REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL MODEL AND GUIDELINES
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
CHAPTER I – OVERVIEW
Article B – Instructions to Campus
Authority
The California State University has authority to procure its major capital outlay projects using the
Design-Build method of procurement under Public Contract Code section 10708, which states:
“(a)
When, in the opinion of the trustees, the best interests of the California State University
dictate, the trustees may enter into an agreement with a contractor to provide all or significant
portions of the design services and construction of a project under this chapter. The contractor
shall design the project pursuant to the scope of services set forth in the request for proposals,
build the project, and present the completed project to the trustees for their approval and
acceptance.
(b)
Work under this section shall be carried out by a contractor chosen by a competitive
bidding process that employs selection criteria in addition to cost. Any design work performed
pursuant to this section shall be prepared and signed by an architect certificated pursuant to
Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(c)
When the design of portions of the project permits the selection of subcontractors, the
contractor shall competitively bid those portions. The contractor shall provide to the trustees a list
of subcontractors whose work is in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the total project cost as soon
as the subcontractors are identified. Once listed, the subcontractors shall have the rights provided
in the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
4100) of Part 1).”
And under Public Contract Code section 10709, which states:
“Notwithstanding any provision of the California State University Contract Law and any
other provision of law to the contrary, the trustees may enter into an energy conservation
construction contract, on the terms it determines are in the best interests of the California State
University if they find that the anticipated cost for the alterations effected by the energy
conservation construction contract will be less than the anticipated marginal cost to the California
State University of energy that would have been consumed by the California State University in the
absence of those alterations. The letting of contracts pursuant to this section shall be conducted
through competitive means.”
General
This model Request for Proposal (RFP) has been set up to address basic design-build projects. It
is the responsibility of the campus RFP author to think through all the aspects of the RFP and the
ramifications they have on the project, both in regard to timing and language.
Capital Planning, Design and Construction staff stands ready to help as advisors at all times.
Contact your campus facility planner at the Chancellor’s Office for any assistance needed.
For a more details on a greater variety of design-build processes, contact CPDC, or refer to the
October 2002 Model and Guidelines for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay projects.
Revised April, 2008
Page 1 of 8 pages
Request for Proposal – Model and Guidelines
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
The model RFP contains four different types of documents.
1.
Standard: those documents that are recommended by the Chancellor’s Office, and are a
standard inclusion in any RFP.
2.
Amendable: also a standard part of the RFP, but can be changed by the campus.
3.
Guideline: a statement of the CPDC policy strongly recommended for the campus
adherence.
4.
Example: a sample provided to illustrate different solutions to the campus.
Document Usage
1. Standard
General Conditions
Uniform Table of
Contents
Forms
Clarification
regarding the RFP
Prequalification
Requirements
Proposal Opening
Procedures
Assignment of Proposer
Identification Nos.
Submittal Requiremts
& Procedure Guide for
CSU Design-Build
Projects
2. Amendable
Schedule
Cost Limits
3. Guidelines
Pre-proposal
Conference & Site
Visit
Awards
Advertisement
Liquidated Damages
General Statement
Other Maps
Proposal Checklist
4. Example
Program
Requirements
Performance
Specifications
Technical Proposal
Format
Special Conditions
Project Location
Evaluation Criteria
Financial Plan
It is suggested that the final RFP have color-coded sections. This will help to locate different
items for reference, as well as give a better appearance to the manual.
Request for Qualifications - Advertisement
CSU advertises the design-build project through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. The
University shall advertise the project in the normal public works manner and identify that the potential
proposers must contact the University for an RFQ package. The potential proposers must submit in
accordance with the RFQ requirements, and a qualification committee shall review the RFQ submittal
packages and select the best four or five responses. The successful proposers (and the unsuccessful) are
notified, and Request for Proposal (RFP) packages are issued to the successful proposers. The
advertisement must be included in the RFQ.
Chapter I, Article B - Instructions to Campus
Revised April, 2008 - Page 2 of 8 pages
Request for Proposal – Model and Guidelines
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
The reason for filtering the responses down to four or five qualified proposers is to attract
proposers. Design-Builders have validated this by telling us that they will usually not participate if there
are more than five proposers. Caution: do not have too few in the qualified proposer pool in the event
that, if one or two proposers drop out, the University will not have adequate competition.
Occasionally a campus may wish to issue only an advertisement for a project and issue RFPs to
all financially qualified contractors. This is not recommended. Given an ability to technically prequalify
proposers/contractors via the RFQ process, campuses should take this opportunity to obtain the most
qualified proposer pool.
Prequalification of Subcontractors
Design-Builder subcontractor bidder prequalification (mechanical, electrical, plumbing trades and
trades with an estimated value of greater than five percent of the Construction Budget) is mandatory, and
shall include the following criteria.
Currently used criteria
Project specific
Campuses create criteria for prequal
Trustees or campus evaluate prequal
Safety requirements
License requirements
Project experience
Proposed criteria
Project specific
Campuses create criteria for prequal
General Contractor evaluate prequal
Safety requirements
License requirements
Project experience
Specific company information (i.e. owned by or
affiliated with another firm)
How much work is subcontracted out?
Insurance information
Bonding information
Litigation?
References from three suppliers
References from three general contractors
Note: the Design-Builder is required to ask for this information from the trades, so the burden of the work
is on the Design-Builder to prequalify its subcontractors. CSU staff involvement will occur during the
bidding phase for subcontractors to ensure the Design-Builder is conducting the prequalification. Staff
will provide the sample prequalification forms to the Design-Builder and later obtain lists of prequalified
subs for the project.
Uniform Table of Contents
The campus is to use the uniform Table of Contents to set up the body of the RFP.
Chapter I, Article B - Instructions to Campus
Revised April, 2008 - Page 3 of 8 pages
Request for Proposal – Model and Guidelines
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
Prevailing Wage Rates
The prevailing wage rates that are in effect on the date of the first advertisement shall be
bound within the RFP. If the project is a residential project, campus must apply to the
Department of Industrial Relations for a special determination 45 days prior to advertising the
project. These special determinations shall then be bound into the RFP in addition to those
commercial or standard wage determinations not covered by the special determinations. The
commercial or standard prevailing wage determinations with a single asterisk (*) after the
expiration date remain in effect for the life of the project. Prevailing wage determinations with
double asterisks (**) after the expiration date indicate that the basic hourly wage rate, overtime
and holiday pay rates, and employer payments to be paid for work performed after this date have
been predetermined. If work is to extend past this date, the new rate must be paid and should be
incorporated into contracts when the new rate is in effect. The Design-Builder should contact the
Prevailing Wage Unit, DLSR, or the construction administrator to obtain predetermined wage
changes. Remember, all determinations that do not have double asterisks (**) after the expiration
date remain in effect for the life of the project.
Project Schedule
The sample tentative schedule in Chapter II, Article B, Section 21.02, shows typical time
sequences for various milestone dates. The campus must work out the proper schedule for the project.
Work both ways from the Board of Trustees meeting dates.
Proposal Requirements
The proposal submitted by the proposer will contain two parts: the cost proposal and the technical
proposal. The cost proposal itself must be on the cost proposal form issued to each proposer by the
campus, and sample can be found in the forms section. The cost proposal will be reviewed and resealed
at the first opening. All other parts of the cost proposal package will be retained by the construction
administrator for further evaluation. The technical proposal must contain all of the information needed by
the evaluation committee to consider a proposal, as outlined in the program requirements.
General and Special Conditions
The Contract General Conditions for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects (Chapter II,
Article C, Part 1) is intended to serve as a “boilerplate”, in that it has been reviewed by General Counsel
and is intended to protect the Trustees with solid code compliant standards. All statements in the Contract
Chapter I, Article B - Instructions to Campus
Revised April, 2008 - Page 4 of 8 pages
Request for Proposal – Model and Guidelines
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
General Conditions are items that pertain to every situation. Should the University have a statement that is
unique to a particular project, it can be included in the Special Conditions. The Special Conditions section
of the model (Chapter II, Article C, Part 2) could be called the “guideline” section; it may or may not
apply to your specific project. The campus authors must read over each item and edit it to suit their
project. The Contract General Conditions can be modified using a Supplementary General Conditions.
However, the Office of General Counsel should review all Supplementary General Conditions, as
Supplementary General Conditions override Contract General Conditions.
Forms
The cost proposal form and the technical proposal summary statement must be customized for
each project by the campus author. Prior to printing, the cost proposal form shall have “sample” overlaid.
Submittal Requirements & Procedure Guide for CSU Design-Build Capital Projects
This manual must be included in the RFP.
Maps
The campus should include all maps that will explain the project to the proposers. The project location
map must be of such detail that will suffice to tie the project to the campus boundary survey. It is best to
use a project-specific site survey.
Geotechnical Report
It is important to include a site-specific geotechnical report which provides design recommendations. This
will assure the site is buildable, and provide information for bidding without every proposer bringing their
own geotechnical consultant to the site to drill holes.
Technical Review Committee (TRC)
•
Make-up: University Executive Architect (master plan Architect), University’s Project Manager,
User Representative, others as appropriate. Suggestion, use consultants or staff to review their
specialty (structural, food service, etc.) and make a verbal report to TRC. TRC members will then
factor this into their own evaluation.
•
Procedure: The responding packages have been previously reviewed by the assigned staff member
from Procurement or Facilities that is responsible for administering the proposer numbers and
receiving cost proposals, the University Facilitator. This review checks that the cost proposers are
Chapter I, Article B - Instructions to Campus
Revised April, 2008 - Page 5 of 8 pages
Request for Proposal – Model and Guidelines
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
responsive to the RFP submittal requirements. Any sets that are found non-responsive to the RFP
requirements are sent back to the proposers. Those remaining are given to the TRC.
The TRC meets and performs a collective but preliminary review of the remaining proposal packages.
The TRC then splits and performs individual detailed reviews of the proposal vs. the RFP
requirements. Any specialist’s verbal reports are given. The individual members of the TRC assign
quality points to the various categories for each proposer. Tables are produced identifying the
criteria, point count, and weight and used by all members of the TRC.
•
Point Count: The design-build statute implies that cost and quality have comparable influence in
determining the successful proposer. The spread of the point count should not be such that proposers
are effectively eliminated. Remember, if the University Facilitator has not eliminated a proposer due
to non-responsiveness, then they have met the minimum requirements. If the TRC consistently does
such things as assign ten points to one proposer and one to another, than it has eliminated cost from
the equation. Therefore, in the initial meeting stage, the TRC should agree to a point range. If the
maximum available number of points in each category is ten, then six would be a very poor score, and
eight, an average score. We would not recommend a spread greater than this, and one could argue that
this may be too much as the cost spread is not likely to be greater than ten percent. To assist in
avoiding too wide a point spread, any responsive proposer shall be given at least half the points for
each evaluation criterion.
Another way to judge points is by calculating the value of a point. If the maximum number of points
available is 200, and the project value is estimated at $20,000,000, then each point is worth
approximately $100,000. This can be used to gauge the relative value of the different designs. For
example, using the previously mentioned point value, Proposer A may submit a high quality
landscape/hardscape design. If a TRC member gauges that it is worth approximately $200,000 better
than the next best proposer, Proposer B, then give Proposer A ten points, Proposer B, eight points,
and so on.
Once each TRC member completes his/her score, he/she hands it in to the University Facilitator, who
averages the scores and produces the table to be used at the opening of the cost proposals.
Alternatives add another layer of complexity to assigning points and, as such, should be avoided in
Design-Build. If they are necessary, the Technical Proposal should include all of the project’s design
Chapter I, Article B - Instructions to Campus
Revised April, 2008 - Page 6 of 8 pages
Request for Proposal – Model and Guidelines
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
and clearly identify that the alternative is the supply and installation of the alternative. The alternative
is clearly delineated. Remember to consider the end product if only the base bid is built. For example,
identify that the base bid includes utility stub outs and any necessary temporary walls, etc. One
possible solution is to identify in the RFP that the assignment of points will be for the overall design
including the design for the alternative, but the quality points will be weighed against the cost for the
base bid. The proposal should identify that the successful proposer will be required to produce a
complete design, including the design for the alternative, and that the University will retain its right to
include the alternative in the award, or to add the alternative by change order at the listed price within
a certain time period consistent with the supply and installation of the overall construction schedule
(i.e. 180 calendar days after award, or at the end of the design and before any final bid solicitations),
or to reject the lump sum of the alternative and negotiate the price. If alternatives are significant and
are a major part of the project, contact the Chancellor’s Office for ways to set up the basis of award
with alternatives.
•
•
Protests: The types of protests that we have received are as follows:
•
Undue influence by allegedly biased committee members—especially parking consultants.
•
Excessive point spread effectively eliminating cost as a factor.
•
Insufficient points assignment—claim that design deserved more points.
Fairness: Be prepared to discuss the process with the contracting community to communicate that
we are fair.
Change Order No. 1
After selecting a proposer and awarding the contract, the University can then meet with the proposer and
perform some value engineering and/or modifications to the proposal to more closely fit the University’s
needs. These changes are then detailed, negotiated, and included in Change Order No. 1. The intent is to
have CO #1 executed at approximately the same time as the Notice to Proceed. This way, no impact to the
project will be realized, and language to this effect can be included in CO #1.
We strongly recommend that after CO #1 no more elective change orders are processed. We have found
that the potential for impact and associated delays claims far outweigh any project design or user benefits.
A large part of the benefit of Design-Build (speed and design liability) are compromised if the University
starts issuing change orders.
Chapter I, Article B - Instructions to Campus
Revised April, 2008 - Page 7 of 8 pages
Request for Proposal – Model and Guidelines
(for Design-Build Major Capital Outlay Projects only)
Submittals vs. Technical Proposal Requirements
During construction the Design-Builder and his designer shall submit shop drawings, catalog cuts, etc.,
that detail and comply with the technical proposal. The University needs to assign their project manager
or construction manager or Executive Architect to review these submittals for compliance with the RFP
and as modified by the technical proposal. This shop drawing, catalog and sample file is then checked
again by the inspector during construction.
•
Equals: Arguably upon receipt of the technical proposal, but definitely upon award of the contract,
the University no longer needs to entertain equals. We argue that the University should not entertain
equals unless it is clearly in the University’s/Trustees’ best interest.
•
Substitutions: Substitutions should always equate to a credit. In our experience the credit is rarely
worth the change in project or reduction in quality. The University has no obligation to entertain
substitutions.
•
Products Not in the RFP and Technical Proposal: If the RFP and technical proposal are silent on
certain products, the University should argue for what is the minimum industry standard for this type
of installation. The University may have to negotiate and pay for quality above the minimum
standard.
Quality Control
This has proven a problem when Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Divisions 1-16 are used, as
this system’s format tends to allow the Design-Builder’s design professional to be the determining entity
as to the acceptability of workmanship and finish. If there are project elements and finishes that are
important to the University, address them in the RFP Specifications, for example, “Mock-ups shall be
reviewed and approved by the University prior to final installation.”
University/Design-Builder Issues
The design-build process is not a panacea. It requires heavy staff involvement during the RFP and design
phases of the project to prevent delays and to ensure quality. Minimum staff is one full-time equivalent
position. There will also be participation by the user representative from parking or housing, etc.
End of Chapter I, Article B, Instructions to Campus
Chapter I, Article B - Instructions to Campus
Revised April, 2008 - Page 8 of 8 pages