Table of Contents

List of Exhibits. 4

List of Forms. 5

Request for Proposal Templates. 5

Preface. 6

Manual Purpose. 7

Who will use this Manual 7

How was this Manual Developed. 7

How will the Manual be Updated. 7

Acronyms. 8

Definitions. 9

Section 1.  Introduction. 1-1

1.1  What is Design-Build Contracting?. 1-1

1.2  How Does Design-Build differ from Design-Bid-Build?. 1-2

1.3  When to Use Design-Build. 1-3

1.4  Procurement Overview.. 1-4

1.4.1  Best-Value Design-Build Overview.. 1-4

1.4.2  Low-Bid Design-Build Overview.. 1-4

1.4.3  Best-Value versus Low Bid. 1-5

1.4.4 Typical Procurement Timelines. 1-8

Section 2.  General Procurement Activities. 2-1

2.1  Design-Build Program Manager 2-1

2.2  Design-Build Project Managers. 2-1

2.3  FHWA Involvement 2-2

2.3.1  Federal Reporting. 2-2

2.3.2  Additional Federal Requirements. 2-2

2.4  Conflict of Interest 2-4

2.4.1  Organization Conflicts of Interest 2-4

2.4.2  Consultant Contract Clauses. 2-4

2.4.3  Internal COI Procedure. 2-5

2.5  Data Practices (Public Information) 2-7

2.5.1 General 2-7

2.5.2 Releasing Data Related to RFQs and SOQs. 2-7

2.5.3  Releasing data related to Technical Proposal Evaluations. 2-8

2.6  Timesheet Activity Codes. 2-9

2.7  PPMS Activities. 2-10

2.8  Legislative Notice – Yearly Report 2-11

2.9  General Engineering Consultant (GEC) 2-12

2.9.1 Development of a Work Order 2-12

Section 3.  Pre-Advertisement Activities. 3-1

3.1  Project Development 3-1

3.1.1 Planning. 3-1

3.1.2 Preliminary Engineering. 3-2

3.1.3 Project Management 3-6

3.1.4 Third Party Agreements. 3-8

3.1.5  Pre-Qualification Lists. 3-9

3.1.6  Sole-Source Clauses. 3-10

3.1.7  Maximum Price Contracts. 3-10

3.1.8  Project Development Checklist 3-12

3.2  Engineering Estimates. 3-13

3.3  Civil Rights. 3-15

3.3.1  DBE Communication. 3-15

3.3.2   DBE Goals. 3-16

3.3.3  EEO Requirements Program.. 3-16

3.3.4  OJT Requirements. 3-16

3.4  Early Design-Build Team Coordination. 3-17

3.5  Legislative Notice – Project 3-20

Section 4.  Advertisement Activities. 4-1

4.1  Websites and ftp site. 4-1

4.2  Request for Letters of Interest 4-3

4.3  Technical Review Committee. 4-4

4.4  Project Advertisement 4-6

4.5  Request for Qualification (RFQ) 4-8

4.5.1  RFQ Development 4-8

4.5.2  RFQ Publishing. 4-9

4.5.3  RFQ Clarifications. 4-9

4.5.4  RFQ Addendums. 4-10

4.6  Statement of Qualification (SOQ) Evaluation and Short-Listing. 4-12

4.6.1  Receipt of SOQ.. 4-12

4.6.2  Evaluation Committee. 4-12

4.6.3  Short-Listing. 4-12

4.6.4  SOQ Evaluation Materials Possession. 4-14

4.7  Request for Proposal (RFP) Development 4-15

4.7.1  RFP Template. 4-15

4.7.2 RFP Development 4-16

4.7.3  Best-Value Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria. 4-17

4.7.4  Low-Bid  Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria. 4-18

4.7.5   Funding Kick-Off Meeting. 4-19

4.7.6  Federal Authorization. 4-20

4.7.7  RFP Distribution/Advertisement 4-20

4.7.8  RFP Clarifications. 4-21

4.7.9  RFP Addendums. 4-22

4.8  One-on-One Meetings. 4-25

4.9  Alternative Technical Concepts. 4-26

4.9.1  ATC limitations. 4-26

4.9.2  ATC Submittals/Document Control 4-27

4.9.3  ATC Reviews. 4-27

4.10  Pre-Approved Elements. 4-28

4.10.1  PAE limitations. 4-28

4.10.2  PAE Submittals/Document Control 4-29

4.10.3  PAE Reviews. 4-29

4.11  Changes in Personnel and Firms Listed in SOQ.. 4-30

4.11.1  Change in Personnel Prior to Technical Proposal Submittal 4-30

4.11.2  Change in Personnel After Contract Award. 4-30

4.12  Re-Issuing RFPs. 4-32

4.13  Cancelling Procurements. 4-33


 

Section 5.  Evaluation and Letting Activities. 5-1

5.1  Receipt of Proposals, Evaluation and Letting. 5-1

5.1.1  Receipt of Technical, Price, and DBE/EEO Proposals. 5-1

5.1.2  Evaluation Committee. 5-3

5.1.3  Best-Value Technical Proposal Evaluation. 5-3

5.1.4  Low-Bid Technical Proposal Evaluation. 5-4

5.1.5  Letting (Price Proposal Opening Date. 5-5

Section 6.  Post-Letting Activities. 6-1

6.1  Contract Award and Contract Execution. 6-1

6.1.1  Contract Award. 6-1

6.1.2  Contract Execution, Notice to Proceed, and Stipend Payment 6-2

6.1.3  Escrow Proposal Documents. 6-3

6.1.4  RFP Distribution. 6-3

6.2  Stipends. 6-4

6.3  Debriefing Meetings. 6-6

 

List of Exhibits

1.1-1    MN Design-Build State Statutes

2.4-1    Conflict of Interest Approach

2.6-1    Sample Legislative Notice – Yearly Report

3.1-1    NPDES Permit Requirements MOU

3.5-1    Sample Legislative Notice – Project Letter

4.1-1    Design-Build Homepage

4.1-2    Sample Design-Build Project Specific Page

4.2-1    Sample Request for Letters of Interest

4.3-1    Sample AGC TRC Request Letter

4.3-2    MOU with AGC

4.3-3    Process for Administering Design-Build Procurement

4.5-1    MnDOT DB Program Style Guide for Preparing Documents

4.6-1    SOQ Evaluation Agenda (sample)

4.6-2    Shortlist Posting for Design-Build Website (sample)

4.6-3    Shortlist Recommendation Letter (sample)

4.6-4    POC Log (sample)

4.7-1    RFP Evaluation Letter to AGC

4.13-1  Sample FHWA Notification of Cancellation Letter

4.13-2  Sample Procurement Cancellation Letter

5.1-1    Sample Technical Proposal Letter to Chief Engineer

6.1-1    Sample Delay in Award Letter

List of Forms

2.4a     Confidentiality Form

3.1a     Project Development Checklist

3.2a     Project Estimate Template

4.5a     RFQ Template

4.5b     RFQ Clarification Request Form

4.5c     RFQ Clarification Response Form

4.6a     Receipt of SOQs Form

4.6b     SOQ Evaluation Manual Template

4.6c     SOQ POC Log Template

4.6d     SOQ Scoring and TRC Summary Template

4.6e     Short-list Recommendation Letter Template

4.6f      Shortlist Letter – Successful Team Template

4.6g     Shortlist Letter – Unsuccessful Team Template

4.7a     RFP Clarification Request Form

4.7b     RFP Clarification Response Form

4.7c     Addendum Cover Letter Form

4.9a     ATC Log Template

4.9b     ATC Approval Form

4.10a   PAE Log Template

4.10b   PAE Approval Form

4.11a   Change in Personnel Firm Form

5.1a     Receipt of Technical Proposals Form

5.1b     Receipt of DBE EEO Proposals Form

5.1c     Technical Proposal Distribution Log Template

5.1d     Technical Proposal Letter to Chief Engineer Template

5.1e     Technical Proposal POC Log Template

5.1f      Technical Proposal Evaluation Manual (Best-Value)

5.1g     Technical Proposal Evaluation Manual (Low-Bid)

6.1       District Concurrence Memo Template

Request for Proposal Templates

Instructions to Proposers (ITP)

ITP Form 1 Template.doc

ITP Form 2 Template.doc

ITP Form 3 Template.doc

ITP Form 4Template.doc

ITP Form 19 Template.doc

Book 1 Template

Exhibit A Template.doc

Exhibit B Template.doc

Exhibit C Template.doc

Exhibit D (Cover Page) Template.doc

Exhibit E (Cover Page) Template.doc

Exhibit F1 (Cover Page) Template.doc

Exhibit F1 template.pdf

Exhibit F2 (Cover Page) Template.doc

Exhibit F2 template.pdf

Exhibit F6 template.doc

Exhibit F7 (Cover Page) Template.doc

Exhibit F7 template.pdf

Exhibit F (Cover Page) Template.doc

Exhibit G Template.doc

Exhibit H Template.doc

Exhibit I Template.doc


 

Preface                                                                          

Manual Purpose

 

This manual describes the processes and procedures for procuring design-build contracts.  This manual does not include all of the processes necessary to deliver the project, such as environmental, right-of-way acquisition, and municipal consent.  Except as noted within this manual, all other MnDOT project development guidelines and procedures follow standard processes.

Who will use this Manual

This manual is written primarily for MnDOT employees procuring design-build contracts.   The manual focuses mainly on the responsibilities of MnDOT’s Design-Build Program Manager and Design-Build Project Managers. 

How was this Manual Developed

The development of this manual is a compilation of efforts and lessons learned from previous design-build projects.  The manual was written by MnDOT Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting (OCIC) with input from MnDOT Districts and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

MnDOT began using design-build in 1996 and constructed three projects using a low-bid approach. In 2001, MnDOT obtained legislative approval to use the design-build best value procurement process. Since 2001, MnDOT has awarded over $1 billion in design-build projects.  The design-build process has evolved and improved through the use of lessons learned.  Some of the early history of best value design-build procurement can be viewed in the design-build white papers, which are available through MnDOT’s design-build program manager.

How will the Manual be Updated

Design-build is an evolving process.  This manual will be updated frequently to address lessons learned, evolving approaches, updates to federal, state, local laws, regulations, and policies.  MnDOT’s Design-Build Program Manager is responsible for updating the manual, with approval from the Director of MnDOT’s Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting and the FHWA Minnesota Division Administrator.
 Acronyms

ATC                Alternative Technical Concept

AGC               Association of General Contractors

CPPM             Capital Programs and Performance Measures

CFR                Code of Federal Regulations

CO                  Central Office (MnDOT)

COI                 Conflict of Interest

CLS                 Contracts and Lettings Supervisor

DBPM             Design-Build Program Manager

DBE                Disadvantage Business Enterprise

FHWA            Federal Highway Administration

GEC                General Engineering Consultant

HPDP              Highway Project Development Process

ITP                  Instructions to Proposers

LOI                 Letters of Interest

MOU               Memorandum of Understanding

NEPA             National Environmental Policy Act

OCR                Office of Civil Rights

OCIC              Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting

OJT                 On-the-job training

PAE                Pre-Approved Element

POC                Process Oversight Committee

PM                  Project Manager

RFC                Released for Construction

RID                 Reference Information Documents

RLOI              Request for Letters of Interest

RFP                 Request for Proposals

RFQ                Request for Qualifications

SOQ                Statement of Qualifications

TA                   Technical Advisors

TRC                Technical Review Committee

Definitions

This section outlines some of the general design-build terms used within this document.  The intent of this section is to provide a quick reference of commonly used terms for individuals with little or no design-build experience.  This is not an all inclusive list of terms used within the design-build contract. 

 

Addendum

An addition or modification to the RFQ or RFP made during the procurement process.

Alternative Technical Concept (ATC)

A confidential process in which design-build teams can propose equal or better alternatives to the RFP during procurement.  The process is used to allow innovation and flexibility in the design and/or construction of a particular element of the project. 

Award

The acceptance of the best-value or low price proposal, subject to execution and approval of the contract.  The award is non-binding.

Best-Value

An alternative contracting method where price and other key factors are factors in the evaluation and selection process of the awarded contractor.  In Minnesota, the formula for determining best-value is adjusted score equals proposed price divided by technical score.  The lowest adjusted score is the best value.

Clarifications

MnDOT’s written response to questions asked by design-build team during the procurement process.  

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Regulations that implement and carry out the provisions of federal law relating to the administration of federal aid for highway.

Conflict of Interest (COI)

A situation in which, because of existing or planned activities or because of relationships with other persons, the vendor appears, is unable, or is potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the state, the vendor’s objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or the vendor has an unfair advantage.

Conformed Contract

The documents used for award and execution of a design-build contract.  The conformed contract incorporate the RFP, addendums, technical proposal, and commitments of the design-build team. 

Contract Execution

The date at point at which a legal binding contract between the owner and the design-build team is signed and in effect.

Contracts and Lettings Supervisor (CLS)

Person in the OCIC responsible for project lettings and preparing project contracts.

Debriefing Meeting

A meeting in which the design-build teams is informed of specific details of the technical proposal and MnDOT discuss the scoring results of the design-build team’s SOQ or Technical Proposal submissions.

Design-Build Program Manager (DBPM)

The person responsible for managing and overseeing the development and continued use of MnDOT’s design-build program.

Design-Build Team

A combination of contractors, designers and other entities that have formed a contractual relationship and are interested in submitting responses to an RFQ or RFP. 

General Engineering Consultant (GEC)

A consultant hired to help assist MnDOT with their design-build program.

Instructions to Proposers (ITP)

A section of the RFP that gives the design-build teams instructions on how to submit a technical proposal.

Letter of Interest

A firm’s response to a Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI) to receive a RFQ for a proposed design-build project.

 

Letting

The day on which the price proposals are publically opened and the apparent best-value or low-bid design-build team is identified.   

Low-Bid

A method of procurement in which the contract is awarded to the lowest cost responsive and responsible bidder. 

Maximum Price Contracts

A contract with a maximum price that a design-build team shall not exceed with their price proposal.  If design-build teams exceed this price, they will be deemed non-responsive and are not eligible to win the contract, but are eligible to receive a stipend (see also Stipend).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The United States environmental law that established a U.S. national policy promoting the enhancement of the environment and also established the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).  NEPA sets up procedural requirements for all federal government agencies in preparing Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).  EAs and EISs contain statements of the environmental effects of proposed federal agency actions.

One-on-One Meetings

Meetings with MnDOT and each shortlisted design-build team to discuss potential ATCs and PAEs during procurement.

Pre-Approved Elements (PAE)

An alternative contracting process that may be used in which design-build teams are required to submit elements for approval.  PAE elements shall be approved in order for a proposal to be deemed responsive.  Used on a case-by-case basis and with federal concurrence. 

Process Oversight Committee (POC)

A committee consisting of FHWA, MnDOT, and the Dept. of Administration to oversee the procurement process.

Procurement

All stages of the alternative contracting process for acquiring project management, design, and construction services for a design-build contract. 

Project Manager (PM)

The person responsible for managing the design-build project for MnDOT.

Proposer

Reference to design-build teams submitting a technical and/or price proposal in response to an RFP.

Reference Information Documents (RID)

Non-contractual documents provided to the design-build teams such as preliminary design, planning documents, studies, reports, CADD files, etc. 

Released for Construction Documents (RFC)

Submittals provided by the design-build team prior to starting construction on a certain element of the project.

Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI)

A letter advertised by MnDOT requesting letters of interest from design-build teams and consultants to express their interest in a future design-build project.

Request for Proposals (RFP)

The documents advertised requesting bids/proposals from potential design-build teams.  The RFP consists of Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, ITP, and RID. 

Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

The document that contains instructions for submitting a SOQ, evaluation criteria, and minimum qualifications required of the design-build team.

Short-List

A list developed by the TRC and approved by the commissioner at the conclusion of the SOQ evaluation process that includes no more than five of the most highly qualified design-build teams that are eligible to respond to the RFP.    

Statement of Qualifications (SOQ)

A document that is submitted by design-build teams in response to an RFQ.

Stipend

A fee paid to offset the procurement costs of unsuccessful proposers.

Submitter

Reference to a design-build team responding to an RFQ.

Technical Advisors (TA)

A group of individuals with specific technical expertise available to support the TRC during the SOQ evaluations and the Technical Proposal evaluations.

Technical Proposal

A document that is submitted by design-build teams in response to an RFP.

Technical Review Committee (TRC)

The committee responsible for evaluating SOQs, developing the short list, and evaluating Technical Proposals. 

 


Section 1.  Introduction

 

This section provides an overview of design-build. 

1.1  What is Design-Build Contracting?                            

 

Design-Build is an alternative contracting method in which a single contract is awarded to provide design and construction goods and services.  In this method of project delivery, contractors and consultant design firms form an integrated team and assume the responsibility for design and construction.   Design-build allows the overlap of design and construction activities, often resulting in faster project delivery.  The design is often broken into packages or segments, allowing construction to begin on portions of the project while other elements are still being designed.  Figure 1.1-1 graphically shows the time difference between design-bid-build contracting and design-build contracting. 

 

Figure 1.1-1  Time Savings Using Design-Build

 

     Design-Bid-Build Contracting

     Design-Build Contracting

Time

 

Although time savings often occur, delivering a project using design-build contracting eliminates few steps when compared to traditional design-bid-build contracting.  Sufficient preliminary engineering shall be performed before a design-build contract can be executed.   Project scope needs to be clearly defined.  Right-of-way limits and acquisition processes should be well underway to minimize delays to the contract.  Municipal consent should be obtained prior to moving into the procurement process.  MnDOT standard practice is to require the completion of the environmental processes such as NEPA prior to moving into the RFP stage of procurement. 

1.2  How Does Design-Build differ from Design-Bid-Build?

 

Design-build differs from design-bid-build contracting in many ways.  Listed below are the primary differences between the two procurement methods:

 

·         Design – The design-build team is responsible for the design of the project.  Any design errors or omissions discovered during construction and the warranty term are the responsibility of the design-build team to correct, thus transferring any design risk to the design-build team.  This requires changes to MnDOT’s design-bid-build contract administration procedures in that the Contractor, instead of MnDOT , is the Engineer of Record. 

·         Construction – Design-build allows fast-track of design/construction, where construction can begin as initial design packages are accepted rather than waiting until the complete set of Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) are completed and a contractor is awarded a contract. 

·         Innovation – Design-build allows designers and contractors to introduce new design/construction alternatives that are equal or better than the contract requirements while still adhering to all other contract requirements.  It also allows contractors to optimize the design based on alternative means within their capabilities and equipment.

·         Procurement – Design-build procurement differs is modified from standard design-bid-build procurement process but overall general procurement laws and regulations are still adhered to.

o   Short-Listing – The owner (MnDOT) is able to short-list the most highly qualified teams.  Only short-listed teams have the opportunity to submit price and technical proposals.

o   Best-Value or Low-Bid – Design-build teams can be selected based on best-value or low-bid contracting (see Section 1.4.3). 

o   Proposals – Design-build teams submit technical proposals in addition to price proposals.

§  In best-value contracting, the team’s technical proposals are scored based on their approach to the project (see Section 1.4.1).

§  In low-bid, technical proposals are used to determine responsiveness (see Section 1.4.2).

 

·         Payment – Design-build contracts are lump-sum contracts.  Payment is based on percent completion for each activity.

 

·         Contracts – Design-build contracts use a different set of documents.   Plans and specifications used in design-bid-build to advertise the project for bids are replaced by the RFP.  The RFP defines the design, management and construction requirements. 

1.3  When to Use Design-Build

 

Design-build is not suited for every project.  It is best-suited for projects that require acceleration, projects that have unique opportunities to appropriately transfer risk to the design-build team, and on projects with opportunities for innovation.  Innovation has the potential to significantly decrease contract time, reduce costs, and improve the safety and quality of the product.   The decision to use design-build contracting should be based on the goals and risks of the project. 

Design-build has been used on a large variety of highway and bridge projects throughout the world.   MnDOT’s design-build website (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/) provides a one-page description of each design-build project procured using MnDOT’s authority.  These one-pagers provide an overview of the project, reasons for using design-build contracting, and the benefits of using design-build.  

 

Typical design-build projects include:

·         Accelerated Projects (primarily due to advances in funding) 

·         Large/Complex grading and reconstruction projects

·         Major bridge projects

·         Risk transfer projects

·         Project streamlining (minimizing effort to compile bid-build plans)

 

1.4  Procurement Overview                                                

 

Design-build can be used on up to 10% of the total number of projects in a state fiscal year (Minnesota Statutes §161.3412 (subd. 3).  MnDOT’s authority also allows design-build contracts to be procured using either best-value or low-bid contracting.    This section outlines the best-value and low-bid processes, provides guidance/requirements on when to use best-value or low-bid, and provides general procurement timelines. 

1.4.1  Best-Value Design-Build Overview

Design-build best-value requires a two-step procurement process (see Exhibit 1.4-1).  In step 1, MnDOT prepares a Request for Qualification (RFQ) outlining the minimum and desired design-build team qualifications.  Interested design-build teams submit Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) in response to the RFQ.  A Technical Review Committee (TRC) evaluates the SOQ’s according to the criteria published in the RFQ and establishes a short-list of the most highly qualified design-build teams.  By state statute (see Exhibit 1.4-1), the number of design-build teams cannot exceed five per short-list. 

 

In step 2, the RFP is issued to short-listed design-build teams.  Teams submit a technical and price proposal in response to the RFP.  Prior to opening the price proposals, the TRC evaluates the technical proposals.  The best-value is determined by dividing the design-builder’s price by the technical score to obtain an adjusted score.  Unless all bids are rejected, the contract is awarded to the responsive and responsible design-build team with the lowest adjusted score.  Stipends are paid to the unsuccessful responsive and responsible design-build teams.

 

Best-Value contracting requires additional procurement time compared to low-bid design-build.  Design-build teams need additional time and resources to prepare technical proposals.  MnDOT needs additional time to evaluate the technical proposals.  In addition, the stipends are often higher on best-value contracting due to the additional effort required by the design-build teams to submit technical proposals.

Figure 1.4-1 provides a general overview of the two-step process. 

1.4.2  Low-Bid Design-Build Overview

Low-bid design-build can follow either a one-step or two-step process (see Exhibit 1.4-1).  The two-step process generally follows the best-value process, except that the contract is awarded to the responsive and responsible design-build team with the lowest price proposal.  The technical proposal generally consists of a cover letter and the required legal forms.  Technical proposals are not scored; they are only used to determine responsiveness.   If the two-step process is used, the district has the option of paying a stipend to the unsuccessful responsive design-build teams. 

The single step low-bid design-build process does not include a short-listing process.  All interested design-build teams have the opportunity to respond to the RFP.  Design-build teams submit price and technical proposals.  The technical proposal consists of a cover letter and the required legal forms.  Technical proposals are not scored; they are only used to determine responsiveness.  Stipends cannot be paid using the single step process. 

 

The single step process does not allow MnDOT to evaluate the qualifications of the team.  This increases the risk of unsuccessful performance on the project.  The single step process may also discourage design-build teams from responding to the RFP.  Teams are less likely to invest in a design-build procurement without a stipend. 

Figures 1.4-1 provides a general overview of the two-step low-bid process.  Figures 1.4-2 provide a general overview of the one-step low-bid process.     

1.4.3  Best-Value versus Low Bid

The following table provides requirements and guidance on when to use best-value or low-bid design-build contracting.  The determination to use low-bid and best-value will be joint effort between the PM, District, DBPM and Innovative Contracting Director by assessing the project risks and assigning each risk to the group best able to manage that risk. 

 

Table 1.4-1.   Using Best-Value versus Low-Bid

Project Type

Best-Value

Low-Bid

Major Bridge Projects

Required

 

Major Grading / Reconstruction Projects (over $25,000,000)

Required

 

Major risk transfer projects

Recommended

 

Project with complex staging

Recommended

 

Minimal risk transfer projects (unbonded overlays, mill/overlay, simple bridges)

 

Recommended

Non-complex projects with a value less than $10,000,000

 

Recommended

 

 


 

1.4.4 Typical Procurement Timelines

 

Listed below are typical timeframes needed to perform each procurement item.  These timeframes will vary based on project complexity and procurement type.  Some items may be developed concurrently.  Best-value procurements require additional time to evaluate Technical Proposals.  A single step low-bid process will not require advertisement of the RFQ and development of the short-list.  Clarifications and addendums will be addressed on an ongoing basis throughout the RFQ and RFP advertisement periods.  ATCs will be addressed as they are received.

 

 

Procurement Item

Approximate Time

Advertise Request for Letters of Interest

2 to 3 Weeks

Advertise RFQ

3 to 4 Weeks

Score SOQ / Develop Short-List

2 Weeks

Develop RFP

2 to 3 Months

Federal Authorization (if applicable)

2 Weeks

RFP Advertisement Period

2 to 4 Months

Score Technical Proposals (best-value only)

2 to 3 Weeks

Contract Award and Execution

4 to 7 Weeks

 

 

Exhibits

1.1-1:  MN Design-Build State Statutes

 

 

Forms

None


 


Section 2.  General Procurement Activities

This section provides general procurement activities related to design-build contracting such as the role of the Design-Build Program Manager, design-build project managers, FHWA, conflicts of interest, the release of data to the public, time sheet coding for MnDOT employees, legislative reporting, and the use of a GEC to assist with the program. 

2.1  Design-Build Program Manager

The Design-Build Program Manager (DBPM) is a MnDOT Central Office Employee primarily responsible for setting design-build programmatic decisions and overseeing the procurement of design-build contracts.  The primary responsibilities of the DBPM include:

·         Overseeing that design-build procurements are in accordance with state and federal laws

·         Advertising the design-build projects

·         Coordinating procurement steps with the Chief Engineer

·         Managing the development of RFQ and RFP evaluation criteria

·         Drafting Book 1 and the Instructions to Proposers

·         Reviewing and approving RFPs, addendums, clarifications, Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs) and Pre-Approved Elements (PAEs)

·         Coordinating the letting, award and approval process

·         Managing procurement and contract templates

·         Managing legislative requirements

·         Overseeing the General Engineering Consultant master contract.

 

The above list is not an all inclusive list.  Specific tasks and responsibilities of the DBPM are listed throughout this manual. 

2.2  Design-Build Project Managers

The Design-Build Project Managers are typically district employees responsible for the development and administration of design-build contracts.  The duties of the Design-Build Project Managers include:

·         Managing  preliminary design and environmental approvals

·         Developing the scope of the project

·         Developing project estimates in coordination with the MnDOT Estimating Unit

·         Managing third party agreements

·         Managing work orders through the General Engineering Consultants

·         Drafting Book 2 and Book 3 of the RFP

The above list is not an all inclusive list.  Specific tasks and responsibilities of the DBPM are listed throughout this manual. 

2.3  FHWA Involvement

Federal involvement is required on projects with federal funding.  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policies and procedures for approving design-build projects is defined in 23 CFR 636 (Design-Build Contracting).  The FHWA and MnDOT also have a Letter of Agreement and Stewardship Plan which outlines the roles and responsibilities between the agencies on stewardship and oversight of federal projects. 

 

Design-build projects will follow the processes and procedures outlined in the Letter of Agreement and Stewardship Plan and as described in this manual.  Listed below are the processes and procedures for involving the FHWA on design-build projects. 

2.3.1  Federal Reporting

When considering a design-build project, the DBPM will notify the FHWA as soon as possible.  The DBPM will submit, on an annual basis (preferably December) a listing of all proposed design-build projects for the following calendar year. 

2.3.2  Additional Federal Requirements

 

The following federal requirements supplement the CFR and Letter of Agreement and Stewardship Plan.

  1. All MnDOT design-build projects will follow this manual.
  2. All future modifications to this Design-Build Procurement Procedures Manual will be approved by the FHWA.
  3. FHWA concurrence is required on individual design-build projects if non-standard activities are used prior to issuance of the RFQ.  These activities include:

·         Pre-approved Element process (see Section 4.10)

·         Design Exceptions (Interstate /  NHS)

·         Sole source clauses (see Section 3.1.6)

·         Special Experimental Projects (SEP-14 and SEP-15)

·         Emergency Relief

·         Other unique activities not stated in this manual

 

  1. Table 2.3-1 below lists additional roles and responsibilities.

 

          Table 2.3-1:  Additional FHWA and MnDOT Oversight Roles and Responsibilities

Work

Activity

FULL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT

(FFO)

PROJECTS

STATE ADMINISTERED OVERSIGHT (SAFO) PROJECTS ON/OFF THE NHS

MnDOT Action

FHWA

Action

MnDOT

Action1

FHWA

Action

RFQ

Prepare

None3

Prepare

None

RFQ Addendums

Prepare

None3

Prepare

None

RFQ Clarifications

Prepare

None3

Prepare

None

Short-List

Prepare

Concurrence

Prepare

None

RFP

Prepare

Approve

(14 Days)

Prepare

None

RFP Addendums

Prepare

Approve

(7 Days)

Prepare

None

RFP Clarifications

Prepare

None3

Prepare

None

Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC)

 

Prepare

 

Approve2

 

Prepare

 

None2

Pre-Approved Elements (PAE)

Prepare

Approve

Prepare

None2

 

(1)      Unless otherwise specified, state administered work activities will be prepared by the MnDOT District and Approved by MnDOT’s Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting (OCIC). 

(2)     Modifications to the Interstate and NHS geometric layout require approval from the FHWA and State Design Engineer.

(3)      MnDOT will send a courtesy copy to the FHWA.

 


2.4  Conflict of Interest

2.4.1  Organization Conflicts of Interest

 

State and federal rules govern organizational conflicts of interest in MnDOT procurements related to design-build contracting.  An “organizational” conflict of interest exists when, because of existing or planned activities or because of relationships with other persons, such as a vendor (e.g. consultant or design-build team) is unable, or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the state, or the vendor’s objectivity in performing contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or the vendor has an unfair competitive advantage. 

 

A Conflict of Interest Approach has been developed to assist in the determination of organizational conflicts of interest (See Exhibit 2.4-1).    This approach is available to all potential design-build teams and should be referenced in both the RFQ and RFP. 

 

When a potential conflict of interest approach arises, the following procedures apply:

 

1.      When a consultant or design-build team member discloses a potential conflict of interest, these disclosures shall be forwarded to the DBPM.  In addition, if a MnDOT staff member has reason to believe that a consultant or design-build team member has failed to disclose a potential organizational conflict, that staff member shall notify the PM, who will then notify the DBPM, FHWA, and  MnDOT Director of Contract Management.

2.      The Director of the Contract Management section will be responsible for conducting a review of the potential conflict, determining if an actual or perceived conflict exists, and determining appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures to be implemented by the department.  All findings and measures to be implemented will be documented in writing.  In performing these reviews, Contract Management section may consult with project staff, as well as with other resource offices as necessary. 

3.      The DBPM, PM, FHWA, Director of Contract Management may meet to determine any necessary actions or communication required with the MnDOT staff member, consultant or design-build team. 

2.4.2  Consultant Contract Clauses

 

The risk for potential organization conflicts of interest can be reduced by proactively addressing these issues within consultant contracts.  Consultants often want to know if work will preclude them from participating on a design-build team.  MnDOT Conflict of Interest Approach (Exhibit 2.4-1) addresses many circumstances, but not all. 

 

Listed below are suggested terms to include in consultant RFP’s or contracts for preliminary design work if a project is a potential design-build candidate.   When preparing these contracts, the PM should consult with the Director of Contract Management to determine if the consultant would have an organizational conflict of interest.   Finally, if a consultant is allowed to perform work on the project under a consultant contract and participate on a design-build team, the consultant should be required to submit all final deliverables to MnDOT prior to joining or participating as an offeror on a design-build team. 

Sample language to include in preliminary design service contracts:

MnDOT may elect to use design-build delivery method for this Project.  The successful responder and all sub consultants to this request for services will not be allowed to participate as an offeror or join a design-build team for this Project.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Sample language to include in material subsurface exploration contracts:

MnDOT may elect to use design-build delivery method for this Project.  If a contractor wishes to participate on a design-build team for this Project, the contractor shall adhere to the following:

1.       Contractor will provide all notes relating to the field work and lab testing of soils to the States Project Manager.

2.      Contractor will retain soil samples for a period of one year.  The soil samples will be made available for viewing upon request from design-build teams.

3.      Contractor’s employees involved with drilling, note taking, sampling, lab testing, log writing, pavement determination, or foundation determination will not participate (in any manner)in the preparation of a response to a Request for Qualifications or Request for Proposals as part of a Design-Build Team for this Project.  Such employees may work on the Project if the contractor is part of the selected Design-Build team, after the design-build contract has been awarded. 

4.      Contractor shall adhere to MnDOT’s Approach to Conflict of Interest found on the following website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


2.4.3  Internal COI Procedure

Potential conflicts of interest may arise internally to the design-build process.  The mitigation or avoidance of potential conflicts of interests is extremely important as it relates to evaluating SOQ’s and evaluating technical proposals.  To identify and mitigate any real or perceived internal conflicts of interest, the following procedures have been developed:

1.      Prior to working on the project, the PM will be responsible for collecting Conflict of Interest (COI) Forms from all MnDOT and external stakeholders involved with the development of the RFQ and RFP documents. 

2.      The PM will store all COI forms.

3.      The PM will immediately notify the DBPM and Director of Contract Management of all COI issues.

4.      The Director of Contract Management, in consultation with other MnDOT offices and state agencies, will make a determination on the conflict of interest and recommend steps to the PM and DBPM.

5.      The PM or DBPM will notify FHWA of all COI issues on all federal projects.

 

 

Exhibits

2.4-1:  Conflict of Interest Approach

 

 

Forms

Form 2.4a:  Confidentiality Form


2.5  Data Practices (Public Information)

 

Design-build contracting often generates documents and information that are unique to MnDOT.  Many documents are kept confidential during the procurement to protect ideas and concepts unique to each design-build team.  The release and storage of documents shall be consistent with state data practices laws.  These laws provide the legal requirements for releasing data generated by MnDOT (Minnesota state statute 13.72) and data generated by private businesses (Minnesota state statute 13.591).

 

To minimize the release of non-public data, each person involved with the preparation of the RFP and other contract documents, evaluation of SOQ’s, and evaluation of technical proposals should complete the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement, No Conflict of Interest Form.  See Section 2.4 (Conflict of Interest) for the distribution and storage of these forms.   

 

Listed below are the procedures for releasing and disclosing data related to the procurement of design-build projects.  Data generated outside of the procurement, such as preliminary design or work performed under the design-build contract, are subject to the same laws and rules as design-bid-build contracting.

2.5.1 General

1.      Proprietary information exchanges between design-build teams and MnDOT during procurement are confidential.  Specifically, ATC and PAE information should not be shared publically or with other teams during procurement.

2.5.2 Releasing Data Related to RFQs and SOQs

1.      The DBPM is responsible for publicly releasing the data in consultation with MnDOT’s Data Practices Unit.

2.      Unless otherwise indicated below, SOQs are non-public until contract award. 

3.      MnDOT SOQ evaluation methodology (evaluation manual) and statement of qualification evaluations (scoring sheets and calculations) are public after MnDOT announces the short-list.

4.      When releasing this information, the names of the TRC members are withheld until after contract award.  This is necessary to minimize the potential of design-build teams having an unfair competitive advantage. 

5.      In the event that MnDOT has received SOQs, but the RFQ needs to be re-advertised within one year of the original SOQ due date, the following applies:

6.      The SOQs are non-public until contract award.

7.      The evaluation methodology and SOQ evaluations are non-public until contract award unless the short-list has been released (see #3 above).

8.      In the event that MnDOT has received SOQs, but the RFQ will be re-advertised a year (or longer) since the original SOQ due date, the SOQs and evaluation methodology and SOQ evaluations are public one year after the original SOQ due date.

9.      In the event that MnDOT has received SOQs, but no longer elects to use design-build contracting on the project, the SOQs, evaluation methodology, and SOQ evaluations are public at the time MnDOT elects to no longer use design-build contracting on the project.     

10.  For all other circumstances, the DBPM will consult with MnDOT’s Data Practices Unit. 

2.5.3  Releasing data related to Technical Proposal Evaluations

1.      The DBPM is responsible for publicly releasing the data in consultation with MnDOT’s Data Practices Unit.

2.      Technical Proposals, scoring methodology and evaluations are non-public until award of the contract. 

a.        Items submitted to MnDOT during the procurement process such as ATCs and PAEs are also considered non-public until contact award.    

b.      ATCs and PAEs submitted to MnDOT during the procurement that are not included in the design-build team’s technical proposal, are considered public information, however, MnDOT cannot use them during the contract administration of the project.

3.      Upon contract award, the DBPM will post the Technical Proposals, scoring methodology (evaluation manual) and TRC evaluation sheets to the project FTP site.

4.      The DBPM will notify (via e-mail) the PM and the Proposer’s single points of contact that the information has been posted (include a link to the information).

5.      In the event MnDOT elects to not award the contract, but will re-issue the RFP within a year of the letting, the Technical Proposals, evaluation methodology and evaluations are non-public until award. 

6.      In the event MnDOT elects to not award the contract, but will re-issue the RFP a year (or longer) after the letting, the Technical Proposals, evaluation methodology and evaluations are public a year after the original letting date. 

7.      In the event that MnDOT elects to not award the contract and not pursue the use of design-build contracting for the project, the Technical Proposals, evaluation methodology, and evaluations are public at the time MnDOT elects to no longer use design-build contracting on the project. 

8.      For all other circumstances, the DBPM will consult with MnDOT’s Data Practices Unit. 

 

2.6  Timesheet Activity Codes                                             

Unique timesheet activity codes have been developed for design-build contracting.  These codes listed below should be used during design-build procurement, design-build contract administration, and during warranty management. 

 

All activities that are related to the development of the project, whether it is design-build or design-bid-build, should be charged to the normal project development charge ID (e.g. if working on the environmental document, charge to the appropriate environmental document activities) except development of contract documents (see below).

5910    DESIGN-BUILD PROGRAM MANAGMENT

CO staff development of the overall design-build program policies and procedures; and management of the overall program.  Includes incidental efforts in developing and managing consultant agreements, but significant amounts of time should be coded to Design-Build Procurement, Design-Build Design Oversight, or Design-Build Construction Oversight, as appropriate.

5911    DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT

All CO and district work associated with the preparation of the RFQ and RFP based on preliminary design work, and other tasks until contract award.  (Technical Offices and district staff would not use this code for typical preliminary design activities).

5912    DESIGN-BUILD DESIGN OVERSIGHT

All work associated with reviewing the design activities of the design-build team.

5917    DESIGN-BUILD CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT

All work related to overseeing design-build construction activities. 

5918    DESIGN-BUILD STIPENDS

Use on payment transactions for stipends to unsuccessful proposers on design-build projects.  Not for use on timesheets.

5920    DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT SUPPORT

All support for a design-build project not covered by Activity Codes 5910, 5911, 5912, 5917, 5918 or 5930.  For example, internal quality audits, RMS support, scheduling, document management, administrative support, and general project management not attributed to design or construction oversight.

5930    DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT WARRANTY MANAGEMENT

All tasks and expenditures to monitor design-build warranty compliance and pursue remedies after completion of construction.  Note:  for design-build warranty management, see 1860.


2.7  PPMS Activities                                            

The following unique PPMS activity codes have been developed for design-build contracting.  The codes work with other standard PPMS activities, however, not all standard activities apply to design-build projects (e.g.: roadway plans). The PM should work with their district PPMS coordinator. 

5040    D-B SCOPING

This activity assembles the Design-Build team, sets Design-build goals, performs risk allocation, and identifies permit, r/w, and agreement needs.

5942    D-B PROJECT ADVERTISEMENT

This activity prepares and distributes the request for letters of interest and conducts an informational meeting for contractors.

5944    D-B RFQ DEVELOPMENT

This activity develops and advertises a request for qualifications from Design-Build teams.

5946    D-B SOQ PREPARATION AND SCORING

This activity receives the Design-Build team’s SOQ and culminates in a contractor short list to receive the Request for Proposals.

5948    D-B RFP DEVELOPMENT

This activity assembles the request for proposals which goes to the short listed teams who will produce a schedule, design, and estimate for the Design-Build construction project.

5950    D-B PROPOSAL PREPARATION & SCORING

This activity includes time for the State and the contractors to consider Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC), the State to develop a Selection Manual, the contractors to submit a proposal, and the State to perform a technical review of the proposals.

5952    D-B CONTRACTOR SELECTION

This activity includes opening the price portion of the contractor proposals and assigning a best value based on the price and technical score.

5954    D-B AUTHORIZATION

This activity includes all tasks necessary to obtain FHWA approval prior to distribution of the Final RFP to the short listed Design-Build teams.

5956    D-B SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

5958    D-B MASTER UTILITY AGREEMENTS

2.8  Legislative Notice – Yearly Report                      

 

State Statutes require a yearly report on the use of design-build contracting.  Specifically, State Statute 161.3428 states:

 

 Beginning September 1, 2002, and every subsequent year on September 1, the commissioner shall submit to the governor, the chairs of the house of representatives Ways and Means and senate finance committees, the chairs of the house of representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over transportation policy and finance, and the Legislative Reference Library, a yearly listing of all executed design-build contracts. The report must identify the design-build team, contract amount, duration, and services to be provided. The list and summary must:


(1) be sorted by design-build team;


(2) show the aggregate value of contracts issued by the commissioner of transportation and issued to each design-build team; and


(3) state the termination date of each contract.

 

The DBPM is responsible for drafting the yearly report for the commissioner’s signature.  The process for completing the yearly report includes:

1.      The DBPM will send the draft letter to MnDOT’s Government Affairs staff for review.  The letter should be sent no later than August 1, unless a contract will be executed in the month of August. 

2.       MnDOT Government Affairs will route the letter to the Commissioner’s Office. 

3.       The DBPM will place a signed copy in the Project File.

4.       The DBPM will provide FHWA with a signed copy.

 

 

Exhibits

2.8-1:  Sample Legislative Notice – Yearly Report 

 

 

Forms

None

 

 

 

2.9  General Engineering Consultant (GEC)                    

 

MnDOT employs a GEC to assist the DBPM and PM with various aspects of procuring design-build projects.  The GEC master contract is managed by the DBPM, however the work orders issued under this contract necessary for performing work related to a specific design-build project are funded and managed by the district.

 

The GEC cannot join a design-build team as they are exclusive to MnDOT.  Sub-consultants to the GEC that do not perform work on a design-build project may participate as an offeror or join a design-build team (see Exhibit 2.4-1).

 

Work orders may include:

·         Tasks for pre-award project development of design-build projects (preparation of environmental documents, geometric layout preparation, preliminary bridge design, etc.)

·         Developing RFPs

·         Support of MnDOT’s DB program management (updating contract documents, manuals, standards, etc.)

·         Assisting MnDOT with the development of other innovative contracting methods.

 

The benefits to having the GEC perform preliminary work is the elimination of a potential conflict of interest between the consultant performing the preliminary work and desire to be on a design-build team (see Section 2.4).

 

Most of the work included in work orders issued under the GEC master contract consists of the development of RFPs for design-build projects and support of MnDOT’s design-build program management.  These items are eligible for federal funding.  All work developing RFP documents for design-build projects shall go through the GEC contract, unless otherwise approved by the DBPM.

2.9.1 Development of a Work Order

1.      The PM will consult with the DBPM to verify the scope of the work order is within the tasks defined in the GEC master contract.

2.      The PM will fill out a requisition form and work with their district’s contract manager to develop and execute the work order.

 

Exhibits

None

 

 

Forms

None


 

Section 3.  Pre-Advertisement Activities

 

This section provides project development steps that are necessary to develop a design-build contract.  This section also provides an overview on when to consider design-build contracting. 

 

3.1  Project Development

 

The development of design-build projects is similar to traditional design-bid-build projects in many aspects.  Planning, geometric layout, environmental approvals, and right-of-way generally follow traditional practices.  The preliminary engineering aspects typically stop at the staff approved geometric layout, however the amount of design may vary on a project by project basis.   Sufficient preliminary engineering should be done to determine right-of-way limits, obtain municipal consent, meet environmental and permitting requirements, and determine the project scope to define the project’s requirements in the RFP.  Progressing preliminary design too far potentially limits the innovation of design-build teams and may add risk to MnDOT.

 

Listed below are project development tasks that need to be addressed before issuing a Request for Proposals.  The requirements will change based on the project.

3.1.1 Planning

 

Activity

Action

Planning Activities

MnDOT’s system planning, pre-program scoping and project scoping activities identified in the MnDOT Highway Project Development Process Handbook (HPDP) are largely unaffected by the decision to use design-build delivery.

Municipal Consent

Municipal consent has been identified as a risk that should remain with MnDOT. As a result, MnDOT should obtain municipal consent prior to issuing a RFP.

 

3.1.2 Preliminary Engineering

Activity

Action

Geometric Layout

The geometric layout is the basis for determining the basic configuration in the RFP.  The basic configuration defines the parameters of the geometric layout in which the contractor must construct the project.  For example, some design-build projects allow the preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments of the roadways to be modified as long as the construction limits remain within the rights of way. For other projects, specific limitations may be placed on how much the horizontal and/or vertical alignments may be changed without being considered a change to the basic configuration.

On projects requiring a geometric layout, the layout shall be staff-approved prior to releasing the RFP.   The PM should hold a basic configuration workshop before beginning preparation of the RFP to establish parameters for the basic configuration.

Modifications to the geometric layout during the procurement and contract administration process need to be coordinated through CO Geometrics and may often require approval from the State Design Engineer and FHWA.

Value Engineering

A value engineering study for the project may be necessary depending on the value of the total project cost. If required, value engineering studies will follow current MnDOT value engineering guidelines and procedures.  The incorporation of Alternative Technical Concepts cannot be used as a substitute for a Value Engineering study. 

Environmental Document

The process followed to identify, complete, and obtain approvals for the appropriate environmental document (e.g., EA, EIS, etc.) for a design-build project is generally unchanged from the process for a traditional project. This process is discussed in the HPDP.

Federal regulation (23 CFR 636.109) permits agencies to proceed with pre-qualifications, industry review, and a short listing process before the environmental study is complete.

MnDOT standard practice is to release the RFP after the environmental process has concluded.  All deviations from this practice require special FHWA approval.

Permits

To reduce contractor risk, MnDOT should obtain as many permits as possible before accepting proposals.  However, the design-build team will often need to obtain permits based upon their operations or design.  In these cases, MnDOT should coordinate early with the regulator agency to outline the project’s risks and anticipated environmental impacts.  If necessary, it may be appropriate during procurement to obtain conditional permits outlining the anticipated impacts.  In these cases, the design-builder would obtain the final permit based upon the final design.  Exhibit 3.1-1 for information on the MOU for preliminary approval under the NPDES permit requirements.

Wetlands

MnDOT should identify all wetlands within the project area.  Often, a preliminary permit will be obtained outlining the anticipated (often worst case) impact to the wetlands.  The design-build team often is responsible for obtaining the final permit, based upon their design.  If the design-build team impacts more wetlands than anticipated, the design-build team should assume the risk of obtaining the permit and mitigating the additional impacts. 

Contaminated

Materials

Contaminated materials investigation is required prior to releasing the RFP.  Unless the risks can be quantified during procurement, the testing, handling and disposal of contaminated materials should not be included in the design-build team’s price proposal.   During the administration of the contract, MnDOT will be responsible for identification and testing of contaminated materials. 

Noise Analysis

On projects requiring noise walls, preliminary noise analysis is required prior to releasing the RFP.   If necessary, the RFP should include requirements that the design-build team update the noise analysis if the final design varies from the inputs used within the preliminary noise analysis.  

Right-of-Way

Sufficient right-of-way shall be acquired to accommodate the basic configuration and drainage requirements of the project.  The acquisition of right-of-way and easements are traditionally the responsibility of MnDOT.  The design-build team often is responsible for all construction easements that may become necessary.  It is not necessary to have all right-of-way acquired at the time the RFP is released.  However, the RFP shall contain dates in which MnDOT will obtain title and possession.  If the right-of-way is not acquired by authorization, a Public Interest Finding will be required on federally funded projects.

MnDOT will provide the design-build team with a right of way work map and parcel delivery status sheet.  These items are included in the RFP and provide a guarantee that the basic configuration can be built within the right-of-way provided.  To avoid delay claims, it is important to provide access to parcels by the dates indicated on the parcel delivery status sheet.

Although not common, MnDOT may delegate responsibility for right of way acquisition to the design-build team.  In this case, MnDOT will retain the authority of review and approval of all steps of the acquisition process. The design-build team will be required to develop a right of way work map and other pre‑acquisition information necessary to complete a right of way package, as well as complete an appraisal of the parcels. Legal work related to condemnation shall be conducted by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office.  A sharing of responsibility for right of way acquisition is generally the least desirable option, as inconsistencies and unpredictable costs may occur due to different approaches used by private design-build teams versus those of MnDOT.

Geotechnical Investigation

MnDOT should conduct sufficient geotechnical investigation to minimize the risks to design-build teams.  Prior to any borings being performed, an investigation plan should be developed under the direction of the Central Office Geotechnical Engineering staff and District Materials Office staff. The accuracy of the foundation borings is guaranteed to the design-build team.  If feasible, design-build teams should be allowed to perform additional borings during procurement to further minimize the risk.

MnDOT may provide additional information relating to the soil investigation, such as geological data, groundwater data reports, logs of previously completed nearby borings from past projects, memoranda, and fence diagrams, in the RID.  Do not provide interpretive reports, except for the final pavement design. 

Pavement Design

Pavement designs for all permanent roadways/ramps/shoulders/paths shall be designed by MnDOT in accordance with Pavement Design Manual and provided in the RFP.  The pavement design should include minimum pavement section, pavement type, and subbase.  Pavement designs for temporary work are the responsibility of the design-build team. 

The use of ATCs to modify permanent pavement designs is discouraged. 

Survey

MnDOT will provide survey control and preliminary base mapping for the project. The level of mapping should be adequate to support completion of the environmental document and to support preliminary engineering. The mapping will ultimately be provided in the RID. The design-build team is responsible for all final design surveying and construction staking surveying. 

Design Exceptions

Approval of the design exceptions is required by the State Design Engineer and the FHWA prior to releasing the RFP. 

Road Design

Road design criteria shall be defined within the RFP, using the MnDOT Design-Build Modifications to the Road-Design Manual and other standards.

Drainage

Preliminary drainage should be conducted to determine right-of-way, cost estimate, and permit requirements. 

Structures

Allowable structure types need to be determined.  The approximate geometrics of the structure(s) should be established, which is done by providing a general, plan, and elevation (GP&E) drawing sheet of each structure identifying type, size, and location (included in RID documentation).

Visual Quality

Visual quality aspects should be clearly defined within the RFP.  This includes identifying wall and bridge treatments, including colors and patterns.  The requirements may include a visual quality manual or diagrams depicting desired features.  The manual or diagrams should not include dimensions of features that will unnecessarily shift design risk back to MnDOT.  The RFP may include visual quality alternatives to reduce costs and allow for innovation.  Visual quality aspects need to be coordinated with the affected stakeholders prior to release of the RFP.

Signals / Roundabouts

Traffic control (signal or roundabout) justification reports should be completed prior to releasing the RFP.   If roundabouts are being used, the roundabouts should be reviewed by the roundabout layout review committee.

Signing

Determine the material requirements, special designs, and additional signs which vary beyond the requirements of the RFP template documents.

Pavement Markings

Determine allowable permanent and temporary pavement marking material requirements. 

Traffic Management System (TMS)

Preliminary ITS layouts should be prepared  prior to issuing the RFP. 

Maintenance of Traffic

Although the design-build team is responsible for developing  the staging and traffic control plans, sufficient preliminary engineering should be done to define the required minimum traffic control requirements. 

 3.1.3 Project Management

Activity

Action

Schedule Management

Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules are required on all design-build projects.  The CPM schedule tracks the design-build team’s progress and is also used to issue payments to the design-build team.

Quality Management (Design)

The design-build team is the engineer of record and is responsible for quality control and quality assurance of the design.  MnDOT’s role is to verify that the design meets the requirements of the contract, audit the design-builder’s quality process, and accept each released for construction (RFC) package. Prior to submitting RFC packages for acceptance, the design-build team should conduct over-the-shoulder reviews with MnDOT staff. MnDOT will provide informal comments to the over-the-shoulder reviews. Formal comments will be provided on submitted RFC packages and other formal submittals.

Quality Management (Construction)

The role of the design-build team changes compared to traditional design-bid-build contracts. Design errors or ambiguities identified in the field are the responsibility of the contractor to correct.  MnDOT is responsible for acceptance testing and inspection.

Cost Management

Design-Build contracts are typically lump sum, in which payments are made based on percent complete of activities defined within the cost loaded CPM schedule.  The design-build team submits monthly invoices and progress reports that are used to determine progress payments based on the percentage of work complete for each schedule activity.   MnDOT testing and inspection documentation must support that work on each paid activity has occurred.

Human Resources

Minimum requirements are established for key personnel within the RFQ and RFP.  Design-build teams are not allowed to replace design-build firms or individuals identified within the RFQ or RFP without written approval of the commissioner.  The written approval must document why the proposed replacement will be equal or better than the individual or firm listed in the RFQ or RFP.  The DBPM will facilitate obtaining the commissioner’s approval.  The design-build contract should also include monetary deductions for the removal of key individuals during the course of the project. 

Co-location

Co-location is encouraged on multi-year complex projects which require a large degree of coordination between the design-build team and MnDOT design oversight staff.  On projects in which design is scheduled to last less than six months, alternative forms of design coordination are encouraged (e.g. regular scheduled meetings, MnDOT oversight staff with office space within designer office).

Public Information

Since the design, staging, and schedule are the responsibility of the design-build team, shifting additional public information responsibilities to the design-build team is encouraged.  On complex projects with heavy public involvement, requiring the design-build team to have a highly skilled public relations expert on staff is encouraged.  Press releases and direct contact with elected officials should remain the responsibility of MnDOT. 

Engineering Estimate

See Section 3.2

Disadvantage Business (DBE), On-the-Job Training (OJT)

See Section 3.3


3.1.4 Third Party Agreements

 

Activity

Action

Municipal Agreements

If municipal agreements are required, they are to be prepared and negotiated in accordance with MnDOT Guideline for the Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government and the MnDOT Position Statement for the Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government.  A design-build contract will not be awarded until all agreements are signed. 

Utility Agreements and Coordination

Utility coordination must be performed in accordance with MnDOT Utility Manual, Design-Build Section.  Depending on the extent of utilities located within the project corridor, the preparation of utility agreements can be one of the more time-consuming processes of a design-build project. Consequently, MnDOT should contact utility owners during the early stages of the project to plan activities and arrange meetings.

MnDOT’s standard practice on design-build projects is to provide subsurface utility engineering (SUE) and to utilize master utility agreements (MUA) between MnDOT and impacted utilities. MnDOT conducts an initial SUE and prepares Utility Information Sheets (UISs) for each utility likely to be impacted by a project. The UISs are included in the RID and contain all information known to MnDOT at the time of issuance of the RFP, including descriptions of utilities expected to have conflicts, proposed relocation areas, and utilities not expected to have conflicts.

MnDOT can follow one of two options for allocating the risk of any misidentified or unidentified utilities. If MnDOT conducts an extensive SUE prior to issuance of the RFP, MnDOT will guarantee the “reasonable accuracy” of the information provided in the RID for underground utilities, the relocation of which are included in the Design-build team’s proposal price. If MnDOT does not conduct an extensive SUE, MnDOT will not guarantee the “reasonable accuracy” of the information provided in the RID for any underground utilities.

MnDOT may enter into MUAs with utility owners to address utility issues on the project, including cost responsibilities. The design-build team is required to become a party to the MUA, which sets forth a work order process where MnDOT, the Utility Owner, and the design-build team agree to a cost and schedule for each relocation. The Notice and Order, which is issued by the Commissioner under the Minnesota utility relocation statutes, will be included as an attachment to the MUA. If a Utility Owner does not enter into a MUA with MnDOT, MnDOT’s Notice and Order process will be required to relocate the utilities. 

More detailed information on the utility coordination process in design-build delivery is provided in the MnDOT Utilities Manual, Design-Build Section.

Railroad Agreements

Railroad agreements are similar to other third-party agreements, but often require long lead time to finalize. For this reason, discussions with railroads should be initiated as early as possible in the project, and agreements with railroads should be in place prior to issuance of the RFP. The design-build contract should recognize potential impacts to schedule and cost due to the unpredictability of railroad participation. Key railroad requirements, including the railroad’s involvement, authority, and review times, should be identified in the RFP.

3.1.5  Pre-Qualification Lists                                                           

 

MnDOT’s Consultant Services unit maintains pre-qualification lists for various consultant work types.  Although 23 CFR 636.208 allows the use of existing pre-qualification lists, the lists should only be used on highly specialized areas of design (e.g. complex roundabouts), technical assistance (e.g. environmental monitoring), and to improve the quality of designers on low-bid projects.  The use of pre-qualification lists should not be used to unnecessarily limit competition or provide preferential treatment to local firms on federally funded projects. 

 

Incorporating pre-qualification must follow the following procedure:

1.      The PM will consult with the DBPM if pre-qualification lists are desired. 

2.      On full federal oversight projects, the DBPM will consult with FHWA to determine if the use of the pre-qualification list will limit competition.

3.      The DBPM will include the pre-qualification requirement within the RFQ, with reference to the work type with a link to the MnDOT prequalification website.

4.      The PM will include the requirements in Book 2, Section 2 of the RFP.  

5.      If the PM wants to add pre-qualification lists to the RFP, but did not include the requirements in the RFQ, the following apply:

a.       The pre-qualification list cannot contradict the requirements for Key Personnel or firms identified in the RFQ or RFP.  The use of pre-qualification firms should supplement, not replace, individuals in the SOQs. 

3.1.6  Sole-Source Clauses                                                   

Sole-source clauses are used to ensure sufficient competition exists for the project.  Sole-source clauses prevent design-build teams from obtaining resources which would result in only one (or limited number) of design-build firms available to meet the requirements of the contract. 

 

Sole-source clauses should only be used in very limited situations and for very unique items.  For example, if there are only one or two suppliers or designers for a special item, the clause will ensure that one design-build team is not able to procure all available resources and restrict competition. 

 

The following procedures apply when incorporating sole-source clauses: 

 

1.      The PM will consult with the DBPM if sole-source clauses are to be used as part of the short-listing process. 

2.      If the DBPM agrees that sole-source clauses might be necessary, the PM will conduct a study to determine the availability of the item/service.  The study needs to include a financial analysis showing how competition will be limited without a sole-source clause.

3.      The DBPM will consult with MnDOT’s Chief Council office on the results of the study to determine if sole-source clause needs to be included in the RFP.

4.      If approved by MnDOT’s Chief Council office, the DBPM will draft the RFP  sole-source clause with input from MnDOT Director of Contract Management and obtain FHWA concurrence on federal aid projects.

5.      If at all possible, include the sole-source clause in the original RFP release, not as an addendum. 

3.1.7  Maximum Price Contracts                                                                

 

A maximum price contract specifies the maximum price in which a design-build team can bid.  Design-build teams’ price proposals over the price cap are non-responsive, but the design-build team may receive a stipend if they are responsive in all other areas of the RFP besides the price.

If all price proposals exceed the cap, MnDOT has the option to: 1) not pursue design-build procurement or 2) re-issue the RFP.  To award the contract, the RFP must be re-issued and a second letting must occur.  This may result in paying an additional stipend.

Maximum price contracts have the greatest potential for success on flexible scope projects.  Flexible scope projects allow design-build teams to innovate and reduce costs without tight contract restrictions.   Incorporating maximum price clauses on fixed scope projects limits innovation.  This increases the probability that design-build teams will not meet the price cap. 

 

Stipends are not eligible for federal participation on maximum price contracts.

 

The following procedures apply when incorporating maximum price clauses in design-build contracts.

 

  1. The PM is responsible for determining the maximum price dollar amount based upon a detailed cost estimate.

2.      The use of maximum price clauses must be conveyed to potential design-build teams in the procurement documents (RFQ and RFP) as follows:  

a.       Request for Letters of Interest – indicate that the project will likely include a maximum price clause, but do not specify amount.

b.      Request for Qualifications – include in Section 2.2:

A maximum price proposal value will be included in the RFP.  The estimated value of the maximum price proposal is listed in Section 6.2.2.

 

 

 

 


c.      

The maximum price proposal value that MnDOT will accept for the Project.  Proposers that submit Price Proposals over the maximum price proposal value will be deemed non-responsive.   See Section 6.6 for impacts to the stipend.   The estimated value of the maximum price proposal value is $XX million, and is subject to change as the scope of the project is finalized during the RFP development process. 

 

Request for Qualifications- Include in Section 6.2.2 (RFP Requirements):

 

 

 

 

 

d.      Request for Qualifications - Include in Section 6.6 (Stipends):

MnDOT will award a stipend of {$XXXXX} to each short listed, responsible Proposer that provides an unsuccessful proposal and a proposal that is responsive to all aspects of the RFP excluding the maximum price proposal value requirement.  

 

 

 

 

 


 


e.       Request for Proposals - Include in ITP Section 5.3.2:

Proposers that submit Price Proposals that exceed {$XXXXX} shall be deemed non-responsive.  

 

 

 

 

 


f.       Request for Proposals – Include in ITP Section 6.4 (Stipends): 

MnDOT will award a stipend of {$XXXXX} to each short listed, responsible Proposer that provides an unsuccessful proposal and a proposal that is responsive to all aspects of the RFP excluding the maximum price proposal value requirement.  

 

 

 

 

 


3.      The DBPM will update the pass/fail requirements in the Technical Proposal Evaluation Manual to reflect that Price Proposals over the maximum price will be deemed non-responsive.

4.      If the Price Proposal exceeds the maximum price, the adjusted score will not be calculated at the letting.  The adjusted score box will read “non-responsive”.  

3.1.8  Project Development Checklist

To aid in the development of the project, Form 3.1a provides a general checklist for the PM and DBPM to use throughout the procurement process.  Listed below are the procedures for implementing the checklist. 

 

  1. When a potential design-build project is identified, the DBPM will meet with the PM to determine the status of the project.

 

  1. The DBPM should track the status of the project using the Project Development Checklist (see Form 3.1a).  The DBPM and PM should continue using the checklist as a guide during the development of the project.

 

  1. The DBPM and PM should develop a project schedule using the guidelines listed in Section 1.4.4.  Once final, the project schedule should be included in PPMS.

 

 

Exhibit

3.1-1: NPDES Permit Requirements MOU

 

 

Forms

Form 3.1a:  Project Development Checklist


3.2  Engineering Estimates                                                  

During the development of the project, project estimates should be developed and updated frequently as the scope is refined.   For the purpose of design-build projects, estimates can be broken down into the following categories:

 

Planning, Scoping and Preliminary Estimates:  These estimates are used to establish a baseline cost for budgeting and for conveying estimated costs within the procurement documents.  State statues require that the estimated cost of design and construction be included in the RFQ and RFP documents.    The value published within the RFQ and RFP shall be listed as a range of values. 

 

The PM is responsible for developing and updating planning, scoping and preliminary estimates as the scope of the project is refined.  The development of these estimates should follow procedures and guidelines within MnDOT’s Cost Estimation and Cost Management (CE/CM) Technical Reference Manual.

 

Design Estimates:  These estimates are used to develop the engineer’s estimate.  The design estimates should reflect the project’s cost according to the requirements of the RFP and staff approved layout.

 

The PM, with support from MnDOT specialty units,  is responsible for developing the final design estimates using Form 3.2a Project Estimate Template while following the procedures and guidelines within MnDOT’s CE/CM Technical Reference Manual. 

 

Engineer’s Estimate:  This estimate is a confidential estimate used for multiple reasons such as to develop DBE goals and authorize funding on federally funded projects.  This estimate is also used to analyze and justify all design-build team’s price proposals during pre-award activities.  This estimate is prepared as the RFP is being finalized and is updated, as necessary, throughout the procurement process up to the letting.  

 

The engineer’s estimate is primarily prepared by the MnDOT Estimating Engineer (Office of Technical Support), with input from the PM, bridge estimating unit, and other functional groups, as needed.   The engineer’s estimate shall prepared using the following procedure:

 

1.      Engineer’s estimates need to be stored in a secure location and should not be stored electronically on shared network drives. 

2.      Access to the engineer’s estimate should be limited to individuals directly preparing the estimate.  The PM shall restrict access rights to cost information used to prepare the engineer’s estimate.

3.      The PM will hold a cost estimating kick-off meeting with the DBPM, MnDOT Estimating Engineer, FHWA (on federal funded projects) and other functional groups (e.g. Municipal Agreement, Utility Agreements)`, as needed, to discuss the cost estimating process, go over the current cost estimate, and coordinate the development of the engineer’s estimate. The kick-off meeting will take place as soon as a project has been identified to use the design-build delivery method.

4.      The PM will use the design estimate to prepare a draft engineer’s estimate according to MnDOT’s CE/CM Technical Reference Manual.  The PM will use the Project Estimate Template (Form 3.2a) for the draft engineer’s estimate.  The template will be used to identify line items needed for bidding the project.  The Project Estimate Template format under the construction heading follows the format of MnDOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction.  The PM may modify the Project Estimate Template as necessary to capture project costs.

5.      The engineer’s estimate will include:

a.       A quantity breakdown of major items, including line item references to MnDOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction;

b.      Separate line items for contingency/risk;

c.       Funding groups for each line;

d.      Assumptions documented for each line, as necessary; and

e.       Supporting documentation.

6.      The PM will provide the draft engineer’s estimate and supporting documentation (if necessary) to the MnDOT Estimating Engineer one month prior to federal authorization on full federal oversight projects (see Section 4.7.6) or at RFP release for all other projects.  The MnDOT Estimating Engineer will use this information to develop the official MnDOT Engineer’s Estimate. 

7.      Immediately following the letting, the PM, Estimating Engineer, and DBPM will:

a.       Adjust the engineer’s estimate if any ATCs are included in the winning design-build team’s technical proposal.  The PM may have to investigate the cost savings of the ATCs.

b.      Compare the design-build team’s price proposal to the official engineer’s estimate during the pre-award bid analysis.

c.       Prepare the justification letter.

d.      The Estimating Engineer will send the justification letter to the DBPM or CLS to include in the concurrence in award package.

8.      The official Engineer’s Estimate is not public until award of the project.  The DBPM is responsible for releasing this information in accordance with Section 2.5.  

 

Exhibits

None

 

 

Forms

Form 3.2a:  Project Estimate Template


3.3  Civil Rights

 

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has several programs which often require the incorporation of special provisions within the design-build RFP.  These programs include: 

·         Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE)

·         Equal Opportunity Program (EEO)

·         On-the-Job Training (OJT)

 

Early coordination with the OCR is recommended on every design-build project.  The OCR has direct contact with DBEs and can facilitate communication with design-build teams.  Increasing the communication between design-build teams and DBE contractors may increase DBE participation on federally funded projects.   

DBE meet-and-greets are often used to foster this communication.  The DBE meet-and-greets are formal meetings between design-build teams and potential DBE contractors.  The meet-and-greets often begin with the MnDOT PM giving an overview of the project, followed by DBE and design-build teams introducing themselves.  Often, each design-build team is given a conference room to meet individually with the DBEs.  Unless otherwise approved by OCR, DBE meet-and-greets will be held on all federally funded design-build projects (see DBE Communication below).

 

Listed below are several procedures for communicating with OCR and procedures for preparing civil right contract clauses. 

3.3.1  DBE Communication

1.      On federally funded projects, DBE firms should be notified very early in the procurement process.  At a minimum, the DBPM will notify the OCR when:

a.       Any early design-build team communications are to take place (see Section 3.4).

b.      A pre-RFQ meeting has been planned for a project.

c.       A RFQ is advertised for a project.

d.      A RFP is advertised.

2.      Prior to the RFP being released, the PM will contact the OCR to schedule a DBE Meet and Greet. 

a.       OCR and the PM will mutually agree upon the time and place for the meeting.  The meeting should be held one to three weeks after the RFP is issued.

b.      OCR will arrange for the room and contact the DBE firms. 

c.       The PM will contact all short-listed design-build teams and invite the FHWA.

d.      The DBPM will publish the date and time in the ITP and on the design-build website.

3.      The OCR and the PM will facilitate the Meet and Greet.  The Meet and Greet should include an overview of the project by the PM, a review of the DBE goal by OCR, and opportunities for the DBEs to interact one-on-one with the short-listed design-build teams.

3.3.2   DBE Goals

1.      DBE goals are only required on federally funded projects.

2.      The OCR is responsible for setting the DBE goal.

3.      At least one month before the RFP is to be issued, the PM will schedule a meeting with the DBPM and OCR to establish the DBE goal on the project. 

a.       The Engineering Estimate is the basis for setting the goal.

b.      The role of the PM and DBPM is to assist OCR with understanding the estimate, types of work, provide and answer any questions/provide supplemental information to assist OCR with establishing the goal. 

4.      OCR will finalize the goal and provide a copy of the DBE Special Provisions to the DBPM for inclusion into the RFP.

5.      The DBPM will incorporate the DBE Special Provisions into Book 1 and incorporate the goal in the ITP.

3.3.3  EEO Requirements Program

1.      At least one month before the RFP is to be issued, the DBPM will contact OCR regarding EEO requirements.

2.      The DBPM is responsible for incorporating the EEO requirements into Book 1 and the ITP.

3.3.4  OJT Requirements

1.      At least one month before the RFP is to be issued, the DBPM will contact OCR to set the OJT requirements. 

2.      OCR will provide the DBPM with the OJT requirements.

3.      The DBPM will incorporate the OJT requirements into Book 1 and the ITP.

 

Exhibits

None 

 

 

Forms

None

3.4  Early Design-Build Team Coordination                     

 

Early coordination is defined as communication with prospective design-build teams or firms prior to the release of procurement documents such as an RFQ or RFP.  Early coordination with potential design-build teams can be used to minimize project risk.  

 

Examples of early coordination include:

 

Procurement Determinations

Assess the feasibility of different procurements (e.g. design-build, design-bid-build) for a specific project.

Constructability Reviews

Assess the feasibility of project aspects prior to advertisement

Pre-RFQ Meetings

Obtain input into the procurement and RFQ requirements.

Draft RFQs

Solicit feedback on draft RFQ’s.

DBE Coordination

Allow design-build teams and DBE firms to meet before the formation of teams

RFQ Informational Meetings

Discuss the project and procurement with potential design-build firms.

Draft Request for Proposals

Obtain feedback on complex sections of the RFP.

Utility Coordination

Invite design-build teams to utility coordination meetings to assess schedule and utility relocation risks. 

DBE Coordination

Allow design-build teams and DBE firms to meet and form relationships

Project Status Updates

Inform proposers of the status of the RFP and other developments. 

 

Federal regulation 23CFR 636.115 encourages early information exchanges to, among other things, improve the understanding of the requirements and industry capabilities, identify and resolve concerns regarding the procurement strategy including contract types, terms and conditions and address feasibility of requirements.

Early design-build team coordination is encouraged, but opportunities should be advertised and offered consistently to all firms interested in the design-build project.  Information obtained from any early design-build team coordination will be made to all potential offerors as soon as possible. 

If early design-build team coordination is desired, the PM will contact the DBPM.  The DBPM will be responsible for coordinating the advertisement on the MnDOT Design-Build Website and the MnDOT Bid Letting website if applicable. 

The MnDOT Design-Build Website should contain the detailed early coordination information (date/locations for meetings, draft RFQ’s, results of early communication for other offerors).  Listed below are several examples:

Notice to All Design-build teams (May 24, 2010)

 

TH 13/101 Design-Build Contract – MnDOT will be conducting a pre-Request for Qualification informational meeting for design-build teams interested in the design and construction of a new interchange at the intersection of TH 13/101 in the City of Savage (Scott County, MnDOT Metro District).   The meeting will be held at the following time and location:

 

Date:                     June 10, 2010

Time:                     8:00 to 10:00 am

Location:              MnDOT Metro District

                                Waters Edge Building

                                1500 W County Road B2

                                Roseville, MN 55113

                                Conference Room A&C

 

Example 1:  Pre-RFQ Meeting Notice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice to All Design-build teams (date)

 

TH 61 Hastings Design-Build Contract – MnDOT will be conducting one-on-one constructability reviews with potential design-build teams interested in providing input into the development of this project.  This design-build project includes the construction of either a cable-stay or tied-arch bridge on TH 61 over the Mississippi River.  Items to be discussed at the constructability review include utility impacts, flood risk, and construction staging.  The meetings will be conducted on {dates} at {location}.  If interested, contact {PM, phone, e-mail) to schedule a meeting. 

 

Additional information regarding this meeting can be found on the following website:  {insert website)

Example 2:   Constructability Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When early coordination is desired, the following procedures apply:

1.      Constructability Reviews:  The PM will follow MnDOT’s Contractor Constructability Review guidelines in consultation with the DBPM.  The guidelines can be found on MnDOT’s Innovative Contracting website (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/const/tools/innovativecontract.html). 

2.      Draft Solicitation Documents:  The PM must obtain approval of the DBPM prior to releasing any draft solicitation documents (LOI, RFQ, RFP, etc.). 

a.       The PM is responsible for obtaining all comments on draft solicitation documents and providing a copy of the comments to the DBPM. 

3.      Coordination Meetings:  The PM must obtain approval from the DBPM prior to scheduling any pre-RFP external coordination meetings (e.g. Utility, DBE). 

                                                              i.      Pre-RFP meetings must be optional to design-build teams.  Meetings should be group meetings, not one-on-one. 

                                                            ii.      The PM will be responsible for setting up all meetings and notifying the proposer’s single points of contact.   

4.      Project Status Updates:  The PM will e-mail the design-build team’s single point of contact and cc’ the DBPM. 

5.      For all other types of early coordination concepts, the PM will consult with the DBPM prior to beginning any communication with design-build teams.  The DBPM will consult with the FHWA on full federal oversight projects.

 

 

Exhibits

None

 

 

Forms

None

 


3.5  Legislative Notice – Project                                         

 

State Statute 161.3412 and 161.3416 requires the Commissioner to notify the chairs of the Senate and House of Representatives committees with jurisdiction over transportation policy and transportation finance each time the commissioner decides to use the design-build method of procurement and explain why that method was chosen. 

 

The following steps outline the legislative notification process.

1.      After a project has been identified as a design-build contract, the DBPM will draft a letter to the senate and house of representative committees with jurisdiction over transportation policy and transportation finance for the commissioner signature (see example Exhibit 3.5-1).    

2.      The DBPM will send the letter to MnDOT’s Government Affairs staff for review.  MnDOT Government Affairs will route the letter to the Commissioner’s Office. 

3.      The DMPM will place a signed copy in the Project File and send a courtesy copy to FHWA.

 

Exhibits

3.5-1:  Sample Legislative Notice – Project Letter 

 

 

Forms

None


Section 4.  Advertisement Activities

This section outlines the procurement steps necessary for design-build contracting. 

 

4.1  Websites and ftp site                                                     

Websites and ftp sites are used to advertise the project and relay project information to the design-build teams during the procurement process.   During procurement, a variety of MnDOT web pages are used.  These often include:

 

Project Specific Websites – These pages are developed and maintained by the district.  These pages convey general project information and project timelines and are intended for the general public. 

 

Design-Build Website – This website is maintained by the DBPM and contains information related to the procurement of design-build projects.  The primary audience for this website is design-build teams, but all information is open to the public.  This website contains solicitation documents (RFQ, RFP), procurement schedules,  links to project data (CADD files, utility information), and other information on an ftp site.  This website links back to the project specific website and a project specific ftp site.

 

MnDOT Bid Letting Website – This website is maintained by the Office of Technical Support.  The bid letting website is the official advertisement site for construction projects, including design-build.  The primary audience is design-build teams, suppliers, and subcontractors.  The advertisement for design-build projects links to the MnDOT Design-Build website.  

 

In addition to web pages, an ftp site is used for each design-build project.  The ftp site provides information to design-build teams.  Reference Information Documents (RID), RFQ, RFP, clarifications, and addendums are posted to this website.  

 

Prior to any design-build solicitation, the following procedure apply to the creation and maintenance of website and ftp sites.

 

1.      The PM is responsible for updating all Project Specific Websites.

2.      The DBPM will update the Design-Build website (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/) whenever a new design-build project is added.

3.      Within the Design-Build website, the DBPM will create a procurement website for each project (See Example).  The procurement website will:

a.       Include the procurement schedule

b.      Post all information for interested teams.

c.       Have direct links to the RFQ, RFQ Addenda and RFQ Clarifications.

d.      Post the short-list information

e.       Post all project award data

f.       Include an “Information for Bidders” link to an ftp site.

4.      The DBPM or PM will establish a project specific ftp site for each project.  The ftp site will be linked to the design-build procurement website using the “Information for Bidders” link (procedure 2f above). Use the following path:  ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound/ocic/{insert project name}/

5.      The PM will populate the ftp site with project specific data.  The site should be updated in real-time to provide teams with the most up-to-date information.  The ftp site will become the basis of the RID.

a.       RID information will be organized into folders by date and category using the following format: 

{Year-Month-Date-Category}- 2010-05-29-ESALS

b.      Procurement information will be organized into the following folders/subfolders:

                                                              i.      RFQ

1.      Addendums

2.      Clarifications

                                                            ii.      RFP

1.      Addendums

2.      Clarifications

                                                          iii.      Scoring Results*

1.      Design-Build Team (repeat as necessary for each team)

a.       Evaluations

b.      Technical Proposal

2.      MnDOT Documents

a.       Technical Proposal Evaluation Manual

b.      Scoring Summary spreadsheet

 

*To be posted by the DBPM after award (See Section 6.1.1).

 

 

 

Exhibits

4.1-1:  Design-Build Homepage

4.1-2:  Sample Design-Build Project Specific Page

 


Forms

None


4.2  Request for Letters of Interest                                     

 

A Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI) notifies design-build teams that an RFQ or RFP is forthcoming on a project.  Although not required by state statute, most design-build projects issue RLOI.  Responses to the RLOI are used to assist MnDOT with gauging industry interest in the project.   Design-build teams do not have to respond to the RLOI in order to respond to the RFQ or RFP. 

 

If requests for letter of interest are desired, the follow procedures apply. 

 

1.      After a project has been identified as a design-build contract, the PM will draft the RLOI using the format in Exhibit 4.2-1.  The RLOI should contain:

·         location of project

·         highway number

·         approximate project limits

·         MnDOT district

·         general project scope

·         procurement method

·         Anticipated procurement and construction schedule

·         PM contact information

·         a listing of  information to be contained in the LOI

·         due date and time of LOI

·         listing of any informational meetings about the project

·         procurement disclaimer

2.      The DBPM and/or PM will review the draft RLOI.

3.      The DBPM will review the RLOI and advertise the RLOI in accordance with Section 4.1 and Section 4.4.

4.      The PM will keep a log of responses and will distribute the RFQ to all responders of the RLOI (see Section 4.5.2).

 

Exhibits

4.2-1:  Sample Request for Letters of Interest 

 

 

Forms

None


4.3  Technical Review Committee                                       

 

The Technical Review Committee (TRC) evaluates Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) in response to a Request for Qualification (RFQ) and technical proposals received in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP). 

State Statute 161.3420 requires that the Commissioner establish the TRC during step one (RFQ) and before solicitation.  The statute also requires that the TRC be made up of at least five individuals, one of whom is an individual whose name and qualifications are submitted to the commissioner by the Minnesota chapter of the Associated General Contractors (AGC).  Details of the minimum qualifications of the AGC representative are outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with AGC (see Exhibit 4.3-2).

 

The TRC is established according to the following procedure:

1.      Prior to advertising the RFQ, the DBPM will contact Minnesota AGC requesting the name of the AGC representative.  The contact shall be in writing (See Exhibit 4.3-1). 

2.      The PM will recommend all other TRC members to the DBPM.  The TRC must: 

a.       Include at least five individuals (including AGC member).  Five to seven members is preferred.

b.      Include at least one MnDOT manager (Senior Administrative Engineer or higher). 

c.       Include Principal Engineer level (or equivalent) positions or higher.

d.      Not include individuals that work for the MnDOT manager on the TRC.

e.       Not include the PM, unless low-bid.

f.       Not include individuals directly involved with the review and approval of PAEs, if the PAE has any impact on technical scoring.

 

3.      The TRC may include non-MnDOT employees, such as city and county representatives.  Non-MnDOT TRC members:

a.       Should only be used when the city/county has a significant financial contribution to the project. 

b.      Must not be elected officials.

c.       Must be a licensed professional engineer or hold a leadership position (e.g. Public Works Director) in a department with significant civil engineering roles.

4.      The DBPM may request deviations to points 2 and 3 above from the Chief Engineer. 

5.      The DBPM will forward the list of TRC members to the Innovative Contracting Director and Chief Engineer for concurrence. 

6.      If the TRC needs to be changed, the PM will contact the DBPM.  The DBPM will obtain concurrence on the change from the Innovative Contracting Director and the Chief Engineer. 

 

 

Exhibit

4.3-1:  Sample AGC TRC Request Letter

4.3-2:  MOU with AGC

4.3-3:  Process for Administering Design-Build Procurement

 

 

Forms

None


4.4  Project Advertisement

 

Design-build projects need to be advertised to ensure fair and open competition.  MnDOT’s standard practice is to advertise all design-build procurements on MnDOT’s official bid letting website.  Details on the official website and other websites used during procurement can be found in Section 4.1.

 

The following table lists the advertising requirements depending on the procurement type used.   Timelines for the advertisements can be found in Section 1.4.4. 

 

Table 4.4-1.  Advertisement Requirements

 

Best-Value

(RFQ & RFP)

Low-Bid

(RFQ & RFP)

Low-Bid

(RFP Only)

Request for Letter of Interest (RLOI)

RLOI is Optional.  Advertise if used.

Pre-RFQ Meeting

Pre-RFQ Meeting is Optional.  Advertise if used.

Request for Qualification (RFQ)

Yes

Yes

No

Request for Proposal (RFP)

No

(no advertisement required, RFP is given directly to short-listed teams)

Yes

 

Listed below are the project advertisement procedures: 

1.      The DBPM is responsible for posting procurement documents (RLOI, pre-RFQ  meeting notice, RFQ, or RFP) on the MnDOT Design-Build website, providing a direct link to these documents.  All postings should be dated. 

2.      The DBPM will contact the Office of Technical Support (OTS) to have the notice posted on the official MnDOT Bid Letting Website.

3.      Listed below are sample advertisements::

Notice to All Design-build teams {date}

Elk Run Interchange (TH 52) Design-Build Contract - MnDOT will be soliciting Letters of Interest from design-build teams interested in the construction of a new interchange on TH 52 in Pine Island (15 miles north of Rochester).  The Request for Letters of Interest and project information can be found on the following website:  http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/ElkRun/index.html

 


Sample 1:  Request for Letter of Interest (RLOI) Advertisement

Notice to All Design-build teams {date}

MnDOT will be conducting an informational meeting for all firms interested in pursuing a design-build contract for the construction of a new interchange on TH 52 in Pine Island (15 miles north of Rochester).  The meeting will be held at the following time and location:

Date: 

Time:

Location:

Attendance at this meeting is not required to submit a Statement of Qualifications in response to the design-build Request for Qualifications.  More information can be found on the following website:  http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/ElkRun/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Request for Letters of Interest and project information can be found on the following website:  http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/ElkRun/index.html

 


Sample 2:  Pre-RFQ Meeting Advertisement

 

Sample 3:  Request for Qualification (RFQ) Advertisement

Notice to All Design-build teams {date}

Elk Run Interchange (TH 52) Design-Build Contract - MnDOT will be soliciting Statements of Qualifications (SOQ's) from design-build teams interested in the construction of a new interchange on TH 52 in Pine Island (15 miles north of Rochester).  The Request for Qualification (RFQ) and project information can be found on the following website:  http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/ElkRun/index.html

 


Sample 4:  Request for Proposal (RFP) Advertisement

Notice to All Design-build teams {date}

Elk Run Interchange (TH 52) Design-Build Contract - MnDOT will be soliciting technical and price proposals from design-build teams interested in the construction of a new interchange on TH 52 in Pine Island (15 miles north of Rochester).  The RFP, addendums, clarifications and project information can be found on the following website:  http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/ElkRun/index.html

 


 

4.5  Request for Qualification (RFQ)

The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is used to determine the list of the most highly qualified contractors on two-step best-value and two-step low-bid projects.  The RFQ outlines the minimum and desired qualifications of the teams.  The qualifications are tailored to each project based upon the goals and risks presented by the project. 

 

State Statute 161.3420 defines the minimum requirements of the RFQ as follows:

 

The commissioner shall prepare or have prepared an RFQ. The RFQ must include the following:
(1) the minimum qualifications of design-builders necessary to meet the requirements for acceptance;
(2) a scope of work statement and schedule;
(3) documents defining the project requirements;
(4) the form of contract to be awarded;
(5) the weighted selection criteria for compiling a short list and the number of firms to be included in the short list, which must be at least two but not more than five;
(6) a description of the request for proposals (RFP) requirements;
(7) the maximum time allowed for design and construction;
(8) the commissioner's estimated cost of design and construction;
(9) requirements for construction experience, design experience, financial, personnel, and equipment resources available from potential design-builders for the project and experience in other design-build transportation projects or similar projects, provided that these requirements may not unduly restrict competition; and
(10) a statement that "past performance" or "experience" does not include the exercise or assertion of a person's legal rights.

 

Each interested design-build team must respond to the RFQ with a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) to the RFQ. 

The following sections outline the steps required to develop, publish, respond to questions, and issue addendums to a RFQ. 

  4.5.1  RFQ Development

1.      The DBPM will maintain document control over the RFQ template.  The DBPM will be responsible for ensuring that the RFQ meets the requirements of Minnesota state statutes and federal regulations.

2.      The PM will set-up an RFQ Development meeting with the DBPM and other key individuals to determine the goals and scoring criteria for each project. All individuals attending this meeting must sign a confidentiality form.  The PM will retain all copies of the confidentiality forms (see Section 2.4).


 

3.      The scoring criteria should be based upon the following combination of concepts.   

    1. Submitter Organization
    2.  Key Personnel
    3.  Project Understanding
    4.  Project Approach

note – Besides firms and individuals listed in the SOQ, all other commitments to project approaches are non-binding.  Project Approach should be general approaches on management techniques and not specific to project elements such as how a design-build team will maintain traffic. 

  1. The DBPM will draft the RFQ based on the template and the RFQ development meeting using the MnDOT Design-Build Program Style Guide for Preparing Documents. 
    1. If pre-qualification lists are being considered, see Section 3.1.5.  
    2. If a maximum price is considered, see Section 3.1.7.
    3. If Pre-Approved Elements are being considered, see Section 4.10.
  2. The DBPM will electronically store the draft RFQ in a secure location. 
  3. The DBPM will provide a draft RFQ for the PM to review.   

4.5.2  RFQ Publishing

1.      Upon completion of the RFQ, the DBPM will advertise the RFQ (see Section 4.5).

2.      If letters of interest have been received for the project, the PM will contact firms submitting letters of interest and inform them that the RFQ has been posted to the MnDOT design-build website.  The PM will ‘cc the DBPM on all correspondence with firms.

3.      The DBPM will provide a courtesy copy of the RFQ to FHWA on full federal oversight projects.

4.5.3  RFQ Clarifications

The clarification process allows MnDOT to respond to design-build team questions during the RFQ advertisement period.  Responses to clarification questions need to be carefully drafted for consistency and ensure fair competition.  Clarification responses are meant to clarify the RFQ, but should not be used to materially change the RFQ.  Material changes to the RFQ should be modified via the addendum process in Section 4.5.4.

 

Listed below is the procedure for receiving and responding to RFQ clarification questions: 

1.      The PM will retain document control of the clarifications.

2.      The PM will distribute (via e-mail) the clarification request form to each team with instructions to submit their clarifications using this form.  Forms are available on the design-build website.

3.      Clarification questions from teams need to be submitted in writing to the PM in accordance with the RFQ.   MnDOT and the FHWA may also generate clarification questions based on items discussed at any meetings with the teams.

4.      The PM will draft responses to the clarification questions.  All responses need to be fact based (no opinions).  Refer to the RFQ sections when drafting responses, as necessary.  Refer to modifying the RFQ in future addendums when drafting responses, as necessary.

5.      The PM will draft responses to the clarifications using the following format:

a.       The PM will use the Clarification Response Form.

b.      Clarifications will be numbered sequentially using the format Clarification No 1, Clarification No 2, Clarification No 3, etc:

c.       Questions will be numbered as follows (Clarification No – Clarification Question No.).  For example, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 for questions responded to in Clarification No 1.  2-1, 2-2, 2-3 for questions responded to in Clarification No 2.

d.      Do not disclose which team submitted the clarification question.

e.       The PM will send a draft to the DBPM no later than 4:00 PM each Thursday.  Any questions that cannot be answered by 4:00 PM each Thursday will move to the next clarification the following week or until they are answered.

f.       The DBPM will review and approve the clarification.

g.      The PM will post the clarification to the ftp site no later than 5:00 PM each Friday.

h.      For teams which requested notification of all clarifications, the PM will send them an e-mail notifying them that a clarification has been posted to the ftp site.

i.        The DBPM will send a courtesy copy of all clarifications to FHWA on full federal oversight projects.

4.5.4  RFQ Addendums

RFQ addendums are generated by clarification questions, but can also be generated by MnDOT to modify the contents of the RFQ.  Design-build teams begin preparing SOQ’s shortly after the RFQ is issued.  Changes to the RFQ often have a major impact on the design-build SOQ.  If an addendum needs to be issued less than one week before the SOQ due date, the PM and DBPM should consider extending the SOQ due date.

1.      The DBPM will maintain document control of the RFQ. 

2.      All requested changes to the RFQ must be submitted to the DBPM.  The DBPM will only accept requested changes from the FHWA or PM, or the PM’s designee. 

3.      The DBPM will draft the addendums using the following format:

a.       Addendums will be numbered sequentially using the format Addendum No 1, Addendum No 2, Addendum No 3. etc:

b.      The first addendum will be produced by tracking changes to the original RFQ issued.

c.       For each subsequent addendum, accept all changes from the previous addendum prior to starting.  Track all changes. 

d.      The title page shall list the addendum number and date of the addendum. 

e.       The footnote shall list the addendum number and date. 

f.       Save the addendum using the following naming convention:  {SP #, Hwy #, Project Name, RFQ, Addendum #}.  (e.g.  2505-48, TH 52, Elk Run Interchange, RFQ Addendum No 1.}. 

4.      The DBPM will post the addendum in pdf format on the website or ftp site identified within Section 2.5 of the RFQ. 

5.      The DBPM will notify the PM that an addendum has been posted.

6.       The PM will notify Submitters that an addendum has been posted if the Submitters requested the notification per Section 2.5 of the RFQ.

7.      The DBPM will send a courtesy copy of all addendums to FHWA on full federal oversight projects. 

 

 

Exhibits

4.5-1:  MnDOT Design-Build Program Style Guide for Preparing Documents

 

 

Forms

Form 4.5a:  RFQ Template

Form 4.5b:  RFQ Clarification Request Form

Form 4.5c:  RFQ Clarification Response Form

 

4.6  Statement of Qualification (SOQ) Evaluation and Short-Listing

 

If an RFQ is issued for either a two-step best-value or two-step low-bid project, each interested design-build team responds with a Statement of Qualifications.  The SOQs are evaluated by the TRC established by the commissioner (see Section 4.3).  The TRC evaluations are used to determine a short-list of the most highly qualified design-build teams.  The RFP is only issued to the short-listed teams.   Normally, three to five teams are short-listed to ensure competition.  State Statue 161.3420 Subd 4 and federal regulation 23 CFR 636.207 limits the short-list to a maximum of five teams. 

 

Listed below are the procedures for receiving SOQs, evaluating SOQs, determining the short-list and notifying design-build teams of the short-list results.

4.6.1  Receipt of SOQ

1.      The DBPM receives all SOQs.  The DBPM will time stamp receipt of SOQs and provide a receipt to Submitter. 

    1.   For hand-delivered proposals, use Form 4.6a.
    2.   For electronic delivery, the DBPM will send an e-mail to the Submitter single point of contact acknowledging receipt of the SOQ.
  1.  The DBPM will develop an SOQ distribution log using Form 4.6c (see also example Exhibit 4.6-7). The TRC evaluator number should be the same as the SOQ distribution number.  

4.6.2  Evaluation Committee

The review and evaluation of SOQ is often performed by a team of experts, scoring members (TRC), legal staff, and process oversight experts.  Although the TRC are the only ones to score the SOQs, technical advisors (such as the PM) are frequently used to provide input into the process.   Technical advisors provide strengths and weaknesses to the TRC.  The DBPM, FHWA and Department of Administration form the Process Oversight Committee (POC), which oversees that the procurement is conducted in accordance with this procurement manual, state laws, and federal regulations. 

4.6.3  Short-Listing

1.      The PM shall arrange the time/location for the SOQ Evaluation Kick-off Meeting. 

a.       The purpose of the SOQ Evaluation Kick-Off Meeting is to distribute the SOQs and review the process for evaluating the SOQs.  All TRC members, technical advisors and process oversight committee members are required to attend unless approved by the DBPM.  Note:  FHWA oversight and legal advisors are not required to attend if they have attended a kick-off meeting for other projects.

b.      If a TRC member or advisor is not able to make the meeting, the DBPM will schedule a one-on-one kick-off meeting with the person to distribute the SOQ and review the SOQ evaluation process.

c.       The DBPM will moderate the SOQ Evaluation Kick-off Meeting.

d.      The DBPM will prepare and distribute evaluation packages to each member in attendance.  The evaluation package will include (at a minimum): 

·   Agenda

·   Copy of the Request for Qualifications (latest addendum)

·   Copy of Clarifications

·   Copy of Each SOQ

·   SOQ Evaluation Manual (add additional forms if needed)

·   Conflict of Interest Form

·   List of Key People and Firms listed in the SOQ (Form 4.6c)

e.       The DBPM will review the SOQ Evaluation Manual in detail. 

2.      The PM shall arrange for a time/location for the short-list evaluations (except legal subcommittee).  The PM shall notify all evaluators of the evaluation schedule. 

3.      The DBPM shall arrange the legal subcommittee meeting.  The PM and TRC do not need to attend the meeting.

4.      The DBPM and PM shall attend all SOQ evaluation meetings with the TRC. On full federal oversight projects, the PM will invite the FHWA to all SOQ evaluation meetings.

5.      The DBPM will oversee the short-listing process in accordance with the SOQ Evaluation Manual and will record notes in a log (see Form 4.6c).  The DBPM will take notes summarizing the TRC evaluations for use in the debriefing meetings.

6.      The DBPM will conduct a hand calculation of the TRC scoring and check the scoring versus an electronic spreadsheet (see Form 4.6d).

7.      The DBPM will collect all evaluation materials and SOQs from the evaluation team.

8.      After the TRC has developed a recommendation for the short-list, the DBPM will prepare a short-list recommendation to the commissioner.

9.      The DBPM and PM will meet with commissioner (or designee) to discuss and obtain concurrence on the short-list.

10.  On federal aid projects, the DBPM will forward the short-list recommendation letter to the FHWA for concurrence. 

11.  After concurrence, the DBPM and PM will jointly call each design-build team with the results of the short-list.

a.       Do not inform teams that they were unsuccessful via voicemail.

b.      Offer each team a debriefing meeting (See Section 6.3).

12.  The DBPM will post the short-list results on the design-build website after all design-build teams have been notified.

13.  The DBPM or PM will draft a letter to each team with the short-list results.  The DBPM or PM will e-mail the letter to each team and send a hard copy via mail.  The DBPM will retain a copy in the project file.

4.6.4  SOQ Evaluation Materials Possession

1.      At the conclusion of the SOQ Evaluation Process, the DBPM will retain at least two copies of the SOQs.  One for the DBPM office file and one for the MnDOT Library.  The copy for the MnDOT Library should be clean of any evaluator notes or comments.  The PM will retain all the other copies until conclusion of the procurement process.

2.      The DBPM will retain all SOQ evaluation materials in accordance with standard data retention practices.

  1. The DBPM will release the SOQ and SOQ evaluation manual in accordance with Section 2.5 Data Practices (Public Information) Procedure. 

 

Exhibits

4.6-1:  SOQ Evaluation Agenda (sample)

4.6-2:  Short-list Posting for design-build website (sample)

4.6-3:  Short-list Recommendation Letter (sample)

4.6-4:  POC Log (sample)

 

 

Forms

Form 4.6a:  Receipt of SOQs Form

Form 4.6b:  SOQ Evaluation Manual Template

Form 4.6c:  SOQ POC Log Template

Form 4.6d:  SOQ Scoring and TRC Summary Template

Form 4.6e:  Short-List Recommendation Letter Template

Form 4.6f:  Short-list Letter – Successful Team Template

Form 4.6g:  Short-list Letter – Unsuccessful Team Template

 

4.7  Request for Proposal (RFP) Development          

 

The Request for Proposal (RFP) outlines the contract requirements, project scope, project standards, and instruction on how to respond to the solicitation.   The RFP is required on all design-build projects.  State Statute 161.3422 outlines the minimum requirements that must be included in the RFP.  These items include:

 

·         Scope of Work

·         Design-build qualifications

·         Selection criteria, including weight

·         Copy of contract documents

·         Maximum allowable time to design and construct the project

·         Estimated cost of design and construction

·         Requirement that technical and price proposals be submitted as two separate packages

·         Requirements for a schedule, critical path method, or bar chart

·         Requirements that the price proposal contain all costs

·         Date, time and location of the public opening

·         Other information relative to the project

 

Listed below is an overview of the RFP documents and processes/procedures for developing, amending, and distributing RFPs. 

4.7.1  RFP Template

Templates have been developed to maintain consistency between projects.  The contents of the RFP will change based on the scope and risks of each project.  However, the RFP is typically structured as outlined in the following table.

 

Table 4.7-1.  Standard RFP Format:

RFP Section

Description

Instruction to Proposer (ITP)

The ITP is not a contract document, but it outlines the procurement process, evaluation criteria, and format for submitting technical and price proposals. 

Book 1

(Contract Terms and Conditions)

Book 1 outlines the contract terms and conditions and becomes the contract on the project.  Book 1 also contains contract definitions, prevailing wage requirements, DBE/EEO/OJT requirements, and warranty clauses. 

 

Book 2

(Project Specific Requirements)

Book 2 outlines the project specific requirements and is tailored to each project.  Book 2 is typically divided into the following subsections:

 

1.         General

2.         Project Management

3.         Public Information

4.         Environmental Compliance

5.         Third Party Agreements

6.         Utilities

7.         Right-of-Way

8.         Geotechnical

9.         Land Surveying

10.     Grading

11.     Roadways

12.     Drainage

13.     Structures

14.     Vegetation

15.     Visual Quality Management

16.     Signing, Pavement Marking, Signalization, and Lighting

17.     Traffic Management System (TMS)

18.     Maintenance of Traffic

19.     Maintenance During Construction

20.     Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

21.     Railroad

 

Book 3

(Standards)

Book 3 contains the standards that must be used on the project.  Book 3 typically contains the following: 

  • Standards
  • Manuals
  • Technical Memorandums
  • Standard Specifications
  • Special Provisions

Reference Information Documents (RID)

The RID is not a contract document, but includes background information to assist the contractor with designing the project. 

 

The order of precedence of the contract documents are listed above, with the exception that all change orders take precedence. 

4.7.2 RFP Development

The development of the RFP is an accumulation of information gathered or created during preliminary engineering and other pre-advertisement activities. The RFP should be developed using the RFP template and the following procedure:  

1.      The DBPM will maintain document control over the RFP template.

2.      The DBPM will be responsible for drafting and managing the development of the following sections of the RFP using the MnDOT Design-Build Program Style Guide for Preparing Documents:

a.       Instructions to Proposers (ITP)

                                                              i.      Best-Value Technical Proposal Scoring Criteria needs to be developed using the process outlined in Section 4.7.3.

                                                            ii.      Low-Bid Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria needs to be developed using the process outlined in Section 4.7.4.

                                                          iii.      Stipend amount must be set according to Section 6.2.

                                                          iv.      The use of Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC) should be developed according to Section 4.9.

                                                            v.      The use of Pre-Approved Elements (PAE) should be developed according to Section 4.10.

b.      Book 1 and Book 1 Exhibits

c.       Book 3 (Manuals, Technical Memorandums, Standard Specifications)

3.      The PM will be responsible for drafting and managing the development of the following sections of the RFP using the template as a starting point and using the MnDOT Design-Build Program Style Guide for Preparing Documents:

a.       Book 2

b.      Book 3 (Special Provisions)

c.       Reference Information Documents

4.      The PM may utilize the GEC to assist in developing the RFP.  The PM is responsible for developing the work order for the GEC contract.

5.      During the development, the RFP will be stored in ProjectWise between the district design-build team and the DBPM.  If the GEC will retain document control, the DBPM must have access rights to view the RFP within the GECs document management system.

6.      The PM will consult with the DBPM on all changes to the RFP templates.  If the changes to the template involve a MnDOT functional office, the PM will invite the DBPM to all meetings and ‘cc the DBPM on all correspondence.  The DBPM will approve all recommended changes from the functional offices.

7.      The PM will conduct at least one meeting with the DBPM and FHWA to review the draft RFP prior to federal authorization.

4.7.3  Best-Value Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Technical proposal evaluation may have a major impact on awarding the design-build contract.  Development of the technical proposal evaluation criteria needs to be a systematic, thorough process which accurately outlines the goals and/or risks of the projects.  The following procedure outlines the steps necessary for developing and approving the evaluation criteria to be included in the ITP. 

1.      The PM is responsible for setting up at least one meeting to develop the evaluation criteria. 

a.       The DBPM must be in attendance.

b.      The FHWA should also be invited on full federal oversight projects. 

c.       The PM should also invite technical experts or stakeholders to develop the evaluation criteria based upon the risks and goals of the project (e.g. if maintenance of traffic is a large risk item, invite the district traffic engineer.)

2.      The DBPM will facilitate the meeting by soliciting a list of goals and risks from meeting attendees.   The DBPM may elect to bring past evaluation criteria from similar projects.

3.      Based upon the goals and risks identified, the attendees will rank the criteria based upon the value provided to the project.  The evaluation criteria should:

a.       Be clear, defendable, and easy for the proposers and public to understand.

b.      Not overlap scoring criteria in the SOQ, especially with respect to Key Personnel which have already been evaluated in the SOQ.

c.       Focus on items which bring measureable value to the project.

d.      Be tailored to the individual project.  Avoid/minimize recycling criteria from project to project. 

4.      Following the ranking of criteria, the attendees will assign points to criteria and sub-criteria.  The total points to be assigned shall not exceed 50 points unless approved by the Chief Engineer.

5.      Following the meeting, the DBPM will draft the criteria for inclusion in the ITP.  The DBPM may also elect to have the PM draft the criteria and forward to the DBPM for review. 

6.      The PM may elect to schedule follow-up meetings with the DBPM, FHWA (full federal oversight projects) and technical experts to refine the criteria.

7.      After the criteria have been developed, the DBPM will obtain Approval of the evaluation criteria from the MnDOT Innovative Contracting Director and Chief Engineer. 

8.      All material changes to the evaluation criteria must be approved by the Innovative Contracting Director and the Chief Engineer.

4.7.4  Low-Bid  Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Technical proposal evaluation on low bid project should be based on objective criteria.  Typical evaluation criteria consist of a legal review of responsiveness based upon the standard forms provided in the ITP.  The following procedure outlines the steps necessary for developing and approving the evaluation criteria to be included in the ITP. 

1.      The DBPM will develop the evaluation criteria in coordination with the PM.  The criteria will be based on pass/fail requirements.

2.      After the criteria have been developed, the DBPM will obtain Approval of the evaluation criteria from the MnDOT Innovative Contracting Director. 

3.      All material changes to the evaluation criteria must be approved by the Innovative Contracting Director.

4.7.5   Funding Kick-Off Meeting                                                   

The sources of funding impact how the price proposal form is created and impacts the federal authorization process.  To minimize delays to federal authorization and contract award, a funding kick-off meeting should be conducted at least one month prior to releasing the RFP and prior to federal authorization. 

 

The following procedure outlines the steps and procedures associated with conducting a funding kick-off meeting. 

1.      The PM will schedule the funding kick-off meeting.

2.      The PM will invite the DBPM, District PPMS coordinator, Estimating Engineer, Municipal Agreements Engineer, Utility Engineer, Finance Program Accounting, CPPM (Programming Section), FHWA (on full federal oversight projects), and others as necessary.

3.      The PM will bring handouts of Form 3.2a (Project Estimate).  (see Section 3.2) 

4.      All participants need to discuss and understand the following, at a minimum:

a.        Identify funding sources for the project

b.      What funding sources cover which aspects of the project (bridges, grading, etc., stipends, ROW, design oversight, construction oversight, AGC TRC member compensation, etc.)

c.       What utility agreements and municipal agreements are part of the project, if any

d.      Are the bid items set up appropriately for the project

e.       Identify any state furnished materials to be used on the project

f.       Identify if project runs through multiple counties, road segments (control sections)

g.      Identify associated state project (SP) numbers and percentage of work associated with each SP

h.      Identify if separate authorization is required on ROW, stipends, and design/construction oversight

5.      Stipends are not eligible for federal funds when using a maximum price clause (see Section 6.2).

4.7.6  Federal Authorization

The FHWA must authorize each full federal oversight design-build project before the RFP can be issued.  Federal authorization requires an accumulation of various planning and pre-design activities.  This procedure outlines the steps and procedures for obtaining federal authorization. 

 

  1. Unless otherwise authorized by the FHWA, the following items must be completed prior to requesting federal authorization:
    1. Completion and approval of the NEPA process
    2. All R/W is acquired or a Public Interest Finding (PIF) has been obtained
    3. The DBE goal has been established
    4. Funding sources have been identified
    5. Engineer’s Estimate is complete
    6. Agreement numbers

 

2.      The DBPM will contact the CPPM and the MnDOT Special Provisions Engineer and notify them at least one month prior to requesting federal authorization. 

3.      The PM will consult with the Special Provisions Engineer on the development of the federal authorization form.  The PM will complete as much of the form as possible and then forward the federal authorization form to the MnDOT Special Provisions Engineer at least two weeks prior to requesting authorization.  The PM will ‘cc the DBPM on the request.

4.      The MnDOT Special Provisions Engineer will process the federal authorization form and forward to CPPM. 

5.      The PM will provide CPPM with the utility and municipal agreement numbers and amounts.  See Section 4.7.5 for additional information that CPPM may require.

6.      CPPM will complete the authorization form and send the information to the FHWA for authorization.

7.      The FHWA will notify CPPM, Finance, the PM, and the DBPM that the project has been authorized. 

4.7.7  RFP Distribution/Advertisement

The following outlines the process for obtaining RFP approval and the process for issuing the RFP to short-listed design-build teams or advertising the RFP on a single step low-bid process.

1.      Prior to sending the RFP to FHWA for approval, the DBPM will review and approve the RFP.  The DBPM needs a minimum of one week to review the RFP.

a.       The PM may request that the RFP be issued prior to obtaining all permits, but the PM will need to provide a schedule to the DBPM and FHWA showing the permits will likely be obtained prior to letting. 

b.      The PM may release the RFP prior to having utility agreements, master utility agreements, and municipal agreements signed.  All agreements must be final before the project can be awarded. 

2.      On full federal oversight projects, the FHWA requires 14 calendar days for their review of the RFP.  The RFP may be submitted to the FHWA for review prior to the federal authorization form.  The PM will provide the FHWA with the following:

a.       2 Hardcopies of Book 1, ITP, and Book 2

b.      2 CD’s of the complete RFP

  1. The PM will discuss all FHWA comments with the DBPM prior to making changes to the RFP.
  2. The PM will discuss  with the FHWA and document how the FHWA comments were addressed. 

5.      When authorized by the FHWA and DBPM, the PM will post the RFP to the project ftp site (See Section 4.1).

6.      On projects with a short-list (two-step), the PM will notify the short-listed design-build team single point of contact when the RFP is ready.  The DBPM will notify OCR that the RFP has been posted to the ftp site.

7.      On single step projects, the DBPM will advertise the RFP per Section 4.4 and notify OCR that the RFP has been posted.

8.      The PM will provide the following copies of the released RFP: 

Table 4.7-2.  RFP Distribution

Organization

Two-Step Process

(Low-Bid or Best-Value)

Single Step Process

(Low-Bid)

Design-Build Teams

One CD of the RFP

One Hard Copy of the RFP (1)

Posted to the ftp site

DBPM

One CD of the RFP

One Hard Copy of the RFP

FHWA (full federal oversight projects)

Two CDs of the RFP

Two Hard Copies of the RFP

4.7.8  RFP Clarifications

The clarification process allows MnDOT to respond to design-build team questions during the RFP advertisement period.  Responses to clarification questions need to be carefully drafted for consistency and ensure fair competition.  Clarification responses are meant to clarify the RFP, but should not be used for material changes to the RFP.  Material changes to the RFP should be modified via the addendum process.

 

Listed below is the procedure for receiving and responding to RFP clarification questions: 

1.      The PM will retain document control of the clarifications.

2.      The PM will distribute (via e-mail) the clarification request form (Form 4.7a) to each team with instructions to submit their clarifications using this form. 

3.      Clarification questions from teams need to be submitted in writing to the PM in accordance with the RFP.   MnDOT and the FHWA may also generate clarification questions based on items discussed at any meetings with the teams.

4.      The PM will draft responses to the clarification questions.  All responses need to be fact based (no opinions).  Refer to the RFP sections when drafting responses, as necessary.  Refer to modifying the RFP in future addendums when drafting responses, as necessary.

5.      The PM will draft responses to the clarifications using the following format:

a.       The PM will use the Clarification Response Form (Form 4.7b).

b.      Clarifications will be numbered sequentially using the format Clarification No 1, Clarification No 2, Clarification No 3, etc:

c.       Questions will be numbered as follows (Clarification No – Clarification Question No.).  For example, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 for questions responded to in Clarification No 1.  2-1, 2-2, 2-3 for questions responded to in Clarification No 2.

d.      Do not disclose which team submitted the clarification question.

e.       The PM will send a draft to the DBPM no later than 4:00 PM each Thursday.  Any questions that cannot be answered by 4:00 PM each Thursday will move to the next clarification the following week or until they are answered.

f.       The DBPM will review and approve the clarification.

g.      The PM will post the clarification to the ftp site no later than 5:00 PM each Friday.

h.      For teams which requested notification of all clarifications, the PM will send them an e-mail notifying them that a clarification has been posted to the ftp site.

i.        The PM will send a courtesy copy of all clarifications to FHWA on full federal oversight projects.

4.7.9  RFP Addendums

RFP addendums are generated by clarification questions, but can also be generated by MnDOT to modify the contents of the RFP.  RFP addendums often have significant impacts to the design-build team price and technical proposals.  If an addendum needs to be issued less than one week before the Technical Proposal due date, the PM and DBPM should consider extending the technical and price proposal due date. 

Addendums modifying the evaluation criteria are discouraged.  However, if an addendum is necessary, it should be issued early in the process before design-build teams begin preparing their technical proposals. 

Listed below are the processes and procedures for generating and publishing RFP addendums:

 

1.      The PM will maintain document control of the RFP in ProjectWise.  The PM may also choose to have the MnDOT GEC retain document control.

2.      The PM will draft the addendums using the following format:

a.       Addendums will be numbered sequentially using the format Addendum No 1, Addendum No 2, Addendum No 3, etc.

b.      Addendum will be issued only for the sections of the RFP impacted (do not re-issue entire RFP). The first addendum will be produced by tracking changes to the original RFP issued.

c.       For each subsequent addendum, accept all changes from the previous addendum prior to starting.  Track all changes. 

d.      List the addendum number in the footnote. 

3.      The PM must not draft changes to Book 1 or the ITP without first consulting with the DBPM. 

4.      The DBPM is responsible for incorporating updated federal and state wage rates in each addendum.

a.       Updated federal wage rates need to be added via addendum up to the letting date.

b.      Updated state wage rates do not need to be added, except if a revision is made.  (The wage rate website will show both an effective date and a revised date.  A revised date means that a clerical change was made).   

5.      The PM will prepare the addendum cover letter using Form 4.7c.  The cover letter should provide a brief overview of the changes to the RFP.

6.      The PM will submit the draft addendum to the DBPM for review and concurrence.

7.      The PM will send the proposed addendum changes to the FHWA on full oversight projects for review and approval at least 7 days prior to issuing the addendum.  

8.      After the PM has obtained concurrence from the DBPM and the FHWA, the PM will post the addendum to the ftp site identified within the ITP. 

9.      On two-step process, the PM will notify the design-build team single point of contact, DBPM and FHWA via e-mail that an addendum has been posted.  No notification is required on single-step process.

10.  The PM should contact Finance Program Accounting, MnDOT Estimating  if major addendums (scope changes) occur.

 

Exhibits

4.3-3:  Process for Administering Design-Build Procurement

4.5-1: MnDOT’s Design-Build Program Style Guide for Preparing Documents

4.3.3: Process for Administering Design-Build Procurement

 

 

Forms

Form 4.7a:  RFP Clarification Request Form

Form 4.7b:  RFP Clarification Response Form

Form 4.7c:  Addendum Cover Letter Form

 

4.8  One-on-One Meetings                                                  

One-on-one meetings between MnDOT and design-build teams are used to improve communication during the procurement process.  The primary purpose of these meetings is to allow design-build teams to discuss potential ATCs and PAEs with MnDOT prior to making a formal submittal.  This minimizes effort on both MnDOT and design-build firms drafting ATCs and PAEs that have a limited chance of being approved. 

The one-on-one meetings should not be used to discuss clarifications or have the design-build teams gain additional insight into the process.  Clarification questions need to be submitted to MnDOT in writing via the clarification process outlined in Section 4.7. 

The number and frequency of the one-on-one meetings will depend on the size and complexity of the project.  The PM and DBPM will jointly determine the number and frequency.  Each design-build team will be offered the same one-on-one opportunity.

Listed below are the procedures and protocols for conducting one-on-one meetings.  This procedure outlines the one-on-one meeting process with design-build teams.

 

1.      The PM will schedule all one-on-one meetings.  MnDOT staff should be limited to the PM, DBPM and a select group of key experts.  On full federal oversight projects, the PM will invite the FHWA to all one-on-one meetings.  The size of the MnDOT staff (total) should be limited to 3 or 4 individuals.  Design-build teams may ask for key experts to attend certain one-on-one meetings to discuss draft ATC or PAE concepts.

2.      The content of the one-on-one meeting are confidential to each design-build team and should not be discussed with other design-build teams. 

3.      The PM will instruct the teams that the purpose of the one-on-one meetings are to provide DB teams an opportunity to discuss draft ATC or PAE concepts.

4.      After a team discusses the draft concept, the PM will inform the team if the ATC/PAE has potential to be accepted or if MnDOT will not entertain that concept. 

5.      If a team asks clarification questions beyond those related to an ATC or PAE, the PM will not answer the question and will inform the team that the question needs to be submitted as a written clarification.

6.      No formal meeting minutes will be taken. 

7.      Do not provide any handouts. 

8.      If design-build teams provide handouts, return all handouts to them at the conclusion of each meeting. 

 

4.9  Alternative Technical Concepts                                   

Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC) allow for innovation and flexibility during the procurement process.  The ATC process allows design-build firms to propose “equal or better” alternatives to the RFP requirements during the procurement process.  The ATC process is a highly confidential process.  Subject to Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, each ATC submitted during the procurement is kept confidential and not shared with the other design-build teams.

 

The ATC process starts after the RFP is issued and can be used on best-value and low-bid projects.  Shortly after the RFP is issued, MnDOT offers one-on-one meetings (see Section 4.8) with design-build teams to discuss potential ATCs.  Design-build teams submit ATC to MnDOT prior to submitting the technical proposals.  Upon receipt of the ATC, MnDOT reviews each ATC and responds with one of the following determinations:

    1. The ATC is Approved
    2. The ATC is not Approved
    3. The ATC is Approved with Conditions
    4. The ATC does not qualify as an ATC, but may be included in the design-build team technical proposal (i.e. concept complies with baseline RFP requirements)
    5. The ATC does not qualify as an ATC and may not be included in the proposal.

 

ATC concepts should not be incorporated into the RFP as addendums.  However, MnDOT reserves the right to correct errors in the RFP via an addendum if a team uses the ATC process to take advantage of the error.

 

Listed below are the procedures to identify ATC limits within the ITP and the process to accept, track and review ATCs submitted by design-build teams.

4.9.1  ATC limitations

1.      The PM, in consultation with the DBPM and other MnDOT specialty offices, will determine which items will not be accepted as ATCs.  Typical items that MnDOT does not consider ATCs include pavement type, pavement material and pavement thickness. 

2.      The PM and DBPM will determine the maximum amount of ATCs that a proposer may submit.

3.      The DBPM will draft the ATC section of the ITP using the ITP template.  The DBPM will incorporate the maximum number of ATCs and identify the items identified in Point 1 above.

4.      Design-build teams need to submit each concept as a separate ATC.  The concept may include multiple interrelated parts (e.g. major geometric layout change which impacts alignments, profiles and intersection control).  An ATC with multiple unrelated concepts should be rejected.   

4.9.2  ATC Submittals/Document Control

1.      Design-Build teams must submit ATCs in accordance with the ITP.

2.      The PM will receive the ATC and log the ATC into the ATC Log. 

3.      The PM will track the status of all ATCs using the ATC log.

4.      The PM will store all ATC documents (log, submittals, responses, etc.) in a secure directory.  The PM shall limit access to the directory to the DBPM and other key individuals involved with the review and approval of the ATCs.

4.9.3  ATC Reviews

1.      The review of ATCs needs to be kept to a small group of key individuals for confidentiality reasons.  The PM will only distribute ATCs to these key individuals. The PM will verify that all key individuals have signed a confidentiality form.

2.      The PM may request supplemental information from a design-build team at any time.  Depending on the amount of supplemental information requested, the PM may require the design-build team to revise the ATC.  Revised ATCs should be identified with a letter after the number (for example, ATC 1a).

3.      The PM should make every attempt to respond to the ATC within one week.

4.      The PM will prepare a draft response to the ATC using the ATC response form.

5.      The PM will send the draft response to the DBPM for review.  See Section 2.3 for FHWA’s involvement in the review and approval of ATCs. 

6.      The PM and DBPM will discuss and finalize the ATC.

7.      The PM will send the ATC decision to the team via e-mail.

8.      The PM will send a hard copy of the decision to the team.

9.      If a team wants to resubmit/modify an ATC after a decision has been sent, they must submit a new ATC using a different ATC number.

10.  The PM will update the ATC log.

 

Exhibits

None

 

Forms

Form 2.4a:  Confidentiality Form

Form 4.9a:  ATC Log Template

Form 4.9b:  ATC Approval Form


4.10  Pre-Approved Elements                                             

The Pre-Approved Element (PAE) process requires design-build teams to submit elements of the design during the procurement process.  The PAE process is not required and should only be used on complex items which are difficult to properly assign the risk in the RFP.  Design-build teams submit PAEs for MnDOT approval prior to submitting a technical proposal.  A technical proposal that does not have Approved PAE(s) is deemed non-responsive.

 

PAE are used to reduce the risk to MnDOT and design-build teams during the procurement process.  PAE should only be used on unique and complex high risk items that are difficult to quantify within the RFP documents.  The PAE process requires additional time and resources for design-build teams to prepare and for MnDOT to review and approve.  

 

The PAE process starts after the RFP is issued and can be used on best-value and low-bid projects.  Shortly after the RFP is issued, MnDOT offers one-on-one meetings (see Section 4.8) with design-build teams to discuss potential PAEs.  Design-build teams submit PAE to MnDOT prior to submitting the technical proposals.  Upon receipt of the PAE, MnDOT reviews each PAE and responds with one of the following determinations:

a.       The PAE is Approved

b.      The PAE is Not Approved

c.       The PAE is Approved with Conditions

 

Similar to the ATC process, the PAE process is highly confidential.  MnDOT does not disclose the contents of PAEs to other teams or reveal the identity of PAEs in clarifications or addendums.  However, MnDOT reserves the right to correct errors in the RFP via an addendum if a team is using the PAE process to take advantage of the error.

 

Listed below are the procedures to identify PAE limits within the ITP and the process to accept, track and review PAEs submitted by design-build teams.

4.10.1  PAE limitations

1.      If known prior to releasing the RFQ, the PM will consult with the DBPM (and FHWA on federally funded projects) if PAEs will be used within the RFP.  If PAEs will be considered, the DBPM will include in the RFQ that the PAE process will be part of the RFP. 

2.      The PM will make recommendations on PAE items to the DBPM.  The DBPM will approve all PAE items.

3.      The DBPM will draft the PAE section of the ITP using the ITP template.  The DBPM will incorporate the required PAE items identified in point 2 above.


 

4.10.2  PAE Submittals/Document Control

1.      Design-Build teams must submit PAEs in accordance with the ITP.

2.      The PM will receive the PAE and log the PAE into the PAE Log. 

3.      The PM will track the status of all PAEs using the PAE log.

4.      The PM will store all PAE documents (log, submittals, responses) in a secure directory.  The PM shall limit access to the directory to the DBPM and other key individuals involved with the review and approval of the PAEs.

4.10.3  PAE Reviews

1.      The review of PAEs needs to be kept to a small group of key individuals for confidentiality reasons.  The PM will only distribute PAEs to these key individuals. The PM will verify that all key individuals have signed a confidentiality form.

2.      The PM may request supplemental information from a design-build team at any time.  Depending on the amount of supplemental information requested, the PM may require the design-build team to revise the PAE.  Revised PAEs should be identified with a letter after the number (for example, PAE 1a).

3.      The PM and DBPM may conduct one-on-one meetings with Proposers to discuss PAE concepts.  The PM and DBPM should be careful not to “coach” the teams during one-on-one meetings.  Comments should not give guidance, but only indicate if items are acceptable or not acceptable.

4.      The PM should make every attempt to respond to the PAE within one week.

5.      The PM will prepare a draft response to the PAE using the PAE response form.

6.      The PM will send the draft response to the DBPM for review.  Full federal oversight projects with PAEs require review by FHWA.   

7.      The PM and DBPM will discuss and finalize the PAE.  See Section 2.3 for the FHWA’s role in reviewing and approving PAEs on federally funded projects.

8.      The PM will send the PAE decision to the team via e-mail.

9.      The PM will send a hard copy of the decision to the team.

10.  If a team wants to resubmit/modify a PAE after a decision has been sent, they must submit a new PAE.

11.  The PM will update the PAE log.

Exhibits

None

 

Forms

Form 2.4a:  Confidentiality Form

Form 4.10a:  PAE Log Template

Form 4.10b:  PAE Approval Form

4.11  Changes in Personnel and Firms Listed in SOQ 

 

During the procurement process, design-build teams may request changes in personnel or firms listed within their SOQ.  The requests often occur due to employees leaving the firm, additional RFP requirements, or other organizational changes. 

 

State Statute 161.3424

An individual or a design-build firm identified in a response to a request for qualifications (RFQ) or a request for proposals (RFP) may not be replaced without the written approval of the commissioner. The commissioner may revoke an awarded contract if an individual or a design-build firm identified in a response to an RFQ or RFP is replaced without the commissioner's written approval. To qualify for the commissioner's approval, the written request must document that the proposed replacement individual or design-build firm will be equal to or better than that described in the response to the RFQ or RFP. The commissioner shall use the criteria specified in the RFQ or RFP to evaluate the request. 

State statute requires that design-build teams obtain written approval from the commissioner when requesting a change in personnel or firms listed in the SOQ.  Since design-build teams are short-listed are based on the qualifications listed in the SOQ, changes in key personnel must be carefully evaluated.  This requirement applies to all firms and individuals listed in the SOQ, whether or not the RFQ requested the names of these individuals or firms. 

 

 

Listed below are the processes and proc