SECTION 3 PROCUREMENT PROCESS
3.1. General Information
3.1.1. Compliance with Legal Requirements
This Procurement will be conducted in accordance with RCW 39.10.330 and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, and Owner policies and procedures.
3.1.2. Conflict of Interest and Communications with the Owner
The Owner may make a written determination to waive a potential conflict of interest if the following apply:
- The role of the Consultant was limited to provision of preliminary design, reports, or similar “low level” documents that will be incorporated into the Procurement and did not include assistance in development of instructions to Proposers or evaluation criteria, or
- Where all documents and reports delivered to the Owner by the Consultant are made available to all Proposers.
- Proposers are required to conduct the preparation of their SOQs with professional integrity and free of lobbying activities. Communication with the Owner regarding this Project shall be via email or regular mail only and directed to the following Owner’s Representative, Sherrie Montgomery.
- Do not communicate about the Project or the Procurement with any other Owner employees, representatives, or consultants. Communication with other Owner employees, representatives, or consultants regarding the Procurement may cause the firm involved to be disqualified from submitting under this Procurement. Any verified allegation that a responding Proposer or Team Member or an agent or consultant of the foregoing has made such contact or attempted to influence the evaluation, scoring, and/or selection of Finalists may be the cause for Owner to disqualify the Proposer team from submitting an SOQ or Proposal, to disqualify the Team Member from participating in the Procurement and/or to discontinue any further consideration of such Proposer or Team Member.
- Following the Owner’s approval of the Finalists, the Owner anticipates that certain communications and contacts will be permitted. The RFQ, RFP and/or other written communications from Owner will set forth the rules and parameters of such permitted contacts and communications. To the extent any Proposer intends at any time to initiate contact with the general public regarding the Project, the nature of such intended contact and the substance thereof must be approved in writing by Owner prior to the commencement of such activities.
3.1.3. Expenses of Proposer and Payment of Honorarium
With the exception of the payment of the Honorarium as noted below, the Owner accepts
no liability for the costs and expenses incurred by firms in responding to this Procurement.
Each Proposer that enters into the Procurement process shall prepare the required
materials, the SOQ, and the Proposal at its own expense and with the express
understanding that the Proposer cannot make any claims whatsoever for reimbursement
from the Owner for the costs and expenses associated with the process even in the event
the Owner cancels this Project or rejects all Proposals. The Owner will pay an Honorarium
in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) to the responsible Finalists submitting
responsive Proposals to the RFP that remain in competition until the point of Contract
award but who are not awarded the Design-Build Contract.
3.1.4. Public Disclosure
All documentation and submittals provided to the Owner may be considered public documents under applicable laws and may be subject to disclosure. Proposers recognize and agree that the Owner will not be responsible or liable in any way for any losses that the Proposer may suffer from the lawful disclosure of information or materials to third
Any materials requested to be treated as confidential documents, proprietary information, or trade secrets must be clearly identified and readily separable from the balance of the SOQ or Proposal.
Such designations will not necessarily be conclusive, and Proposers may be required to legally justify why such material should not, upon written request, be disclosed by the Owner under the applicable public records act. The Owner will endeavor to provide at least two (2) Business Days’ notice of a public records request for material submitted pursuant to this Procurement. Proposers must respond to the notice in writing with any objection to the production of the documents within two (2) Business Days of receipt of the notice. The Proposers may be required to ask a superior court of appropriate jurisdiction to prevent the inspection or release of records. All costs incurred by Proposers associated with any public records request are the responsibility of the Proposers.
3.1.5. Protest Procedures
The protest procedures applicable to the Procurement are set forth in Exhibit B to this RFQ.
3.2. Owner Rights and Procurement Conditions
3.2.1. The Owner reserves without limitation and may exercise at its sole discretion, the following
rights and conditions with regard to this Procurement process:
- To cancel the Procurement process and reject any and all SOQs and/or Proposals;
- To waive any informality or irregularity;
- To revise the Procurement Documents and schedule via an addendum;
- To reject any Proposer that submits an incomplete or inadequate response or is not responsive to the requirements of this RFQ;
- To require confirmation of information furnished by an Proposer, require additional information from an Proposer concerning its SOQ or Proposal and require additional evidence of qualifications to perform the work described in this RFQ or a subsequent RFP;
- To provide clarifications or conduct discussions, at any time, with one or more Proposers;
- To contact references that are not listed in the Proposer’s SOQs and investigate statements on the SOQs and/or qualification of the Proposer and any firms or individuals identified in the SOQ;
- To take any action affecting the RFQ process, the RFP process, or the Project that is determined to be in the Owner’s best interests;
- To utilize information from any source, including but not limited to references and individuals who are not identified by the Proposer and/or Finalist, to evaluate Proposers and Finalists; and
- Approve or disapprove of the use of particular Subconsultants, Subcontractors, or Key Team Members and/or substitutions and/or changes to Subconsultants, Subcontractors, or Key Team Members from those identified in the SOQ or Proposal, such approval or disapproval shall not be unreasonably exercised.
3.3. Outline of the Procurement Process
3.3.1. Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
- This RFQ invites firms to submit SOQs describing in detail their technical, management, and financial qualifications to design, permit, construct, commission, and closeout the Project. The issuance of this RFQ is the first phase of the Procurement Process.
- Proposers will submit their SOQ, and other deliverables required pursuant to this Procurement at the time and in the manner set forth in this RFQ and any addenda. The Owner will not consider SOQ or other deliverables that are submitted after the time set forth in the RFQ. Proposers are solely responsible for making sure that the Owner receives the SOQ in a timely fashion.
- The Owner will evaluate the information submitted by each Proposer to 1) determine whether the Proposer meets the mandatory minimum requirements and 2) evaluate the SOQ provided by each Proposer pursuant to the evaluation system described below. Any Proposer who fails to meet the mandatory minimum requirements set forth in this SOQ will be deemed non-responsive and will not be considered further by the Owner in this Procurement.
- All SOQ will be evaluated in accordance solely with the criteria established in the RFQ and any addenda issued thereto. The evaluation criteria are listed below, including the relative weight or importance given to each criterion.
- Not more than three responsive and responsible firms will be selected as Finalists. Only those firms that have been short-listed will be invited to submit a Proposal in response to the RFP.
- The results of the SOQ evaluations will be carried forward and included in the final evaluation and selection.
- Design-Build Team Members and individual Key Team Members will be used as a basis for selection. Once shortlisted, neither the Proposer nor Team Members that are submitted to the Owner as part of the SOQ or Proposal may substitute a listed consultant, subconsultant or subcontractor, or any individual listed as a Key Team Member; however, a change to any submitted Team Member or Key Team Member will result in re-evaluation and may result in a change to the evaluation and scoring of the Proposer.
3.3.2. Request for Proposal (RFP), Confidential Individual Meetings & Selection Process
- The Owner will issue the RFP to the Finalists. The RFP will further explain the evaluation criteria, Proprietary Meetings, and other elements of the RFP process.
- Prior to the submission date for Proposals, written questions will be accepted as defined in the RFP.
- The Owner will conduct an optional site walk for the Finalists. The Owner will provide video and photographs of the site as well.
- The Owner will conduct Confidential Individual Meetings with each Finalist. The first Confidential Individual Meeting will be an Interactive Proprietary Meeting that will occur prior to the submission of the Proposals and will allow the Owner to evaluate the Finalists’ ability to collaborate with the Owner’s team and to allow the Finalists to ask the Owner questions regarding the Project and the Owner’s goals and concerns. The second Confidential Individual Meeting is optional and, if WWU determines it is necessary, will be an Interview after the submission of the Proposals and will allow the Owner to ask questions regarding the Design-Build Team’s Proposal. The Confidential Individual Meetings will be further described in the RFP. All information from the Design-Build Teams provided in the Confidential Individual Meetings will remain confidential during the procurement process; however, see Section 3.15 with respect to the potential public disclosure of information provided during the procurement pursuant to any applicable public records act. The Proprietary meetings will also provide an opportunity for direct interaction between the Finalist and the RFP Evaluation Committee.
- A Finalist may submit suggested proposed changes to the contract provisions no later than the date set forth in the Procurement Schedule. The Owner, at its sole discretion, may revise the RFP, the contract provisions and/or program documents and issue an addendum to all Finalists.
- Finalists will submit a Technical Proposal and Price Proposal in accordance with the Procurement schedule.
- The Price Proposal will be submitted in a separate, distinctly marked and sealed envelope from the Technical Proposal.
- The Owner will establish an RFP Evaluation Committee to review and evaluate the Technical Proposal. The RFP Evaluation Committee may be the same as the RFQ Evaluation Committee. The RFP Evaluation Committee will evaluate the Proposals in accordance with the published evaluation criteria.
- At its sole discretion, the Owner may ask written questions of Proposers, seek written clarifications, and conduct discussions with Proposers on Proposals.
- The Owner will provide written notification to all Finalists of the selection decision and make a selection summary available to all Proposers at the conclusion of the Procurement.
- At the Owner’s discretion, it will initiate negotiations with the Highest Scored Finalist. If the Owner is unable to execute a contract with the Highest Scored Finalist, negotiations with the Highest Scored Finalist may be suspended or terminated, and the Owner may proceed to negotiate with the next Highest Scored Finalist. The Owner will continue in accordance with this procedure until a contract agreement is reached or the selection process is terminated. Negotiations are at the Owner’s sole discretion. By submitting a Proposal pursuant to the RFP, the Proposer represents and warrants that it will enter into the contract provided by the Owner subject to the terms set forth in its Proposal.
3.3.3. Price Proposal
Finalists will submit a Price Proposal pursuant to the instructions set forth in the RFP. The Price Proposal for this Project is anticipated to include the Design-Builder’s overhead and profit costs.
3.3.4. Evaluation and Scoring of Proposers and Finalists
In the evaluation and scoring of Proposers and Finalists, the Owner will consider the information submitted in the SOQ, the Technical and Price Proposal, Confidential Individual Meetings with respect to the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ and RFP, and information from references and other sources. The result of the evaluation will be a
comparative scoring of Proposers.
In evaluating each of the criteria, the Evaluation Committees will identify significant and minor strengths and weaknesses from the submissions. The Evaluation Committees will then use the following metric to evaluate the submissions and determine the number of points for each Evaluative Criteria based on the percentages assigned in the RFQ, the RFP and any addenda. In the description below, the term “Proposer” includes both Proposers in the SOQ phase as well as Finalists in the RFP phase of the procurement.
- Definition of “strength” and “weakness”:
- i The term “strength” ultimately represents a benefit to the Project and is expected to increase the Proposer’s ability to meet or exceed the Project Goals. A minor strength has a slight positive influence and a significant strength has a considerable positive influence on the Proposer’s ability to exceed the Project Goals.
- ii The term “weakness” detracts from the Proposer’s ability to meet the Project Goals and may result in inefficient or ineffective performance. A minor weakness has a slight negative influence and a significant weakness has a considerable negative influence on the Proposer’s ability to exceed the Project Goals.
- b. Excellent (80-100 percent): The Evaluative Criteria demonstrates an approach that is considered to exceed the Project Goals and the RFQ or RFP requirements and provide a consistently outstanding level of quality. For the Evaluative Criteria to be considered Excellent, it must be determined to have significant strengths and/or a number of minor strengths and few, if any, appreciable weaknesses. The minimum allocation of points for Excellent is 80 percent of the maximum points available for a given evaluation criterion. The greater the significance of the strengths and/or the number of strengths will result in a higher percentage, up to a maximum of 100 percent. An Evaluative Criteria that is evaluated as Excellent is considered to present virtually no risk that the Proposer would be unsuccessful in delivering the Project to the Owner's satisfaction and would most likely exceed all Project Goals.
- Good (60-79 percent): The Evaluative Criteria demonstrates an approach that is considered to meet the RFQ or RFP requirements in a beneficial way (providing advantages, benefits, or added value to the Project) and offers quality. For the Evaluative Criteria to be considered Good, it must be determined to have strengths and no significant weaknesses. Minor weaknesses are offset by strengths. The minimum allocation of points for Good is 60 percent of the maximum points available for a given evaluation criterion. The greater the significance of the strengths and/or the number of strengths, and the fewer the minor weaknesses will result in a higher percentage, up to a maximum of 79 percent. There is little risk that the Proposer would be unsuccessful in delivering the Project to the Owner's satisfaction and would most likely meet all Project Goals.
- Fair (40-59 percent): The Evaluative Criteria demonstrates an approach that contains minor and/or significant weaknesses and limited appreciable strengths. The minimum allocation of points for Fair is 40 percent of the maximum points available for a given evaluation criterion. The greater the significance of the strengths and/or the number of strengths, and the fewer the minor or significant weaknesses will result in a higher percentage, up to a maximum of 59 percent. There is some risk that the Proposer would be unsuccessful in delivering the Project to the Owner's satisfaction and meeting the Project Goals.
- Deficient (0-39 percent): The Evaluative Criteria demonstrates an approach that contains significant weaknesses and few or no appreciable strengths. The minimum allocation of points for Deficient is 0 percent. The greater the significance of the strengths and/or the number of strengths, and the fewer the minor or significant weaknesses will result in a higher percentage, up to a maximum of 39 percent of the
- maximum points available for a given evaluation criterion. It is expected that the Proposer would not be able to deliver the Project to the Owner's satisfaction and meet the Project Goals. The Owner, at its sole discretion, may reject any Proposal deemed Deficient in fulfilling the requirements of the RFQ or RFP requirements.
- Non-Responsive: Does not meet the Minimum Qualifications required for evaluation. In addition, the Owner, at its sole discretion, may reject any Evaluative Criteria deemed non- responsive to any of the requirements of the RFQ or RFP.
Projects of Similar Scope and Complexity
Sustainable Design and NetZero Experience
Experience with Native Participation
Successful Utilization of Certified Disadvantaged Businesses
Overall Management Approach
GMP Development Plan
Design Development and Management
Inclusion Plans for Native Participation
Inclusion Plans Small Business/MWBE
Total SOQ Points: 60
Total Technical Proposal Points: 80
Total Price Proposal Points: 10
GRAND TOTAL Points: 150