement; state that discrete hardwired trainlines will be provided. A- A.13 Onboard Energy Storage System 80 30 36 Acceleration for loaded car slightly below spec requirements; some info still missing. A 7 7 Management Approach and Schedule 10 C.1 Management Approach & Org Charts 40 28 28 Adequate discussion of management plan; no subs in org chart; very little on methods to assure schedule adherence. A+ C.2 Manufacturing & Test Plans 30 20 20 Not much of a manufacturing plan; test plan generally ok, but many exceptions/waivers requested. A C.3 Schedule and Schedule Assurance 30 22 22 Better than required time to delivery of first car; no discussion of schedule adherence.G 7.5 7.5 35 35 Decent QA plan, thin on inspection; very little on incorporation of safety during design; very little on on-site support plan. A+ Ok description, most work performed at one facility in Pennsylvania. G+ D & D1 System Support Plan 10 50 D.1 System Support Plan 50 D1.1 Onsite Inspection of Assembly Facility E Qualifications, Experience, and References 10 40 40 7.5 7.5 E.1 Capacity & Past Performance 50 38 38 Relatively small plant with good history of on-time delivery. No analysis or discussion of capacity provided. G E.2 Staff Commitment 20 15 15 Key people named, % commitment indicated, but concern re overlap with other projects (Tempe!). G- One generally good reference received at time of evaluation. G 30 E.3 References F Comments Ability to conform to Buy America 10 22 22 7.7 7.7 F.1 Plan to meet component cost requirement 70 55 55 Previous audit results show >70%; Component list raises some concerns, indicates high percentage of overseas vendors. G+ F.2 Final Assembly Plan 30 22 22 No detail on final assembly provided, but it appears that all relevant work will be performed in US. G 100 60.2 61 Total Score increased for BAFO Score decreased for BAFO SDOT Confidential Evaluation of BAFOs - RFP No. TRN-3681 Proposer: CAF Technical Proposal Evaluation Details Sub-Part A& B C Description Proposed Vehicle Maximum Score Original Score BAFO Score 60 45.7 49.7 A.1 General Description 80 67 70 High passenegr capacity (120 @ AW2); 100% low floor is a significant benefit; Good weight; Good dynamic envelope info. E+ A.2 System Requirements 80 67 70 Good performance; excellent service proven record (many cars); very good and detailed simulations provided. Updated brake rates. Updated with good OESS performance. E+ A.4 Carbody and Couplers 30 25 25 Superior structure (CEM car); bumper provided to improve crash performance; E- A.5 Operator's Cab 30 22 22 Detailed info and drawings provided; good layout; good visibility. G A.6 Doors and Bridgeplates 30 18 25 Door equipment good; good bridgeplate detail provided, supplier gets good references from Boston. G+ A.7 HVAC and Lighting 30 18 24 Good HVAC units; good info on ducting provided, including cab air; floor heat provided. Lighting good. G+ A.8 Auxiliary Electric 40 29 32 All required info provided; looks mostly good; Still proposing (small) lead-acid battery; Knife switch and HV shop power now provided. G+ A.9 Propulsion and Braking 80 61 64 Very good and detailed info provided. EMI control during design and manufacturing addressed well. G+ A.10 Trucks 40 30 31 Well proven truck, good detail and drawings provided. Potential vulnerability of motor/gearbox to side impact accidents somewhat addressed. G A.11 Communication 40 29 34 Generally good equipment and detail provided. Now proposing LCD interior signs. Good info on wifi downloads included. E A.12 Electronic Controls and Software 40 35 35 Very good network topology, excellent diagnostic system. E A.13 Onboard Energy Storage System 80 56 65 Good and detailed info provided; generally good, performance adapted to meet spec. E- 7.6 8.6 Management Approach and Schedule 10 C.1 Management Approach & Org Charts 40 35 35 Very good management plan, excellent info on design control, including incorporation of safety in design; also excellent discussion on configuration control; Good org charts, including suppliers. E C.2 Manufacturing & Test Plans 30 26 26 Excellent manufacturing plan, addresses material control, QA, design verification, design changes, purchasing, etc. E C.3 Schedule and Schedule Assurance 30 15 25 24 months to delivery of first car, just meets spec. Good discussion on schedule assurance provided. E 7.9 8.4 50 44 44 Excellent detail on all required aspects provided, including: QA & Inspection; Approach to Safety; On-site support; sample plans. E 50 35 40 Good description and process. G 7.8 7.8 D & D1 System Support Plan 10 D.1 System Support Plan D1.1 Onsite Inspection of Assembly Facility E F Comments Qualifications, Experience, and References 10 E.1 Capacity & Past Performance 50 40 40 Excellent and detailed description of capacity. Some delays in past performance. G+ E.2 Staff Commitment 20 15 15 All key staff named, but not all with percentage commitment. G E.3 References 30 23 23 Two references received at time of evaluation. Both good. 8.3 8.3 F.1 Plan to meet component cost requirement Ability to conform to Buy America 70 56 56 Plan to be >70%. Component list shows good understanding of requirements, has been through audits before. G+ F.2 Final Assembly Plan 30 27 27 Very good final assmbly plan, meeting requirements. Has done it before many times. E+ 100 77.3 82.8 Total 10 Score increased for BAFO Score decreased for BAFO SDOT Confidential Evaluation of BAFOs - RFP No. TRN-3681 Proposer: Inekon Technical Proposal Evaluation Details Sub-Part A&B C Description Proposed Vehicle Maximum Score Original Score BAFO Score 60 38.1 35.8 A.1 General Description 80 48 48 Decent passenger capacity (111 @ AW2); ok car weight; no front door provided. A A.2 System Requirements 80 56 52 Generally good performance and service proven history; Good performance simulation. Lack of service proven history for OESS. New issue related to AW4 weight. A A.4 Carbody and Couplers 30 21 18 Generally good carshell and coupler; significant manufacturing issue of C-car was not addressed, though it has been corrected. AW4 weight increase not addressed. G- A.5 Operator's Cab 30 22 22 Generally good layout and equipment, no changes from previous car. G A.6 Doors and Bridgeplates 30 22 22 Generally good equipment proposed, no changes from previous car. G A.7 HVAC and Lighting 30 19 20 HVAC same good equipment as previous car. Now providing LED lighting, but no detail/manufacturer. G- A.8 Auxiliary Electric 40 28 28 Generally good equipment provideded, but did not address how existing issue with low voltage bus will be corrected. A+ A.9 Propulsion and Braking 80 56 42 New traction motor, brake disc, caliper proposed in BAFO Late change without much detail..Complete detail of the original braking was there A- A.10 Trucks 40 24 21 New trucks proposed, reason not entirely clear. Not much detail provided Also, no correction for existing issue with suspension proposed. A- A.11 Communication 40 30 30 Generally good equipment proposed, no changes from previous car. G A.12 Electronic Controls and Software 40 30 30 Good network topology, good diagnostic system. G A.13 Onboard Energy Storage System 80 25 25 New and unproven equipment and supplier proposed; still fairly little detail provided; air cooled batteries cause for concern. BA- 5.1 5.1 Management Approach and Schedule 10 C.1 Management Approach & Org Charts 40 20 20 Little info provided in management plan; weak org charts, PM appears to have little authority, suppliers are not included; A- C.2 Manufacturing & Test Plans 30 15 15 Final assembly at new plant that has never done this before; test plan ok, but little detail provided. A- C.3 Schedule and Schedule Assurance 30 16 16 Adequate schedule, 22 months to delivery of first car. Very little on schedule assurance. A- 5.2 5.2 27 27 QA plan provided, but somewhat unclear/confusing; Very little info on incorporation of safety during design; no onsite support plan provided. A- Very little info provided. A- D & D1 System Support Plan 10 50 D.1 System Support Plan 50 D1.1 Onsite Inspection of Assembly Facility E Qualifications, Experience, and References 10 25 25 3.9 3.9 E.1 Capacity & Past Performance 50 15 15 Plenty of design capacity claimed, as Inekon has no other projects. Raises significant concerns on viability of company and staff retainage. Very little info provided on capacity of plants in Czech Republic or new assmbly plant in US. A- E.2 Staff Commitment 20 12 12 Key people named, most at 100% commitment. Concern re staff retainage. A Two references received aat time of evaluation. One ok, one negative. 30 E.3 References F Comments Ability to conform to Buy America 10 12 12 5.1 5.1 F.1 Plan to meet component cost requirement 70 30 30 Component plan shows that requirements are not ptoperly understood by proposer, some required components are listed as subcomponents of truck. Carshell and other major items manufactured overseas. >70% claimed, but no plan provided how to get there. BA F.2 Final Assembly Plan 30 21 21 Acceptable description of final assembly process provided. Plant has never done this before, some risk. G- 100 57.4 55.1 Total Score increased for BAFO Score decreased for BAFO SDOT Confidential Evaluation of Proposals - RFP No. TRN-3681 Proposer: Technical Proposal Evaluation Details Sub-Part A&B C Description Proposed Vehicle Maximum Score 60 A.1 General Description 80 A.2 System Requirements 80 A.4 Carbody and Couplers 30 A.5 Operator's Cab 30 A.6 Doors and Bridgeplates 30 A.7 HVAC and Lighting 30 A.8 Auxiliary Electric 40 A.9 Propulsion and Braking 80 A.10 Trucks 40 A.11 Communication 40 A.12 Electronic Controls and Software 40 A.13 Onboard Energy Storage System 80 Management Approach and Schedule 10 C.1 Management Approach & Org Charts 40 C.2 Manufacturing & Test Plans 30 C.3 Schedule and Schedule Assurance 30 D & D1 System Support Plan 10 50 D.1 System Support Plan 50 D1.1 Onsite Inspection of Assembly Facility E F SDOT Confidential Qualifications, Experience, and References 10 E.1 Capacity & Past Performance 50 E.2 Staff Commitment 20 E.3 References 30 Ability to conform to Buy America 10 F.1 Plan to meet component cost requirement 70 F.2 Final Assembly Plan 30 Initial Score Comments