§ 102-376. Qualification based selection procedures for architectural and engineering services for federally funded projects.

(a)

Conditions for use. Fulton County shall use the competitive negotiation method for the procurement of engineering and design related services when Federal-Aid Highway Project (FAHP) funds are involved in the contract (as specified in 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(2)(A)). The solicitation, evaluation, ranking, selection, and negotiation shall comply with the qualifications-based selection procurement procedures for architectural and engineering services codified under 40 U.S.C. 1101-1104, commonly referred to as the Brooks Act. Engineering and design related services are defined in 23 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2)(A) and 23 CFR § 172.3 to include program management, construction management, feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, design engineering, surveying, mapping, or other related services. These other services may include professional engineering related services, or incidental services that may be performed by a professional engineer, or individuals working under their direction, who may logically or justifiably perform these services. In accordance with the requirements of the Brooks Act, the following procedures shall apply to the competitive negotiation procurement method:

(b)

Pre-qualification of consultants. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) requires consultants to be prequalified pursuant to GDOT Standard Specifications, Construction of Transportation Systems Section 102.01, Pre-Qualification of bidders. The county will verify that consultants responding to solicitations are pre-qualified.

(c)

Qualification statements. Qualification statements shall be solicited through a request for proposals.

(d)

Request for proposals. The request for proposals (RFP) shall provide all information and requirements necessary for interested consultants [proposers] to provide a response to the RFP and compete for the solicited services. The RFP shall:

(1)

Provide a clear, accurate, and detailed description of the scope of work, technical requirements, and qualifications of consultants necessary for the services to be rendered. The scope of work should detail the purpose and description of the project, services to be performed, deliverables to be provided, estimated schedule for performance of the work, and applicable standards, specifications, and policies;

(2)

Identify the requirements for any discussions that may be conducted with three or more of the most highly qualified consultants following submission and evaluation of proposals;

(3)

Identify evaluation factors including their relative weight of importance in accordance with subparagraph (h)(1) of this code section;

(4)

Specify the contract type and method(s) of payment to be utilized;

(5)

Identify any special provisions or contract requirements associated with the solicited services;

(6)

Require that submission of any requested cost proposals or elements of cost be in a concealed format and separate from technical/qualifications proposals as these shall not be considered in the evaluation, ranking, and selection phase;

(7)

Provide a schedule of key dates for the procurement process and establish a submittal deadline for responses to the RFP which provides sufficient time for interested consultants to receive notice, prepare, and submit a proposal, which except in unusual circumstances shall be not less than 30 days from the date of issuance of the RFP;

(8)

Prevent, identify, and mitigate conflicts of interest for employees of the county and the consultant in accordance with 23 CFR 1.33; and

(9)

Require consultants to verifying suspension and debarment actions and eligibility of consultants.

(e)

Public notice. Adequate public notice of the request for proposal shall be given in the same manner as provided for in competitive sealed bidding. The solicitation process shall be by public announcement, public advertisement, or any other public forum or method that assures qualified in-state and out-of-state consultants are given a fair opportunity to be considered for award of the contract.

(f)

Solicitation. The procurement procedures may involve a single step process with issuance of a RFP to all interested consultants or a multiphase process with issuance of a request for qualifications (RFQ) whereby responding consultants are ranked based on qualifications and request for proposals are then provided to three or more of the most highly qualified consultant. Regardless of any process utilized for prequalification of consultants or for an initial assessment of a consultant's qualifications under an RFQ, an RFP specific to the project, task, or service is required for evaluation of a consultant's specific technical approach and qualifications.

(g)

Receipt of proposals. Proposals shall be opened in the same manner as competitive sealed bids, provided that there is no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. A register of proposals received shall be prepared and made available for public inspection in the purchasing department.

(h)

Evaluation. Section 102-380 shall govern the evaluation process and to the extent not in conflict with applicable federal law, shall govern the size and composition of all evaluation committees established for the evaluation of qualification based proposals obtained for federally assisted architectural and engineering services and related services. The evaluation committee must evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria established and cited within the advertised solicitation document.

(1)

Criteria used for evaluation, ranking, and selection of consultants to perform engineering and design related services must assess the demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services solicited. These qualifications-based factors may include, but are not limited to:

i.

Relevant project/work experience demonstrating competence and capability to perform the services described in the solicitation;

ii.

Past performance of previous contracts with respect to time of completion and quality of services;

iii.

Qualifications and experience of key personnel; staff capabilities; specialized expertise; professional licensure;

iv.

Workload capacity, technical/project approach, the quality and effectiveness of the proposed approach to accomplish the tasks identified in the scope of work (e.g., project understanding, innovative concepts or alternatives, quality control procedures);

v.

The ability to comply with the schedule for the performance of the services, as required by the county;

vi.

Project management techniques.

(2)

Price shall not be used as a factor in the evaluation, ranking, and selection phase. All price or cost related items which include, but are not limited to, cost proposals, direct salaries/wage rates, indirect cost rates, and other direct costs are prohibited from being used as evaluation criteria.

(3)

In-state or local preference shall not be used as a factor in the evaluation, ranking, and selection phase. State licensing laws are not preempted by this provision and professional licensure within a jurisdiction may be established as a requirement which attests to the minimum qualifications and competence of a consultant to perform the solicited services.

(4)

While the contract will be with the prime consultant, proposal evaluations shall consider the qualifications of the prime consultant and any sub-consultants identified within the proposal with respect to the scope of work and established criteria.

(5)

From the proposal evaluation and any subsequent discussions which have been conducted, the county shall rank, in order of preference, at least three consultants determined most highly qualified to perform the solicited services based on the established and published criteria.

(6)

Notification must be provided to responding consultants of the final ranking of the three most highly qualified consultants.

(7)

The county shall retain acceptable documentation of the solicitation, proposal, evaluation, and selection of the consultant.

(i)

Selection. Following submission and evaluation of proposals as provided in the request for proposal and under policies and procedures developed by the county, oral interviews or discussions may be conducted by the purchasing agent, in conjunction with the user department, with at least three of the most highly qualified consultants. Such oral interviews or discussions shall be for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of the technical approach, qualifications, and capabilities provided in the response to the RFP and responsiveness to the solicitation requirements. Discussions may be written, by telephone, video conference, or by oral presentation/interview. Discussions following proposal submission are not required provided proposals contain sufficient information for evaluation of technical approach and qualifications to perform the specific project, task, or service with respect to established criteria.

In conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors.

(j)

Negotiations and award. Offerors must be ranked and selected without regard to cost. Cost will be negotiated with the most highly qualified consultant. The purchasing agent shall negotiate a contract for architectural and engineering services with the most highly qualified offeror at compensation that the purchasing agent determines in writing to be fair and reasonable to the county. In making this decision, the purchasing agent shall take into account the scope, complexity, professional nature and estimated value of the services to be rendered.

(1)

Independent cost estimate. Prior to receipt or review of the most highly qualified consultant's cost proposal, the county shall prepare a detailed independent cost estimate establishing elements of contract costs, accepting indirect cost rate(s) for application to contracts, and assuring consultant compliance with federal cost principles. The independent cost estimate shall serve as the basis for negotiation and ensuring the consultant services are obtained at a fair and reasonable cost.

(2)

Order of negotiation. The purchasing agent shall attempt to negotiate a contract, as provided in subsection (a) with the most highly qualified offeror. If the purchasing agent is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the offeror considered to be the most highly qualified offeror at a price the purchasing agent determines to be fair and reasonable to the county, the purchasing agent shall formally terminate negotiations with that offeror and then undertake negotiations with the next most qualified of the selected firms, continuing the process until an agreement is reached. If the purchasing agent is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, the purchasing agent shall select additional firms in order of their competence and qualification and continue negotiations in accordance with this section until an agreement is reached. It is expected that negotiations will be completed in a reasonable time period and provide notice that the county has complete discretion to determine when to terminate negotiations and move to the next most highly qualified offeror.

(Res. No. 13-0052, 1-23-13; 15-0208, Exh. A, 3-4-15)