Showing posts with label Consultant Selection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consultant Selection. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Louisiana Agency's RFP Selection Practices Still Fall Short of Transparency and Best Practices

After more than two years of maneuvering and input from good government watchdog groups, political leaders in Louisiana took very limited, but ultimately misguided and insufficient steps toward creating a more transparent process for selecting firms based on Requests for Proposals (RFPs).  

2 changes approved:  On August 27, 2014, the Jefferson Parish Council voted to make two changes to its selection practices for non-professional services and non-standard items valued at more than $15,000.  (A parish in Louisiana is like a county.) 
  • Council discretion in overruling selection recommendation:  The new ordinance allows the Council to not award to the highest rated firm as evaluated by the selection committee, if the score of the firm selected is within 10% of the score of the highest rated firm.  Previously, the Council had unlimited discretion in ignoring the scores from the selection committee.  While this change represents a movement in the right direction, it still subjects the selection process to inappropriate political influence, and has the impact of negating the published evaluation criteria, since the Council can choose to override the ratings of a technical evaluation committee.  Elected governing bodies should not be involved in the selection process because of the frequently documented connection between awards and campaign contributions. Instead the role of elected governing bodies should be to approve budgets and allow the executive branch to administer those budgets (see my blog on this subject).
  • Price always worth 25% of evaluation points:  The recently adopted ordinance also increases from 20% to 25% the selection criteria points attributable to price in an RFP.  Establishing a set percentage attributable to price in an ordinance is shortsighted and does not recognize the different types of solicitations that public agencies issue.  If a service is very well defined, price should be a higher percentage, while in other instances, where the scope is less well defined and the qualifications of the firm selected are more important than price, the percentage should be lower, even lower than the 25% now embedded in the Parish’s ordinance.  The Council chose to ignore advice on this issue from the independent Bureau of Governmental Research.
More information:  For more information about this issue in Louisiana, see the following resources: 
  • Ordinance 24815, adopted August 27, 2014 by the Jefferson Parish Council.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog
© 2014 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, January 13, 2014

Training in Alaska on Best Practices for Construction and Services Contracting

I was in Anchorage, Alaska on January 9-10, 2014 providing two days of training on Best Practices for Construction and Services Contracting.

The training was sponsored by the Alaska-NAPM chapter.  

Contact me if you would like a copy of the outline of the training.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog
© 2014 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest with Selection Committee Members

One of the issues that can cause challenges, protests, and a lack of public confidence in the evaluation of proposals and qualifications on RFPs and RFQs occurs when a member of the evaluation committee has a conflict of interest with one or more of the proposers.

Subjective nature of evaluation process:  The evaluation process for selecting consultants and service providers based on RFPs or RFQs is, by its nature, more subjective than making selection decisions on bids where an award is based on price only.

Types of conflicts of interest:  Conflicts of interest can occur in the following situations:
  • An evaluator has a financial or personal relationship with one of the proposers.  
  • A member of the evaluator's immediate family has a financial or personal relationship with one of the proposers.
  • There is an appearance or perception of a conflict of interest for an evaluator or member of the evaluator's immediate family, which, even if not real, may be just as damaging or problematic to the process, the project, and the reputation of the evaluator.
Require evaluators to sign statement:  My practice has been to require members of the evaluation committee to sign a Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statement before they are given the proposals to review. 

Here's language on the conflict of interest that I've included in the statement:

I understand and agree that I do not have a conflict of interest of a financial, relational, or other nature with any of the firms or key personnel of any of the firms I will be evaluating, and that there is no perception or appearance of such a conflict of interest that could arise.  I further agree that no member of my immediate family has any such conflict of interest.  "Immediate family" means a spouse or domestic partner, child, child of a spouse or domestic partner, sibling, sibling of a domestic partner, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parent, parent of a spouse or domestic partner, a person for whom I am a legal guardian, or a person claimed as a dependent on my most recently filed federal income tax return.  The firms who have submitted proposals for this project are: [list firms here]
Practical steps:

  • Code of Ethics:  Review your agency's code of ethics governing behavior of employees involved in procurement and contracting.  If you don't have such a code, develop one.
  • Conflict of Interest Statement:  Ensure that evaluators of proposals and qualifications sign a Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statement before they are provided with proposals and qualifications to review and score.  If there is a conflict of interest, or an apparent conflict of interest, they should be replaced on the evaluation committee with another member who does not have a conflict of interest.
  • Training:  Provide regular training for your agency's personnel on the importance of ethics in public procurement and contracting.
Note:  This blog posting is a repeat of one from December 9, 2012. 
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2012-2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Louisiana Agency Mandates Price Evaluation Points for all RFPs

After many months of discussion and debate, Jefferson Parish, one of the largest counties by population in Louisiana, adopted an ordinance aimed at reforming some of the Parish's questionable contracting practices.  While it is an improvement, the new law is misguided in some aspects and doesn't go far enough in bringing transparency to the Parish's selection practices.

Price worth 20% of points:  The July 24, 2013 action (Ordinance No. 24528) by the Jefferson Parish Council requires that price be part of the evaluation criteria in selecting firms for providing non-professional services, and that "the cost evaluation shall be worth twenty percent (20%) of the total points assigned."  Before adopting the new law, price was not required to be part of the evaluation process.
  • Why 20% isn't always appropriate:  While price should always be part of the evaluation criteria for selecting consultants and service providers (other than architects, engineers, and related professionals), mandating that price always be 20% is misguided.  It is an art form to determine, on a case-by-case basis, how to weight the points between qualifications and price.  But Jefferson Parish has turned this art form and important discretionary decision, into a rigid formula that will often yield unintended results. The points to be assigned based on price should be lower when the qualifications and judgment of the consultant are more important and the scope of services are less prescriptive.  On the other hand, when the scope of services are more prescriptive and the qualifications of the consultant or service provider less important, then price should be a higher percentage of the overall points. Click here to read an earlier blog posting of mine on the subject.
Keeping price from influencing qualification scores: In an attempt to ensure that evaluators score proposals fairly based on qualifications without price being a consideration, the new Jefferson Parish law provides that the purchasing department will open sealed pricing proposals after all evaluators have scored the technical and qualifications portion of the RFP.  Purchasing will then assign the points for price based on a formula. The "proposer with the lowest cost shall receive the highest cost evaluation score."  Other proposers will receive proportional scores based on the percentage difference from the lowest price.

Political influence in the selection process:  Unfortunately, Jefferson Parish's new ordinance does not address the need to reform the selection process by removing the Parish Council from the decision making process.  After all evaluation scores have been tabulated, the Council provides unwarranted discretion to the council member in whose district the work will be performed, to select any of the firms who submitted proposals, even if they were not the highest rated firm.  This politicization of the selection process does not promote openness and transparency in public procurement and contracting and may lead to abuses of power.  The Jefferson Parish Council, as the legislative branch of government, performs many of the functions that are typically performed by an executive branch in implementation and administration.

More information:  
  • Click here for a July 29, 2013 news article from The Times-Picayune in New Orleans.  I'm quoted in the article.
  • Click here to read my blog from December 2, 2013 on "Consultant Selection - New Orleans Style."

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

When is the Price Not Right?

Most states and the federal government have adopted what is known as "Qualifications Based Selection" (QBS) for contracting with architects, engineers, and related professions.  Under QBS, a public agency may not use price as one of the evaluation criteria, but must select the most highly qualified firm and then negotiate the price with that firm.

Questionable QBS practices:  Some public agencies have pushed the limits of what is acceptable under QBS.  The following questionable selection strategies are sometimes used by agencies attempting to obtain the price for professional services prior to selection.
  • The envelope please:  Under this practice, an agency asks for each firm's proposed price in a sealed envelope which is submitted at the same time as the statement of qualifications.  The agency's Request for Qualifications (RFQ) will typically state that the envelope will not be opened until after a selection based on qualifications has been made.  The firm's proposed price in the sealed envelope then serves as the basis for beginning negotiations for a mutually acceptable contract amount.  Architects and engineers often question this practice and are concerned that an agency may open the envelope early, and such information will be used in making the selection decision.
  • Hours only:  Sometimes an RFQ will request that responding firms submit an estimate of the hours or level of effort that will be required for the contract.  However, because the range of typical hourly rates may be common knowledge, an agency can easily calculate which firm has the highest and lowest overall price.  This would appear to violate the intent and requirements of QBS.
  • Rates only:  Under this questionable practice, an agency does not request a proposed total fee from responders, but only the fully loaded hourly rates for each employee or class of employees that will work on the project.  No hours are requested under this dubious practice.  Because the intent of QBS is that public agencies will make selection decisions based only on the qualifications of the firms, asking for hourly rates seems to cross the line away from selecting based on qualifications only, and into the price arena.  In other words, architects and engineers will argue that cost factors (as opposed to qualifications only) are, in fact, being used as part of the selection process, violating the intent and requirements of QBS.
  • Budget:  Some agencies ask in an RFQ or interview for respondents to comment on and demonstrate how they will meet the agency's specific dollar amount budget.  If the responses focus on the specific dollar amount available, the question may well step over the line of what is acceptable as part of QBS.  On the other hand, it is acceptable to ask respondents how they will control costs or what their record is in meeting budgets.  But providing the agency's specific budget amount and asking how firms will meet that budget begins to look like pre-negotiation and using price as a factor in the selection process.  In other words, one firm may indicate that the budget is not sufficient and may be rated lower, resulting in price being used as part of the selection process instead of just qualifications, as required by QBS.
Checklist for compliance:  
  • Federal law:  Review the architectural, engineering, and related professions included in QBS under the federal Brooks Act, which is applicable if your project includes any federal funding.
  • State law:  Review any state law requirements regarding QBS.  In Washington state, QBS is governed by RCW 39.80.
  • Local practices:  Examine your evaluation criteria and practices to ensure they are consistent with federal and state QBS requirements.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, July 8, 2013

Agency Violates Selection Processes and Conflict of Interest Provisions

Using federal funds, a small fire protection district had one of its elected commissioners draw plans for a building to house fire trucks.  The district also hired a contractor owned by another commissioner to build the building,   In the process, the district skirted both consultant and contractor selection requirements and violated conflict of interest laws.

Audit finding:  Here's the audit finding the Washington State Auditor's Office recently wrote about the practices of the Klickitat County Fire Protection District No. 15:
  • Bidding violation:  State Law requires the District to seek formal bids on public works projects of more than $20,000. The District stated they called local construction companies and informed them of the project; however, this did not meet the requirements for a project of this size. 
  • Conflict of interest:  State law prohibits a conflict of interest with a municipal officer. The District paid the Commissioner’s company $66,000 during the audit period for this project.
  • Consultant competition required:  State law requires that all architectural and engineering services be competitively procured. The District used architectural services from a Commissioner without publicly advertising a request for services.
  • Prevailing wage violations:  State law requires contractors to pay prevailing wage on all public works projects.  While we saw evidence of certified payrolls from the contractor, the District did not ensure intents and affidavits were filed with the State Department of Labor and Industries and thus cannot be sure the contractor complied with prevailing wages requirements.
More information:  Click here to read a copy of the audit report.  The District indicated they were not aware of the procurement and conflict of interest laws applicable to the project.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Keys to Developing Successful Proposals by Businesses


I've seen a lot of proposals submitted by businesses during my career as a contracting manager and now as a consultant.  Some were very effective and communicated a clear message that directly responded to the Request for Proposals (RFP).  They were easy to read and inspired confidence.  Other proposals wandered across the landscape – a hapless collection of paper that read more like a corporate policy manual divorced from the project at hand. 

Suggestions for businesses:  I'd like to offer some suggestions for businesses responding to RFPs on how to craft an effective proposal that gets attention. 


Develop the strategy:  When an RFP is issued, some businesses are tempted to jump right into the process of producing the proposal.  The deadline is looming, so they start writing the proposal immediately without really knowing what they want to say.  Or perhaps more commonly, they don’t do much writing at all.  Instead, they merely collect and collate pages from previous proposals, policy and procedure manuals, mission statements, forms, and websites – and top it off with a nice cover page and a binder – ready (or not ready!) to submit to the public agency.  This approach results in a hodgepodge proposal without a strategic focus.


Good proposal development is not a random, trial-and-error process of slapping words onto paper.  It should be strategic, deliberate, and laser-focused.



Before the first words of a new proposal are written, it is critical for a company to pause, take a deep breath, and step back the immediacy of the proposal deadline.  Here are three strategic actions business should take once an RFP has been advertised.



  1. Read the RFP:  It seems like an obvious first step, but from some of the proposals I’ve read, I’m not sure those companies have looked at the RFP – or if they did, that they actually paid attention to what was asked for.  RFPs reflect the values and objectives of public agencies, so reading the RFP carefully provides insights into what the agency cares about and their expectations.  Pay close attention to the specific words used in the RFP – especially for the scope of work and evaluation criteria.  These sections will give you a good sense of how closely your company’s experiences match with what services the agency is seeking and how it will evaluate proposals.

  1. Assess your chance of success:  Responding to an RFP will cost your company time, money, and focus.  Be deliberate in assessing whether you actually have some chance of being awarded the contract.  Gather your key management and project team to think strategically about the RFP before you decide whether to respond to it.  Here are some questions that should be part of your decision making process:

    1. Project Fit: 

    • Does your company have experience performing this scope of work?
    • Is the scope of work a good fit for your company?
    • Is the work part of your core business?
    • Have you performed projects of this size and complexity before?

    1. Agency Fit:  

    • Have you worked for this agency or type of agency before?
    • If you haven’t worked for the agency, do their decision makers know your company  through contacts you’ve made with them or by reputation?
    • Are you prepared to deal with the administrative requirements of the agency?

    1. Staffing:

    • What personnel would you assign to the project?
    • Does your staff have the right experience for this kind of work?
    • Are they available to work on the project within the project’s schedule?

    1. Competition:

    • Who are your likely competitors?
    • What are your company’s strengths and weaknesses compared to your competitors?
    • What strategies can you use to compensate for your weaknesses?
    • Do any of your competitors have contracts or established relationships with the agency?

    1. Preparation Time:

    • How much time and effort will be involved in developing the proposal?
    • Do you have appropriate staff available to develop the proposal?

  1. Develop your message:  After you’ve decided to propose, but before you begin writing, think conceptually about the big picture.  What unique message do you want to convey throughout your proposal about why your company is the right company for the project?  This is an opportunity for you to not just mechanically respond to evaluation criteria in the RFP, but to proactively influence the evaluators.
Prepare Your Proposal:  Even if you’ve developed an effective strategy, a poorly executed proposal will reduce your chances of success. There are four areas where proposals often fall short: content, structure, writing, and layout. Let’s look at some of the common mistakes in these areas and how you can make your proposal more effective.



1. Tailored Content:  One of the most common weaknesses of proposals I review is they are generic, and very boring to read.  They have the same content the company used in the last proposal – and will use in the next proposal.  Agencies who read such proposals are not convinced that the proposer understands the scope of work, or has even read the RFP.  Though it takes additional effort, companies that research a project and tailor the proposed solutions to the agency’s specific needs generally score higher. 



The same customized approach applies to the cover letter.  A generic cover letter fails demonstrate that you know anything about or care about the agency’s needs.  Even if the agency’s evaluators read nothing but your cover letter, they should still come away with a clear understanding of your strengths, your core message, and why you should be selected.  That core message that you developed in your strategy sessions should then be embedded throughout your proposal.



Though you may be confident that you can perform the work of the project, you must actually demonstrate the relevance of your experience in your proposal.  This requires you to take your experiences and translate them into language that makes sense for the scope of work required.



2. Methodical Structure:  When agency evaluators review proposals, they usually have both the RFP evaluation criteria and your proposal opened up on their desk. You can make this review easier by responding in the same order as the evaluation criteria, repeating the evaluation criteria in your proposal, and making sure you address all of the specifics outlined in each criterion.  This methodical approach will help evaluators see that you are addressing what was requested – and will make sure you don’t forget anything.  If evaluators have to hunt through your proposal to find where you’ve addressed a topic, you may loose points.



RFPs often have many administrative requirements related to proposals.  Pay attention to these details – things like not exceeding a certain number of pages in your proposal and making sure all forms have been completed and submitted.



3. Clear Writing:  A poorly written proposal is ponderous to read, while a well-written proposal is a joy to peruse.  Language should be crisp, clear, and concise – not corporate and unwieldy.  Avoid long and complex sentences that are hard to keep track of, as well as wordy and dense paragraphs that are hard for the eye to follow.  Use an active voice – it’s more direct and easier to read.  In other words, to say it in the non-preferred passive voice: “Active voice should be used, and passive voice should be avoided.”  Don’t repeat your content in multiple places or say the same thing over and over in your proposals – or for that matter, don’t be redundant!  Check your spelling and grammar, and if you don’t have a good technical writer on staff, hire one as an employee or on a contract basis.



4.  Pleasing Layout:  You should make it easy for the agency's evaluators to read your proposal and quickly understand your message. Photos, charts, and graphs can be used effectively to break up text and communicate information.  Well described paragraph headings help readers follow the flow of your proposal.  Use a well-organized table of contents and tabs (with the name of the section on the tab) to help readers maneuver the proposal.  Color, shading, boxes, and other graphic design tools can further enhance the readability of your proposal.  If you don’t have a graphic designer on staff, consider hiring one as an employee or on a contract basis.



Summary:  What makes some proposals stand out while others fall to the bottom of the pile?  Development of your overall strategy and message is just as important as careful production of the content, structure, writing, and layout of a proposal.  Though there are no guarantees, these keys can make your proposals more competitive and increase your company’s chances of being awarded a contract.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, June 10, 2013

Convenience, Competition, and Compliance in Selecting Consultants

In procuring professional consultant services for the public sector, there is a natural tension between convenience, competition, and compliance.  

Convenience:  The argument for convenience and picking a firm a public agency is already familiar with may be summarized by the response of a mayor to a recent audit:  "If you're happy with a professional's work, and their pricing is competitive with the industry, you continue to use that professional."  That's the opinion of Mayor Joe DeStefano of Middletown, New York in response to an audit finding issued by the New York State Comptroller's Office about Middletown's procurement practices.

Competition:  The audit criticized Middletown for not soliciting competitive proposals from five of the eight professional service providers covered by the audit, totaling $164,613.   The audit noted that the city had used the same law firm for 17 years for assisting with labor and labor contract law issues without going through a competitive solicitation process, or justifying the firm as a sole source.  In the city's response to the audit, they wrote that the law firm's "years of experience make them far more efficient than breaking in a new firm."  While that may be true to a certain extent, the best practices in public procurement dictates that the selection process be transparent and that other firms be offered the opportunity to compete.  In addition, somewhat ironically, the audit noted that the city did not have a written contract with the law firm to provide the services. 

Compliance:  Many public agencies have either state or local laws or policies that require a competitive process in selecting consultants.  In selecting consultants, it is important for agencies to comply with the applicable laws and policies.  In the case of Middleton, the auditor criticized the city for not having adequate procurement policies in place to ensure services are procured at the most favorable terms and without favoritism:
The City uses a decentralized purchasing system in which department heads are responsible for procuring goods and services for their respective departments.  The City's procurement policy is not comprehensive enough to ensure that individual departments procure goods and services at the best price possible.  For example, the policy does not provide guidance on using request for proposals for obtaining professional services, evaluating proposals, and determining if purchases are emergency in nature or if a vendor is a sole source for a specific procurement.
Decentralized procurement processes without strong guidelines and policies can often lead to a wide variety of inconsistent practices within an agency.

Lessons Learned:  In selecting consultants, it is important to balance the competing interests of convenience, competition, and compliance.  
  1. State laws:  Does your agency have adopted procurement policies that are consistent with applicable state laws and your current practices?  
  2. Federal requirements:  When you receive federal funding, are your procurement policies consistent with federal grant requirements?
  3. Competition:  Are your agency's procurement policies comprehensive in describing the competitive selection process for obtaining consultant services?
  4. Knowledge of employees:  Do your agency's employee's understand the applicable procurement process, and are they regularly provided with training on the procurement policies?
  5. Standard RFP:  Does your agency have a template RFP that is consistent with the required process?
  6. Evaluation criteria:  Do your agency's RFPs contain appropriate evaluation criteria for ensuring competition for services?
  7. Sole source:  Does your agency have a process for justifying and documenting sole source procurements?
  8. What is most important?  Are your procurement selection decisions based on compliance and competition, or does the convenience of selecting the same firm trump compliance and competition?
More information:
  • Click here for reading the audit finding and the city's response to it. 
  • Click here for a summary news article on the audit from the Times Herald-Record.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Who Should and Should Not Be on Proposal Evaluation Committees?

Consultants and service providers for government contracts are often selected based on either a Request for Proposals (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ), in which qualifications and experience are scored by an evaluation committee based on published criteria in the RFP or RFQ.  

Who should not be on the evaluation committee?  In order to avoid a potential conflict of interest in the event of a protest of the selection process, generally it is best to not include the agency's attorneys or procurement/purchasing/contracting staff as voting members of an evaluation committee.  These are the individuals who are most likely to be involved in any protest or appeal of the process.  If they have also served as voting members of the evaluation committee, their independence of judgment may be compromised, and the transparency and fairness of the selection process put at risk.  

Who should be on the evaluation committee?  Evaluation committee members may include the project manager, representatives of the user department, other departments most affected by the project, other internal stakeholders, and external stakeholders not employed by the public agency.  It is generally the best practice that agency employees constitute a majority of the members of the evaluation committee.  

Technical evaluators:  Sometimes, it is appropriate to include an evaluator to help the committee understand and review technical aspects of the proposals received.  These technical evaluators may serve by either advising the committee, or by actually evaluating and rating only that portion of the proposal related to their expertise.  If they actually score the proposals, their scores could become the score for all members of the committee for that criterion, or members of the evaluation committee could use their score and explanations to establish their own scores.

What about elected officials?  Agencies should be cautious about including elected officials on an evaluation committee.  In some cases, having one member of a board or council may be appropriate in order to keep that body informed of the process.  The risk, of course, is that the presence of an elected official(s) on the evaluation committee may politicize the selection process in an inappropriate manner.  Refer to my previous blog post on problematic selection practices in Louisiana.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, June 3, 2013

Public Contracting News from Around the Nation

Michigan awards contract without competition:  Ravenna Township has awarded a $275,000 library remodel and addition project to a local contractor without competitively bidding the project.  The surprising thing is that under Michigan law, it's perfectly legal to do so according to the  Municipal Townships Association.  They noted that "local [government] units are not required - state and federal may be - to use competitive bidding on any and all projects."  According to the Association, there is a recognition in state law "that it's not always the best use of the public's money to go for the lowest bid."  Click here for an article with more details.

Nebraska considers bid preference law for disabled veterans:  Nebraska legislators are moving forward with a bill that would give businesses owned by disabled veterans a preference in bidding on state contracts.  The business would need to be owned 51 percent by disabled veterans and apply only to those living in Nebraska.  Contractors have argued that the preference law would increase costs of contracts.  Click here for an article with more details.

Pennsylvania pursues repeal of state prevailing wage law: A coalition is urging the Pennsylvania General Assembly to repeal the state's 50 year old prevailing wage law.  They argue that it increases costs on public construction projects by as much as 30 percent, and burdens public agencies struggling with restricted budgets.  Supporters of the law, primarily labor unions, argue that the law ensures quality construction.  Pennsylvania's prevailing wage law applies to construction projects over $25,000.  Click here for an article with more details.

Louisiana rejects contracting changes:  A charter review committee for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana's most populated county, has rejected recommending reforms that would remove the discretion of the Parish Council to award contracts based on political influence rather than published evaluation criteria.  Jefferson Parish has a long history of corruption in contract awards that is based on improper political influences rather than best practices in procurement.  I spoke in New Orleans last year at a forum designed to gain momentum for reforms recommended by the Bureau of Governmental ResearchClick here for an article with more details.  Click here for my previous blog posting that describes more about the unique contracting practices of Jefferson Parish.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Training in Spokane, WA: Developing and Managing RFPs and RFQs

Developing and Managing RFPs and RFQs
  • When:  June 18, 2013 (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
  • Where:  Spokane, Washington (Enduris Professional Center, 1610 S. Technology Blvd)
  • Cost:  Free for WCIA members; $115 for non-WCIA members
  • Instructor:  Mike Purdy 
  • Class Outline: 
    • When to Use and RFP vs. RFQ
    • Solicitation Methods
    • Developing Evaluation Criteria
    • Writing Scopes of Work
    • Managing the Solicitation Process
    • Conflicts of Interest
    • Cost and Price Analysis
    • Advertising Issues
    • Pre-Submission Meeting
    • Receiving and Opening Proposals
    • Evaluation Committee and Evaluating Proposals
    • Managing Interviews
    • Recommending Award
    • Contract Negotiations
Questions?  Please contact me if you have any questions about the class.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

What is the Appropriate Weighting of Price in the Selection Process?

The allocation of evaluation criteria points between qualifications and price in government issued Requests for Proposals (RFPs) is sometimes a hotly disputed issue.  

California dispute:  The California High-Speed Rail Authority, which is planning to award a Design Build contract for the construction of the first 28 miles of track for the 200 miles per hour train, finds itself embroiled in a controversy over its evaluation and selection process for a contractor.

Original selection process:  The original two step selection process, approved by the Authority's board, called for shortlisting only the top three firms from a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) based on their technical approach and qualifications to build the project, estimated at $1.2 billion.  From there, an RFP was to be issued only to the finalist firms and a selection would be based on the combination of price and technical scores.  However, the Authority changed the process and issued the RFP to all five contractors who had responded to the RFQ.  

Weighting price and qualifications:  The RFP issued by the Authority assigned 30 points to the technical evaluation from the RFQ, and 70 points to the price in response to the RFP.  On such a technical and complex Design-Build project, the high number points assigned to price has drawn criticism.  It turns the Design-Build process back into almost a low bid scenario.  The best practice for Design-Build projects is to weight qualifications higher than price.

Selection results:  It turns out that the firm ranked lowest for qualifications and technical approach had the lowest price.  By adding the technical and price points together, they were the highest ranked firm.  Without the earlier change opening the RFP process to all five firms, the joint venture of Tutor Perini-Zachry-Parsons would not have moved to the RFP stage.  Tutor Perini ranked dead last on the technical evaluation with only 20.55 points, compared with the highest ranked firm that received 27.71 points.  However, Tutor Perini came in with the lowest price of $985 million, giving them the full 70 points for price, and the highest number of points overall for both the technical and price components.  Below is a chart with the scores for all the firms.



Lessons learned:  While the California High-Speed Rail Authority project is a Design-Build process, it illustrates the importance of developing a good evaluation process for all RFQs and RFPs for services, consulting, and alternative methods of construction (Design-Build and Construction Manager at Risk).
  • Think through the selection process carefully up front, including evaluating likely proposers and how the process and point allocation may impact the end result.
  • Based on the particular procurement, evaluate the appropriate allocation of points between qualifications/technical merit and price.  Refer to a previous blog posting I've written on some principles to consider in making this decision.
  • Don't change the selection process mid-stream through the procurement.  This can lead to protests and delays for the project.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Monday, March 25, 2013

Developing and Managing RFPs and RFQs

I spoke last week at the Washington Municipal Clerks Association (WMCA) conference on Developing and Managing RFPs and RFQs.  Here's an outline of the 1.5 hour session (a very fast-paced overview), which I also teach as a full day class:

Planning the Procurement
  • When to Use an RFP, RFQ, or ITB
  • Qualifications Based Selection (QBS)
  • Solicitation Documents
  • Solicitation Method
  • Scope of Work
  • Evaluation Criteria
Conflicts of Interest
  • May the designer also bid as a contractor?
Standard RFP/RFQ Provisions
  • Schedule
  • Submittal Requirements
  • Conversations Before Advertising
  • Questions and Changes - Addenda
  • Federal Provisions
Evaluation Process
  • Evaluation Committee Membership
  • Orientation Meeting for Evaluation Committee
  • Provide Documents to Evaluation Committee
  • Ethical Issues
  • Review and Scoring of Proposals
  • Interviews
  • Sample Interview Evaluation Criteria
  • Attendance at Interviews
Contract Negotiations
  • Scope of Work
  • Hours
  • Staff Allocation
  • Fully Loaded Hourly Rates
  • Markup Percentages
  • Overhead
Contact me:  If you're interested in talking about me providing this training to your agency or association, please contact me.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Obtaining Qualified Consultants

How do public agencies find and obtain qualified consultants and service providers for their work?

3 tools:  There are a number of different tools available to help agencies with obtaining qualified consultants: 
  • Advertise:  Public agencies generally rely upon advertising RFPs or RFQs in the local newspaper to solicit interest from the consultant community.  
  • Rosters:  Sometimes, consultants are selected from rosters that have been previously advertised to develop a list of qualified consultants.
  • Outreach events:  Some agencies are becoming more proactive in developing interest from the consultant community by hosting business opportunity outreach events.  At these events, a public agency shares about upcoming projects, the agency's processes and values, and often provides free training seminars.  These events are also a good opportunity for consultants to connect with smaller businesses who may be potential sub-consultants on upcoming projects.
Seattle Public Utilities event:  Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has scheduled a Business Opportunities Workshop that will provide information about upcoming projects and contract opportunities for consultants.  Businesses will also have the opportunity to network with SPU staff and other consultants.
  • When:  Tuesday, February 26, 2013 (9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.)
  • Where:  Seattle City Hall (Bertha Knight Landes Room)
  • Registration:  Advanced registration is required.  Click here to register.  
Regional Contracting Forum:  The 11th annual Regional Contracting Forum will bring together representatives from cities, counties, port districts, state and federal agencies around the Puget Sound area so contractors, consultants, and suppliers can network and meet government contracting representatives.  The event is structured as a "reverse trade show" and is designed to provide businesses with direct access to regional contracting representatives in a semi-structured setting.  Representatives from local, state, and county jurisdictions will staff exhibit booths and will be available to speak one-on-one with event attendees.  Throughout the day, there will be a variety of workshop presentations, panel discussions, and one-on-one networking sessions.
  • When:  Tuesday, April 2, 2013 (8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
  • Where:  Downtown Seattle (Washington State Trade and Convention Center)
  • Cost:  Free
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Thursday, February 21, 2013

NY Audit Criticizes Fire District's Consultant Selection Practices

The New York State Comptroller's Office issued an audit report criticizing the Jericho Fire District for failing to select professional services based on a competitive process.

No RFP process used:  The fire district argued that "the board reviewed and pricing and qualifications of the professional service providers and was confident that it was paying a fair amount for the services obtained."  The board also suggested that using a Request for Proposals process does not ensure that qualified firms will be obtained, and that they rely more on interviews and reference checks.   

Article:  Click here for an article on the audit from the Long Island Newsday website.

Best practices:  Many public agencies debate the issue about how consultants should be selected.  Here are a couple of best practices and principles that can help guide consultant selection practices.
  • Do not use price as an evaluation criterion when prohibited:  Many states have laws that prohibit the use of price as an evaluation criterion for the selection of architects, engineers, and similar professional services.  In Washington state, four disciplines are covered by this qualifications based selection process: architects, engineers, landscape architects, and land surveyors.  It is described in RCW 39.80.  In addition, federally funded projects are subject to the federal Brooks Act that prohibits use of price in the selection process for a fairly expansive list of disciplines. 
  • Use price as a selection criterion when permitted:  When not prohibited, price should be part of the evaluation criteria for selecting consultant services.  It helps ensure that public agencies are receiving competitive prices.  Agencies must assess how much weight price should play in the evaluation process.  For a scope of work that is not clearly defined and that relies heavily on the expertise and judgment of the consultant, price should be a lower percentage of the evaluation points.  However, when services to be provided are more routine, well-defined, and less subject to the judgment and expertise of the firm hired, price should be a higher percentage of the evaluation points.
  • Transparency:   Without an RFP process, public agencies are subject to criticism that contracts are being awarded based on friendships, relationships, and even financial kickbacks from firms.  It is important for public agencies to be aware of public perception of their processes (or lack of processes).
  • Have written selection policies:   Each public agency should have procurement policies, based on any applicable state laws or regulations that define what dollar threshold contracts must be subject to an RFP process versus those smaller contract amounts that may be selected on a more informal basis.
  • Pay based on contract terms:  Public agencies should monitor performance in accordance with the contract terms.  In addition, public agencies should carefully review invoices to ensure that payment is based on the terms of the written contract.  In the case of the New York state fire district noted above, one contract was set at an hourly rate of $40, bu8t the district made payments at $50, without any written amendment to the contract.
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, 
LLC http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The Key to Successful Public Procurement - in One Word

Eileen Youens
Texas based attorney and public procurement expert Eileen Youens, has written an entertaining and insightful blog on The Key to Successful Public Procurement - in One Word.

4 key steps in procurement:  She suggests that the one word is "consistency," and she outlines four key steps in any procurement:
  1. Determine needs
  2. Draft solicitation
  3. Evaluate and award
  4. Monitor contract performance
Read the blog:  Click here to read Eileen's blog posting from February 8, 2013.

Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog 
© 2013 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC 
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com