Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

BV Guidelines

VIEWS: 23 PAGES: 19

									                       2009
           PRISON EXPANSION
     DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACTS
       REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
                     PROCESS
                    GUIDELINES




Edward G. Rendell                James P. Creedon
   Governor                         Secretary
                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
   Section
      1.     Introduction
      2.     Written Determination
      3.     Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator
      4.     Forming the Proposal Scoring Committee
      5.     Committee Statements of Confidentiality And No Conflict Of Interest
      6.     Committee Audits
      7.     Committee Activities Prior to RFP Release
      8.     Public Notice
      9.     Issuance of RFP
      10.    Pre-Proposal Conference
      11.    Receipt of Proposals
      12.    Responsiveness Review
      13.    Technical Submittal Scoring
      14.    Technical Submittal Rating System
      15.    Cost Submittal Scoring
      16.    Disadvantaged Business Submittal Scoring
      17.    Proposal Selection
      18.    Notice of Selection
      19.    Notification to Unsuccessful Proposers
      20.    Debriefing
      21.    DGS Rights Reserved

LIST OF EXHIBITS
      A.     Statement of Confidentiality

      B.     Statement of No Conflict of Interest

      C.     Responsiveness Checklist

      D.     Non-Responsive Proposal Form

      E.     Scoring Committee Matrix

      F.     Coordinator‟s Total Score Spreadsheet




Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 1                    April 2009
1.   INTRODUCTION
The purpose of these Prison Expansion Design/Build Contracts Request for Proposal Guidelines
(Guidelines) is to describe the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and steps that will be
undertaken by the Department of General Services Public Works personnel (DGS) when
procuring the design/build contractor on each prison expansion project through the use of the
competitive sealed proposal process. The projects that will use the Design/Build RFP process
described in these guidelines are as follows:

        575-4 Pine Grove SCI
        375-3 Coal Township SCI
        377-2 Forest SCI
        1579-7 Cambridge Springs SCI
        571-31 Benner Township SCI
        577-36 Graterford SCI
        1578-1 Fayette SCI

2.   WRITTEN DETERMINATION
Since Act 41 of 2008 authorized these projects and mandated the use of the RFP process, there
will be no separate written determination to use the RFP process that would normally be
necessary pursuant to §513(a) of the Commonwealth Procurement Code.

3.   PRISON EXPANSION RFP COORDINATOR
The RFP Coordinator for these projects will be a non-voting facilitator and will be the DGS
contact person for all prison expansion project issues and shall be responsible for:
    Posting all Prison Expansion documents to the DGS Website.
    Contacting the Scoring Committee members to schedule the scoring meeting. The
       Coordinator will guide the discussion during these meetings but will not dictate results or
       decide upon the content of the RFP or the scores of the voting members.
    Ensuring all Committee members sign the Statement of Confidentiality and the No
       Conflict of Interest statements and keeping these statements on file.
    Ensuring the confidentiality of all cost submissions and Disadvantaged Business
       submissions by keeping the sealed documents in a secured location.
    Modifying the Scoring Committee Matrix to reflect the specific scores assigned for the
       factors that Proposers should address and attaching this as an appendix to the RFP issued
       for the project.
    Serving as contact person for all issues arising out of the proposal process, including
       accepting questions, ensuring timely issuance of bulletins (but not responsible for the
       content of the bulletin) and accepting the proposals on submission date.
    Hosting the Pre-Proposal Conference.
    Working with the Construction Manager to contact all references and prepare summary
       reports, Dunn and Bradstreet reports and other reports deemed necessary and provided to
       the scoring members of the Scoring Committee.
    Drafting the memo to the Deputy recommending award to the successful Proposer.
    Scheduling and conducting the debriefing meetings.
Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines       Page 2                        April 2009
4.   FORMING THE PROPOSAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE
The Proposal Scoring Committee (“the Committee”) will be a multidisciplinary team that brings
construction, engineering, architectural, financial, legal and customer perspectives to the project.
The Deputy Secretary of Public Works will appoint the Committee members. The Committee
will be comprised of career-professional managers with programmatic and technical expertise.
The size and composition of the Committee can vary depending upon the scope and size of the
project. The Committee will include voting and non-voting members.

The five (5) voting members of the Committee will be employees of the Commonwealth who are
familiar with the design/build approach and the particular issues involved with prison
construction. The voting members of the Committee are responsible for scoring the Technical
submissions and for verifying the calculations for scoring the Cost submission and the
Disadvantaged Business submission portion of the proposals.

The non-voting members of the Committee will include representatives from the Office of the
Comptroller, DGS‟ Office of Chief Counsel, and the Construction Management Team. The non-
voting members may observe the activities of the Committee, but will not offer opinions, dictate
results or decide upon the content of the RFP or the scores of the voting members.

The voting members of the Scoring Committee will not be appointed until immediately after the
proposals have been submitted. Neither the Deputy Secretary nor the members of the Scoring
Committee will know the identity or number of proposals submitted until after the Scoring
members have been appointed. The short period of time between submission of the proposals,
scoring of the proposals and awarding the design/build contract will reduce the possibility of
undue influence upon the voting members.

Cabinet secretaries and other senior level political appointees will not play a direct role in
evaluating proposals.

Committee members are not allowed to see or to consider either the Cost Submissions or
Disadvantaged Business Submissions until these submissions are unsealed, which will not
happen until after the final Technical scores have been calculated. This confidentiality is
necessary in order to ensure that the voting members‟ technical evaluations are not influenced by
this information.

5.   COMMITTEE STATEMENTS OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NO CONFLICT OF
     INTEREST
All Committee members (voting, non-voting and Coordinator) will be required to sign a
Statement of Confidentiality (Exhibit A) and a Statement of No Conflict of Interest (Exhibit B).
Committee members will sign the Statement of Confidentiality when they are appointed or
invited to serve on the Committee. The Statement of Confidentiality ensures that outside parties
do not have access to proposal information and cannot influence the outcome. The Statement of
No Conflict of Interest will be signed by all Committee members (voting, non-voting and
Coordinator) when they have received the Proposals to be scored and reviewed the identities of

Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines        Page 3                        April 2009
the design/build contractor and the subcontractors identified in the proposals for conflicts. Any
Committee member who violates the terms of these statements is subject to termination.

6.   COMMITTEE AUDITS
The Committee will be subject to random audits by Commonwealth personnel. The audits may
include the review of Committee procedures, documents and decision-making processes.

7.   RFP APPROVED BY DGS AND DOC PRIOR TO RELEASE
Personnel from the Department of General Services (“DGS”) and the Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) developed the documents for these Prison Expansion projects. As part of this
development, the RFP template has been reviewed and approved by both DGS and DOC prior to
the release of the RFP for each individual project. The Scoring Committee Matrix has been
reviewed and approved by DGS and DOC for each project prior to release of the RFP. The
Scoring Matrix that will be used by the voting members will appear as an appendix to the RFP.
The overall percentages assigned to each submission (technical/cost/Disadvantaged Business)
have also been reviewed and approved by DGS and DOC for each project prior to the release of
the RFP. These overall percentages and the formulas for calculating the cost score, the
Disadvantaged Business score, and the overall proposal score will appear in the RFP for each
project.

8.   PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notices of the RFP will be given in the same manner as a public notice is given for the
competitive sealed bidding process. The RFP (but not the appendixes) will be posted to the
Prison Expansion page on DGS‟ website. Proposers will need to submit a deposit to obtain the
RFP and all the appendixes. Proposers will be given a reasonable time to prepare their
proposals. If possible, there will be at least six (6) weeks between the Notice for Proposals and
the Proposal Submission Deadline.

9.   ISSUANCE OF RFP
The RFP documents will be forwarded to Proposers with a Notice to Proposers, which will, at a
minimum, contain the following:
       Date, time and place of the Pre-Proposal Conference.
       Deadline to submit written questions concerning the RFP, which date shall be no later
         than seven (7) calendar days before the Proposal Submission Deadline.
       Proposal Submission Deadline. This is the deadline by which proposals must be
         delivered to the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator in Harrisburg.
       Name and telephone number of the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator.

10. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
The RFP Calendar of Events will indicate the date, time and location for a Pre-Proposal
Conference, which will be scheduled approximately two weeks after issuing the RFP. This two-
week period will provide Proposers adequate time to review the RFP documents and to submit
written questions to the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator. The conference will not be
videotaped and no recording will be allowed.

Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines       Page 4                       April 2009
The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will host the Pre-Proposal Conference and will address
the following issues.

        Background Information
        The Construction Manager, who will attend the conference, will present a brief summary
        of the project.

        Requirements of the RFP
        The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will review the RFP, including the Mandatory
        Proposal Requirements and the requirements of the Technical, Cost and Disadvantaged
        Business submittals.

        Answer Proposers‟ Questions on the RFP
        The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will present answers to the questions that have
        been submitted in writing prior to the Pre-Proposal Conference. To facilitate addressing
        other questions, Proposers will complete question forms that will be distributed at the
        conference. It is important to note that although the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator
        and the Construction Manager may respond to questions at the conference, any answer
        given at the Pre-Proposal Conference is not binding on the Department until the
        answer is confirmed in writing and issued in a bulletin. All questions asked at the
        conference will be answered, in writing, issued by fax and posted to the DGS website
        within five (5) workdays after the Pre-Proposal Conference. The questioner will not be
        identified.

11. RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS
All proposals shall be submitted to the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator in Harrisburg by the
date and time established in the Notice to Proposers. Upon receipt of Proposals, the Prison
Expansion RFP Coordinator and the DGS Office of Chief Counsel will conduct an initial
screening to make sure that all proposals have been received before the Proposal Submission
Deadline. The initial screening process will disqualify any proposal that is not received by the
Proposal Submission Deadline.

12. RESPONSIVENESS REVIEW
Immediately following the initial screening, a lawyer from DGS‟ Office of Chief Counsel (OCC)
and a DGS employee (from DGS‟ Bidding Unit familiar with the RFP process) will conduct a
Responsiveness Review, as observed by a representative from the Comptroller‟s Office. The
two individuals conducting the Responsiveness Review will be required to sign a Statement of
Confidentiality (Exhibit A) and a Statement of No Conflict of Interest (Exhibit B). Neither the
OCC representative nor the DGS employee will be members of the Committee. In fact, they will
be prohibited from discussing the contents of the proposals with the Committee and their
involvement in the evaluation process starts and ends with the Responsiveness Review. Any
violation of the terms of these statements is subject to termination.

The purpose of the Responsiveness Review is to review each proposal to determine if the
proposal complies with the checklist of mandatory items identified in the RFP and listed in
Responsiveness Checklist (Exhibit C). This checklist is identical to the one provided to all

Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines       Page 5                      April 2009
proposers as an appendix to the RFP. During the Responsiveness Review, the OCC
representative will complete a Responsiveness Checklist (Exhibit C) for each proposal. The
OCC representative will also create a Non-Responsive Proposal Form (Exhibit D) listing only
the rejected proposals and explaining the reason(s) for the rejection. The completed
Responsiveness Checklists and Non-Responsive Proposal Forms will be retained by the OCC
representative. The rejected proposals will not be evaluated beyond the Responsiveness Review
step. Rejected Proposers will be notified by the RFP Coordinator of their rejection as soon as
possible after the rejection. If a Proposer disagrees with the rejection, they may file a protest in
accordance with the protest procedures set forth in the RFP.

All responsive proposals will be distributed by the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator to the
voting members of the Scoring Committee with extreme care to ensure the confidentiality and
integrity of the RFP process.

The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will establish a date to reconvene the Scoring
Committee in order to meet the estimated dates set forth in the Calendar of Events in the RFP.
This time period may have to be extended depending upon the number and complexity of the
proposals.

13. TECHNICAL SUBMITTAL EVALUATION
The five voting members of the Scoring Committee will receive the Technical Submittals as
soon as possible after the Responsiveness Review. Each member will evaluate and score each
Technical Submittal and record his/her scores using a project specific version of the Scoring
Committee Matrix. (Exhibit E) Each Committee member will review each Technical Submittal
independently, referring back to the RFP document, taking notes, and scoring according to the
pre-established guidelines. To determine the appropriate rating to be assigned to each evaluation
factor, the Committee members will use their professional expertise, business judgment, and the
rating system described in these guidelines. A score will be assigned only after considering all
documentation provided on the Proposer and subcontractors. Since the qualifications of major
subcontractors are critical, a Proposer‟s overall rating will be influenced by the quality of the
subcontractors.

During the evaluation of the Technical Submittals, the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator may
issue a two-day technical clarification letter to solicit the necessary clarifying information from a
Proposer. The „two-day letter‟ will be used to clarify information but not to remedy any defects
in the proposal.

The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator may provide the voting members of the Scoring
Committee a copy of a Dunn & Bradstreet report on each Proposer. In addition, the Prison
Expansion RFP Coordinator, or a designee, will research and verify the references provided in
the proposals.

After the Committee members have completed their evaluations for each Proposal and recorded
the scores on the Scoring Committee Matrix, the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will
convene the Committee to calculate the final scores for the proposals.


Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 6                        April 2009
The maximum Technical Submittal Score is 1,000. The Technical Submittal Score will be
calculated using the Coordinator‟s Total Score Spreadsheet (Exhibit F) as follows:

       First, each Committee member will reveal their individual score for each Technical
        Submittal evaluation factor from their Scoring Matrix. The Prison Expansion RFP
        Coordinator will record these scores on the Total Score Spreadsheet.

       Second, the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will calculate the average of the
        individual Committee member scores for each evaluation factor.
            o If an individual Committee member score deviates by more than 15% from the
               median of all of the Committee member scores for that evaluation factor, the
               Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will request that the Committee member with
               the higher or lower score discuss the proposal‟s relative strengths, capabilities,
               weaknesses, risks or deficiencies of that portion of the Technical Submittal.
               There is no requirement that any member alter their score, but the member(s)
               whose score deviates more than 15% must explain the basis for their score.

       Then the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will calculate the Technical Submittal Score
        for each proposal, which will be a simple summation of the averages of the evaluation
        factor scores.

       After the Committee members have disclosed and finalized their scores, each Committee
        member will sign his/her Scoring Committee Matrix and submit it to the Prison
        Expansion RFP Coordinator.

       After the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator has recorded the Technical Submittal
        Scores on the Coordinator‟s Total Score Spreadsheet, the Prison Expansion RFP
        Coordinator will proceed to open the Disadvantaged Business Submittals and Cost
        Submittals and finish calculating the scores for each proposal.


14. TECHNICAL SUBMITTAL RATING SYSTEM
In evaluating and rating each section of the Technical Submittal, the Committee will use the
following rating system as a scoring guide. The ratings reflect the Commonwealth‟s confidence
in each Proposer‟s ability, as demonstrated in its Proposal, to perform the requirements stated in
the RFP.

Excellent
When applied to an individual evaluation factor, a rating of excellent should be given if the
Proposer and its major subcontractors (Project Team) excel in all or virtually all aspects and
criteria relating to the factor. The proposal demonstrates that the Project Team has exceptional
strengths that will significantly benefit the Commonwealth. For example, on past performance,
the Project Team receives top ratings from prior customers on quality, schedule, cost-control and
overall customer satisfaction. Performance risk is very low. The Project Team would rate well
above average according to what is expected from qualified contractors and stand out as leaders
in the industry.

Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines       Page 7                        April 2009
When applied to the final/overall rating, a rating of excellent for a Technical Submittal signifies
that the Project Team will be exceptionally well qualified to perform the work in accordance
with plans and specifications. Minimal monitoring and oversight will be needed and the Project
Team is likely to take any necessary extra steps within reason to ensure high quality work, timely
completion and general customer satisfaction.

When determining the final score for a section of the Technical Submittal rated as excellent, 90
to 100 percent of the maximum score should be awarded.

Good
When applied to an individual evaluation factor, a good rating should be given if the Project
Team demonstrates strong qualities with regard to the factor evaluated. While the Project
Team‟s rating for a given factor may not justify an excellent rating, the Project Team proves very
qualified and capable in all or virtually all-important criteria relating to the evaluation factor.
The document demonstrates that the Project Team has one or more strengths that will benefit the
Commonwealth and if deficiencies exist, they are minor and do not seriously undermine the
overall capability for a given factor. Performance risk is low. The Project Team would rate above
average according to what is expected from qualified contractors.

When applied to the final/overall rating, a rating of good for a Technical Submittal signifies the
Project Team will be well qualified to perform the project in accordance with plans and
specifications with limited monitoring and oversight and the Project Team is likely to take extra
steps to ensure quality work, timely completion and general customer satisfaction.

When determining the final score for a section of the Technical Submittal rated as good, 80 to
less than 90 percent of the maximum score should be awarded.

Satisfactory
When applied to an individual evaluation factor the Project Team‟s qualifications are average.
It may be fairly strong in some aspects of the criteria relating to a given evaluation factor, but
weak on others (e.g., with regard to management plan, it has an adequate management Project
Team, but its technical approach to the project does not demonstrate a good understanding of the
requirements). The document demonstrates few or no strengths. Deficiencies exist, but do not
rise to the level of rendering the Project Team technically incompetent. However, there would be
a moderate performance risk involved. The Project Team would rate average according to what
is expected from qualified contractors.

When applied to the final/overall rating, a satisfactory rating for a Technical Submittal signifies
that the Project Team will be generally qualified to perform the project in accordance with plans
and specifications, provided there is close monitoring and oversight. This rating signifies the
Project Team is unlikely to take extra steps to ensure quality work and customer satisfaction.

When determining the final score for a section of the Technical Submittal rated as satisfactory,
70 to less than 80 percent of the maximum score should be awarded.




Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines        Page 8                        April 2009
Marginal
When applied to an individual evaluation factor the Project Team‟s qualifications are
questionable or highly questionable. The Project Team‟s capabilities only marginally meet the
performance requirements and capabilities required for the project. The Project Team would
pose a high level of risk in performance. The Project Team would rate below average according
to what is expected from qualified contractors.

When applied to the final/overall rating, a marginal rating for a Technical Submittal signifies that
the Project Team is not likely qualified to perform the project in accordance with plans and
specifications, even with close monitoring and oversight, or if it could perform the project, the
cost and trouble imposed on the owner would not justified due to the inherent risks to quality,
schedule and cost control. This rating signifies that the Project Team would not take extra steps
to ensure quality work, timely completion and customer satisfaction.

When determining the final score for a section of the Technical Submittal rated as marginal, 60
to less than 70 percent of the maximum score should be awarded.

Unsatisfactory
When applied to an individual evaluation factor the Project Team‟s qualifications are
unacceptable. The Project Team fails to meet even minimum standards of acceptability with
regard to some or most of the specific criteria relating to a given evaluation factor. Multiple
serious deficiencies exist and indicate the Project Team would pose unacceptable risks in
performance. The Project Team would rate well below average according to what is expected
from qualified contractors.

When applied to the final/overall rating, an unsatisfactory rating for a technical Submittal
signifies that the Project Team would not be qualified to perform the project in accordance with
plans and specifications, even with close monitoring and oversight.

When determining the final score for a section of the Technical Submittal rated as unsatisfactory,
0 to less than 60 percent of the maximum score should be awarded.




Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines        Page 9                         April 2009
15. COST SUBMITTAL EVALUATION
Only after the completion of the detailed evaluation and scoring of the Technical Submittals,
will the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator open the sealed Cost Submittals in front of the
Scoring Committee. The Cost Submissions were not open during the Responsiveness review;
they are opened for the first time at the Scoring Committee meeting. The Prison Expansion RFP
Coordinator will calculate a cost score for each Proposer using the following formula, which
results in the lowest Cost Submittal getting the maximum of 1000 points. The formula
automatically and objectively calculates proportionately lower scores on a pro rata basis for each
cost submittal. The lowest possible Cost Submittal Score is 0. Members of the Scoring
Committee will be able to validate and check the formula calculations to ensure the accuracy of
the cost scores.

        Cost Submittal Score = 1000     – 1000 x ($Cost Submittal – $Lowest Cost Submittal )
                                                $Lowest Cost Submittal




16. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS SUBMITTAL EVALUATION
Only after the completion of both the detailed evaluation and scoring of the Technical
Submittals and the Cost Submissions will the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator open the
sealed DB Submissions in front of the Scoring Committee. The DB Submissions were not open
during the Responsiveness review; they are opened for the first time at the Scoring Committee
meeting. The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will calculate a DB score for each Proposer
using the following formula, which results in the highest percentage participation (not highest
cost of commitments) submission getting the maximum points. The formula automatically and
objectively calculates proportionately lower scores on a pro rata basis for each DB submittal.
The lowest possible DB Submittal Score is 0. Members of the Scoring Committee will be able to
validate and check the formula calculations to ensure the accuracy of the cost scores.


1000 – 1000 X (Highest Proposer’s % of Commitments – Proposer’s % of Commitments)
                           Highest Proposer’s % of Commitments




Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines           Page 10                       April 2009
17.     PROPOSAL SELECTION
Upon completion of the detailed evaluation and scoring of the Technical Submittals, Cost
Submittals and Disadvantaged Business Submittals, the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will
calculate each Proposal‟s Total Score using the formula identified in the RFP. The project-
specific formula will be discussed and finalized by DGS and DOC personnel familiar with the
RFP process and the specific project.

The following formula is provided as an example for calculating the total Proposal Score. In the
event of a tie, the scores will be extended out to sufficient decimal places to eliminate the tie.
The maximum total Proposal Score is 1,000.

  Proposal Score = (Cost Score)(.50) + (Technical Score)(.40) + (DBE Score)(.10)

After finalizing the total Proposal Scores, the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will prepare a
recommendation report that is sent to the Deputy Secretary listing the final scores of all
responsive Proposers and highlighting the Proposer with the highest Proposal Score.

The Deputy Secretary will verify that there are sufficient funds to award the design/build
contract to the Proposer and that the award decision is based on the evaluation criteria that were
set forth in the RFP and upon the weights assigned to the criteria. The Deputy Secretary will
then forward the recommendation report to the Secretary for review.

The Secretary has the discretion to reject all proposals or, if he/she has good cause to believe that
the recommendation is not sound, he/she can return the recommendation to the Committee with
any concerns. The Committee should consider the concerns but is under no obligation to revises
its scores or recommendation. The Secretary then approves the recommendation and proceeds
with the normal procedure for executing the design/build contract.

18. NOTICE OF SELECTION
Upon receiving the Secretary‟s confirmation of the selected Proposer, the Prison Expansion RFP
Coordinator will notify the selected Proposer and initiate execution of the contract by the Bureau
of Professional Selections and Administrative Services. The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator
is responsible for posting scanned versions of the successful proposals and scores to the Prison
Expansion link on DGS‟ website in compliance with the RFP.

19. NOTIFICATION TO UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSERS
The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will notify the unsuccessful Proposers in writing on the
same day the Notice of Selection is issued (or sooner if deemed non-responsive). The contents
of the notification will depend upon whether the elimination was based upon a rejection for non-
responsiveness made before the proposals were distributed for scoring or whether the elimination
was based upon not being the highest scored proposal.

               If the proposal is rejected as non-responsive, the notification to the unsuccessful
                Proposer will include an explanation of the basis for the rejection and notice of

Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 11                       April 2009
                the Proposer‟s option to file a protest. There will be no debriefing for any
                proposals rejected as non-responsive.

               If the proposal is eliminated as not the highest scored proposal, then the notice to
                the unsuccessful Proposer will include the name of the selected Proposer, its Total
                Proposal Score and its Cost and a reference to the Prison Expansion link on DGS‟
                website. The notification will also inform the unsuccessful Proposer of the
                opportunity for a debriefing and the requirement that, if a debriefing is desired,
                the Proposer must request the debriefing within two (2) business days of the date
                of the Notification of Non-Selection.

20. DEBRIEFING
The purpose of the debriefing is to provide a general explanation of the elimination of the
Proposer‟s proposal. The procedures and content of a debriefing are summarized below.

      The unsuccessful Proposer must submit a written request for a debriefing to the Prison
       Expansion RFP Coordinator within two (2) business days of the Notice of Non-Selection.
    The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will schedule all debriefings within five (5)
       business days of receipt of a written request for debriefing but no later than seven (7)
       business days from the date of the Notice of Selection.
            o The Department will attempt to avoid issuing Notices of Award to successful
               Proposers on Thursday or Friday. This will enable unsuccessful Proposers to
               receive the Notice of Non-Selection and to submit a debriefing request by the end
               of the work week.
    During the debriefing, the Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator will provide a review of
       the proposal‟s strengths and weaknesses, the Proposer‟s relative rank in the final scoring
       process, and the awardees total cost. This will be followed by reasonable responses to
       relevant questions. Whenever appropriate the debriefing should include comments taken
       directly from the Committee‟s evaluation process.
    The debriefing will not disclose any information regarding the number of proposals
       received, identity of the Proposers, content of the proposals, or evaluation of other
       proposals.
The Prison Expansion RFP Coordinator must include a summary of each debriefing in the
contract file. This will include a list of attendees, summary of information discussed, and
substance of all questions and answers discussed.

21. DGS RIGHTS RESERVED
DGS reserves the right to change these Guidelines. The amended Guidelines will be posted on
the DGS Prison Expansion website with the changes highlighted for easy comparison to the prior
version of the Guidelines. If changes are made to the Guidelines, the new guidelines will apply
only to RFPs issued after the date the changes are posted on the website. In addition, DGS
reserves the right to change the Standard RFP documents. The amended Standard RFP
documents will be posted on the DGS Prison Expansion website.

                                               END OF TEXT

Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines          Page 12                      April 2009
                                                 EXHIBIT A

                              STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
                        (To be signed by every Individual with knowledge of the
                              Act 41 of 2008 DOC Bridging Documents)

  In order to ensure fairness in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to an RFP, it is
  very important that the contents of proposals remain confidential throughout the RFP
  development process. Individuals with knowledge of the Act 41 of 2008 DOC Bridging
  Documents cannot divulge nor make known, in any manner whatsoever, to any person, other
  than individuals knowledgeable of the Bridging Documents or other Commonwealth employee
  who has signed a copy of this Confidentiality Statement for the same Project(s), any information
  pertaining to any and all aspects of the RFP (which has not already been made available to the
  public or all interested proposers) including, but not limited to: the RFP and all exhibits thereto
  until such time as the RFP is released to the Public, or any other confidential information
  regarding the RFP process. Unauthorized sharing of information may have the result of giving a
  Proposer an unfair advantage over another Proposer and thereby render the process invalid. Any
  person who divulges such information may be subject to disciplinary action, including
  termination of their employment with the Commonwealth, and for non-Commonwealth
  employees, debarment of their Firm.

  As an individual with knowledge of the Bridging Documents for the procurement identified
  below, you are required to sign below indicating that you have read and understood the contents
  of this Confidentiality Statement.

  I have read the above statement and fully understand it.

  __________________________________                             ___________________
  Signature                                                      Date

  __________________________________
  Name

DGS 575-4 Pine Grove SCI                DGS 375-3 Coal Township SCI      DGS 377-2 Forest SCI
RFP or Contract Number                  RFP or Contract Number           RFP or Contract Number

DGS 1579-7 Cambridge Springs SCI        DGS 571-31 Rockview SCI          DGS 577-36 Graterford SCI
RFP or Contract Number                  RFP or Contract Number           RFP or Contract Number

DGS 1578-1 Fayette SCI
RFP or Contract Number

  ___________________________________
  Employing Agency/Vendor

   This statement must be signed by every individual with knowledge of the Bridging Documents
      and every other Commonwealth employee that requires non-public information on these
                                            documents.
  Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 13                      April 2009
                                                    EXHIBIT B

                            STATEMENT OF NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
                             (To be signed by RFP Scoring Committee members)

     I acknowledge that I have been selected to participate as a member of the Scoring Committee for
     the referenced RFP.

1.     To the best of my knowledge, I certify that neither I nor my spouse, my dependent children,
   members of my household, nor personnel with whom I am seeking employment:
a.            Have any direct or financial interest in any of the firms submitting proposals or their
   proposed subcontractors, or
b.            Have any other beneficial interest in such firms except as fully disclosed on an
   attachment to this certification.

2.     I certify that I will observe the following rules of conduct:
a.              I will not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any promise of future employment or
   business opportunity from or engage, directly or indirectly, in any discussion of future
   employment or business opportunity with, any officer, employee, representative, agent or
   consultant of a competing Proposer.
b.              I will not ask for, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive, or agree to receive,
   directly or indirectly, any money, gratuity, or other thing of value from any officer, employee,
   representative, agent, or consultant of any competing Proposer for this Project. I will advise my
   family that the acceptance of any such gratuity may be imputed to me as a violation, and must
   therefore be avoided.
c.              I will not discuss the proposal evaluation with any unauthorized individuals
   (including Commonwealth personnel), even after contract award, without specific prior approval
   from the proper authority.
d.              I understand that my obligations under this certification are of a continuing nature. If
   ay any time during the RFP process I receive a contract from a competing Proposer concerning
   employment or other business opportunity, the offer of a gift from a competing Proposer or I
   encounter circumstances where my participation might result in a real, apparent, or potential
   conflict, I will immediately seek the advice of the Office of Chief Counsel and report the
   circumstances to the Deputy Secretary for Public Works.



     Name                                                           RFP or Contract Number



     Signature                                                      Date




     Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 14                      April 2009
                                               EXHIBIT C

                                RESPONSIVENESS CHECKLIST

RFP for Project No. :____________________________________________________

Proposer‟s Name: ________________________________________________________

Office of Chief Counsel Rep.: ___________________ Date: ______________________

                            Mandatory Proposal Requirements
Indicate in the spaces provided if the proposal meets each of following mandatory proposal
requirements. Any proposal that received a “No” will be rejected as non-responsive.

Mandatory Proposal Requirement                                           Yes     No
Separately Sealed Submittals
Technical Submittal
Signed and notarized proposal
Bid Bond for 10% signed and from authorized surety
Letter of Commitment from Surety for performance/payment
Cost Submittal
Disadvantaged Business Submittal

Any Proposal that has a “No” checked will be rejected as non-responsive and the representative
from the Office of Chief Counsel must fill out a Non-Responsive Proposal Form, which will be
attached to the Notice of Rejection sent to the non-responsive Proposer.




Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 15                   April 2009
                                               EXHIBIT D

                            NON-RESPONSIVE PROPOSAL FORM

RFP for Project No. :____________________________________________________

Proposer‟s Name: ________________________________________________________

Office of Chief Counsel Rep.: ___________________ Date: ______________________

                  (To Be Completed By Office of Chief Counsel Representative)


      Rejected Proposer                                    Reason(s) for Rejection




Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 16                    April 2009
                                               EXHIBIT E

                               SCORING COMMITTEE MATRIX
                                       (Page 1 of )

RFP for Project No.:____________________________________________________

Company Name ________________________

Committee Member _____________________ Date __________________________




Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines         Page 17        April 2009
                                                          EXHIBIT F

                                 COORDINATOR’S TOTAL SCORE SPREADSHEET

            (Adapted as needed for Project factors; actually kept as Excel Spreadsheet with formulas)

                                        PROPOSAL SCORING WORKSHEET
       Committee                                   Tech Technical     DB      DB       Cost      Cost        Proposal
         Member                                    Score Weight      Score   Weight    Score    Weight        Score
          Scores
                       1     2      3     4    5
Proposer
Proposer A
Technical Factor 1                                  AVG
Technical Factor 2                                  AVG
Technical Factor 3                                  AVG
                                                    SUM        0.4               0.1                  0..5
Proposer B
Technical Factor 1                                  AVG
Technical Factor 2                                  AVG
Technical Factor 3                                  AVG
                                                    SUM        0.4               0.1                  0..5
Proposer C
Technical Factor 1                                  AVG
Technical Factor 2                                  AVG
Technical Factor 3                                  AVG
                                                    SUM        0.4               0.1                  0..5
Proposer D
Technical Factor 1                                  AVG
Technical Factor 2                                  AVG
Technical Factor 3                                  AVG
                                                    SUM        0.4               0.1                  0..5




           Prison Expansion Design/Build RFP Guidelines        Page 18                   April 2009

								
To top