Attachment C

Evaluation criteria

The overall objective of the university is to obtain functional office space for approximately 200 employees on the Laboratory campus at an overall cost that does not exceed the cost for comparable space in the market area (Berkeley/Oakland).

Features, Attributes and Affordability
Performance features are the elements that the university believes will contribute to attainment of the university's objectives. Attributes are elements that the university believes will contribute to the Offeror's successful performance of the proposed project. An Offeror is not solely limited to discussion of the features and attributes listed. An Offeror may propose other features or attributes if the Offeror believes they may be of value to the university; and the university may, at its sole discretion, choose to consider these features or attributes in its evaluation. Affordability is the university's assessment of the price/probable cost relative to the perceived value offered in the proposal.

Basis for Selection
The university intends to select the Offeror whose proposal contains the combination of features, attributes and affordability offering the best overall value to the university. The university will determine the best overall value by comparing differences in performance features and supplier attributes offered with differences in affordability, striking the most advantageous balance between expected performance features and supplier attributes in enhancing the likeliness of successful performance or otherwise best achieving the university's objective. The university may select the Offeror whose proposal is considered to offer the best overall value compared to proposals with either higher or lower prices/probable costs.

The university reserves the right to solicit relevant information from any available sources concerning an Offeror' business operations, past experience and performance, and proposed financial approach, and to use this information in the evaluation of Proposals.

Proposals should address, as a minimum, the following elements. The university's evaluation of proposals will not be limited to the criteria listed:

The university encourages Proposals that will provide the lowest life-cycle cost per net Useable Area square foot while minimizing risk to the university. The university will evaluate the following in determining the price/probable cost for each Proposal:

  • Rent at or below market taking into consideration the $1.00 per year cost of the Ground Lease, and lowest life-cycle cost per net Usable Area square foot for the initial term (and all potential renewals under the Rental Agreement).
  • Initial Rent (first year of occupancy) for the modified net lease per useable square foot.
  • Escalation rate for the rent.
  • Definition of shell space (Shell Space and Tenant Improvements)
  • Alternate and innovative approaches to the lease and other terms and conditions that will result in the lowest financial cost for the project and the lowest risk to the university.
  • Estimated operating costs.

Developer attributes

Financial Feasibility:
The Offeror must provide convincing evidence of its ability to obtain financial backing sufficient to design, construct, maintain and manage the property for the term of the Ground Lease. The university will evaluate the following:

  • Financing plan including equity and debt sources and confirmation of availability of each
  • Financial pro forma detailing loan repayment and coverage and return on equity at the project cost.
  • Statement of Business plan to release property in the event the university does not renew any of its options.
  • Lender's "Commitment Letter" indicating that the lender has reviewed the RFP (particularly Principal Terms of Ground Lease sheet) and the Developer's proposal and is prepared to make a loan on the project consistent with the terms contained in the proposal.

Experience of the Developer and the Members of the Development Team:
The Offeror must provide convincing evidence that all team members have sufficient understanding and experience with similar projects to be able to manage the project in the initial stages and throughout the term of the relationship. The university will evaluate the following:

  • Composition and structure of the proposed team including key personnel.
  • Past working experience between entities comprising the Developer's team.
  • Evidence of technical competence and past performance in designing, financing, constructing and leasing similar projects.
  • Experience in development of projects involving private/public partnerships.
  • Environmental, safety and health record.

Administrative Approach:
The Offeror must provide a detailed explanation of its approach to management of this project in all its stages. The university will evaluate the following:

  • Approach to project management.
  • Approach to the development and selection of an architectural and engineering team and to interfaces with the university during design.
  • Approach to construction management including those activities necessary to verify compliance with design documents and approach for health, safety, and environmental control during construction and commissioning.
  • Approach to management and operation of the completed building after occupancy.

Performance features

Space Efficiency of the Office Building and Use of the Site:
The Offeror must provide detailed information addressing the use of space within the building and use of the building site, as provided in the Proposal Instructions. The university will evaluate the following:

  • Approach to efficient layouts that meet the technical requirements for space, included in Appendix A, and how well the environment will encourage and promote interaction and collaboration among the occupants.
  • Approach to building access and functional interaction between the Office Building and the adjacent environment and facilities.

Appearance and Quality:
The Offeror must provide design information as described in the Proposal Instructions. The university will evaluate the following:

  • Aesthetically pleasing and professional appearance of the Office Building and landscape design.
  • Compatibility between Office Building and existing adjacent facilities.
  • Quality of proposed materials and estimated economic life of the Project.
  • Building functionality and responsiveness to the technical and performance specifications set forth in Appendix A attached hereto.
  • Capability of obtaining Leadership in Energy and Environmental design (LEED) Silver Certification or better, and of meeting or exceeding the energy efficiency goal of 30% less consumption than allowable by California Title 24.