Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 17-2. Example of the adjusted bid award algorithm
Proposer
Price Proposal
Adjusted Bid
Team A
$1,000,000
$1,000,000/0.85 = $1,176,471
Team B
$1,300,000
$1,300,000/0.95 = $1,368,421
Team C
$800,000
$800,000/0.50 = $1,600,000
Table 17-3. Example of adjusted score award algorithm
Technical
Score
(out of 100)
Adjusted Score
(Owner's price = $10,000,000)
Proposer
Price Proposal
Team A
93
$10,940,000
(93 x $10,000,000)/$10,940,000 = 85
Team B
89
$9,870,000
(89 x $10,000,000)/$9,870,000 = 90
Team C
82
$8,700,000
(82 x $10,000,000)/$8,700,000 = 94
Table 17-4. Weighted criteria award algorithm
Technical Score
(out of 60
points)
Price Proposal
(out of 40 points)
Total Score
(out of 100 points)
Proposer
Team A
51
($1,000,000 x 40)/$1,200,000 = 33
51+33 = 84
Team B
53
($1,000,000 x 40)/$1,250,000 = 32
53+32 = 85
Team C
44
($1,000,000 x 40)/$1,100,000 = 36
44+36 = 80
opened and the weighting is applied. A simple example of the weighted criteria approach
is shown in Table 17-4, where technical proposals have a weight of 60 percent and price
proposals have a weight of 40 percent. The award goes to the DB team with the highest
total points (i.e., Team B in Table 17-4).
Quantitative Cost-Technical Tradeoff
The
quantitative cost-technical tradeoff
method requires the owner to determine how
much more one increment of a technical score is worth. This system also requires that
technical proposals be rated using direct point scoring or adjectival ratings with the rat-
ings converted to numbers. The proposals are ranked from low price to high price and
then compared based on the incremental cost increase between one proposal and the next
along with the corresponding technical score increase. The award is made to the DB team
with the lowest price unless a higher price can be justified through a higher technical
score increment (see Table 17-5).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search