Washington Administrative Code › Title 468 - Transportation, Department of (See Title 88) › Chapter 468-600 - Transportation innovative partnership program › REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF PROPOSALS › Section 468-600-330 - Proposal evaluation factors and criteria

Current through Register Vol. 24-14, July 15, 2024
For solicited proposals, the evaluation panel shall assess
				  the certified proposals based on the unique project-specific evaluation
				  criteria identified in the solicitation documents, including any written
				  amendments or clarifications thereto, and upon any other factors the panel
				  believes is necessary to ensure a successful project that benefits the public
				  interest.
For unsolicited and competing proposals, the evaluation panel
				  must consider the following factors:
(1)
Qualifications and
				experience.
Has the proposer created a team that is qualified, managed,
				and structured in a manner that will enable the team to complete the proposed
				project and perform the proposed scope of work?
(a)
Experience with similar
				infrastructure projects.
Have members of this team previously worked
				together or in a substantially similar consortium or partnership arrangement
				constructing, improving, operating, maintaining or managing transportation
				infrastructure? Has the lead firm managed, or any of the member firms worked
				on, a similar public-private partnership project?
(b)
Demonstration of ability to perform
				work.
Does the team possess the necessary financial, staffing,
				equipment, and technical resources to successfully complete the project and
				perform the proposed scope of work? Do the team and/or member firms have
				competing financial or workforce commitments that may inhibit success and
				follow-through on this project?
(c)
Leadership structure.
Is one firm designated as lead on the
				project? Does the organization of the team indicate a well thought out approach
				to managing the project? Is there an agreement/document in place between
				members?
(d)
Project
				manager's experience.
Is a project manager identified, and does this
				person work for the principal firm? If not, is there a clear definition of the
				role and responsibility of the project manager relative to the member firms?
				Does the project manager have experience leading this type and magnitude of
				project?
(e)
Management
				approach.
Have the primary functions and responsibilities of the
				management team been identified? Have the members of the team developed an
				approach to facilitate communication among the project participants? Has the
				firm adequately described its approach to communicating with and meeting the
				expectations of the state?
(f)
Financial condition.
Is the financial information submitted on the
				forms sufficient to determine the firms' capability to fulfill its obligations
				described in the project proposal, and is that capability demonstrated by the
				submitted information?
(g)
Project ownership.
Does the proposal identify the proposed
				ownership arrangements for each phase of the project and clearly state
				assumptions on legal liabilities and responsibilities during each phase of the
				project?
(h)
Competitive
				subcontracting.
To what extent have adequate procurement policies been
				adopted by the proposer to ensure opportunities for competitive procurement of
				work, services, materials and supplies that the proposer will
				subcontract?