(A) The City Selection Committee shall individually evaluate those firms submitting statements of qualification for a proposed project according to the selection criteria requested in the RFQ and past performances with the city.
(B) The City Selection Committee shall establish a reasonable weight (points) associated with each of these criteria. Office location may be considered as a criteria to be evaluated. The weighting must be sent out with each RFQ so every firm will understand the basis for ratings.
(C) The City Selection Committee shall compile the statement of qualifications submitted for a proposed project, determine which firms have qualifications and past performance history that is reasonably acceptable and qualified for award of the project, and determine an initial ranking of most qualified firms by reference to the selection criteria identified in statement of qualifications; interviews also may be conducted as part of the selection process.
(D) The City Selection Committee will then proceed to the competitive sealed proposals process for most projects or to the qualifications based selection process unless exceptions listed in § 37.18 apply.
(E) Competitive sealed proposals. For those projects for which professional services are to be selected by the competitive sealed proposals process the following procedure shall be followed:
(1) Issuance of RFP. A RFP will be issued to those firms whose qualifications were deemed acceptable by the City Selection Committee. The RFP shall include desired specifications, all contractual terms, and conditions applicable to the procurement. The RFP shall state the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors. Specific numerical weighting is required. Evaluation factors may include but are not limited to categories such as price, quality, experience, expertise, qualifications, method of approach, responsiveness, financial strength, any other factors the City Selection Committee considers pertinent, etc. The RFP shall include the last date for accepting competitive sealed proposals from interested parties. The RFP shall include the time and place where the proposals will be opened publicly. No public notice need be given of this invitation to submit competitive sealed proposals because such notice was previously given and this is a unique professional services hiring process explicitly dictated by this subchapter.
(2) Receipt of proposals. Proposals shall be opened publicly in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the RFP. The name of each offeror shall be read. All other information contained in the proposals shall be confidential so as to avoid disclosure of contents prejudicial to competing offerors during the negotiation process. Proposals shall be open for public inspection only after contract award. A proposal, modification, or withdrawal is late if it is received at the location designated in the RFP after the time and date set for proposal opening. A late proposal, late modification, or late withdrawal shall be rejected, unless the proposal, modification or withdrawal would have been timely received but for the action or inaction of city personnel and is received before contract award. Prior to the scheduled opening, the responsible department may open an offer to identify the offeror. If this occurs, the staff member shall record the reason for opening the offer, the date and time the offer was opened, and the solicitation number. The offer shall be secured and retained for public opening.
(3) Clarifications of offers. The purpose for clarifications is to provide for a greater mutual understanding of the offer. Clarifications are not negotiations and material changes to the RFP or offer shall not be made by clarification. The project manager may request clarifications from any offeror(s) at any time after receipt of offers. Clarifications may be requested orally or in writing. If clarifications are requested orally, the offeror shall confirm the request in writing. A request for clarifications shall not be considered a determination that the offeror is susceptible for award. Any clarifications shall be retained in the procurement file.
(4) Determination if not susceptible for award. A project manager may determine at any time during the evaluation period and before award that an offer is not susceptible for award. The project manager shall notify the offeror in writing of the final determination that the offer is not susceptible for award unless the project manager determines that notification to the offeror would compromise the city's ability to negotiate with other offerors. A determination of non-susceptibility shall be based on, but not limited to, the following:
(a) A legal offer has not been submitted due to the lack of an authorized signature on the designated offer form; or
(b) The offer is not within the competitive range in comparison to other offers based on the scoring of evaluation criteria as set forth in the solicitation.
(c) The offeror has submitted an incomplete proposal including, but not limited to, failure to provide requested documents and/or attend mandatory meeting(s).
(5) Negotiations with responsible offerors. Negotiations must be conducted with all offerors determined to be reasonably susceptible and qualified for award. Negotiations may be conducted orally or in writing. If oral negotiations are conducted, the offeror shall confirm the negotiations in writing. Offerors may revise offers based on negotiations provided that any revision is confirmed in writing. The city may conduct negotiations with responsible offerors to improve offers in such areas as cost, price, further define and refine scope, performance, or terms, to achieve the best value for the city based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. Once negotiations are initiated, an offeror may withdraw an offer at any time before the final proposal revision due date and time by submitting a written request to the project manager. The project manager shall ensure there is no disclosure of one offeror's price or any information derived from competing offers to another offeror.
(6) Final proposal revisions/best and final offer. The project manager shall request written final proposal revisions from any offeror with whom negotiations have been conducted. Final proposal revisions shall be requested only once, unless the city project manager makes a written determination that it is advantageous to the city to conduct further negotiations or change the city's requirements. The project manager shall include in the written request:
(a) The date, time, and place for submission of final proposal revisions; and
(b) A statement that if offerors do not a submit a written notice of withdrawal or a written final proposal revision, their last revision shall be accepted as their final proposal revision.
(F) Qualifications based selection. For those projects for which professional dervices are to be selected by the qualifications based selection process, the following procedure shall be followed.
(1) The City Selection Committee may conduct discussions, check references, and require interviews with firms deemed to be the most qualified according to statement of qualifications. Information regarding the cost of professional services for the proposed project shall not be a factor in the evaluations of firms until negotiations are begun in accordance with § 37. .
(2) The City Selection Committee shall select on the basis of the evaluations in this section, at least three firms that are judged to be the most qualified and rank them accordingly. If fewer than three firms are judged to be qualified, then those firms shall be ranked in like-manner and the City Selection Committee shall provide a detailed explanation as to why other firms were not qualified or not available.
(3) On-call service.
(a) Projects requiring services previously identified in § 37. will be sent to the pre-qualified list of firms proposing to provide professional services for proposed projects.
(b) Firms shall then be ranked in accordance with the process in this section with negotiations to follow with the highest ranked firm in accordance with § 37. or with the highest ranked firms through a RFP process.
(4) Negotiation of contract.
(a) Based on the ranking developed in the statement of qualifications. The City Selection Committee shall contact the highest ranked firm and attempt to negotiate professional services contract for a fair and reasonable value that takes the following into account:
1. The estimated value of the services needed;
2. The scope and complexity of the proposed project;
3. The business risk anticipated;
4. The professional nature of the services required;
4. Any other criteria that the City Selection Committee deems relevant.
(b) If the City Selection Committee is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the highest ranked firm, negotiations with that firm shall be terminated. The City Selection Committee shall then negotiate with the next firm in the rankings, continuing this procedure until an agreement is reached or the list of ranked firms is exhausted.
(c) If negotiations with all of the ranked firms fail to result in a satisfactory contract, the City Selection Committee shall reevaluate the professional services involved in the proposed project and proceed to comply with this subchapter until a contract is successfully negotiated.
(d) On-call professional services will be obtained using the same negotiation process with a pre-qualified group of firms unless a RFP process is followed.
(e) The city shall at all times retain the right to terminate negotiations and/or cancel the procurement of professional services.
(f) No firm shall be deemed to have been conferred by the city an interest in a contract or arrangement for the provision of professional services by participating in the processes provided in this subchapter.
(Ord. G-13-12, passed 5-8-12)