2.582 Selection of Architectural, Engineering, Land Surveying, Photogrammetric Mapping, Transportation Planner Services And Related Services Contracts.
(1) Application. This section applies to the screening and selection of architects, engineers and land surveyors, photogrammetrists, transportation planners and providers of related services.
This code does not apply to the screening and selection of the above services when using the design-build or construction manager/general contractor method of selection, when the architectural, engineering, survey, photogrammetry or transportation planning and related services do not constitute a majority of the total amount of those contracts.
(2) Definitions.
(a) "Continuation of a project" means a project described in the contract consists of work that has been substantially described, planned or otherwise previously studied or rendered in an earlier contract with the consultant that was previously awarded by the City and the new contract is a continuation of the project so long as the appropriate method (direct award, informal qualifications based selection or formal qualifications based selection) for contracting was followed for the earlier contract.
(b) "Related services" means services that are related to planning, designing, engineering or overseeing public improvement projects or components of public improvement projects, including but not limited to landscape architectural services, facilities planning services, energy planning services, space planning services, hazardous substances or hazardous waste or toxic substances testing services, cost estimating services, appraising services, material testing services, mechanical system balancing services, commissioning services, project management services, construction management services and owner’s representation services or land-use planning services.
(c) "Transportation planning services" means transportation planning services for projects that require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
(3) Direct Award. The City may use any reasonable or lawful contracting method to procure the services by direct procurement with no formal or informal solicitation required in the following circumstances:
(a) In the case of an emergency, pursuant to Section 2.565;
(b) If the contract amount will not exceed $100,000; or
(c) If the contract is for continuation of a project.
(4) Informal Qualifications Based Selection. For services in a contract amount exceeding $100,000 but less than $250,000, the City may not direct award. The City may use any of the following informal solicitation methods in lieu of the Formal Qualifications Based Selection in subsection (5) of this section:
(a) Request for Proposal. The City may, at the discretion of the manager, use the request-for-proposal competitive procurement method in Section 2.563, provided that the solicitation documents focus on qualification based selection using the factors listed in subsection (5) of this section and that the weight of a consultant’s price proposal is 15 percent or less of the score criteria.
(b) Manager Based Prequalification. The City may, at the discretion of the manager, allow informal solicitation of bids from consultants who are pre-qualified by the manager to perform the desired services. The City shall attempt to solicit bids from at least three prequalified consultants. If at least three bids could not be obtained from pre-qualified consultants, a lesser number will suffice provided that a written record is made of the effort to obtain the bids. The manager shall make the final selection consistent with subsection (6) of this section. The manager shall maintain a list of pre-qualified consultants and some explanation about the factors and information considered for the pre-qualification of each consultant.
(5) Formal Qualifications Based Selection. For services in a contract amount exceeding $250,000, the City shall select consultants to provide architectural, engineering, survey, photogrammetry or transportation planning and related services based on the consultant’s qualifications for the type of professional service required.
The City’s screening and selection procedures under this section, regardless of the estimated cost of the consultant services, may include considering each proposer’s:
(a) Specialized experience, capabilities and technical competence which the proposer may demonstrate with its proposed approach and methodology to meet the project requirements;
(b) Resources committed to perform the work and the proportion of the time that the proposer’s staff would spend on the project, including time for specialized services, within the applicable time limits;
(c) Record of past performance, including but not limited to price and cost data from previous projects, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, cost control and contract administration;
(d) Ownership status and employment practices regarding minority, women and emerging small businesses or historically underutilized businesses;
(e) Availability to the project locale;
(f) Familiarity with the project locale; and
(g) Proposed project management techniques.
When using Formal Qualifications Based Selection, the City may use a request for proposal process with the restriction that any price or other cost-related component be sealed until after selection of the consultant. The fact that the consultant is required to submit sealed cost-related components neither requires the City to accept, nor prohibits the City from accepting, the costs-based information. The City shall rank the proposers and shall negotiate with the highest ranked proposer.
(6) Pricing Information and Negotiating a Contract. When using the Formal Qualifications Based Selection, the City may use pricing policies and proposals or other pricing information including the number of hours proposed for the service required, expenses, hourly rates and overhead, to determine the consultant compensation only after the City has selected a proposer to negotiate with.
The City and the selected proposer shall mutually discuss and refine the scope of services for the project and shall negotiate conditions, including but not limited to compensation level and performance schedule, based on the scope of services. The compensation level must be reasonable and fair as determined solely by the City.
If the City and the initial selected proposer are unable for any reason to negotiate a contract at a compensation level that is reasonable and fair to the City, the City shall in writing terminate negotiations with the selected proposer. The City may then negotiate with the other proposers by order of rank.
The City may at any time terminate the consultant selection process, as determined to be in the best interests of the City.
(7) Alternate Procedure Involving Pricing Information. Notwithstanding the requirement in subsections (4)and (5) of this section that the City may not solicit or use pricing policies, proposals or other pricing information until after the City has selected a consultant, the City may use pricing policies, proposals or other pricing information as part of the City’s screening and selection of prospective consultants if the City:
(a) States in solicitation documents for the procurement:
(i) That the City will screen and select prospective consultants as provided in this subsection;
(ii) How the City will rank proposals from prospective consultants, with a specific focus on:
(A) Which factors the City will consider in evaluating proposals, including pricing policies, proposals or other pricing information, if the City will use pricing policies, proposals or other pricing information in the evaluation; and
(B) The relative weight the City will give each factor, disclosing at a minimum the number of available points for each factor, the percentage each factor comprises in the total evaluation score and any other weighting criteria the City intends to use;
(iii) An estimate of the cost of professional services the City requires for the procurement; and
(iv) A scope of work that is sufficiently detailed to enable a prospective consultant to prepare a responsive proposal.
(b) Evaluates each prospective consultant on the basis of the prospective consultant’s qualifications to perform the professional services the City requires for the procurement. The City may use the criteria set forth in subsection (5) of this section to conduct the evaluation.
(c) Announces the evaluation scores and rank for each prospective consultant after completing the evaluation described in subsection (b) of this section. The City may determine that as many as three of the top-ranked prospective consultants are qualified to perform the professional services the City requires for the procurement and may request a pricing proposal for the scope of work stated in subsection (7)(a)(iv) of this section from each of the top-ranked consultants. The pricing proposal:
(i) Must consist of:
(A) A schedule of hourly rates that the prospective consultant will charge for the work of each individual or each labor classification that will perform the professional services the City requires for the procurement, in the form of an offer that is irrevocable for not less than 90 days after the date of the proposal; and
(B) A reasonable estimate of hours that the prospective consultant will require to perform the professional services the City requires for the procurement; and
(ii) May include, at the City’s request, additional pricing information that is limited to:
(A) A description of each task that the prospective consultant understands as comprising the professional services;
(B) A list of each individual or labor classification that will perform each task, together with the hourly rate that applies to the individual or labor classification; and
(C) A list of expenses, including travel expenses, that the prospective consultant expects to incur in connection with providing the professional services.
(d) Permits a prospective consultant identified as qualified under subsection (7)(c) of this section to withdraw from consideration for the procurement if the prospective consultant does not wish to provide a price proposal.
(e) Completes the evaluation and selects a consultant from among the three top-ranked prospective consultants that have not withdrawn as provided under subsection (7)(d) of this section, giving not more than 15 percent of the weight in the evaluation to each prospective consultant’s price proposal.
(8) Negotiating a Contract for Alternate Procedure Involving Pricing Information. The City and the consultant that the City selects shall mutually discuss, refine and finalize the scope of, the rates and number of hours applicable to, and the maximum compensation level for the professional services and shall negotiate conditions including, but not limited to, a performance schedule for the project. The City may not pay a compensation level that exceeds a level that the City alone determines is fair and reasonable to the City. Authority to negotiate a contract under this section does not supersede any provision of ORS 279C.520.
(9) Disclosure of Proposals. The City will not make available for public inspection the contents of the proposals until after the notice of intent to award has been sent.
Whether or not a proposal is opened at a public meeting, the City shall withhold from disclosure to the public trade secrets, as defined in ORS 192.345 and information submitted to the City in confidence as described in ORS 192.355, that are contained in a proposal, so long as the trade secrets and confidential information have been identified by the proposer.
If the solicitation is cancelled, the City shall return to all proposers their proposals. The City shall keep a list of all such returned proposals and proposers.