Selection procedures for design professionals : recommended guidelines

SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
Recommended Guidelines

Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission
March 2003

Version 2.00

March 2003

SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
Recommended Guidelines
DESIGN/BID/BUILD DELIVERY METHOD

Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission
March 2003

Version 2.00

March, 2003

STATE OF GEORGIA PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

III.

Project Implementation Phase

C. Design Bid Build

1. Design Phase

a. Selection Procedures for Design Professionals

1. Steps of the Selection Process Step 1 - Information Required Prior to Advertisement Step 2 - Advertisement of Project / Request for Qualifications Step 3 - Selection Committee Appointment Step 4 - Evaluation of Applying Firms Step 5 - Development of a Shortlist Step 6 - Notification of Firms on the Shortlist; Instructions for Final Submittal Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation (Optional) Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation Step 9 - Appointment by the Principal Representative Step 10 - Contract Negotiation with the Recommended Firm Step 11 Notifications

b. Appendixes

1. Sample Timeline for Selection Process 2. Managerial Control of Acquisition of Professional Services 3. Guidelines for Using the DOAS Georgia Procurement Registry 4. Example Invitation for Professional Services 5. Example Shortlist Selection Criteria and Weighting and Scoring Form 6. Example Shortlist Firm Scoring Form 7. Example Shortlist Summary of All Responding Firms 8. Example Firm Reference Checking Form 9. Interview Format Recommendations 10. Example Shortlist Notification Letter & Notification For Unsuccessful Firms 11. Example Final Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form 12. Example Final Selection Scoring Form 13. Example Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlisted Firms 14. Example Final Selection Recommendation Letter 15. Example Notification Letter to Selected Firm 16. Example Standard Form Contract 17. Recommended Guidelines on Architectural Scopes and Fees 18. Example Notification to Unsuccessful Proponents and Giving Notice of Contract Award 19. Sample SF 330

For cases in which a project will be executed through the Design Bid Build process, the selection of a professional design consultant (architect, engineer,) should be in accordance with the following process. An overall timeline illustrating the typical length of time to complete this process is included in Appendix 1.

Version 2.00

Page 1 of 33

March 2003

Step 1 Information Required Prior to Advertisement

Prior to selecting any services, Agencies should confirm the major conclusions from the project predesign or program. Major conclusions to confirm (and revise, if necessary) include:
The overall schedule has been updated or, if not, necessary adjustments have been made. Funding has been allocated for the required service. The project scope has been properly defined and updated. The project delivery method has been identified and deemed appropriate. The total project budget has been reconciled with the appropriated funds. The management plan has been identified.
If any of the above conclusions differ from the approved predesign reports, or if a predesign report was not completed for the project, Agencies, at a minimum, should reconcile the above critical items before initiating the selection process.
The Request for Qualifications documents may be issued electronically with the advertisement on the Georgia Procurement Registry.
Step 2 Advertisement of Project / Request for Qualifications

Advertisement of the Project

A public notice should be prepared by the agency and posted on the Internet at the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) Georgia Procurement Registry (http://www.procurement.state.ga.us/) at least 15 days prior to the due date for the response to the Request for Qualifications. The Request for Qualifications should be posted with the advertisement on the DOAS website according to DOAS standard procedures. (See DOAS contact information and guidelines in Appendix 3.) In addition, if the agency wishes, the public notice may be published in an appropriate general circulation newspaper or other medium in the vicinity of the project location. For newspaper advertisements, Agencies should reduce costs by making the printed notice as succinct as possible, referencing the DOAS website as the medium for project details and appropriate documents. For efficiency, more than one project may be advertised in a single printed notice.

The notice on the Georgia Procurement Registry should specify the location of the project, the name of the project, and the type of service being advertised (i.e., predesign, design, engineering studies, etc.) and the anticipated period of performance. The notice should also include a brief description of the project, including the general character of the project (e.g., classrooms, laboratory, prison, library, etc.), the approximate physical size of the project, the project's estimated cost, and critical factors to be considered in the selection.

Select this option on the DOAS Procurement Form

Georgia Procurement Registry Solicitation Types and Definitions
A formal solicitation, Request for Quotation, that includes well-defined specifications or scope of work and requests sealed bids from qualified vendors. The lowest bid that complies with the specification or scope of work is awarded the contract.
A formal invitation, Request for Proposal, from an organization to vendors to provide a creative solution to a problem or a need that the organization has identified. The judgment of the vendors experience, qualifications and solution often takes precedent over price.
A formal or informal document, Request for Information, soliciting information from vendors, deemed to be knowledgeable in the product or service under consideration, to gain information necessary to determine if a RFQ or RFP is appropriate for solicitation. This solicitation method is not intended to result in a contract award.

A formal invitation, Request for Qualified Contractors, stating predetermined qualification criteria, to solicit and qualify vendors for a subsequent RFQ or RFP solicitation. This solicitation method is not intended to result in a contract award.

Version 2.00

Page 2 of 33

March 2003

The notice should specify to whom and when responses are due and the form of required response, including number of copies to be furnished. (See example advertisements in Appendix 4.) If a predesign process has been performed previously for an advertised design project, then the executive summary from the predesign document should be posted on the Georgia Procurement Registry along with the notice.
After the project has been advertised in the Georgia Procurement Registry, interested firms should not contact any agency representatives or facility users except those named in the advertisement on penalty of possible disqualification. This information must be included in the public notice.
Request for Qualifications
In order to provide an opportunity for consideration of as many firms as possible, a standard qualification package should be used. This package should consist of a letter of interest and Part II of the Standard Form 330 for the prime proponent and its principal subconsultants. It is recommended that the agency identify the evaluation criteria prior to finalizing the qualification solicitation. (See Appendix 5.)
The Agency should issue the evaluation criteria and weighting scale for the shortlist and the Final Selection Process along with the formal Request for Qualifications. The respondents should be instructed to reply with letters of interest that do not exceed four pages in length and include the following information to demonstrate their qualifications for the project:
Prior experience of the responding consultant with successfully completed (within budget and on time)
similar projects.
Prior experience of the responding consultant with successfully completed previous State projects. Prior experience of the responding consultant's proposed subconsultants with successfully completed
similar projects.
Prior experience with this delivery method Prior experience with a collaborative design process Prior knowledge of local conditions or special conditions possessed by the responding consultant and/or its
subconsultant(s).
Responding consultant's proposed Project Principal, Project Manager, and Project Architect and their
relevant individual experience.
Responding consultant's proposed subconsultant Principals and Discipline Leaders and their relevant
individual experience.
Program for encouragement of minority business participation. Location of proposed project office. Demonstrated capacity to accomplish the design services within the desired schedule. Four references from the most closely related projects (including individuals' names, relevant
responsibilities, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers). References must not be for project more than five (5) years old.
Responding firms litigation history Responding firm financial stability Responding firms insurance history
Step 3 - Selection Committee Appointment

Prior to or concurrent with the publication of the public notice in Step 2, the Principal Representative of an agency, as defined under the code, should appoint the Chair and members of a professional consultant Selection Committee. The Selection Committee's size may be in the range of 3 to 7 and should include representatives from the agency's professional staff, facility owner, facility maintenance, or agency management. If GSFIC is executing the contract the committee must consist of not more than two agency representatives, at least two GSFIC representatives and one independent representative appointed by the Director of GSFIC. Other neutral parties from other Agencies or the private sector with experience in design or construction may also be included. It may be valuable to include on the committee a non-facility person who

Version 2.00

Page 3 of 33

March 2003

has not previously served on a Selection Committee. If the selection process includes an evaluation from the qualification stage to a shortlist and then final selection, Agencies may elect to appoint different committee members for each phase. However, it is recommended that Agencies use substantially the same Selection Committee to maintain consistent evaluation.
Step 4 Evaluation of Applying Firms

Once the project advertisement has appeared, the Selection Committee Chair should develop three proposed forms to be used in the subsequent selection deliberations: (1) Shortlist Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form, (2) Shortlist Firm Scoring Form, and (3) Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms. (See examples in Appendix 5, 6 and 7.) Additionally, the Chair should develop a proposed Firm Reference Checking Form containing questions deemed pertinent to judging the relative merits of shortlist proponents (see example in Appendix 8).
Following the deadline for receipt of the responses, the Selection Committee should convene to review the submitted qualifications of all candidate firms in accordance with the selection criteria published in the advertisement. Prior to commencing deliberations, the Chair should present the proposed forms. Any adjustments to the forms should be made that are required to achieve a consensus of the committee.
Subsequently, each member of the Selection Committee should review each firm's qualifications package and evaluate each firm using the Shortlist Firm Scoring Forms provided by the Chair.
After all members of the committee have reviewed all responses and independently completed their scoring sheets, the committee Chair should tally all the scores on the Shortlist Scoring Summary (Appendix 7) and immediately report the results to the committee.
Step 5 - Development of a Shortlist

The result of Step 4 will be the identification of no fewer than three, and no more than eight, firms that will be acknowledged as the "shortlist." Generally, three to five firms should be placed on the shortlist, the lesser number typically relating to smaller projects. No firm that currently has--or, with the award of this commission, will have--10% or more of the State's business for a running 36-month period (based on the quarterly report prepared by the State Auditor) should be included on the shortlist.
After the shortlist has been established, the Chair should assign the responsibility for checking the references of the shortlist firms to individual committee members to foster a consistent manner of gathering reference comments. The committee members should validate the recommend shortlist by completing the references checks before publicly announcing the shortlist. The committee's last action should be to determine the particulars of any final submission required from the candidates before the final selection interviews, the questions to ask during the interview, plus the format for the interviews themselves, which should be conducted in random order, normally. (See example interview format in Appendix 9.)
Step 6 Notification of Firms on the Shortlist; Instructions for Final Submittal

The Chair should promptly notify all proposers about their success or failure in making the shortlist. Those on the shortlist should be notified by phone followed by written notice. Email may be an appropriate way to make some notifications. The notice to firms on the shortlist should include a requirement for the firms to be prepared to submit a fee schedule within three to five days following being selected, specify the steps in the remainder of the selection process, including the following:
Location where the complete predesign document (if any) will be made available for review by shortlist
firms
Location where the standard procedures and contract may be obtained Place/time/host for a site visit (if appropriate) Schedule/location for interviews Appropriate form of response

Version 2.00

Page 4 of 33

March 2003

Any other information necessary or convenient to the selection process Consolidated list of selection committee's questions to address in interview
Example notification letters or emails are shown in Appendix 10 and Appendix 10a: "Notification to Firm that Did Not Make the Shortlist."
The Chair should request each of the firms identified on the shortlist to submit in advance of the oral presentations a Standard Form 330 Part I and a SF 330 Part II for any new subconsultant. These forms should be submitted in the number requested without cover letter or binding (stapled only). The SF 330 may be modified only as follows:
Item F may be expanded to provide one page per project with the requested information, inclusive of
project photographs or illustrations. (Firms are encouraged to include projects where individuals proposed to work on the project have had significant professional roles.)
Item H may be enlarged to no more than six pages and should expand upon all the required information
submitted in the initial letter of interest.
If a site visit has been deemed desirable, a previously identified representative of the agency should walk the site with the shortlist firms. However, all questions regarding the project must be submitted to the Agency Principal Representative, or designee, in writing or in electronic format, by a date established at the site visit in order to allow any agency responses provided to be sent to all shortlist firms in a timely fashion.
Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation (Optional)
The Selection Committee Chair should make certain that the SF 330 submittal packages are promptly provided to all the members of the Selection Committee, along with proposed forms developed by the Chair to be used in the final selection process. Forms include a Final Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form, a Final Selection Firm Scoring Form, and a Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms. (See examples in Appendix 11, 12, and 13.)
The results of the reference checking assigned in Step 5 should be documented and distributed to all members of the Selection Committee. Prior to the oral presentation and interview, the committee members should review all of these materials.

Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation

At a time previously designated by the Chair, the Selection Committee should convene to receive oral presentations from each of the shortlist firms. In closed session prior to the commencement of oral interviews, any adjustments required to achieve a consensus of the committee regarding the forms to be used during the final selection process should be made, and copies of all completed Firm Reference Check Forms (see Appendix 8) should be distributed and discussed. Subsequently, interviews should proceed in accordance with the previously announced format.

After each oral presentation, the Selection Committee should ask each proponent to confirm that the firms on the project team and the key personnel identified in the initial submittal are still anticipated to make up the final project team that will provide the services, if selected. Each proponent should be advised that, if it is selected, the final team that it has presented will become the basis of the contract negotiations and agree that changes in the proposed design team (firms or key personnel) after this point can be made only with the express permission of the agency. The Selection Committee members should then ask all other questions that they deem pertinent. Selection Committee members are encouraged to reach a tentative score on each proposer after each individual presentation.

At the conclusion of all presentations, the Selection Committee should discuss each of the presenting teams, the committee member's tentative scoring, and issues raised about each presenter and score each interviewing firm on forms provided by the Chair. Subsequently, the Chair will total the individual scores on the Final Selection Scoring Form and announce the firm with the highest score. The committee should then deliberate

Version 2.00

Page 5 of 33

March 2003

on the result to reach consensus. The committee chair should prepare a final score sheet and have each member sign the final score sheet. This firm will become the recommended selection to the Principal Representative. The remaining firms also will be ranked in descending order based on their final scores. The members of the Selection Committee should not discuss its recommendations with persons (other than the Principal Representative) who are not on the Selection Committee nor advise any firm of its recommendation
Step 9 - Appointment by the Principal Representative

The Selection Committee Chair should prepare a Final Selection Recommendation Letter (see Appendix 14) and forward it to the Principal Representative. The recommendation letter should briefly describe the project, define its anticipated scope, provide the date and place of its public advertisement, describe the character of professional services needed, and recommend that the commission be offered to the highest ranked firm by name. Accompanying the letter should be the Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms, which will list both the applying firms and the shortlist firms with their scores and rankings. The Principal Representative should subsequently approve the ranking and authorize negotiation with the most highly recommended firm (or for good cause direct the Selection Committee to reconsider its recommendation).
Step 10 Contract Negotiation with the Recommended Firm

Following the Principal Representative's ratification of a final selection, the Selection Committee Chair should notify the selected firm (see Appendix 15) and set a meeting to initiate contract negotiations. The agency and selected firm should discuss the scope of work required for the project, schedule, any special project requirements, and fee. The agreement should use the standard form contract, fee schedule and definition of Additional Services. A copy of the standard form contract is included in Appendix 16. Guidance on Additional Services recommended typical fees by project types and sizes is included in Appendix 17. If the agency is unable to reach acceptable contract terms with the highest ranked firm, the agency should provide written notice of termination of contract negotiations with that firm and should initiate contract negotiations with the second-ranked firm from the shortlist. This process is repeated until an acceptable contract is negotiated. The contract will be considered executed and binding after authorized signature by the parties.
Step 11 Notification of Final Award

After a contract has been executed, all proponents should be notified in writing of the award and the rank order of all shortlist proponents. The notification should state that any proponent may obtain a copy of the Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms by writing to the Principal Representative and enclosing a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The summaries provided should not divulge the scores assigned by individual Selection Committee members. (See Example Notice of Contract Award Letter in Appendix 18.) If requested by an unsuccessful proponent, the Chair of the Selection Committee should be available to debrief the proponent on the outcome of the procurement. It is in the best interest of the State to describe the rationale for the selection to the unsuccessful proponents so that they may improve their performance in other competition and improve the quality of professional services provided to the State.
Use of Telecommunications
For projects of limited scope (usually less than $250,000 in fees) or of limited complexity, the shortlisting and selection process may be executed using teleconferencing or videoconferencing to expedite or facilitate the procedures outlined above. However, it is expected that the same basic steps will be followed to assure that all proponents are afforded a fair opportunity to compete.
Alternative Selection Method [recommend moving back to end of process as note.]
Code1 Section 50-22-1 to -9 is the legal basis for the selection of professional services by the State. The selection procedure described in these guidelines is based on a method in the Code referred to as "selection by contract negotiations." An alternative method of selection allowed in the Code is referred to as "selection by

1 Official Code of Georgia. See http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?docname=OCode/G/50/22/1

Version 2.00

March 2003

Page 6 of 33

other than contract negotiations." In this alternative method, a shortlist of qualified firms is developed in the same manner as described in Step 1 to Step 4, above, and then selection is accomplished by consideration of cost and "other factors." Although either method is permissible, most professional service selections should follow the procedure described in these guidelines, based on "selection by contract negotiations" because of the nature of the services being provided.

Version 2.00

Page 7 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 1 SAMPLE TIMELINE FOR SELECTION PROCESS

Version 2.00

Page 8 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 1 Typical Selection Timeline

ID

Task Name

Duration

-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

Step 1 - Verify major conclusions from predesign

14 days

(funding available, schedule, budget & delivery method)

Step 1 - Verify major conclusions from predesign (funding available, schedule,

2

Reconcile any changes to major conclusions from approved 14 days

predesign prior to starting selection process

3

Confirmselection criteria for advertisement

6 days

4

Steps 2 & 3- Advertisement

15 days

Steps 2 & 3- Advertisement

5

Advertise Project (minimum of 15 days)

15 days

6

A/E Responds to advertisement ("Initial Written Submittal" -

15 days

SF 330 Part II and 4-page Summary)

7

Appoint Chair and members of selection committee

7 days

8

Create evaluation forms and distribute to selection

3 days

committee

9

A/E Submits Initial Written Submittal

0 days

10

Steps 4 & 5 - Evaluation of Applying Firms / Validate

Shortlist

15 days

11

Distribute initial written submittal to selection committee for

0 days

evaluation

12

Selection committee to evaluates initial written submittal

7 days

Steps 4 & 5 - Evaluation of Applying

13

Selection committee meeting to score firms, identify

0 days

shortlist, and develop final submission criteria

14

Check references and validate shortlist

5 days

15

Develop and issue final submittal requirments to shortlisted

3 days

firms (Questions for section H of SF 330)

16

Notification to shortlisted firms and unsuccessful firms;

0 days

issue final submittal (SF 330 Part I) and oral presentation

requirements

17

Conduct site visit with shortlisted firms 3-5 days after

0 days

notification (optional)

Page 1

APPENDIX 1 Typical Selection Timeline

ID

Task Name

Duration

-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

18

Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation - (Optional) 14 days

Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation - (Optional)

19

A/E firms prepare submit final written submittal (SF 330) -

7 days

Optional

20

Selection Committee evaluates written final submittal - Only

7 days

applies if requiring 2nd submittal

21

Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation

2 days

Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation

22

Convene to receive oral presentations for each of the

0 days

shortlisted firms

23

Final deliberation and scoring of shortlisted firms

0 days

24

Step 9 - Recommendation to Principal

Representative

25

Issue final recommendation letter to Principal

Representative for final approval

26

Steps 10 & 11 - Contract Negotiations and Final

Notification

27

Notify selected firm

1 day 1 day 6 days 1 day

Step 9 - Recommendation to Principal Representative Steps 10 & 11 - Contract Negotiations and Final Notification

28

Contract Negotiations / Contract Execution

5 days

29

Notification of Contract Award to Unsuccesful Firms

0 days

Page 2

APPENDIX 2 MANAGERIAL CONTROL OVER ACQUISITION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
OCG 50-22-1 TO 50-22-9
50-22-1.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide managerial control by the state over the acquisition of the professional services provided by architects, professional engineers, landscape architects, and land surveyors. It is declared to be the policy of this state to announce publicly requirements for such professional services, to encourage all qualified persons to put themselves in a position to be considered for a contract, and to enter into contracts for such professional services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification for the types of professional services required at fair and reasonable fees.
50-22-2.
As used in this chapter, the term:
(1) "Agency" means every state department, agency, board, bureau, commission, and authority, unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of subsection (b) of Code Section 50-22-7.
(2) "Person" means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a business trust, an association, a firm, or any other legal entity.
(2.1) "Predesign" means that phase of an activity where requirements programming, site analysis, and other appropriate studies are conducted to develop essential information, including cost estimates, to support and advance the decision-making process prior to the design and implementation phases of an activity.
(3) "Principal representative" means the governing board of a state agency or the executive head of a state agency that is authorized to contract for the agency for professional services.
(4) "Professional services" means those services within the scope of the following:
(A) The practice of architecture, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 43-4-1;
(B) The practice of professional engineering, as defined in paragraph (11) of Code Section 43-15-2;
(C) The practice of land surveying, as defined in paragraph (6) of Code Section 43-15-2; or
(D) The practice of landscape architecture, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 43-23-1.
(5) "Project" means any activity requiring professional services estimated by the state agency to have:
(A) A cost in excess of $1 million; or
(B) Costs for professional services in excess of $75,000.00.
50-22-3.
Public notice shall be required for each proposed project that requires professional services. Such public notice shall be given at least 15 days prior to the selection of the three or more most highly qualified persons by the principal representative or the principal representative's designee pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 50-22-4. Such public notice shall be given by publication at least once in the Georgia Procurement Registry established under subsection (b) of Code Section 50-5-69 and in addition may be given by publication in one or more daily newspapers of general circulation in this state, shall contain a general description of the

Version 2.00

Page 9 of 33

March 2003

proposed project, and shall indicate what selection method shall be used and the procedure by which interested persons may apply for consideration for the contract.

50-22-4.

(a) Any person desiring to provide professional services to a state agency shall submit to the agency a statement of qualifications and performance data and such other information as may be required by the agency. The agency may request such person to update such statement periodically in order to reflect changed conditions in the status of such person.

(b) For each proposed project for which professional services are required, the principal representative or his designee of the state agency for which the project is to be done shall evaluate statements of qualifications and performance data as required in the public notice provided for in Code Section 50-22-3 and shall conduct discussions with not less than three persons regarding their qualifications, approaches to the project, abilities to furnish the required professional services, anticipated design concepts, and use of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required professional services. The principal representative or his designee shall then select not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed to be most highly qualified to perform the required professional services after considering, and based upon, such factors as the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements, project location, office location, the professional's current and projected workloads, the professional's approach, quality control procedures, the volume of work previously awarded to the person by the state agency, and the extent to which said persons have and will involve minority subcontractors, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified persons as long as such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified person. In selection, as mentioned in this Code section, persons who maintain an office in Georgia shall be given preference when qualifications appear to be equal.

50-22-5.

(a) After selecting not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required professional services, the principal representative or his designee shall then send a notice in writing to each person so selected defining the scope of the required professional services and then shall select a person to provide the professional services based upon additional factors such as the cost of providing the professional services and other factors as the agency deems appropriate or as required by law; provided, however, that, if the agency selects the person to provide professional services through contract negotiations, the provisions of Code Section 50-22-6 shall apply.

(b) In cases where Code Section 50-22-6 is not applicable, such additional factors to be considered shall be available to interested persons at the time of the public notice provided for in Code Section 50-22-3 and shall be presented in writing to any person selected for consideration of the project pursuant to Code Section 50-224.

50-22-6.

(a) In cases where the agency shall select the person to provide the professional services through contract negotiations, the principal representative or his designee shall rank in order not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed most qualified to perform such professional services. The principal representative or his designee shall then negotiate a contract with the highest qualified person providing professional services for such services at compensation that the principal representative or his designee determines in writing to be fair and reasonable. In making such decision, the principal representative or his designee shall take into account the estimated value of the services to be rendered and the scope, complexity, and professional nature thereof.

(b) If the principal representative or his designee is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the person considered to be the most qualified at a price the principal representative determines to be fair and reasonable, negotiations with that person shall be formally terminated. The principal representative or his designee shall then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified person. If the principal representative or his

Version 2.00

Page 10 of 33

March 2003

designee fails to negotiate a contract with the second most qualified person, the principal representative or his designee shall formally terminate such negotiations. The principal representative or his designee shall then undertake negotiations with the third most qualified person.
(c) If the principal representative or his designee is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected persons, the principal representative or his designee shall either select additional persons in order of their competence and qualifications and continue negotiations in accordance with this Code section until a contract is reached or review the contract under negotiation to determine the possible cause for failure to achieve a negotiated contract.
(d) Each contract for professional services entered into by the principal representative shall contain a prohibition against contingent fees as follows: the architect, registered land surveyor, professional engineer, or landscape architect, as applicable, warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or the making of this contract.
(e) Upon any violation of this Code section, the principal representative shall have the right to terminate the contract without liability and, at his discretion, to deduct from the contract price or recover otherwise the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, or consideration.
50-22-7.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, there shall be no public notice requirement or utilization of the selection process as provided for in this chapter for projects in which the state agency is able to reuse existing drawings, specifications, designs, or other documents from a prior project by retention of the person who provided the professional services and who prepared the original documents.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the Board of Regents and University System of Georgia shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.
(c) The provisions of Code Section 50-6-25, relating to the eligibility of architectural and engineering firms to do business with the state, shall not be affected or superseded by the provisions of this chapter.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, there shall be no public notice requirement or utilization of the selection process as provided for in this chapter for services required for the predesign phase of any state agency construction project unless the state agency estimates the predesign phase alone to have costs for professional services in excess of $75,000.00. No award of a contract to provide predesign services under this exemption shall be interpreted to preclude the lawful necessity to give public notice and use the selection process for design of projects meeting the criteria of paragraph (5) of Code Section 50-22-2. Costs for predesign services, whether or not those services are exempt under this subsection, shall be added to any other costs of an activity for purposes of determining whether the activity is a project.
50-22-8.
A state agency shall be authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
50-22-9.
In an emergency situation, agencies may waive all the requirements of this chapter and select by the most expeditious means possible the person to provide the professional services.

Version 2.00

Page 11 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 3 GUIDELINES ON USING THE DOAS GEORGIA PROCUREMENT REGISTRY
How to Post Bids on the Internet
State Purchasing Policy requires that ALL bid opportunities in excess of $10,000 be posted on the State's Procurement Registry. There are NO exceptions to this requirement.
In addition, agencies are encouraged to post requirements of less than $10,000 when time is available in order to reach out to the vendor community, especially small and minority-owned businesses.
The following describes the minimum time frame for advertising bids and proposals to the Procurement Registry. Note that the number of days DOES NOT INCLUDE the day that the bid is posted so that, for example, a bid posted to the Procurement Registry on March 1 with a requirement of 30 calendar days cannot open earlier than March 31.
A minimum of 10 working days must be allowed for the return of all written "regular" bids between $10,000 and $100,000. A minimum of 10 working days must be allowed for any sealed bid in excess of $100,000 except as noted below. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for contracts, other than construction, when the expected expenditure for the contract is in excess of $250,000. NOTE: When calculating expenditures for multi-year leases, rentals or installment purchase financing, include the total estimate, not just the estimate for the current fiscal year. A minimum of 30 calendar days must be allowed for any construction projects with expenditures in excess of $250,000. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for any project which includes professional services as described in the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA) 50-22 in excess of $1 million. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for costs of professional services as described in the OCGA 50-22 in excess of $75,000.
Please note that the above are minimums. Certain bid opportunities may require longer advertising time on the Internet for an adequate return of competitive responses. Agencies are responsible for exercising good judgment when determining bid closing dates beyond the requirements listed above.
Posting requires access to the Internet. If your agency's procurement office does not have access to the Internet, it is suggested that your management be apprised of this requirement and that appropriate action be taken to provide such access.
In order to obtain access to the posting site, you must have a User Name and a Password. In order to obtain these, contact State Purchasing's Bid Officer, @ 404-657-6000.
Note: The Georgia Procurement Registry satisfies the previous requirements for legal advertisements. Agencies may still post legal advertisements in publications if they wish, but it is no longer required.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND TIPS



On the Internet enter the following address: www.ganet.org/purchase/bidding/doasbid.cgi.



Hit "enter".



Enter the User Name and your password.

Version 2.00

Page 12 of 33

March 2003



Hit "enter".



When the web site comes up, bookmark it for future use (if this is your first time using this

site).



Using your mouse, choose one of the Types of Purchase: Capital Construction; Maintenance

and Renovations; Highway Construction; Professional Consulting; Request for Proposals; or

General Bid Opportunities. Choose only one.



Using your mouse, click on the arrow under the box marked "Value Range." Click on the dollar

range that falls within the estimated dollar amount of the Request for Quote (RFQ) or Request

for Proposal (RFP). If you make an error, click on the gray button at the bottom of the page

marked "Clear."



Using your mouse, click on the gray button marked "Submit" located above the "Clear" button.



When the next screen appears, click into the box marked "Bid Number." Enter the bid number.

Use hyphens where appropriate.



Click into the box marked "Commodity Code". Enter the appropriate 5-digit NIGP Commodity

Code WITHOUT A HYPHEN OR A SPACE.



Click into the box marked "Bid Closing Date." Enter the bid closing date using a "xx/xx/xxxx"

format (for example: 03/01/1999).



Click in the box marked "Bid Closing Time." Enter the time deadline for submission of bids. Be

sure to note a.m. or p.m.



Click in the box marked "Contact Name." You can enter the buyer's name or the name or title

of the person to contact for a copy of the bid documents.



Click in the box marked "Contact Phone." Enter the phone number in a "xxx-xxx-xxxx" format

(for example: 404-657-6000).



Click in the box marked "Project Title." Enter a brief description of what the bid covers.



Click on the arrow in the box marked "Location." Select the county to which the goods are to

be delivered or the service(s) performed.



Click in the box marked "How to secure bid." Describe the method for vendors to obtain a

copy of the bid. If you want them to fax requests, be sure to note all the information you will

need. For example:

"To receive a copy of a bid packet, fax your request to XXX-XXX-XXXX . Please provide the following information: the bid number, closing time & date of bid closing, company name, address, contact person, telephone number, TIN or SSN. Copies of bids can be mailed , sent Federal Express: Bill Recipient or held for pickup. Please include on your fax request which of these methods you prefer. If you chose Federal Express: Bill Recipient, be sure to include your Federal Express account number."



Click in the box marked "Description." Here is your opportunity to provide more than the

information entered in the box marked "Project Title." THIS IS AN UNLIMITED FIELD. Here are

some tips:

Version 2.00

Page 13 of 33

March 2003

- The main ideas behind the registry are: (1) To alert the public about bid opportunities and (2) To provide enough information about the bids so that vendors do not request bids they are not capable of bidding on.

- Because of the software used in this application, the information will all "wrap", that is, it will ignore spaces and paragraphs and one sentence or word will follow the preceding sentence or
word. If you wish to separate sentences, phrases or words, use five asterisks (*****) or five periods (.....). - If the bid is for a justifiable "Sole Brand", insert the phrase "No substitutions. Bidders must be authorized XXXX resellers" or words to that effect. There is no reason to waste time, paper and postage because a vendor is not aware that substitutions will not be accepted and cannot provide the brand specified. - If there is to be a site visit/walk-through or bidders conference, note the date, time and location of it. -If the bid is for equipment that the vendor must install, note "Bid price MUST include installation." Conversely, if the bid is for equipment that normally requires professional installation, but which the agency plans to install itself, note "Bid price will NOT include installation. Agency will perform installation" or words to that effect. This information should also be part of the Request for Quote. This information will cut down on phone calls from confused vendors. -If the purchase of equipment is to include training, so note. - You can cut and paste from Word and WordPerfect documents into this area. - If the bid is for an open agency contract, a fixed agency contract, a service maintenance contract or a lease/rental or installment purchase, always indicate that this is the case. Indicate the term of the contract (For example: "one-year open contract for noisemakers for the Georgia Department of Fun" or "a 36-month lease of worm incubators for Georgia Mid-South University"). - If there are only a few line items, you may want to list them. If they're more than a few, you may want to describe them in general terms (For example: "pipe and related plumbing items 37 line items"). - Delivery may be to more than one location. If so, clarify in the descriptions (For example: "items are to be delivered to 27 department sites in various locations throughout the State of Georgia".)



Make sure that there are no errors. Once the process is complete, and the notice has been

posted you cannot make changes from your PC.

OOPS! I MADE A MISTAKE. NOW WHAT?
If you discover typos or other errors after the posting has been made, you cannot change them from your PC. You must contact the Bid Officer at the State Purchasing Bid Office (fax 404-651-6763) and ask that the personnel in the Bid Office make the changes. Also, please fax any bid cancellations, closing date extensions or addenda to this office so that the postings can be kept up-to-date. In all cases, specify the RFQ or RFP number and the bid closing date as it currently appears on the Internet Procurement Registry.

Version 2.00

Page 14 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 4 EXAMPLE INVITATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Sample advertisements for predesign, design, engineering studies, others)
The (INSERT AGENCY NAME)seeks professional services for the development of a predesign study for a (INSERT PROJECT TYPE)to be constructed on (INSERT PROJECT LOCATION)For reference purposes, the facility is currently identified as the (INSERT PROJECT NAME) The scope of predesign services shall generally be in accordance with the latest version of Predesign of Major Capital Projects: Recommended Guidelines, published by the Office of Planning and Budget and the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission available at http://www.opb.state.ga.us/capital_budgeting.htm]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION As currently envisioned, the building complex will include INSERT PROJECT SCOPE AND VALUE . The Authority will select the predesign professional for this project as provided in Chapter 22 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, in particular O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6. Proposing firms shall complete the Standard Form 330 Part II and the following questions in the requested format.
1. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar scope and type using this delivery method.
2. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar budget to this project. 3. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar schedule to this project. 4. Have you worked previously with the Owner or Using Agency? If so, please list up to three projects in
which the same Owner and Using Agency were involved. Identify the size and scope of the projects. 5. List up to X projects successfully completed by your other proposed design disciplines of similar scope and
type to this project. 6. Your firm's or your other proposed design disciplines' prior knowledge of local conditions or special
conditions. 7. Provide relevant individual experience of the responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and
Project Manager (include resumes of key individuals) 8. Provide relevant individual experience of the responding consultant's proposed other design disciplines'
Principals and Discipline Leaders. 9. Are you a minority business enterprise? 10. Provide the location of your firms headquarters and the location of the office that will administer the project. 11. Briefly address unique project approach (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) 12. Does your organization have any pending litigation? If so, please explain. Has your company been part of
any litigation over the past 5 years? 13. Is your firm currently the debtor in a bankruptcy case? Was your firm in bankruptcy at any time in the last
five years? If so, please explain. 14. In the past five years, has any claim against your firm concerning your firm's work on design project been
filed in court or arbitration? 15. At any time has your insurance made any payments on your firm's behalf as a result of default or error's
and omissions? If so, please explain.
Firms having capabilities and experience for this study are invited to submit the following items (six stapled copies / no bindings) by (INSERT DUE DATE, TIME, AGENCY CONTACT AND DELIVERY ADDRESS)
1. Summary letter (not to exceed four pages) addressing the significant selection factors published above (excluding information provided in the accompanying SF330 Part II and Reference List described below).
2. Standard Form 330 Part II (not more than one year old) for the responding consultant and its principal subconsultants.
3. List of four references from the responding consultant's most closely related projects completed in the last three years on which the consultant served as the prime consultant (including individuals' names, relevant responsibilities, e-mail addresses, fax numbers, and telephone numbers).
Attempts to contact any agency representative in connection with this invitation (other than the individual designated above) or failure to provide fully responsive submittal information may lead to disqualification. This is not a request for a proposal.

Version 2.00

Page 15 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 5 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING AND SCORING FORM

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

The Selection Committee should develop the appropriate weighting for each advertised selection factor based upon perceived importance for this particular project. It is recommended that weightings in the following ranges be utilized:

7-8-9

-

Highly Important

4-5-6

-

Important

1-2-3

-

Not Critical

For the purposes of this shortlist selection, the following weights have been assigned to the selection factors published in the Invitation:
Weight 1 The responding consultant has successfully completed projects of similar scope and
type using this delivery method. 2 The responding consultant has successfully completed State or local government
public works contracts of similar scope and type regardless of delivery method. 3 The responding consultant's other proposed design disciplines have successfully
completed similar projects. 4 The responding consultant and their design disciplines have adequate prior knowledge
of local conditions or special conditions relative to the project. 5 The responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and Project Manager have
adequate prior experience. 6 The responding consultant's proposed other design disciplines' Principals and
Discipline Leaders have adequate prior relevant experience 7 The responding consultant has a program for encouragement of minority business
participation. 8 The responding consultant's references provided satisfactory judgement of the firm's
prior experience on closely related projects. 9 The responding consultant's project office is within a reasonable travel distance from
the project site. 10 The quality of response in relation to requested submittal information was satisfactory. 11 The responding consultant provided an adequate response to the project specific
criteria (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) 12 The firm's is financial stable with no pending or past bankruptcy issues. 13 The firm's litigation record in the past five years is satisfactory. 14 The firm's insurance record in the past five years is satisfactory.

Subsequently, each firm should be rated on a scale of 1 to 9 points on each weighted selection factor in accordance with the following scale:

7-8-9

-

Excellent

4-5-6

-

Good

1-2-3

-

Weak

A total score for each firm should then be compiled by multiplying each weighted selection factor by the firm's quality score on each factor and then totaling all the individual weighted factor scores to arrive at the firm's total score.

Version 2.00

Page 16 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 6 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST FIRM SCORING FORM (Each Selection Committee member should fill out one form per proponent.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

LEAD FIRM NAME: _____________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

SELECTION FACTORS The responding consultant has successfully completed projects of similar scope and type using this delivery method. The responding consultant has successfully completed State or local government public works contracts of similar scope and type regardless of delivery method. The responding consultant's other proposed design disciplines have successfully completed similar projects. The responding consultant and their design disciplines have adequate prior knowledge of local conditions or special conditions relative to the project. The responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and Project Manager have adequate prior experience. The responding consultant's proposed other design disciplines' Principals and Discipline Leaders have adequate prior relevant experience The responding consultant has a program for encouragement of minority business participation.
The responding consultant's project office is within a reasonable travel distance from the project site.
The quality of response in relation to requested submittal information was satisfactory.
The responding consultant provided an adequate response to the project specific criteria (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) The firm's is financial stable with no pending or past bankruptcy issues.
The firm's litigation record in the past five years is satisfactory.
The firm's insurance record in the past five years is satisfactory.
The responding consultant's references provided satisfactory judgement of the firm's prior experience on closely related projects.

WEIGHT

RATING 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

SCORE

7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

TOTAL SCORE:

______

Version 2.00

Page 17 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 7 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST SCORING SUMMARY OF ALL RESPONDING FIRMS
(Ranks represent averages of Selection Committee's scores.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

FIRM

SELECTION CRITERIA

Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater

A

B

C

D

E

F

Rater G

SCORE

RANK

NOTE: Final shortlists typically include from three to eight firms, depending on the magnitude and importance of the project.

Version 2.00

Page 18 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 8 EXAMPLE FIRM REFERENCE CHECKING FORM INTERVIEWER'S NAME: ________________________________________________________ DATE OF INTERVIEW: _________________________________________________________ NAME OF PROFESSIONAL FIRM: ________________________________________________ NAME OF REFERENCE: ________________________________________________________ INSTRUCTIONS: After a shortlist has been made, the Selection Committee should normally develop four to six set standard questions to ask each reference. Then committee members should be randomly assigned to personally call each the assigned references. Examples questions are shown below:
QUESTION 1: How would you rate Firm XYZ's overall performance on your recently completed office building?
QUESTION 2: Did firm XYZ performance in any way negatively impact affect the project schedule?
QUESTION 3: Did firm XYZ performance in any way negatively impact affect the project budget?
QUESTION 4: Was there continuity in Firm XYZ's principal and project management team throughout the life of the project?
QUESTION 5: Would you hire Firm XYZ to do another project for you in the near future?
Question 6: Did firm XYZ meet bid package deadlines?
Question 7: Did firm XYZ work collaboratively with the contractor on value analysis?

Version 2.00

Page 19 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 9 INTERVIEW FORMAT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Selection Committee, before adjourning the shortlist development session, should determine what interview rules it wishes the proponents to follow during the formal interview process so they may be communicated to shortlisted firms in the Shortlist Notification Letter. The rules should be adjusted to serve the needs of the specific project for which the selection is being conducted, but here is one set that generally works well for most projects.
Time Normally 30 minutes for presentation, 10 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes before and
after for setup and knockdown. This allows proponents to be scheduled on the hour and still have time for a brief break. Preferably, interviews are all conducted the same day by all the same interviewers with evaluation
completed before adjournment.
Media Normally presentation boards only. Proponents bring their own easels. No handouts other than agenda with proponent's attendees listed.
Presenters Three to five including Project Principal, Project Manager, Project Architect and key consultants who will
work on the Project. The Project Interior Designer should also attend if the Project scope includes interiors.

Version 2.00

Page 20 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 10 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST NOTIFICATION LETTER

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Ms. Susan Smith, AIA Firm XYZ Architects, Inc. 123 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

July 1, 2000

Dear Ms. Smith:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I am pleased to inform you that your firm is one of those shortlisted for a final selection interview. Interviews are scheduled to take place on August 14, 2000, in the GBA Training Room at the above address on the following schedule:

XYZ Architects The ABC Group Team EFG JKL Associates

9:00--9:50 a.m. 10:00--10:50 a.m. 11:00-11:50 a.m. 1:00--1:50 p.m.

If you have a schedule conflict and are able to work out an exchange for your time slot with another shortlisted firm, you are free to do so provided you notify me at least one business day in advance.

You will be allotted 30 minutes for your presentation, 10 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes before and after for setup and knockdown. Please do not use any video, slides, or models. Our preferred medium is presentation boards or flip charts with firms responsible for bringing their own easels. No handouts other than an agenda with the consultant's team representatives listed are desired.

Please bring five individuals to represent your proposed team, including your Project Principal, Project Manager, Project Architect, Project Interior Designer, and Lead Civil Engineer, since this study involves detailed programming and site investigation services.

If you wish to review the standard services agreement we intend to employ as the basis for your consultant contract, you may obtain a copy from this office by calling and requesting that it be made available to you by fax or electronic media.

A mandatory site visit will be conducted in advance of your interview at 10:00 a.m. on July 21, 2000. At that time, you will be provided a site survey and will have the opportunity to ask questions. While oral answers may be provided at that time, you should rely only on those written responses that subsequently will be e-mailed to your office.

At least five business days prior to your scheduled interview, please have delivered to this office seven copies of Standard Form 330 Part I (SF 330) for your proposed team and SF 330 Part II for any consultants added or changed since your original submittal (see attached SF 330 Part I & II) . These forms should be submitted without cover letter or binding (stapled only), and the SF 330 may be modified only as follows:

Item F may be expanded to provide one page per project with the requested information, inclusive of project photographs or illustrations. (Firms are encouraged to include projects where individuals proposed to work on the project have had significant professional roles.)
Item H may be enlarged to no more than 5 pages and should expand upon all the required information submitted in the initial response submittal.

Version 2.00

Page 21 of 33

March 2003

Please remember that no one on your team should have any contact with any agency personnel, other than the signer, for the purpose of discussing this project on penalty of possible disqualification. We look forward to your presentation.
Very truly yours,
Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority
Copy: Selection Committee Members

Version 2.00

Page 22 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 10a EXAMPLE NOTIFICATION TO FIRM THAT DID NOT MAKE THE SHORTLIST

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Mr. Cletus de la Renta, AIA Nextime Design, Inc. 123 Sourtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30333

July 1, 2002

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Dear Mr. de la Renta:

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I wish to thank your firm for submitting the qualifications of your team for the above referenced assignment. Unfortunately, the Georgia Building Authority has elected not to select your firm for this particular project.

We appreciate your interest in Georgia Building Authority projects and hope that you will consider responding to future opportunities.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Version 2.00

Page 23 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 11 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING AND SCORING FORM

(This form may also be used as the evaluation criteria for the Final Submittal Package (SF 330 Part I).

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

The Selection Committee may reuse the same selection criteria weighting as used in the shortlisting process or adjust the weighting at its discretion based on new information or perceptions. Normally, the following weighting would be utilized:

7-8-10

-

Highly Important

4-5-7

-

Important

1-2-4

-

Not Critical

For the purposes of this final selection, the following weights have been assigned to the selection factors

Weight

1

Capacity: The firm demonstrated adequate capacity to give the project the

attention it deserves.

2

The proposed team members have adequate experience in the product

type.

3

The proposed subconsultants involved in the project demonstrated the

capability of handling this type/size project.

4

The firm has unique experience and qualifications to design this size/type

project.

5

The firm demonstrated a proven history for completing design within

established schedules.

6

The firm demonstrated a proven history for producing well coordinated

quality contract documents.

Project Specific Approach

7

The firm provided an innovative approach for meeting or exceeding the

schedule requirements.

8

The proposed team had synergy between the key team representatives.

The proposed team connected well with the selection committee.

9

The design options were feasible and in line with the program goals.

10

They recognized and addressed the technical challenges. They

demonstrated they have the ability to solve problems.

11

They provided a realistic plan on how they will ensure quality plans and

specs for this project.

12

They provided a realistic and appropriate schedule approach for the

project.

13

They provided a realistic and appropriate cost control approach for the

project.

14

They conveyed good solutions to potential problems.

Subsequently, each firm should be rated on a scale of 1 to 9 points on each weighted selection factor in

accordance with the following scale:

7-8-9

-

Excellent

4-5-7

-

Good

1-2-4

-

Weak

A total score for each firm should then be compiled by multiplying each weighted selection factor by the firm's quality score on each factor and then totaling all the individual weighted factor scores to arrive at the firm's total score.

Version 2.00

Page 24 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 12 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION FIRM SCORING FORM (Each Selection Committee member should fill out one form per proponent.)
PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________
LEAD FIRM NAME: _____________________________________________________________
EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

SELECTION FACTORS Capacity: The firm demonstrated adequate capacity to give the project the attention it deserves.
The proposed team members have adequate experience in the product type.
The proposed subconsultants involved in the project demonstrated the capability of handling this type/size project. The firm has unique experience and qualifications to design this size/type project.
The firm demonstrated a proven history for completing design within established schedules.
The firm demonstrated a proven history for producing well coordinated quality contract documents.
The firm provided an innovative approach for meeting or exceeding the schedule requirements.
The proposed team had synergy between the key team representatives. The proposed team connected well with the selection committee. The design options were feasible and in line with the program goals.
They recognized and addressed the technical challenges. They demonstrated they have the ability to solve problems. They provided a realistic plan on how they will ensure quality plans and specs for this project.
They provided a realistic and appropriate schedule approach for the project.
They provided a realistic and appropriate cost control approach for the project.
They conveyed good solutions to potential problems.

WEIGHT

RATING 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

SCORE

TOTAL SCORE:

______

Version 2.00

Page 25 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 13 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION SCORING SUMMARY OF ALL SHORTLISTED FIRMS
(Ranks represent averages of Selection Committee's scores.)
PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________
EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

FIRM

SELECTION CRITERIA

Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater SCORE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

RANK

NOTE: Normally, the opportunity to negotiate a final agreement should be offered to the highest rank firm. Signatures of Selection Committee Members: 1. 4. 5. 2. 3. 6. 7.

Version 2.00

Page 26 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 14 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION RECOMMENDATION LETTER
GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Ms. Jonetta Jones Executive Director Georgia Building Authority 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

August 1, 2000

Dear Ms. Jones:

The Selection Committee for the above-referenced project has conducted a shortlisting and interview process as provided in Chapter 22 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, in particular O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6. This project was first published on www.ganet.org/purchase/ on June 1, 2000.

The services required of the selected consultant may be described generally as the development of a predesign study for a new multi-agency administrative office building to be constructed on Capitol Avenue adjacent to I-75/85 in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. The scope of predesign services will be generally in accordance with the latest version of Predesign of Major Capital Projects: Recommended Guidelines published by the Office of Planning and Budget and the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission. As currently envisioned, the building complex will include approximately 275,000 sf of administrative space (80% open / 20% closed offices), a cafeteria, a 550-car parking deck, a "mini-mall" of public services, and related ancillary facilities. The total project square footage and construction cost are currently believed to be in the range of 500,000 sf and $55,000,000, respectively.

Attached please find the Shortlist Final Scoring Form of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Form of All Shortlisted Firms (which indicates the selection factors deemed most relevant). Based on the final results of our screening process, we recommend to you as the Authority's Principal Representative (as defined under O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6) that the Georgia Building Authority enter into final contract negotiations with the most highly ranked firm, XYZ Architects, Inc.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Attachments Copy w/ attachments: Selection Committee Members

Version 2.00

Page 27 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 15 EXAMPLE NOTIFICATION LETTER TO SELECTED FIRM

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Ms. Susan Smith, AIA XYZ Architects, Inc. 123 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

August 15, 2000

Dear Ms. Smith:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above referenced project, I am pleased to inform you that your firm has been selected to enter into contract negotiations for the advertised predesign study. Congratulations!

Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we can proceed to finalize the agreement for the services of the selected XYZ Architects' team. However, I must remind you that if we are unable to conclude a mutually agreeable contract for the required services, the Georgia Building Authority will be obliged to terminate negotiations with XYZ Architects and enter into discussions with the second-ranked firm.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Copy: Selection Committee Members

Version 2.00

Page 28 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 16 EXAMPLE STANDARD FORM CONTRACT
PLEASE CONTACT THE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OF THE GEORGIA STATE FINANCING AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION AT
(404) 463-8599 FOR A COPY OF THE
CONTRACT CURRENTLY IN USE.

Version 2.00

Page 29 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 17 RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES ON ARCHITECTURAL SCOPES AND FEES
CURRENTLY UNDER
DEVELOPMENT

Version 2.00

Page 30 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 18 EXAMPLE LETTER TO UNSUCCESSFUL PROPONENTS GIVING NOTICE OF AWARD NOTICE OF
CONTRACT AWARD

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Mr. Sam Roberts, AIA The ABC Group. 321 Fifth St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

September 1, 2000

Dear Mr. Roberts:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I wish to thank The ABC Group for submitting the qualifications of your team for the above referenced assignment. However, the Georgia Building Authority has elected to contract with another team lead by XYZ Architects, Inc.

We appreciate your interest in Georgia Building Authority projects and hope you will consider responding to future opportunities.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Attachment

Version 2.00

Page 31 of 33

March 2003

APPENDIX 19 SAMPLE SF 330 IN BLANK

Version 2.00

Page 32 of 33

March 2003

53314

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53
[FAR Case 2000608]
RIN 9000AJ15
Federal Acquisition Regulation; New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to replace SF 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire, and SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Projects, with SF 330, ArchitectEngineer Qualifications. SF 330 reflects current architect-engineer practices in a streamlined and updated form, organized in data blocks that readily support automation. DATES: Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before December 18, 2001 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. Submit electronic comments via the Internet to: farcase.2000608@gsa.gov
Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2000608 in all correspondence related to this case. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at (202) 5014755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 219 0202. Please cite FAR case 2000608. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
An interagency ad hoc committee developed SF 330. The ad hoc committee based the development of the form on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council Technical Report No. 130, ``[Joint

Federal-industry] Survey on the Use of SFs 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' 1996 (The Federal Facilities Council is an arm of the Congressionally charted National Academy of Sciences.) The report states that Federal agencies and the architectengineer industry strongly endorse maintaining a structured format for presenting architect-engineer qualifications. The report also concludes that the SFs 254 and 255 need improvement.
Both Federal and industry architectengineer practitioners believe that the forms need streamlining, as well as updating to facilitate electronic usage. Hence the SFs 254 and 255 have been consolidated into SF 330. The SF 330 reflects current architect-engineer practices in a streamlined and updated form organized in data blocks that readily support automation.
The proposed rule replaces SFs 254 and 255 with SF 330 and makes related FAR revisions in 1.106, 36.603, 36.702, 53.2362 and 53.301330. The proposed rule makes the following changes:
Merges the SFs 254 and 255 into a single streamlined SF 330.
Expands essential information about qualifications and experience such as an organizational chart of all participating firms and key personnel.
Reflects current architect-engineer disciplines, experience types and technology.
Eliminates information of marginal value such as a list of all offices of a firm.
Permits limited submission length thereby reducing costs for both the architect-engineer industry and the government.
Facilitates electronic usage by organizing the form in data blocks.
SF 330, Part II, Block 5.b. requests information based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Effective October 1, 2000, the FAR was revised to convert size standards and other programs in the FAR that are currently based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code system to NAICS (65 FR 46055). The SF 330 has been revised to comply with the aforementioned, October 1, 2000, FAR revision.
Pending public comment, this is not considered a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule only replaces two standard forms, with one consolidated streamlined standard form. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 1, 36, and 53 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2000608), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 10413) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements. The proposed rule replaces the current SF 254, ArchitectEngineer and Related Services, and the current SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Project, Questionnaire, with a new SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications. The current SF 254 approved information collection requirement states that it takes 1 hour to complete; and the current SF 255 approved information collection requirement states that it takes 1.2 hours to complete. Experience has shown that these hours are substantially underestimated. The SF 330, ArchitectEngineer Qualifications, has been developed by an interagency ad hoc committee, based on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council Technical Report No. 130, ``[Joint Federal-industry] Survey on the Use of SFs 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' 1996. Accordingly, the FAR Secretariat has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning OMB control number 900000XX, New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors, to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
Annual Reporting Burden
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 29 hours (25 hours for Part 1 and 4 hours for Part 2) per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53315

reviewing the collection of information. Because of the tailoring required by the form for each project submittal, there are virtually no savings in burden hours by repeat submittals.
The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
Respondents: 5000. Responses per respondent: 4. Total annual responses: 20,000. Preparation hours per response: 29. Total response burden hours: 580,000.
D. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden
Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than December 18, 2001 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 5014755. Please cite OMB Control Number 900000XX, FAR Case 2000608 New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors, in all correspondence.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53
Government procurement.
Dated: October 11, 2001.
Al Matera,
Director, Acquisition Policy Division.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose to amend 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
PART 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
1.106 [Amended]
2. Amend Section 1.106 in the table following the introductory text by removing from the column ``FAR segment'' the entries ``SF 254'' and ``SF 255'' and their corresponding OMB Control Numbers; and by adding, in sequential order, to the FAR segment column ``SF 330'' and the corresponding OMB Control Number ``900000XX''.
PART 36--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS
3. Amend Section 36.603 by--
a. Revising paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph (c);
b. Removing from paragraph (d) introductory text ``shall'' and adding ``must'' in its place;
c. Removing from paragraph (d)(1) ``SF 254'' and adding ``SF 330, Part II'' in its place; and
d. Removing from paragraph (d)(2) ``SF's 254 and 255'' and inserting ``SF 330'' in its place.
The revised text reads as follows:
36.603 Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.
* * * * *
(b) Qualifications data. To be considered for architect-engineer contracts, a firm must file with the appropriate office or board the Standard Form 330, ``Architect-Engineer Qualifications'', Part II, and when applicable, SF 330, Part I.
(c) Data files and the classification of firms. Under the direction of the parent agency, offices or permanent evaluation boards must maintain an architectengineer qualifications data file. These offices or boards must review the SF 330 filed, and must classify each firm with respect to-- * * * * *
4. Amend Section 36.702 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

36.702 Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer services.
* * * * *
(b) The SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, shall be used to evaluate firms before awarding a contract for architect-engineer services:
(1) Use the SF 330, Part I--ContractSpecific Qualifications, to obtain information from an architect-engineer firm about its qualifications for a specific contract when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Part 1 may be used when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, if the contracting officer determines that its use is appropriate.
(2) Use the SF 330, Part II--General Qualifications, to obtain information from an architect-engineer firm about its general professional qualifications. * * * * *
PART 53--FORMS
5. Amend Section 53.2362 by revising the section heading and paragraph (b); and by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraph (d) as (c). The revised text reads as follows:
53.2362 Architect-engineer services (SFs 252, 330, and 1421).
* * * * *
(b) SF 330 (xx/01), Architect-Engineer Qualifications. SF 330 is prescribed for use in obtaining information from architect-engineer firms regarding their professional qualifications, as specified in 36.702(b)(1) and (2). * * * * *
53.301254 and 53.301255 [Removed]
5. Sections 53.301254 and 53.301 255 are removed.
53.301330 [Added]
6. Section 53.301330 is added as follows:
53.301330 Architect-Engineer Qualifications.
BILLING CODE 6820EPP

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53316

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53317

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53318

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53319

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53320

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53321

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53322

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53323

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53324

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53325

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53326

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53327

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53328

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 0126203 Filed 101801; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820EPC
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
Recommended Guidelines
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK COMPETETIVE COST DELIVERY METHOD

Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission
March 2003

Version 2.00

March 2003

STATE OF GEORGIA PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
III. Project Implementation Phase
C. CM/GC Competitive Cost
1. Design Phase
a. Selection Procedures for Design Professionals
1. Steps of the Selection Process Step 1 - Information Required Prior to Advertisement Step 2 - Advertisement of Project / Request for Qualifications Step 3 - Selection Committee Appointment Step 4 - Evaluation of Applying Firms Step 5 - Development of a Shortlist Step 6 - Notification of Firms on the Shortlist; Instructions for Final Submittal Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation (Optional) Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation Step 9 - Appointment by the Principal Representative Step 10 - Contract Negotiation with the Recommended Firm Step 11 Notifications
b. Appendixes
1. Sample Timeline for Selection Process 2. Managerial Control of Acquisition of Professional Services 3. Guidelines for Using the DOAS Georgia Procurement Registry 4. Example Invitation for Professional Services 5. Example Shortlist Selection Criteria and Weighting and Scoring Form 6. Example Shortlist Firm Scoring Form 7. Example Shortlist Summary of All Responding Firms 8. Example Firm Reference Checking Form 9. Interview Format Recommendations 10. Example Shortlist Notification Letter & Notification For Unsuccessful Firms 11. Example Final Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form 12. Example Final Selection Scoring Form 13. Example Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlisted Firms 14. Example Final Selection Recommendation Letter 15. Example Notification Letter to Selected Firm 16. Example Standard Form Contract 17. Recommended Guidelines on Architectural Scopes and Fees 18. Example Notification to Unsuccessful Proponents and Giving Notice of Contract
Award 19. Sample SF 330

Ver 2.0

Page 1 of 35

March 2003

For cases in which a project will be executed through the CM/GC process, the selection of a professional design consultant (architect, engineer,) should be in accordance with the following process. An overall timeline illustrating the typical length of time to complete this process is included in Appendix 1.
Step 1 Information Required Prior to Advertisement

Prior to selecting any services, Agencies should confirm the major conclusions from the project predesign or program. Major conclusions to confirm (and revise, if necessary) include:
The overall schedule has been updated or, if not, necessary adjustments have been made. Funding has been allocated for the required service. The project scope has been properly defined and updated. The project delivery method has been identified and deemed appropriate. The total project budget has been reconciled with the appropriated funds. The management plan has been identified.
If any of the above conclusions differ from the approved predesign reports, or if a predesign report was not completed for the project, Agencies, at a minimum, should reconcile the above critical items before initiating the selection process.
The Request for Qualifications documents may be issued electronically with the advertisement on the Georgia Procurement Registry.
Step 2 Advertisement of Project / Request for Qualifications

Advertisement of the Project

A public notice should be prepared by the agency and posted on the Internet at the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) Georgia Procurement Registry (http://www.procurement.state.ga.us/) at least 15 days prior to the due date for the response to the Request for Qualifications. The Request for Qualifications should be posted with the advertisement on the DOAS website according to DOAS standard procedures. (See DOAS contact information and guidelines in Appendix 3.) In addition, if the agency wishes, the public notice may be published in an appropriate general circulation newspaper or other medium in the vicinity of the project location. For newspaper advertisements, Agencies should reduce costs by making the printed notice as succinct as possible, referencing the DOAS website as the medium for project details and appropriate documents. For efficiency, more than one project may be advertised in a single printed notice.

The notice on the Georgia Procurement Registry should specify the location of the project, the name of the project, and the type of service being advertised (i.e., predesign, design, engineering studies, etc.) and the anticipated period of performance. The notice should also include a brief description of the project, including the general character of the project (e.g., classrooms, laboratory, prison, library, etc.), the approximate physical size of the project, the project's estimated cost, and critical factors to be considered in the selection.

Select this option on the DOAS Procurement Form
Ver 2.0

Georgia Procurement Registry Solicitation Types and Definitions
A formal solicitation, Request for Quotation, that includes well-defined specifications or scope of work and requests sealed bids from qualified vendors. The lowest bid that complies with the specification or scope of work is awarded the contract.
A formal invitation, Request for Proposal, from an organization to vendors to provide a creative solution to a problem or a need that the organization has identified. The judgment of the vendors experience, qualifications and solution often takes precedent over price.
March 2003

Page 2 of 35

A formal or informal document, Request for Information, soliciting information from vendors, deemed to be knowledgeable in the product or service under consideration, to gain information necessary to determine if a RFQ or RFP is appropriate for solicitation. This solicitation method is not intended to result in a contract award.
A formal invitation, Request for Qualified Contractors, stating predetermined qualification criteria, to solicit and qualify vendors for a subsequent RFQ or RFP solicitation. This solicitation method is not intended to result in a contract award.

The notice should specify to whom and when responses are due and the form of required response, including number of copies to be furnished. (See example advertisements in Appendix 4.) If a predesign process has been performed previously for an advertised design project, then the executive summary from the predesign document should be posted on the Georgia Procurement Registry along with the notice.

After the project has been advertised in the Georgia Procurement Registry, interested firms should not contact any agency representatives or facility users except those named in the advertisement on penalty of possible disqualification. This information must be included in the public notice.

Request for Qualifications

In order to provide an opportunity for consideration of as many firms as possible, a standard qualification package should be used. This package should consist of a letter of interest and Part II of the Standard Form 330 for the prime proponent and its principal subconsultants. It is recommended that the agency identify the evaluation criteria prior to finalizing the qualification solicitation. (See Appendix 5.)

The Agency should issue the evaluation criteria and weighting scale for the shortlist and the Final Selection Process along with the formal Request for Qualifications. The respondents should be instructed to reply with letters of interest that do not exceed four pages in length and include the following information to demonstrate their qualifications for the project:
Prior experience of the responding consultant with successfully completed (within budget and on time)
similar projects.
Prior experience of the responding consultant with successfully completed previous State projects. Prior experience of the responding consultant's proposed subconsultants with successfully completed
similar projects.
Prior experience with this delivery method Prior experience with a collaborative design process Prior knowledge of local conditions or special conditions possessed by the responding consultant
and/or its subconsultant(s).
Responding consultant's proposed Project Principal, Project Manager, and Project Architect and their
relevant individual experience.
Responding consultant's proposed subconsultant Principals and Discipline Leaders and their relevant
individual experience.
Program for encouragement of minority business participation. Location of proposed project office. Demonstrated capacity to accomplish the design services within the desired schedule. Four references from the most closely related projects (including individuals' names, relevant
responsibilities, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers). References must not be for project more than five (5) years old.
Responding firms litigation history Responding firm financial stability Responding firms insurance history

Ver 2.0

March 2003

Page 3 of 35

Step 3 - Selection Committee Appointment
Prior to or concurrent with the publication of the public notice in Step 2, the Principal Representative of an agency, as defined under the code, should appoint the Chair and members of a professional consultant Selection Committee. The Selection Committee's size may be in the range of 3 to 7 and should include representatives from the agency's professional staff, facility owner, facility maintenance, or agency management. If GSFIC is executing the contract the committee must consist of not more than two agency representatives, at least two GSFIC representatives and one independent representative appointed by the Director of GSFIC. Other neutral parties from other Agencies or the private sector with experience in design or construction may also be included. It may be valuable to include on the committee a non-facility person who has not previously served on a Selection Committee. If the selection process includes an evaluation from the qualification stage to a shortlist and then final selection, Agencies may elect to appoint different committee members for each phase. However, it is recommended that Agencies use substantially the same Selection Committee to maintain consistent evaluation.
Step 4 Evaluation of Applying Firms
Once the project advertisement has appeared, the Selection Committee Chair should develop three proposed forms to be used in the subsequent selection deliberations: (1) Shortlist Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form, (2) Shortlist Firm Scoring Form, and (3) Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms. (See examples in Appendix 5, 6 and 7.) Additionally, the Chair should develop a proposed Firm Reference Checking Form containing questions deemed pertinent to judging the relative merits of shortlist proponents (see example in Appendix 8).
Following the deadline for receipt of the responses, the Selection Committee should convene to review the submitted qualifications of all candidate firms in accordance with the selection criteria published in the advertisement. Prior to commencing deliberations, the Chair should present the proposed forms. Any adjustments to the forms should be made that are required to achieve a consensus of the committee.
Subsequently, each member of the Selection Committee should review each firm's qualifications package and evaluate each firm using the Shortlist Firm Scoring Forms provided by the Chair.
After all members of the committee have reviewed all responses and independently completed their scoring sheets, the committee Chair should tally all the scores on the Shortlist Scoring Summary (Appendix 7) and immediately report the results to the committee.
Step 5 - Development of a Shortlist
The result of Step 4 will be the identification of no fewer than three, and no more than eight, firms that will be acknowledged as the "shortlist." Generally, three to five firms should be placed on the shortlist, the lesser number typically relating to smaller projects. No firm that currently has--or, with the award of this commission, will have--10% or more of the State's business for a running 36-month period (based on the quarterly report prepared by the State Auditor) should be included on the shortlist.
After the shortlist has been established, the Chair should assign the responsibility for checking the references of the shortlist firms to individual committee members to foster a consistent manner of gathering reference comments. The committee members should validate the recommend shortlist by completing the references checks before publicly announcing the shortlist. The committee's last action should be to determine the particulars of any final submission required from the candidates before the final selection interviews, the questions to ask during the interview, plus the format for the interviews themselves, which should be conducted in random order, normally. (See example interview format in Appendix 9.)

Ver 2.0

Page 4 of 35

March 2003

Step 6 Notification of Firms on the Shortlist; Instructions for Final Submittal
The Chair should promptly notify all proposers about their success or failure in making the shortlist. Those on the shortlist should be notified by phone followed by written notice. Email may be an appropriate way to make some notifications. The notice to firms on the shortlist should include a requirement for the firms to be prepared to submit a fee schedule within three to five days following being selected, specify the steps in the remainder of the selection process, including the following:
Location where the complete predesign document (if any) will be made available for review by
shortlist firms
Location where the standard procedures and contract may be obtained Place/time/host for a site visit (if appropriate) Schedule/location for interviews Appropriate form of response Any other information necessary or convenient to the selection process Consolidated list of selection committee's questions to address in interview
Example notification letters or emails are shown in Appendix 10 and Appendix 10a: "Notification to Firm that Did Not Make the Shortlist."
The Chair should request each of the firms identified on the shortlist to submit in advance of the oral presentations a Standard Form 330 Part I and a SF 330 Part II for any new subconsultant. These forms should be submitted in the number requested without cover letter or binding (stapled only). The SF 330 may be modified only as follows:
Item F may be expanded to provide one page per project with the requested information, inclusive of
project photographs or illustrations. (Firms are encouraged to include projects where individuals proposed to work on the project have had significant professional roles.)
Item H may be enlarged to no more than six pages and should expand upon all the required
information submitted in the initial letter of interest.
If a site visit has been deemed desirable, a previously identified representative of the agency should walk the site with the shortlist firms. However, all questions regarding the project must be submitted to the Agency Principal Representative, or designee, in writing or in electronic format, by a date established at the site visit in order to allow any agency responses provided to be sent to all shortlist firms in a timely fashion.
Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation (Optional)
The Selection Committee Chair should make certain that the SF 330 submittal packages are promptly provided to all the members of the Selection Committee, along with proposed forms developed by the Chair to be used in the final selection process. Forms include a Final Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form, a Final Selection Firm Scoring Form, and a Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms. (See examples in Appendix 11, 12, and 13.)
The results of the reference checking assigned in Step 5 should be documented and distributed to all members of the Selection Committee. Prior to the oral presentation and interview, the committee members should review all of these materials.

Ver 2.0

Page 5 of 35

March 2003

Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation

At a time previously designated by the Chair, the Selection Committee should convene to receive oral presentations from each of the shortlist firms. In closed session prior to the commencement of oral interviews, any adjustments required to achieve a consensus of the committee regarding the forms to be used during the final selection process should be made, and copies of all completed Firm Reference Check Forms (see Appendix 8) should be distributed and discussed. Subsequently, interviews should proceed in accordance with the previously announced format.
After each oral presentation, the Selection Committee should ask each proponent to confirm that the firms on the project team and the key personnel identified in the initial submittal are still anticipated to make up the final project team that will provide the services, if selected. Each proponent should be advised that, if it is selected, the final team that it has presented will become the basis of the contract negotiations and agree that changes in the proposed design team (firms or key personnel) after this point can be made only with the express permission of the agency. The Selection Committee members should then ask all other questions that they deem pertinent. Selection Committee members are encouraged to reach a tentative score on each proposer after each individual presentation.
At the conclusion of all presentations, the Selection Committee should discuss each of the presenting teams, the committee member's tentative scoring, and issues raised about each presenter and score each interviewing firm on forms provided by the Chair. Subsequently, the Chair will total the individual scores on the Final Selection Scoring Form and announce the firm with the highest score. The committee should then deliberate on the result to reach consensus. The committee chair should prepare a final score sheet and have each member sign the final score sheet. This firm will become the recommended selection to the Principal Representative. The remaining firms also will be ranked in descending order based on their final scores. The members of the Selection Committee should not discuss its recommendations with persons (other than the Principal Representative) who are not on the Selection Committee nor advise any firm of its recommendation
Step 9 - Appointment by the Principal Representative

The Selection Committee Chair should prepare a Final Selection Recommendation Letter (see Appendix 14) and forward it to the Principal Representative. The recommendation letter should briefly describe the project, define its anticipated scope, provide the date and place of its public advertisement, describe the character of professional services needed, and recommend that the commission be offered to the highest ranked firm by name. Accompanying the letter should be the Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms, which will list both the applying firms and the shortlist firms with their scores and rankings. The Principal Representative should subsequently approve the ranking and authorize negotiation with the most highly recommended firm (or for good cause direct the Selection Committee to reconsider its recommendation).
Step 10 Contract Negotiation with the Recommended Firm

Following the Principal Representative's ratification of a final selection, the Selection Committee Chair should notify the selected firm (see Appendix 15) and set a meeting to initiate contract negotiations. The agency and selected firm should discuss the scope of work required for the project, schedule, any special project requirements, and fee. The agreement should use the standard form contract, fee schedule and definition of Additional Services. A copy of the standard form contract is included in Appendix 16. Guidance on Additional Services recommended typical fees by project types and sizes is included in Appendix 17. If the agency is unable to reach acceptable contract terms with the highest ranked firm, the agency should provide written notice of termination of contract negotiations with that firm and should initiate contract negotiations with the second-ranked firm from the shortlist. This process is repeated until an acceptable contract is negotiated. The contract will be considered executed and binding after authorized signature by the parties.

Ver 2.0

Page 6 of 35

March 2003

Step 11 Notification of Final Award
After a contract has been executed, all proponents should be notified in writing of the award and the rank order of all shortlist proponents. The notification should state that any proponent may obtain a copy of the Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms by writing to the Principal Representative and enclosing a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The summaries provided should not divulge the scores assigned by individual Selection Committee members. (See Example Notice of Contract Award Letter in Appendix 18.) If requested by an unsuccessful proponent, the Chair of the Selection Committee should be available to debrief the proponent on the outcome of the procurement. It is in the best interest of the State to describe the rationale for the selection to the unsuccessful proponents so that they may improve their performance in other competition and improve the quality of professional services provided to the State.
Use of Telecommunications
For projects of limited scope (usually less than $250,000 in fees) or of limited complexity, the shortlisting and selection process may be executed using teleconferencing or videoconferencing to expedite or facilitate the procedures outlined above. However, it is expected that the same basic steps will be followed to assure that all proponents are afforded a fair opportunity to compete.
Alternative Selection Method
Code1 Section 50-22-1 to -9 is the legal basis for the selection of professional services by the State. The selection procedure described in these guidelines is based on a method in the Code referred to as "selection by contract negotiations." An alternative method of selection allowed in the Code is referred to as "selection by other than contract negotiations." In this alternative method, a shortlist of qualified firms is developed in the same manner as described in Step 1 to Step 4, above, and then selection is accomplished by consideration of cost and "other factors." Although either method is permissible, most professional service selections should follow the procedure described in these guidelines, based on "selection by contract negotiations" because of the nature of the services being provided.

1 Official Code of Georgia. See http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?docname=OCode/G/50/22/1

Ver 2.0

March 2003

Page 7 of 35

APPENDIX 1 SAMPLE TIMELINE FOR SELECTION PROCESS

Ver 2.0

Page 8 of 35

March 2003

ID

Task Name

Week -3

1

Step 1 - Verify major conclusions from

predesign (funding available, schedule,

budget & delivery method)

2

Reconcile any changes from approved

predesign prior to starting selection

process

3

Confirm selection criteria for

advertisement

4

Steps 2 & 3- Advertise Project / Selection

Committee Appointment

5

Advertise Project/ Request for Proposals

(minimum 15 days)

6

A/E Responds to Request for

Qualifications

7

Appoint Chair and members of selection

committee

8

Create selection forms and distribute to

selection committee

9

A/E Submits Request for Qualifications

10

Steps 4 & 5 - Evaluation of Applying Firms

/ Develop Shortlist

11

Receive submittals from applying firms;

distribute to selection committee

12

Selection committee to evaluate

qualifications

13

Selection committee meeting to score

firms, identify shortlist, and develop final

submission criteria and evaluation

14

Step 6 - Notification of Firms on Shortlist /

Instructions for Final Submittal

15

Check References and validate shortlist

16

Develop and issue final submittal

requirments to shortlisted firms

17

Notification to shortlisted firms and

unsuccessful firms

18

Conduct site visit with shortlisted firms

(optional)

19

Step 7 - Preparation for Firms Oral

Presentations

20

A/E firms prepare submit final written

submittal (SF 255) - Optional

21

Selection Committee evaluates written

final submittal - Only applies if requiring

2nd submittal

22

Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final

Evaluation

23

Convene to receive oral presentations for

each of the shortlisted firms

24

Final deliberation and scoring of

shortlisted firms

25

Step 9 - Recommendation to Principal

Representative

26

Issue final recommendation letter to

Principal Representative for final

approval

27

Steps 10 & 11 - Contract Negotiations and

Final Notification

28

Notify selected firm

29

Contract Negotiations / Contract

Execution

30

Notification of Contract Award to

Unsuccesful Firms

Week -2

Week -1

Week 1

Architect Selection Timeline

Week 2

Week 3

Page 1

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

APPENDIX 2 MANAGERIAL CONTROL OVER ACQUISITION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
OCG 50-22-1 TO 50-22-9

50-22-1.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide managerial control by the state over the acquisition of the professional services provided by architects, professional engineers, landscape architects, and land surveyors. It is declared to be the policy of this state to announce publicly requirements for such professional services, to encourage all qualified persons to put themselves in a position to be considered for a contract, and to enter into contracts for such professional services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification for the types of professional services required at fair and reasonable fees.

50-22-2.

As used in this chapter, the term:

(1) "Agency" means every state department, agency, board, bureau, commission, and authority, unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of subsection (b) of Code Section 50-22-7.

(2) "Person" means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a business trust, an association, a firm, or any other legal entity.

(2.1) "Predesign" means that phase of an activity where requirements programming, site analysis, and other appropriate studies are conducted to develop essential information, including cost estimates, to support and advance the decision-making process prior to the design and implementation phases of an activity.

(3) "Principal representative" means the governing board of a state agency or the executive head of a state agency that is authorized to contract for the agency for professional services.

(4) "Professional services" means those services within the scope of the following:

(A) The practice of architecture, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 43-4-1;

(B) The practice of professional engineering, as defined in paragraph (11) of Code Section 43-15-2;

(C) The practice of land surveying, as defined in paragraph (6) of Code Section 43-15-2; or

(D) The practice of landscape architecture, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 43-23-1.

(5) "Project" means any activity requiring professional services estimated by the state agency to have:

(A) A cost in excess of $1 million; or

(B) Costs for professional services in excess of $75,000.00.

50-22-3.

Public notice shall be required for each proposed project that requires professional services. Such public notice shall be given at least 15 days prior to the selection of the three or more most highly qualified persons by the principal representative or the principal representative's designee pursuant to subsection

Ver 2.0

March 2003

Page 9 of 35

(b) of Code Section 50-22-4. Such public notice shall be given by publication at least once in the Georgia Procurement Registry established under subsection (b) of Code Section 50-5-69 and in addition may be given by publication in one or more daily newspapers of general circulation in this state, shall contain a general description of the proposed project, and shall indicate what selection method shall be used and the procedure by which interested persons may apply for consideration for the contract.

50-22-4.

(a) Any person desiring to provide professional services to a state agency shall submit to the agency a statement of qualifications and performance data and such other information as may be required by the agency. The agency may request such person to update such statement periodically in order to reflect changed conditions in the status of such person.

(b) For each proposed project for which professional services are required, the principal representative or his designee of the state agency for which the project is to be done shall evaluate statements of qualifications and performance data as required in the public notice provided for in Code Section 50-22-3 and shall conduct discussions with not less than three persons regarding their qualifications, approaches to the project, abilities to furnish the required professional services, anticipated design concepts, and use of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required professional services. The principal representative or his designee shall then select not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed to be most highly qualified to perform the required professional services after considering, and based upon, such factors as the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements, project location, office location, the professional's current and projected workloads, the professional's approach, quality control procedures, the volume of work previously awarded to the person by the state agency, and the extent to which said persons have and will involve minority subcontractors, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified persons as long as such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified person. In selection, as mentioned in this Code section, persons who maintain an office in Georgia shall be given preference when qualifications appear to be equal.

50-22-5.

(a) After selecting not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required professional services, the principal representative or his designee shall then send a notice in writing to each person so selected defining the scope of the required professional services and then shall select a person to provide the professional services based upon additional factors such as the cost of providing the professional services and other factors as the agency deems appropriate or as required by law; provided, however, that, if the agency selects the person to provide professional services through contract negotiations, the provisions of Code Section 50-22-6 shall apply.

(b) In cases where Code Section 50-22-6 is not applicable, such additional factors to be considered shall be available to interested persons at the time of the public notice provided for in Code Section 50-22-3 and shall be presented in writing to any person selected for consideration of the project pursuant to Code Section 50-22-4.

50-22-6.

(a) In cases where the agency shall select the person to provide the professional services through contract negotiations, the principal representative or his designee shall rank in order not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed most qualified to perform such professional services. The principal representative or his designee shall then negotiate a contract with the highest qualified person providing professional services for such services at compensation that the principal representative or his designee

Ver 2.0

March 2003

Page 10 of 35

determines in writing to be fair and reasonable. In making such decision, the principal representative or his designee shall take into account the estimated value of the services to be rendered and the scope, complexity, and professional nature thereof.

(b) If the principal representative or his designee is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the person considered to be the most qualified at a price the principal representative determines to be fair and reasonable, negotiations with that person shall be formally terminated. The principal representative or his designee shall then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified person. If the principal representative or his designee fails to negotiate a contract with the second most qualified person, the principal representative or his designee shall formally terminate such negotiations. The principal representative or his designee shall then undertake negotiations with the third most qualified person.

(c) If the principal representative or his designee is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected persons, the principal representative or his designee shall either select additional persons in order of their competence and qualifications and continue negotiations in accordance with this Code section until a contract is reached or review the contract under negotiation to determine the possible cause for failure to achieve a negotiated contract.

(d) Each contract for professional services entered into by the principal representative shall contain a prohibition against contingent fees as follows: the architect, registered land surveyor, professional engineer, or landscape architect, as applicable, warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or the making of this contract.

(e) Upon any violation of this Code section, the principal representative shall have the right to terminate the contract without liability and, at his discretion, to deduct from the contract price or recover otherwise the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, or consideration.

50-22-7.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, there shall be no public notice requirement or utilization of the selection process as provided for in this chapter for projects in which the state agency is able to reuse existing drawings, specifications, designs, or other documents from a prior project by retention of the person who provided the professional services and who prepared the original documents.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the Board of Regents and University System of Georgia shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

(c) The provisions of Code Section 50-6-25, relating to the eligibility of architectural and engineering firms to do business with the state, shall not be affected or superseded by the provisions of this chapter.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, there shall be no public notice requirement or utilization of the selection process as provided for in this chapter for services required for the predesign phase of any state agency construction project unless the state agency estimates the predesign phase alone to have costs for professional services in excess of $75,000.00. No award of a contract to provide predesign services under this exemption shall be interpreted to preclude the lawful necessity to give public notice and use the selection process for design of projects meeting the criteria of paragraph (5) of Code Section 50-22-2. Costs for predesign services, whether or not those services are exempt under this subsection, shall be added to any other costs of an activity for purposes of determining whether the activity is a project.

Ver 2.0

March 2003

Page 11 of 35

50-22-8.
A state agency shall be authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
50-22-9.
In an emergency situation, agencies may waive all the requirements of this chapter and select by the most expeditious means possible the person to provide the professional services.

Ver 2.0

Page 12 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 3 GUIDELINES ON USING THE DOAS GEORGIA PROCUREMENT Registry
How to Post Bids on the Internet
State Purchasing Policy requires that ALL bid opportunities in excess of $10,000 be posted on the State's Procurement Registry. There are NO exceptions to this requirement.
In addition, agencies are encouraged to post requirements of less than $10,000 when time is available in order to reach out to the vendor community, especially small and minority-owned businesses.
The following describes the minimum time frame for advertising bids and proposals to the Procurement Registry. Note that the number of days DOES NOT INCLUDE the day that the bid is posted so that, for example, a bid posted to the Procurement Registry on March 1 with a requirement of 30 calendar days cannot open earlier than March 31.
A minimum of 10 working days must be allowed for the return of all written "regular" bids between $10,000 and $100,000. A minimum of 10 working days must be allowed for any sealed bid in excess of $100,000 except as noted below. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for contracts, other than construction, when the expected expenditure for the contract is in excess of $250,000. NOTE: When calculating expenditures for multi-year leases, rentals or installment purchase financing, include the total estimate, not just the estimate for the current fiscal year. A minimum of 30 calendar days must be allowed for any construction projects with expenditures in excess of $250,000. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for any project which includes professional services as described in the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA) 50-22 in excess of $1 million. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for costs of professional services as described in the OCGA 50-22 in excess of $75,000.
Please note that the above are minimums. Certain bid opportunities may require longer advertising time on the Internet for an adequate return of competitive responses. Agencies are responsible for exercising good judgment when determining bid closing dates beyond the requirements listed above.
Posting requires access to the Internet. If your agency's procurement office does not have access to the Internet, it is suggested that your management be apprised of this requirement and that appropriate action be taken to provide such access.
In order to obtain access to the posting site, you must have a User Name and a Password. In order to obtain these, contact State Purchasing's Bid Officer, @ 404-657-6000.
Note: The Georgia Procurement Registry satisfies the previous requirements for legal advertisements. Agencies may still post legal advertisements in publications if they wish, but it is no longer required.

Ver 2.0

Page 13 of 35

March 2003

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND TIPS



On the Internet enter the following address: www.ganet.org/purchase/bidding/doasbid.cgi.



Hit "enter".



Enter the User Name and your password.



Hit "enter".



When the web site comes up, bookmark it for future use (if this is your first time using this

site).



Using your mouse, choose one of the Types of Purchase: Capital Construction;

Maintenance and Renovations; Highway Construction; Professional Consulting; Request

for Proposals; or General Bid Opportunities. Choose only one.



Using your mouse, click on the arrow under the box marked "Value Range." Click on the

dollar range that falls within the estimated dollar amount of the Request for Quote (RFQ)

or Request for Proposal (RFP). If you make an error, click on the gray button at the bottom

of the page marked "Clear."



Using your mouse, click on the gray button marked "Submit" located above the "Clear"

button.



When the next screen appears, click into the box marked "Bid Number." Enter the bid

number. Use hyphens where appropriate.



Click into the box marked "Commodity Code". Enter the appropriate 5-digit NIGP

Commodity Code WITHOUT A HYPHEN OR A SPACE.



Click into the box marked "Bid Closing Date." Enter the bid closing date using a

"xx/xx/xxxx" format (for example: 03/01/1999).



Click in the box marked "Bid Closing Time." Enter the time deadline for submission of

bids. Be sure to note a.m. or p.m.



Click in the box marked "Contact Name." You can enter the buyer's name or the name or

title of the person to contact for a copy of the bid documents.



Click in the box marked "Contact Phone." Enter the phone number in a "xxx-xxx-xxxx"

format (for example: 404-657-6000).



Click in the box marked "Project Title." Enter a brief description of what the bid covers.



Click on the arrow in the box marked "Location." Select the county to which the goods are

to be delivered or the service(s) performed.



Click in the box marked "How to secure bid." Describe the method for vendors to obtain a

copy of the bid. If you want them to fax requests, be sure to note all the information you

will need. For example:

Ver 2.0

Page 14 of 35

March 2003

"To receive a copy of a bid packet, fax your request to XXX-XXX-XXXX . Please provide the following information: the bid number, closing time & date of bid closing, company name, address, contact person, telephone number, TIN or SSN. Copies of bids can be mailed , sent Federal Express: Bill Recipient or held for pickup. Please include on your fax request which of these methods you prefer. If you chose Federal Express: Bill Recipient, be sure to include your Federal Express account number."



Click in the box marked "Description." Here is your opportunity to provide more than the

information entered in the box marked "Project Title." THIS IS AN UNLIMITED FIELD. Here

are some tips:

- The main ideas behind the registry are: (1) To alert the public about bid opportunities and (2) To provide enough information about the bids so that vendors do not request bids they are not capable of bidding on.

- Because of the software used in this application, the information will all "wrap", that is, it will ignore spaces and paragraphs and one sentence or word will follow the preceding sentence or word. If you wish to separate sentences, phrases or words, use five asterisks (*****) or five periods (.....). - If the bid is for a justifiable "Sole Brand", insert the phrase "No substitutions. Bidders must be authorized XXXX resellers" or words to that effect. There is no reason to waste time, paper and postage because a vendor is not aware that substitutions will not be accepted and cannot provide the brand specified. - If there is to be a site visit/walk-through or bidders conference, note the date, time and location of it. -If the bid is for equipment that the vendor must install, note "Bid price MUST include installation." Conversely, if the bid is for equipment that normally requires professional installation, but which the agency plans to install itself, note "Bid price will NOT include installation. Agency will perform installation" or words to that effect. This information should also be part of the Request for Quote. This information will cut down on phone calls from confused vendors. -If the purchase of equipment is to include training, so note. - You can cut and paste from Word and WordPerfect documents into this area. - If the bid is for an open agency contract, a fixed agency contract, a service maintenance contract or a lease/rental or installment purchase, always indicate that this is the case. Indicate the term of the contract (For example: "one-year open contract for noisemakers for the Georgia Department of Fun" or "a 36-month lease of worm incubators for Georgia Mid-South University"). - If there are only a few line items, you may want to list them. If they're more than a few, you may want to describe them in general terms (For example: "pipe and related plumbing items - 37 line items"). - Delivery may be to more than one location. If so, clarify in the descriptions (For example: "items are to be delivered to 27 department sites in various locations throughout the State of Georgia".)



Make sure that there are no errors. Once the process is complete, and the notice has been

posted you cannot make changes from your PC.

OOPS! I MADE A MISTAKE. NOW WHAT?

If you discover typos or other errors after the posting has been made, you cannot change them from your PC. You must contact the Bid Officer at the State Purchasing Bid Office (fax 404-6516763) and ask that the personnel in the Bid Office make the changes. Also, please fax any bid cancellations, closing date extensions or addenda to this office so that the postings can be kept up-to-date. In all cases, specify the RFQ or RFP number and the bid closing date as it currently appears on the Internet Procurement Registry.

Ver 2.0

Page 15 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 4 EXAMPLE INVITATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Sample advertisements for predesign, design, engineering studies, others)

The (INSERT AGENCY NAME)seeks professional services for the development of a predesign study for a (INSERT PROJECT TYPE)to be constructed on (INSERT PROJECT LOCATION)For reference purposes, the facility is currently identified as the (INSERT PROJECT NAME) The scope of predesign services shall generally be in accordance with the latest version of Predesign of Major Capital Projects: Recommended Guidelines, published by the Office of Planning and Budget and the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission available at http://www.opb.state.ga.us/capital_budgeting.htm]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION As currently envisioned, the building complex will include INSERT PROJECT SCOPE AND VALUE . The Authority will select the predesign professional for this project as provided in Chapter 22 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, in particular O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6. Proposing firms shall complete the Standard Form 330 Part II and the following questions in the requested format.

1. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar scope and type using this delivery method.
2. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar budget to this project. 3. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar schedule to this project. 4. Have you worked previously with the Owner or Using Agency? If so, please list up to three projects in
which the same Owner and Using Agency were involved. Identify the size and scope of the projects. 5. List up to X projects successfully completed by your other proposed design disciplines of similar
scope and type to this project. 6. Your firm's or your other proposed design disciplines' prior knowledge of local conditions or special
conditions. 7. Provide relevant individual experience of the responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and
Project Manager (include resumes of key individuals) 8. Provide relevant individual experience of the responding consultant's proposed other design
disciplines' Principals and Discipline Leaders. 9. Are you a minority business enterprise? 10. Provide the location of your firms headquarters and the location of the office that will administer the
project. 11. Briefly address unique project approach (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) 12. Does your organization have any pending litigation? If so, please explain. Has your company been
part of any litigation over the past 5 years? 13. Is your firm currently the debtor in a bankruptcy case? Was your firm in bankruptcy at any time in the
last five years? If so, please explain. 14. In the past five years, has any claim against your firm concerning your firm's work on design project
been filed in court or arbitration? 15. At any time has your insurance made any payments on your firm's behalf as a result of default or
error's and omissions? If so, please explain.

Firms having capabilities and experience for this study are invited to submit the following items (six stapled copies / no bindings) by (INSERT DUE DATE, TIME, AGENCY CONTACT AND DELIVERY ADDRESS)

1. Summary letter (not to exceed four pages) addressing the significant selection factors published above (excluding information provided in the accompanying SF330 Part II and Reference List described below).
2. Standard Form 330 Part II (not more than one year old) for the responding consultant and its principal subconsultants.
3. List of four references from the responding consultant's most closely related projects completed in the last three years on which the consultant served as the prime consultant (including individuals' names, relevant responsibilities, e-mail addresses, fax numbers, and telephone numbers).

Ver 2.0

Page 16 of 35

March 2003

Attempts to contact any agency representative in connection with this invitation (other than the individual designated above) or failure to provide fully responsive submittal information may lead to disqualification. This is not a request for a proposal.

Ver 2.0

Page 17 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 5 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING AND SCORING FORM

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

The Selection Committee should develop the appropriate weighting for each advertised selection factor based upon perceived importance for this particular project. It is recommended that weightings in the following ranges be utilized:

7-8-9

-

Highly Important

4-5-6

-

Important

1-2-3

-

Not Critical

For the purposes of this shortlist selection, the following weights have been assigned to the selection factors published in the Invitation:
Weight 1 The responding consultant has successfully completed projects of similar scope
and type using this delivery method. 2 The responding consultant has successfully completed State or local government
public works contracts of similar scope and type regardless of delivery method. 3 The responding consultant's other proposed design disciplines have successfully
completed similar projects. 4 The responding consultant and their design disciplines have adequate prior
knowledge of local conditions or special conditions relative to the project. 5 The responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and Project Manager have
adequate prior experience. 6 The responding consultant's proposed other design disciplines' Principals and
Discipline Leaders have adequate prior relevant experience 7 The responding consultant has a program for encouragement of minority business
participation. 8 The responding consultant's references provided satisfactory judgement of the
firm's prior experience on closely related projects. 9 The responding consultant's project office is within a reasonable travel distance
from the project site. 10 The quality of response in relation to requested submittal information was
satisfactory. 11 The responding consultant provided an adequate response to the project specific
criteria (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) 12 The firm's is financial stable with no pending or past bankruptcy issues. 13 The firm's litigation record in the past five years is satisfactory. 14 The firm's insurance record in the past five years is satisfactory.

Subsequently, each firm should be rated on a scale of 1 to 9 points on each weighted selection factor in accordance with the following scale:

7-8-9

-

Excellent

4-5-6

-

Good

1-2-3

-

Weak

A total score for each firm should then be compiled by multiplying each weighted selection factor by the firm's quality score on each factor and then totaling all the individual weighted factor scores to arrive at the firm's total score.

Ver 2.0

Page 18 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 6 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST FIRM SCORING FORM (Each Selection Committee member should fill out one form per proponent.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

LEAD FIRM NAME: _____________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

SELECTION FACTORS The responding consultant has successfully completed projects of similar scope and type using this delivery method. The responding consultant has successfully completed State or local government public works contracts of similar scope and type regardless of delivery method. The responding consultant's other proposed design disciplines have successfully completed similar projects. The responding consultant and their design disciplines have adequate prior knowledge of local conditions or special conditions relative to the project. The responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and Project Manager have adequate prior experience. The responding consultant's proposed other design disciplines' Principals and Discipline Leaders have adequate prior relevant experience The responding consultant has a program for encouragement of minority business participation.
The responding consultant's project office is within a reasonable travel distance from the project site.
The quality of response in relation to requested submittal information was satisfactory.
The responding consultant provided an adequate response to the project specific criteria (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) The firm's is financial stable with no pending or past bankruptcy issues. The firm's litigation record in the past five years is satisfactory.
The firm's insurance record in the past five years is satisfactory.
The responding consultant's references provided satisfactory judgement of the firm's prior experience on closely related projects.

WEIGHT

RATING 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

SCORE

7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

Ver 2.0

Page 19 of 35

TOTAL SCORE:

______

March 2003

APPENDIX 7 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST SCORING SUMMARY OF ALL RESPONDING FIRMS
(Ranks represent averages of Selection Committee's scores.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

FIRM

SELECTION CRITERIA

Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater SCORE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

RANK

NOTE: Final shortlists typically include from three to eight firms, depending on the magnitude and importance of the project.

Ver 2.0

Page 20 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 8 EXAMPLE FIRM REFERENCE CHECKING FORM INTERVIEWER'S NAME: ________________________________________________________ DATE OF INTERVIEW: _________________________________________________________ NAME OF PROFESSIONAL FIRM: ________________________________________________ NAME OF REFERENCE: ________________________________________________________ INSTRUCTIONS: After a shortlist has been made, the Selection Committee should normally develop four to six set standard questions to ask each reference. Then committee members should be randomly assigned to personally call each the assigned references. Examples questions are shown below:
QUESTION 1: How would you rate Firm XYZ's overall performance on your recently completed office building?
QUESTION 2: Did firm XYZ performance in any way negatively impact affect the project schedule?
QUESTION 3: Did firm XYZ performance in any way negatively impact affect the project budget?
QUESTION 4: Was there continuity in Firm XYZ's principal and project management team throughout the life of the project?
QUESTION 5: Would you hire Firm XYZ to do another project for you in the near future?
Question 6: Did firm XYZ meet bid package deadlines?
Question 7: Did firm XYZ work collaboratively with the contractor on value analysis?

Ver 2.0

Page 21 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 9 INTERVIEW FORMAT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Selection Committee, before adjourning the shortlist development session, should determine what interview rules it wishes the proponents to follow during the formal interview process so they may be communicated to shortlisted firms in the Shortlist Notification Letter. The rules should be adjusted to serve the needs of the specific project for which the selection is being conducted, but here is one set that generally works well for most projects.
Time Normally 30 minutes for presentation, 10 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes before
and after for setup and knockdown. This allows proponents to be scheduled on the hour and still have time for a brief break. Preferably, interviews are all conducted the same day by all the same interviewers with evaluation
completed before adjournment.
Media Normally presentation boards only. Proponents bring their own easels. No handouts other than agenda with proponent's attendees listed.
Presenters Three to five including Project Principal, Project Manager, Project Architect and key consultants who
will work on the Project. The Project Interior Designer should also attend if the Project scope includes interiors.

Ver 2.0

Page 22 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 10 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST NOTIFICATION LETTER

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Ms. Susan Smith, AIA Firm XYZ Architects, Inc. 123 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

July 1, 2000

Dear Ms. Smith:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I am pleased to inform you that your firm is one of those shortlisted for a final selection interview. Interviews are scheduled to take place on August 14, 2000, in the GBA Training Room at the above address on the following schedule:

XYZ Architects The ABC Group Team EFG JKL Associates

9:00--9:50 a.m. 10:00--10:50 a.m. 11:00-11:50 a.m. 1:00--1:50 p.m.

If you have a schedule conflict and are able to work out an exchange for your time slot with another shortlisted firm, you are free to do so provided you notify me at least one business day in advance.

You will be allotted 30 minutes for your presentation, 10 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes before and after for setup and knockdown. Please do not use any video, slides, or models. Our preferred medium is presentation boards or flip charts with firms responsible for bringing their own easels. No handouts other than an agenda with the consultant's team representatives listed are desired.

Please bring five individuals to represent your proposed team, including your Project Principal, Project Manager, Project Architect, Project Interior Designer, and Lead Civil Engineer, since this study involves detailed programming and site investigation services.

If you wish to review the standard services agreement we intend to employ as the basis for your consultant contract, you may obtain a copy from this office by calling and requesting that it be made available to you by fax or electronic media.

A mandatory site visit will be conducted in advance of your interview at 10:00 a.m. on July 21, 2000. At that time, you will be provided a site survey and will have the opportunity to ask questions. While oral answers may be provided at that time, you should rely only on those written responses that subsequently will be e-mailed to your office.

Ver 2.0

Page 23 of 35

March 2003

At least five business days prior to your scheduled interview, please have delivered to this office seven copies of Standard Form 330 Part I (SF 330) for your proposed team and SF 330 Part II for any consultants added or changed since your original submittal (see attached SF 330 Part I & II) . These forms should be submitted without cover letter or binding (stapled only), and the SF 330 may be modified only as follows:
Item F may be expanded to provide one page per project with the requested information, inclusive of project photographs or illustrations. (Firms are encouraged to include projects where individuals proposed to work on the project have had significant professional roles.)
Item H may be enlarged to no more than 5 pages and should expand upon all the required information submitted in the initial response submittal.
Please remember that no one on your team should have any contact with any agency personnel, other than the signer, for the purpose of discussing this project on penalty of possible disqualification. We look forward to your presentation.
Very truly yours,
Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority
Copy: Selection Committee Members

Ver 2.0

Page 24 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 10a EXAMPLE NOTIFICATION TO FIRM THAT DID NOT MAKE THE SHORTLIST

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Mr. Cletus de la Renta, AIA Nextime Design, Inc. 123 Sourtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30333

July 1, 2002

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Dear Mr. de la Renta:

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I wish to thank your firm for submitting the qualifications of your team for the above referenced assignment. Unfortunately, the Georgia Building Authority has elected not to select your firm for this particular project.

We appreciate your interest in Georgia Building Authority projects and hope that you will consider responding to future opportunities.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Ver 2.0

Page 25 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 11 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING AND SCORING FORM

(This form may also be used as the evaluation criteria for the Final Submittal Package (SF 330 Part I).

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

The Selection Committee may reuse the same selection criteria weighting as used in the shortlisting process or adjust the weighting at its discretion based on new information or perceptions. Normally, the following weighting would be utilized:

7-8-10 -

Highly Important

4-5-7

-

Important

1-2-4

-

Not Critical

For the purposes of this final selection, the following weights have been assigned to the selection factors

Weight

1

Capacity: The firm demonstrated adequate capacity to give the project

the attention it deserves.

2

The proposed team members have adequate experience in the product

type.

3

The proposed subconsultants involved in the project demonstrated the

capability of handling this type/size project.

4

The firm has unique experience and qualifications to design this

size/type project.

5

The firm demonstrated a proven history for completing design within

established schedules.

6

The firm demonstrated a proven history for producing well coordinated

quality contract documents.

Project Specific Approach

7

The firm provided an innovative approach for meeting or exceeding the

schedule requirements.

8

The proposed team had synergy between the key team

representatives. The proposed team connected well with the selection

committee.

9

The design options were feasible and in line with the program goals.

10

They recognized and addressed the technical challenges. They

demonstrated they have the ability to solve problems.

11

They provided a realistic plan on how they will ensure quality plans and

specs for this project.

12

They provided a realistic and appropriate schedule approach for the

project.

13

They provided a realistic and appropriate cost control approach for the

project.

14

They conveyed good solutions to potential problems.

Subsequently, each firm should be rated on a scale of 1 to 9 points on each weighted selection factor in

accordance with the following scale:

7-8-9

-

Excellent

4-5-7

-

Good

1-2-4

-

Weak

A total score for each firm should then be compiled by multiplying each weighted selection factor by the firm's quality score on each factor and then totaling all the individual weighted factor scores to arrive at the firm's total score.

Ver 2.0

March 2003

Page 26 of 35

APPENDIX 12 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION FIRM SCORING FORM (Each Selection Committee member should fill out one form per proponent.)
PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________
LEAD FIRM NAME: _____________________________________________________________
EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

SELECTION FACTORS Capacity: The firm demonstrated adequate capacity to give the project the attention it deserves. The proposed team members have adequate experience in the product type.
The proposed subconsultants involved in the project demonstrated the capability of handling this type/size project. The firm has unique experience and qualifications to design this size/type project.
The firm demonstrated a proven history for completing design within established schedules.
The firm demonstrated a proven history for producing well coordinated quality contract documents. The firm provided an innovative approach for meeting or exceeding the schedule requirements.
The proposed team had synergy between the key team representatives. The proposed team connected well with the selection committee. The design options were feasible and in line with the program goals.
They recognized and addressed the technical challenges. They demonstrated they have the ability to solve problems. They provided a realistic plan on how they will ensure quality plans and specs for this project.
They provided a realistic and appropriate schedule approach for the project.
They provided a realistic and appropriate cost control approach for the project.
They conveyed good solutions to potential problems.

WEIGHT

Ver 2.0

Page 27 of 35

RATING 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

SCORE

March 2003

TOTAL SCORE:

______

APPENDIX 13 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION SCORING SUMMARY OF ALL SHORTLISTED FIRMS
(Ranks represent averages of Selection Committee's scores.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

FIRM

SELECTION CRITERIA

Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater SCORE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

RANK

NOTE: Normally, the opportunity to negotiate a final agreement should be offered to the highest rank firm. Signatures of Selection Committee Members: 1. 4. 5. 2. 3. 6. 7.

Ver 2.0

Page 28 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 14 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION RECOMMENDATION LETTER

1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Ms. Jonetta Jones Executive Director Georgia Building Authority 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

August 1, 2000

Dear Ms. Jones:

The Selection Committee for the above-referenced project has conducted a shortlisting and interview process as provided in Chapter 22 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, in particular O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6. This project was first published on www.ganet.org/purchase/ on June 1, 2000.

The services required of the selected consultant may be described generally as the development of a predesign study for a new multi-agency administrative office building to be constructed on Capitol Avenue adjacent to I-75/85 in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. The scope of predesign services will be generally in accordance with the latest version of Predesign of Major Capital Projects: Recommended Guidelines published by the Office of Planning and Budget and the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission. As currently envisioned, the building complex will include approximately 275,000 sf of administrative space (80% open / 20% closed offices), a cafeteria, a 550-car parking deck, a "mini-mall" of public services, and related ancillary facilities. The total project square footage and construction cost are currently believed to be in the range of 500,000 sf and $55,000,000, respectively.

Attached please find the Shortlist Final Scoring Form of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Form of All Shortlisted Firms (which indicates the selection factors deemed most relevant). Based on the final results of our screening process, we recommend to you as the Authority's Principal Representative (as defined under O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6) that the Georgia Building Authority enter into final contract negotiations with the most highly ranked firm, XYZ Architects, Inc.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Attachments Copy w/ attachments: Selection Committee Members

Ver 2.0

Page 29 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 15 EXAMPLE NOTIFICATION LETTER TO SELECTED FIRM

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Ms. Susan Smith, AIA XYZ Architects, Inc. 123 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

August 15, 2000

Dear Ms. Smith:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above referenced project, I am pleased to inform you that your firm has been selected to enter into contract negotiations for the advertised predesign study. Congratulations!

Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we can proceed to finalize the agreement for the services of the selected XYZ Architects' team. However, I must remind you that if we are unable to conclude a mutually agreeable contract for the required services, the Georgia Building Authority will be obliged to terminate negotiations with XYZ Architects and enter into discussions with the second-ranked firm.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Copy: Selection Committee Members

Ver 2.0

Page 30 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 16 EXAMPLE STANDARD FORM CONTRACT
PLEASE CONTACT THE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OF THE GEORGIA STATE FINANCING AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION AT
(404) 463-8599 FOR A COPY OF THE CONTRACT CURRENTLY IN USE.

Ver 2.0

Page 31 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 17 RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES ON ARCHITECTURAL SCOPES AND FEES
CURRENTLY UNDER
DEVELOPMENT

Ver 2.0

Page 32 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 18 EXAMPLE LETTER TO UNSUCCESSFUL PROPONENTS GIVING NOTICE OF AWARD NOTICE OF
CONTRACT AWARD

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Mr. Sam Roberts, AIA The ABC Group. 321 Fifth St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

September 1, 2000

Dear Mr. Roberts:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I wish to thank The ABC Group for submitting the qualifications of your team for the above referenced assignment. However, the Georgia Building Authority has elected to contract with another team lead by XYZ Architects, Inc.

We appreciate your interest in Georgia Building Authority projects and hope you will consider responding to future opportunities.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Attachment

Ver 2.0

Page 33 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 19 SAMPLE SF 330 IN BLANK

Ver 2.0

Page 34 of 35

March 2003

53314

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53
[FAR Case 2000608]
RIN 9000AJ15
Federal Acquisition Regulation; New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to replace SF 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire, and SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Projects, with SF 330, ArchitectEngineer Qualifications. SF 330 reflects current architect-engineer practices in a streamlined and updated form, organized in data blocks that readily support automation. DATES: Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before December 18, 2001 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. Submit electronic comments via the Internet to: farcase.2000608@gsa.gov
Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2000608 in all correspondence related to this case. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at (202) 5014755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 219 0202. Please cite FAR case 2000608. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
An interagency ad hoc committee developed SF 330. The ad hoc committee based the development of the form on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council Technical Report No. 130, ``[Joint

Federal-industry] Survey on the Use of SFs 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' 1996 (The Federal Facilities Council is an arm of the Congressionally charted National Academy of Sciences.) The report states that Federal agencies and the architectengineer industry strongly endorse maintaining a structured format for presenting architect-engineer qualifications. The report also concludes that the SFs 254 and 255 need improvement.
Both Federal and industry architectengineer practitioners believe that the forms need streamlining, as well as updating to facilitate electronic usage. Hence the SFs 254 and 255 have been consolidated into SF 330. The SF 330 reflects current architect-engineer practices in a streamlined and updated form organized in data blocks that readily support automation.
The proposed rule replaces SFs 254 and 255 with SF 330 and makes related FAR revisions in 1.106, 36.603, 36.702, 53.2362 and 53.301330. The proposed rule makes the following changes:
Merges the SFs 254 and 255 into a single streamlined SF 330.
Expands essential information about qualifications and experience such as an organizational chart of all participating firms and key personnel.
Reflects current architect-engineer disciplines, experience types and technology.
Eliminates information of marginal value such as a list of all offices of a firm.
Permits limited submission length thereby reducing costs for both the architect-engineer industry and the government.
Facilitates electronic usage by organizing the form in data blocks.
SF 330, Part II, Block 5.b. requests information based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Effective October 1, 2000, the FAR was revised to convert size standards and other programs in the FAR that are currently based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code system to NAICS (65 FR 46055). The SF 330 has been revised to comply with the aforementioned, October 1, 2000, FAR revision.
Pending public comment, this is not considered a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule only replaces two standard forms, with one consolidated streamlined standard form. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 1, 36, and 53 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2000608), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 10413) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements. The proposed rule replaces the current SF 254, ArchitectEngineer and Related Services, and the current SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Project, Questionnaire, with a new SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications. The current SF 254 approved information collection requirement states that it takes 1 hour to complete; and the current SF 255 approved information collection requirement states that it takes 1.2 hours to complete. Experience has shown that these hours are substantially underestimated. The SF 330, ArchitectEngineer Qualifications, has been developed by an interagency ad hoc committee, based on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council Technical Report No. 130, ``[Joint Federal-industry] Survey on the Use of SFs 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' 1996. Accordingly, the FAR Secretariat has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning OMB control number 900000XX, New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors, to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
Annual Reporting Burden
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 29 hours (25 hours for Part 1 and 4 hours for Part 2) per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53315

reviewing the collection of information. Because of the tailoring required by the form for each project submittal, there are virtually no savings in burden hours by repeat submittals.
The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
Respondents: 5000. Responses per respondent: 4. Total annual responses: 20,000. Preparation hours per response: 29. Total response burden hours: 580,000.
D. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden
Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than December 18, 2001 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 5014755. Please cite OMB Control Number 900000XX, FAR Case 2000608 New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors, in all correspondence.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53
Government procurement.
Dated: October 11, 2001.
Al Matera,
Director, Acquisition Policy Division.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose to amend 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
PART 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
1.106 [Amended]
2. Amend Section 1.106 in the table following the introductory text by removing from the column ``FAR segment'' the entries ``SF 254'' and ``SF 255'' and their corresponding OMB Control Numbers; and by adding, in sequential order, to the FAR segment column ``SF 330'' and the corresponding OMB Control Number ``900000XX''.
PART 36--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS
3. Amend Section 36.603 by--
a. Revising paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph (c);
b. Removing from paragraph (d) introductory text ``shall'' and adding ``must'' in its place;
c. Removing from paragraph (d)(1) ``SF 254'' and adding ``SF 330, Part II'' in its place; and
d. Removing from paragraph (d)(2) ``SF's 254 and 255'' and inserting ``SF 330'' in its place.
The revised text reads as follows:
36.603 Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.
* * * * *
(b) Qualifications data. To be considered for architect-engineer contracts, a firm must file with the appropriate office or board the Standard Form 330, ``Architect-Engineer Qualifications'', Part II, and when applicable, SF 330, Part I.
(c) Data files and the classification of firms. Under the direction of the parent agency, offices or permanent evaluation boards must maintain an architectengineer qualifications data file. These offices or boards must review the SF 330 filed, and must classify each firm with respect to-- * * * * *
4. Amend Section 36.702 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

36.702 Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer services.
* * * * *
(b) The SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, shall be used to evaluate firms before awarding a contract for architect-engineer services:
(1) Use the SF 330, Part I--ContractSpecific Qualifications, to obtain information from an architect-engineer firm about its qualifications for a specific contract when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Part 1 may be used when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, if the contracting officer determines that its use is appropriate.
(2) Use the SF 330, Part II--General Qualifications, to obtain information from an architect-engineer firm about its general professional qualifications. * * * * *
PART 53--FORMS
5. Amend Section 53.2362 by revising the section heading and paragraph (b); and by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraph (d) as (c). The revised text reads as follows:
53.2362 Architect-engineer services (SFs 252, 330, and 1421).
* * * * *
(b) SF 330 (xx/01), Architect-Engineer Qualifications. SF 330 is prescribed for use in obtaining information from architect-engineer firms regarding their professional qualifications, as specified in 36.702(b)(1) and (2). * * * * *
53.301254 and 53.301255 [Removed]
5. Sections 53.301254 and 53.301 255 are removed.
53.301330 [Added]
6. Section 53.301330 is added as follows:
53.301330 Architect-Engineer Qualifications.
BILLING CODE 6820EPP

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53316

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53317

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53318

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53319

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53320

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53321

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53322

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53323

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53324

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53325

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53326

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53327

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53328

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 0126203 Filed 101801; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820EPC
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
Recommended Guidelines
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK COMPETETIVE QUALIFICATIONS DELIVERY METHOD

Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission
March 2003

Version 2.00

March 2003

STATE OF GEORGIA PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
III. Project Implementation Phase
C. CM/GC Competitive Qualifications
1. Design Phase
a. Selection Procedures for Design Professionals
1. Steps of the Selection Process Step 1 - Information Required Prior to Advertisement Step 2 - Advertisement of Project / Request for Qualifications Step 3 - Selection Committee Appointment Step 4 - Evaluation of Applying Firms Step 5 - Development of a Shortlist Step 6 - Notification of Firms on the Shortlist; Instructions for Final Submittal Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation (Optional) Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation Step 9 - Appointment by the Principal Representative Step 10 - Contract Negotiation with the Recommended Firm Step 11 Notifications
b. Appendixes
1. Sample Timeline for Selection Process 2. Managerial Control of Acquisition of Professional Services 3. Guidelines for Using the DOAS Georgia Procurement Registry 4. Example Invitation for Professional Services 5. Example Shortlist Selection Criteria and Weighting and Scoring Form 6. Example Shortlist Firm Scoring Form 7. Example Shortlist Summary of All Responding Firms 8. Example Firm Reference Checking Form 9. Interview Format Recommendations 10. Example Shortlist Notification Letter & Notification For Unsuccessful Firms 11. Example Final Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form 12. Example Final Selection Scoring Form 13. Example Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlisted Firms 14. Example Final Selection Recommendation Letter 15. Example Notification Letter to Selected Firm 16. Example Standard Form Contract 17. Recommended Guidelines on Architectural Scopes and Fees 18. Example Notification to Unsuccessful Proponents and Giving Notice of Contract
Award 19. Sample SF 330

Ver 2.0

Page 1 of 35

March 2003

For cases in which a project will be executed through the CM/GC process, the selection of a professional design consultant (architect, engineer,) should be in accordance with the following process. An overall timeline illustrating the typical length of time to complete this process is included in Appendix 1.
Step 1 Information Required Prior to Advertisement

Prior to selecting any services, Agencies should confirm the major conclusions from the project predesign or program. Major conclusions to confirm (and revise, if necessary) include:
The overall schedule has been updated or, if not, necessary adjustments have been made. Funding has been allocated for the required service. The project scope has been properly defined and updated. The project delivery method has been identified and deemed appropriate. The total project budget has been reconciled with the appropriated funds. The management plan has been identified.
If any of the above conclusions differ from the approved predesign reports, or if a predesign report was not completed for the project, Agencies, at a minimum, should reconcile the above critical items before initiating the selection process.
The Request for Qualifications documents may be issued electronically with the advertisement on the Georgia Procurement Registry.
Step 2 Advertisement of Project / Request for Qualifications

Advertisement of the Project

A public notice should be prepared by the agency and posted on the Internet at the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) Georgia Procurement Registry (http://www.procurement.state.ga.us/) at least 15 days prior to the due date for the response to the Request for Qualifications. The Request for Qualifications should be posted with the advertisement on the DOAS website according to DOAS standard procedures. (See DOAS contact information and guidelines in Appendix 3.) In addition, if the agency wishes, the public notice may be published in an appropriate general circulation newspaper or other medium in the vicinity of the project location. For newspaper advertisements, Agencies should reduce costs by making the printed notice as succinct as possible, referencing the DOAS website as the medium for project details and appropriate documents. For efficiency, more than one project may be advertised in a single printed notice.

The notice on the Georgia Procurement Registry should specify the location of the project, the name of the project, and the type of service being advertised (i.e., predesign, design, engineering studies, etc.) and the anticipated period of performance. The notice should also include a brief description of the project, including the general character of the project (e.g., classrooms, laboratory, prison, library, etc.), the approximate physical size of the project, the project's estimated cost, and critical factors to be considered in the selection.

Select this option on the DOAS Procurement Form
Ver 2.0

Georgia Procurement Registry Solicitation Types and Definitions
A formal solicitation, Request for Quotation, that includes well-defined specifications or scope of work and requests sealed bids from qualified vendors. The lowest bid that complies with the specification or scope of work is awarded the contract.
A formal invitation, Request for Proposal, from an organization to vendors to provide a creative solution to a problem or a need that the organization has identified. The judgment of the vendors experience, qualifications and solution often takes precedent over price.
March 2003

Page 2 of 35

A formal or informal document, Request for Information, soliciting information from vendors, deemed to be knowledgeable in the product or service under consideration, to gain information necessary to determine if a RFQ or RFP is appropriate for solicitation. This solicitation method is not intended to result in a contract award.
A formal invitation, Request for Qualified Contractors, stating predetermined qualification criteria, to solicit and qualify vendors for a subsequent RFQ or RFP solicitation. This solicitation method is not intended to result in a contract award.
The notice should specify to whom and when responses are due and the form of required response, including number of copies to be furnished. (See example advertisements in Appendix 4.) If a predesign process has been performed previously for an advertised design project, then the executive summary from the predesign document should be posted on the Georgia Procurement Registry along with the notice.
After the project has been advertised in the Georgia Procurement Registry, interested firms should not contact any agency representatives or facility users except those named in the advertisement on penalty of possible disqualification. This information must be included in the public notice.
Request for Qualifications
In order to provide an opportunity for consideration of as many firms as possible, a standard qualification package should be used. This package should consist of a letter of interest and Part II of the Standard Form 330 for the prime proponent and its principal subconsultants. It is recommended that the agency identify the evaluation criteria prior to finalizing the qualification solicitation. (See Appendix 5.)
The Agency should issue the evaluation criteria and weighting scale for the shortlist and the Final Selection Process along with the formal Request for Qualifications. The respondents should be instructed to reply with letters of interest that do not exceed four pages in length and include the following information to demonstrate their qualifications for the project:
Prior experience of the responding consultant with successfully completed (within budget and on
time) similar projects.
Prior experience of the responding consultant with successfully completed previous State projects. Prior experience of the responding consultant's proposed subconsultants with successfully completed
similar projects.
Prior experience with this delivery method Prior experience with a collaborative design process Prior knowledge of local conditions or special conditions possessed by the responding consultant
and/or its subconsultant(s).
Responding consultant's proposed Project Principal, Project Manager, and Project Architect and their
relevant individual experience.
Responding consultant's proposed subconsultant Principals and Discipline Leaders and their relevant
individual experience.
Program for encouragement of minority business participation. Location of proposed project office. Demonstrated capacity to accomplish the design services within the desired schedule. Four references from the most closely related projects (including individuals' names, relevant
responsibilities, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers). References must not be for project more than five (5) years old.
Responding firms litigation history Responding firm financial stability Responding firms insurance history

Ver 2.0

Page 3 of 35

March 2003

Step 3 - Selection Committee Appointment
Prior to or concurrent with the publication of the public notice in Step 2, the Principal Representative of an agency, as defined under the code, should appoint the Chair and members of a professional consultant Selection Committee. The Selection Committee's size may be in the range of 3 to 7 and should include representatives from the agency's professional staff, facility owner, facility maintenance, or agency management. If GSFIC is executing the contract the committee must consist of not more than two agency representatives, at least two GSFIC representatives and one independent representative appointed by the Director of GSFIC. Other neutral parties from other Agencies or the private sector with experience in design or construction may also be included. It may be valuable to include on the committee a non-facility person who has not previously served on a Selection Committee. If the selection process includes an evaluation from the qualification stage to a shortlist and then final selection, Agencies may elect to appoint different committee members for each phase. However, it is recommended that Agencies use substantially the same Selection Committee to maintain consistent evaluation.
Step 4 Evaluation of Applying Firms
Once the project advertisement has appeared, the Selection Committee Chair should develop three proposed forms to be used in the subsequent selection deliberations: (1) Shortlist Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form, (2) Shortlist Firm Scoring Form, and (3) Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms. (See examples in Appendix 5, 6 and 7.) Additionally, the Chair should develop a proposed Firm Reference Checking Form containing questions deemed pertinent to judging the relative merits of shortlist proponents (see example in Appendix 8).
Following the deadline for receipt of the responses, the Selection Committee should convene to review the submitted qualifications of all candidate firms in accordance with the selection criteria published in the advertisement. Prior to commencing deliberations, the Chair should present the proposed forms. Any adjustments to the forms should be made that are required to achieve a consensus of the committee.
Subsequently, each member of the Selection Committee should review each firm's qualifications package and evaluate each firm using the Shortlist Firm Scoring Forms provided by the Chair.
After all members of the committee have reviewed all responses and independently completed their scoring sheets, the committee Chair should tally all the scores on the Shortlist Scoring Summary (Appendix 7) and immediately report the results to the committee.
Step 5 - Development of a Shortlist
The result of Step 4 will be the identification of no fewer than three, and no more than eight, firms that will be acknowledged as the "shortlist." Generally, three to five firms should be placed on the shortlist, the lesser number typically relating to smaller projects. No firm that currently has--or, with the award of this commission, will have--10% or more of the State's business for a running 36-month period (based on the quarterly report prepared by the State Auditor) should be included on the shortlist.
After the shortlist has been established, the Chair should assign the responsibility for checking the references of the shortlist firms to individual committee members to foster a consistent manner of gathering reference comments. The committee members should validate the recommend shortlist by completing the references checks before publicly announcing the shortlist. The committee's last action should be to determine the particulars of any final submission required from the candidates before the final selection interviews, the questions to ask during the interview, plus the format for the interviews themselves, which should be conducted in random order, normally. (See example interview format in Appendix 9.)

Ver 2.0

Page 4 of 35

March 2003

Step 6 Notification of Firms on the Shortlist; Instructions for Final Submittal
The Chair should promptly notify all proposers about their success or failure in making the shortlist. Those on the shortlist should be notified by phone followed by written notice. Email may be an appropriate way to make some notifications. The notice to firms on the shortlist should include a requirement for the firms to be prepared to submit a fee schedule within three to five days following being selected, specify the steps in the remainder of the selection process, including the following:
Location where the complete predesign document (if any) will be made available for review by
shortlist firms
Location where the standard procedures and contract may be obtained Place/time/host for a site visit (if appropriate) Schedule/location for interviews Appropriate form of response Any other information necessary or convenient to the selection process Consolidated list of selection committee's questions to address in interview
Example notification letters or emails are shown in Appendix 10 and Appendix 10a: "Notification to Firm that Did Not Make the Shortlist."
The Chair should request each of the firms identified on the shortlist to submit in advance of the oral presentations a Standard Form 330 Part I and a SF 330 Part II for any new subconsultant. These forms should be submitted in the number requested without cover letter or binding (stapled only). The SF 330 may be modified only as follows:
Item F may be expanded to provide one page per project with the requested information, inclusive of
project photographs or illustrations. (Firms are encouraged to include projects where individuals proposed to work on the project have had significant professional roles.)
Item H may be enlarged to no more than six pages and should expand upon all the required
information submitted in the initial letter of interest.
If a site visit has been deemed desirable, a previously identified representative of the agency should walk the site with the shortlist firms. However, all questions regarding the project must be submitted to the Agency Principal Representative, or designee, in writing or in electronic format, by a date established at the site visit in order to allow any agency responses provided to be sent to all shortlist firms in a timely fashion.
Step 7 - Final Written Submittal and Evaluation (Optional)
The Selection Committee Chair should make certain that the SF 330 submittal packages are promptly provided to all the members of the Selection Committee, along with proposed forms developed by the Chair to be used in the final selection process. Forms include a Final Selection Criteria Weighting and Scoring Form, a Final Selection Firm Scoring Form, and a Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms. (See examples in Appendix 11, 12, and 13.)
The results of the reference checking assigned in Step 5 should be documented and distributed to all members of the Selection Committee. Prior to the oral presentation and interview, the committee members should review all of these materials.

Ver 2.0

Page 5 of 35

March 2003

Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final Evaluation
At a time previously designated by the Chair, the Selection Committee should convene to receive oral presentations from each of the shortlist firms. In closed session prior to the commencement of oral interviews, any adjustments required to achieve a consensus of the committee regarding the forms to be used during the final selection process should be made, and copies of all completed Firm Reference Check Forms (see Appendix 8) should be distributed and discussed. Subsequently, interviews should proceed in accordance with the previously announced format.
After each oral presentation, the Selection Committee should ask each proponent to confirm that the firms on the project team and the key personnel identified in the initial submittal are still anticipated to make up the final project team that will provide the services, if selected. Each proponent should be advised that, if it is selected, the final team that it has presented will become the basis of the contract negotiations and agree that changes in the proposed design team (firms or key personnel) after this point can be made only with the express permission of the agency. The Selection Committee members should then ask all other questions that they deem pertinent. Selection Committee members are encouraged to reach a tentative score on each proposer after each individual presentation.
At the conclusion of all presentations, the Selection Committee should discuss each of the presenting teams, the committee member's tentative scoring, and issues raised about each presenter and score each interviewing firm on forms provided by the Chair. Subsequently, the Chair will total the individual scores on the Final Selection Scoring Form and announce the firm with the highest score. The committee should then deliberate on the result to reach consensus. The committee chair should prepare a final score sheet and have each member sign the final score sheet. This firm will become the recommended selection to the Principal Representative. The remaining firms also will be ranked in descending order based on their final scores. The members of the Selection Committee should not discuss its recommendations with persons (other than the Principal Representative) who are not on the Selection Committee nor advise any firm of its recommendation
Step 9 - Appointment by the Principal Representative
The Selection Committee Chair should prepare a Final Selection Recommendation Letter (see Appendix 14) and forward it to the Principal Representative. The recommendation letter should briefly describe the project, define its anticipated scope, provide the date and place of its public advertisement, describe the character of professional services needed, and recommend that the commission be offered to the highest ranked firm by name. Accompanying the letter should be the Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms, which will list both the applying firms and the shortlist firms with their scores and rankings. The Principal Representative should subsequently approve the ranking and authorize negotiation with the most highly recommended firm (or for good cause direct the Selection Committee to reconsider its recommendation).
Step 10 Contract Negotiation with the Recommended Firm
Following the Principal Representative's ratification of a final selection, the Selection Committee Chair should notify the selected firm (see Appendix 15) and set a meeting to initiate contract negotiations. The agency and selected firm should discuss the scope of work required for the project, schedule, any special project requirements, and fee. The agreement should use the standard form contract, fee schedule and definition of Additional Services. A copy of the standard form contract is included in Appendix 16. Guidance on Additional Services recommended typical fees by project types and sizes is included in Appendix 17. If the agency is unable to reach acceptable contract terms with the highest ranked firm, the agency should provide written notice of termination of contract negotiations with that firm and should initiate contract negotiations with the second-ranked firm from the shortlist. This process is repeated until an acceptable contract is negotiated. The contract will be considered executed and binding after authorized signature by the parties.

Ver 2.0

Page 6 of 35

March 2003

Step 11 Notification of Final Award
After a contract has been executed, all proponents should be notified in writing of the award and the rank order of all shortlist proponents. The notification should state that any proponent may obtain a copy of the Shortlist Scoring Summary of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Summary of All Shortlist Firms by writing to the Principal Representative and enclosing a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The summaries provided should not divulge the scores assigned by individual Selection Committee members. (See Example Notice of Contract Award Letter in Appendix 18.) If requested by an unsuccessful proponent, the Chair of the Selection Committee should be available to debrief the proponent on the outcome of the procurement. It is in the best interest of the State to describe the rationale for the selection to the unsuccessful proponents so that they may improve their performance in other competition and improve the quality of professional services provided to the State.
Use of Telecommunications
For projects of limited scope (usually less than $250,000 in fees) or of limited complexity, the shortlisting and selection process may be executed using teleconferencing or videoconferencing to expedite or facilitate the procedures outlined above. However, it is expected that the same basic steps will be followed to assure that all proponents are afforded a fair opportunity to compete.
Alternative Selection Method
Code1 Section 50-22-1 to -9 is the legal basis for the selection of professional services by the State. The selection procedure described in these guidelines is based on a method in the Code referred to as "selection by contract negotiations." An alternative method of selection allowed in the Code is referred to as "selection by other than contract negotiations." In this alternative method, a shortlist of qualified firms is developed in the same manner as described in Step 1 to Step 4, above, and then selection is accomplished by consideration of cost and "other factors." Although either method is permissible, most professional service selections should follow the procedure described in these guidelines, based on "selection by contract negotiations" because of the nature of the services being provided.

1 Official Code of Georgia. See http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?docname=OCode/G/50/22/1

Ver 2.0

Page 7 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 1 SAMPLE TIMELINE FOR SELECTION PROCESS

Ver 2.0

Page 8 of 35

March 2003

ID

Task Name

Week -3

1

Step 1 - Verify major conclusions from

predesign (funding available, schedule,

budget & delivery method)

2

Reconcile any changes from approved

predesign prior to starting selection

process

3

Confirm selection criteria for

advertisement

4

Steps 2 & 3- Advertise Project / Selection

Committee Appointment

5

Advertise Project/ Request for Proposals

(minimum 15 days)

6

A/E Responds to Request for

Qualifications

7

Appoint Chair and members of selection

committee

8

Create selection forms and distribute to

selection committee

9

A/E Submits Request for Qualifications

10

Steps 4 & 5 - Evaluation of Applying Firms

/ Develop Shortlist

11

Receive submittals from applying firms;

distribute to selection committee

12

Selection committee to evaluate

qualifications

13

Selection committee meeting to score

firms, identify shortlist, and develop final

submission criteria and evaluation

14

Step 6 - Notification of Firms on Shortlist /

Instructions for Final Submittal

15

Check References and validate shortlist

16

Develop and issue final submittal

requirments to shortlisted firms

17

Notification to shortlisted firms and

unsuccessful firms

18

Conduct site visit with shortlisted firms

(optional)

19

Step 7 - Preparation for Firms Oral

Presentations

20

A/E firms prepare submit final written

submittal (SF 255) - Optional

21

Selection Committee evaluates written

final submittal - Only applies if requiring

2nd submittal

22

Step 8 - Oral Presentations and Final

Evaluation

23

Convene to receive oral presentations for

each of the shortlisted firms

24

Final deliberation and scoring of

shortlisted firms

25

Step 9 - Recommendation to Principal

Representative

26

Issue final recommendation letter to

Principal Representative for final

approval

27

Steps 10 & 11 - Contract Negotiations and

Final Notification

28

Notify selected firm

29

Contract Negotiations / Contract

Execution

30

Notification of Contract Award to

Unsuccesful Firms

Week -2

Week -1

Week 1

Architect Selection Timeline

Week 2

Week 3

Page 1

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

APPENDIX 2 MANAGERIAL CONTROL OVER ACQUISITION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
OCG 50-22-1 TO 50-22-9

50-22-1.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide managerial control by the state over the acquisition of the professional services provided by architects, professional engineers, landscape architects, and land surveyors. It is declared to be the policy of this state to announce publicly requirements for such professional services, to encourage all qualified persons to put themselves in a position to be considered for a contract, and to enter into contracts for such professional services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification for the types of professional services required at fair and reasonable fees.

50-22-2.

As used in this chapter, the term:

(1) "Agency" means every state department, agency, board, bureau, commission, and authority, unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of subsection (b) of Code Section 50-22-7.

(2) "Person" means an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a business trust, an association, a firm, or any other legal entity.

(2.1) "Predesign" means that phase of an activity where requirements programming, site analysis, and other appropriate studies are conducted to develop essential information, including cost estimates, to support and advance the decision-making process prior to the design and implementation phases of an activity.

(3) "Principal representative" means the governing board of a state agency or the executive head of a state agency that is authorized to contract for the agency for professional services.

(4) "Professional services" means those services within the scope of the following:

(A) The practice of architecture, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 43-4-1;

(B) The practice of professional engineering, as defined in paragraph (11) of Code Section 43-15-2;

(C) The practice of land surveying, as defined in paragraph (6) of Code Section 43-15-2; or

(D) The practice of landscape architecture, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 43-23-1.

(5) "Project" means any activity requiring professional services estimated by the state agency to have:

(A) A cost in excess of $1 million; or

(B) Costs for professional services in excess of $75,000.00.

50-22-3.

Public notice shall be required for each proposed project that requires professional services. Such public notice shall be given at least 15 days prior to the selection of the three or more most highly qualified persons by the principal representative or the principal representative's designee pursuant to subsection

Ver 2.0

Page 9 of 35

March 2003

(b) of Code Section 50-22-4. Such public notice shall be given by publication at least once in the Georgia Procurement Registry established under subsection (b) of Code Section 50-5-69 and in addition may be given by publication in one or more daily newspapers of general circulation in this state, shall contain a general description of the proposed project, and shall indicate what selection method shall be used and the procedure by which interested persons may apply for consideration for the contract.

50-22-4.

(a) Any person desiring to provide professional services to a state agency shall submit to the agency a statement of qualifications and performance data and such other information as may be required by the agency. The agency may request such person to update such statement periodically in order to reflect changed conditions in the status of such person.

(b) For each proposed project for which professional services are required, the principal representative or his designee of the state agency for which the project is to be done shall evaluate statements of qualifications and performance data as required in the public notice provided for in Code Section 50-22-3 and shall conduct discussions with not less than three persons regarding their qualifications, approaches to the project, abilities to furnish the required professional services, anticipated design concepts, and use of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required professional services. The principal representative or his designee shall then select not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed to be most highly qualified to perform the required professional services after considering, and based upon, such factors as the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements, project location, office location, the professional's current and projected workloads, the professional's approach, quality control procedures, the volume of work previously awarded to the person by the state agency, and the extent to which said persons have and will involve minority subcontractors, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified persons as long as such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified person. In selection, as mentioned in this Code section, persons who maintain an office in Georgia shall be given preference when qualifications appear to be equal.

50-22-5.

(a) After selecting not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required professional services, the principal representative or his designee shall then send a notice in writing to each person so selected defining the scope of the required professional services and then shall select a person to provide the professional services based upon additional factors such as the cost of providing the professional services and other factors as the agency deems appropriate or as required by law; provided, however, that, if the agency selects the person to provide professional services through contract negotiations, the provisions of Code Section 50-22-6 shall apply.

(b) In cases where Code Section 50-22-6 is not applicable, such additional factors to be considered shall be available to interested persons at the time of the public notice provided for in Code Section 50-22-3 and shall be presented in writing to any person selected for consideration of the project pursuant to Code Section 50-22-4.

50-22-6.

(a) In cases where the agency shall select the person to provide the professional services through contract negotiations, the principal representative or his designee shall rank in order not less than three nor more than eight persons deemed most qualified to perform such professional services. The principal representative or his designee shall then negotiate a contract with the highest qualified person providing professional services for such services at compensation that the principal representative or his designee

Ver 2.0

Page 10 of 35

March 2003

determines in writing to be fair and reasonable. In making such decision, the principal representative or his designee shall take into account the estimated value of the services to be rendered and the scope, complexity, and professional nature thereof.

(b) If the principal representative or his designee is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the person considered to be the most qualified at a price the principal representative determines to be fair and reasonable, negotiations with that person shall be formally terminated. The principal representative or his designee shall then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified person. If the principal representative or his designee fails to negotiate a contract with the second most qualified person, the principal representative or his designee shall formally terminate such negotiations. The principal representative or his designee shall then undertake negotiations with the third most qualified person.

(c) If the principal representative or his designee is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected persons, the principal representative or his designee shall either select additional persons in order of their competence and qualifications and continue negotiations in accordance with this Code section until a contract is reached or review the contract under negotiation to determine the possible cause for failure to achieve a negotiated contract.

(d) Each contract for professional services entered into by the principal representative shall contain a prohibition against contingent fees as follows: the architect, registered land surveyor, professional engineer, or landscape architect, as applicable, warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for him, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or the making of this contract.

(e) Upon any violation of this Code section, the principal representative shall have the right to terminate the contract without liability and, at his discretion, to deduct from the contract price or recover otherwise the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, or consideration.

50-22-7.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, there shall be no public notice requirement or utilization of the selection process as provided for in this chapter for projects in which the state agency is able to reuse existing drawings, specifications, designs, or other documents from a prior project by retention of the person who provided the professional services and who prepared the original documents.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the Board of Regents and University System of Georgia shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

(c) The provisions of Code Section 50-6-25, relating to the eligibility of architectural and engineering firms to do business with the state, shall not be affected or superseded by the provisions of this chapter.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, there shall be no public notice requirement or utilization of the selection process as provided for in this chapter for services required for the predesign phase of any state agency construction project unless the state agency estimates the predesign phase alone to have costs for professional services in excess of $75,000.00. No award of a contract to provide predesign services under this exemption shall be interpreted to preclude the lawful necessity to give public notice and use the selection process for design of projects meeting the criteria of paragraph (5) of Code Section 50-22-2. Costs for predesign services, whether or not those services are exempt under this subsection, shall be added to any other costs of an activity for purposes of determining whether the activity is a project.

Ver 2.0

Page 11 of 35

March 2003

50-22-8.
A state agency shall be authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
50-22-9.
In an emergency situation, agencies may waive all the requirements of this chapter and select by the most expeditious means possible the person to provide the professional services.

Ver 2.0

Page 12 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 3 GUIDELINES ON USING THE DOAS GEORGIA PROCUREMENT Registry
How to Post Bids on the Internet
State Purchasing Policy requires that ALL bid opportunities in excess of $10,000 be posted on the State's Procurement Registry. There are NO exceptions to this requirement.
In addition, agencies are encouraged to post requirements of less than $10,000 when time is available in order to reach out to the vendor community, especially small and minority-owned businesses.
The following describes the minimum time frame for advertising bids and proposals to the Procurement Registry. Note that the number of days DOES NOT INCLUDE the day that the bid is posted so that, for example, a bid posted to the Procurement Registry on March 1 with a requirement of 30 calendar days cannot open earlier than March 31.
A minimum of 10 working days must be allowed for the return of all written "regular" bids between $10,000 and $100,000. A minimum of 10 working days must be allowed for any sealed bid in excess of $100,000 except as noted below. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for contracts, other than construction, when the expected expenditure for the contract is in excess of $250,000. NOTE: When calculating expenditures for multi-year leases, rentals or installment purchase financing, include the total estimate, not just the estimate for the current fiscal year. A minimum of 30 calendar days must be allowed for any construction projects with expenditures in excess of $250,000. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for any project which includes professional services as described in the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA) 50-22 in excess of $1 million. A minimum of 15 calendar days must be allowed for costs of professional services as described in the OCGA 50-22 in excess of $75,000.
Please note that the above are minimums. Certain bid opportunities may require longer advertising time on the Internet for an adequate return of competitive responses. Agencies are responsible for exercising good judgment when determining bid closing dates beyond the requirements listed above.
Posting requires access to the Internet. If your agency's procurement office does not have access to the Internet, it is suggested that your management be apprised of this requirement and that appropriate action be taken to provide such access.
In order to obtain access to the posting site, you must have a User Name and a Password. In order to obtain these, contact State Purchasing's Bid Officer, @ 404-657-6000.
Note: The Georgia Procurement Registry satisfies the previous requirements for legal advertisements. Agencies may still post legal advertisements in publications if they wish, but it is no longer required.

Ver 2.0

Page 13 of 35

March 2003

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND TIPS



On the Internet enter the following address: www.ganet.org/purchase/bidding/doasbid.cgi.



Hit "enter".



Enter the User Name and your password.



Hit "enter".



When the web site comes up, bookmark it for future use (if this is your first time using this

site).



Using your mouse, choose one of the Types of Purchase: Capital Construction;

Maintenance and Renovations; Highway Construction; Professional Consulting; Request

for Proposals; or General Bid Opportunities. Choose only one.



Using your mouse, click on the arrow under the box marked "Value Range." Click on the

dollar range that falls within the estimated dollar amount of the Request for Quote (RFQ)

or Request for Proposal (RFP). If you make an error, click on the gray button at the bottom

of the page marked "Clear."



Using your mouse, click on the gray button marked "Submit" located above the "Clear"

button.



When the next screen appears, click into the box marked "Bid Number." Enter the bid

number. Use hyphens where appropriate.



Click into the box marked "Commodity Code". Enter the appropriate 5-digit NIGP

Commodity Code WITHOUT A HYPHEN OR A SPACE.



Click into the box marked "Bid Closing Date." Enter the bid closing date using a

"xx/xx/xxxx" format (for example: 03/01/1999).



Click in the box marked "Bid Closing Time." Enter the time deadline for submission of

bids. Be sure to note a.m. or p.m.



Click in the box marked "Contact Name." You can enter the buyer's name or the name or

title of the person to contact for a copy of the bid documents.



Click in the box marked "Contact Phone." Enter the phone number in a "xxx-xxx-xxxx"

format (for example: 404-657-6000).



Click in the box marked "Project Title." Enter a brief description of what the bid covers.



Click on the arrow in the box marked "Location." Select the county to which the goods are

to be delivered or the service(s) performed.



Click in the box marked "How to secure bid." Describe the method for vendors to obtain a

copy of the bid. If you want them to fax requests, be sure to note all the information you

will need. For example:

Ver 2.0

Page 14 of 35

March 2003

"To receive a copy of a bid packet, fax your request to XXX-XXX-XXXX . Please provide the following information: the bid number, closing time & date of bid closing, company name, address, contact person, telephone number, TIN or SSN. Copies of bids can be mailed , sent Federal Express: Bill Recipient or held for pickup. Please include on your fax request which of these methods you prefer. If you chose Federal Express: Bill Recipient, be sure to include your Federal Express account number."



Click in the box marked "Description." Here is your opportunity to provide more than the

information entered in the box marked "Project Title." THIS IS AN UNLIMITED FIELD. Here

are some tips:

- The main ideas behind the registry are: (1) To alert the public about bid opportunities and (2) To provide enough information about the bids so that vendors do not request bids they are not capable of bidding on.

- Because of the software used in this application, the information will all "wrap", that is, it will ignore spaces and paragraphs and one sentence or word will follow the preceding sentence or word. If you wish to separate sentences, phrases or words, use five asterisks (*****) or five periods (.....). - If the bid is for a justifiable "Sole Brand", insert the phrase "No substitutions. Bidders must be authorized XXXX resellers" or words to that effect. There is no reason to waste time, paper and postage because a vendor is not aware that substitutions will not be accepted and cannot provide the brand specified. - If there is to be a site visit/walk-through or bidders conference, note the date, time and location of it. -If the bid is for equipment that the vendor must install, note "Bid price MUST include installation." Conversely, if the bid is for equipment that normally requires professional installation, but which the agency plans to install itself, note "Bid price will NOT include installation. Agency will perform installation" or words to that effect. This information should also be part of the Request for Quote. This information will cut down on phone calls from confused vendors. -If the purchase of equipment is to include training, so note. - You can cut and paste from Word and WordPerfect documents into this area. - If the bid is for an open agency contract, a fixed agency contract, a service maintenance contract or a lease/rental or installment purchase, always indicate that this is the case. Indicate the term of the contract (For example: "one-year open contract for noisemakers for the Georgia Department of Fun" or "a 36-month lease of worm incubators for Georgia Mid-South University"). - If there are only a few line items, you may want to list them. If they're more than a few, you may want to describe them in general terms (For example: "pipe and related plumbing items - 37 line items"). - Delivery may be to more than one location. If so, clarify in the descriptions (For example: "items are to be delivered to 27 department sites in various locations throughout the State of Georgia".)



Make sure that there are no errors. Once the process is complete, and the notice has been

posted you cannot make changes from your PC.

OOPS! I MADE A MISTAKE. NOW WHAT?

If you discover typos or other errors after the posting has been made, you cannot change them from your PC. You must contact the Bid Officer at the State Purchasing Bid Office (fax 404-6516763) and ask that the personnel in the Bid Office make the changes. Also, please fax any bid cancellations, closing date extensions or addenda to this office so that the postings can be kept up-to-date. In all cases, specify the RFQ or RFP number and the bid closing date as it currently appears on the Internet Procurement Registry.

Ver 2.0

Page 15 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 4 EXAMPLE INVITATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Sample advertisements for predesign, design, engineering studies, others)

The (INSERT AGENCY NAME)seeks professional services for the development of a predesign study for a (INSERT PROJECT TYPE)to be constructed on (INSERT PROJECT LOCATION)For reference purposes, the facility is currently identified as the (INSERT PROJECT NAME) The scope of predesign services shall generally be in accordance with the latest version of Predesign of Major Capital Projects: Recommended Guidelines, published by the Office of Planning and Budget and the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission available at http://www.opb.state.ga.us/capital_budgeting.htm]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION As currently envisioned, the building complex will include INSERT PROJECT SCOPE AND VALUE . The Authority will select the predesign professional for this project as provided in Chapter 22 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, in particular O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6. Proposing firms shall complete the Standard Form 330 Part II and the following questions in the requested format.
1. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar scope and type using this delivery method.
2. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar budget to this project. 3. List X projects successfully completed by the proposing firm of similar schedule to this project. 4. Have you worked previously with the Owner or Using Agency? If so, please list up to three projects in
which the same Owner and Using Agency were involved. Identify the size and scope of the projects. 5. List up to X projects successfully completed by your other proposed design disciplines of similar
scope and type to this project. 6. Your firm's or your other proposed design disciplines' prior knowledge of local conditions or special
conditions. 7. Provide relevant individual experience of the responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and
Project Manager (include resumes of key individuals) 8. Provide relevant individual experience of the responding consultant's proposed other design
disciplines' Principals and Discipline Leaders. 9. Are you a minority business enterprise? 10. Provide the location of your firms headquarters and the location of the office that will administer the
project. 11. Briefly address unique project approach (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) 12. Does your organization have any pending litigation? If so, please explain. Has your company been
part of any litigation over the past 5 years? 13. Is your firm currently the debtor in a bankruptcy case? Was your firm in bankruptcy at any time in the
last five years? If so, please explain. 14. In the past five years, has any claim against your firm concerning your firm's work on design project
been filed in court or arbitration? 15. At any time has your insurance made any payments on your firm's behalf as a result of default or
error's and omissions? If so, please explain.
Firms having capabilities and experience for this study are invited to submit the following items (six stapled copies / no bindings) by (INSERT DUE DATE, TIME, AGENCY CONTACT AND DELIVERY ADDRESS)
1. Summary letter (not to exceed four pages) addressing the significant selection factors published above (excluding information provided in the accompanying SF330 Part II and Reference List described below).
2. Standard Form 330 Part II (not more than one year old) for the responding consultant and its principal subconsultants.

Ver 2.0

Page 16 of 35

March 2003

3. List of four references from the responding consultant's most closely related projects completed in the last three years on which the consultant served as the prime consultant (including individuals' names, relevant responsibilities, e-mail addresses, fax numbers, and telephone numbers).
Attempts to contact any agency representative in connection with this invitation (other than the individual designated above) or failure to provide fully responsive submittal information may lead to disqualification. This is not a request for a proposal.

Ver 2.0

Page 17 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 5 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING AND SCORING FORM

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

The Selection Committee should develop the appropriate weighting for each advertised selection factor based upon perceived importance for this particular project. It is recommended that weightings in the following ranges be utilized:

7-8-9

-

Highly Important

4-5-6

-

Important

1-2-3

-

Not Critical

For the purposes of this shortlist selection, the following weights have been assigned to the selection factors published in the Invitation:
Weight 1 The responding consultant has successfully completed projects of similar scope
and type using this delivery method. 2 The responding consultant has successfully completed State or local government
public works contracts of similar scope and type regardless of delivery method. 3 The responding consultant's other proposed design disciplines have successfully
completed similar projects. 4 The responding consultant and their design disciplines have adequate prior
knowledge of local conditions or special conditions relative to the project. 5 The responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and Project Manager have
adequate prior experience. 6 The responding consultant's proposed other design disciplines' Principals and
Discipline Leaders have adequate prior relevant experience 7 The responding consultant has a program for encouragement of minority business
participation. 8 The responding consultant's references provided satisfactory judgement of the
firm's prior experience on closely related projects. 9 The responding consultant's project office is within a reasonable travel distance
from the project site. 10 The quality of response in relation to requested submittal information was
satisfactory. 11 The responding consultant provided an adequate response to the project specific
criteria (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) 12 The firm's is financial stable with no pending or past bankruptcy issues. 13 The firm's litigation record in the past five years is satisfactory. 14 The firm's insurance record in the past five years is satisfactory.

Subsequently, each firm should be rated on a scale of 1 to 9 points on each weighted selection factor in accordance with the following scale:

7-8-9

-

Excellent

4-5-6

-

Good

1-2-3

-

Weak

A total score for each firm should then be compiled by multiplying each weighted selection factor by the firm's quality score on each factor and then totaling all the individual weighted factor scores to arrive at the firm's total score.

Ver 2.0

Page 18 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 6 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST FIRM SCORING FORM (Each Selection Committee member should fill out one form per proponent.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

LEAD FIRM NAME: _____________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

SELECTION FACTORS The responding consultant has successfully completed projects of similar scope and type using this delivery method. The responding consultant has successfully completed State or local government public works contracts of similar scope and type regardless of delivery method. The responding consultant's other proposed design disciplines have successfully completed similar projects. The responding consultant and their design disciplines have adequate prior knowledge of local conditions or special conditions relative to the project. The responding consultant's proposed Project Principal and Project Manager have adequate prior experience. The responding consultant's proposed other design disciplines' Principals and Discipline Leaders have adequate prior relevant experience The responding consultant has a program for encouragement of minority business participation.
The responding consultant's project office is within a reasonable travel distance from the project site.
The quality of response in relation to requested submittal information was satisfactory.
The responding consultant provided an adequate response to the project specific criteria (i.e. Unique schedule requirements, cost management plan) The firm's is financial stable with no pending or past bankruptcy issues. The firm's litigation record in the past five years is satisfactory.
The firm's insurance record in the past five years is satisfactory.
The responding consultant's references provided satisfactory judgement of the firm's prior experience on closely related projects.

WEIGHT

RATING 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

SCORE

7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

TOTAL SCORE:

______

Ver 2.0

Page 19 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 7 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST SCORING SUMMARY OF ALL RESPONDING FIRMS
(Ranks represent averages of Selection Committee's scores.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

FIRM

SELECTION CRITERIA

Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater SCORE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

RANK

NOTE: Final shortlists typically include from three to eight firms, depending on the magnitude and importance of the project.

Ver 2.0

Page 20 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 8 EXAMPLE FIRM REFERENCE CHECKING FORM INTERVIEWER'S NAME: ________________________________________________________ DATE OF INTERVIEW: _________________________________________________________ NAME OF PROFESSIONAL FIRM: ________________________________________________ NAME OF REFERENCE: ________________________________________________________ INSTRUCTIONS: After a shortlist has been made, the Selection Committee should normally develop four to six set standard questions to ask each reference. Then committee members should be randomly assigned to personally call each the assigned references. Examples questions are shown below:
QUESTION 1: How would you rate Firm XYZ's overall performance on your recently completed office building?
QUESTION 2: Did firm XYZ performance in any way negatively impact affect the project schedule?
QUESTION 3: Did firm XYZ performance in any way negatively impact affect the project budget?
QUESTION 4: Was there continuity in Firm XYZ's principal and project management team throughout the life of the project?
QUESTION 5: Would you hire Firm XYZ to do another project for you in the near future?
Question 6: Did firm XYZ meet bid package deadlines?
Question 7: Did firm XYZ work collaboratively with the contractor on value analysis?

Ver 2.0

Page 21 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 9 INTERVIEW FORMAT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Selection Committee, before adjourning the shortlist development session, should determine what interview rules it wishes the proponents to follow during the formal interview process so they may be communicated to shortlisted firms in the Shortlist Notification Letter. The rules should be adjusted to serve the needs of the specific project for which the selection is being conducted, but here is one set that generally works well for most projects.
Time Normally 30 minutes for presentation, 10 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes before
and after for setup and knockdown. This allows proponents to be scheduled on the hour and still have time for a brief break. Preferably, interviews are all conducted the same day by all the same interviewers with evaluation
completed before adjournment.
Media Normally presentation boards only. Proponents bring their own easels. No handouts other than agenda with proponent's attendees listed.
Presenters Three to five including Project Principal, Project Manager, Project Architect and key consultants who
will work on the Project. The Project Interior Designer should also attend if the Project scope includes interiors.

Ver 2.0

Page 22 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 10 EXAMPLE SHORTLIST NOTIFICATION LETTER

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Ms. Susan Smith, AIA Firm XYZ Architects, Inc. 123 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

July 1, 2000

Dear Ms. Smith:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I am pleased to inform you that your firm is one of those shortlisted for a final selection interview. Interviews are scheduled to take place on August 14, 2000, in the GBA Training Room at the above address on the following schedule:

XYZ Architects The ABC Group Team EFG JKL Associates

9:00--9:50 a.m. 10:00--10:50 a.m. 11:00-11:50 a.m. 1:00--1:50 p.m.

If you have a schedule conflict and are able to work out an exchange for your time slot with another shortlisted firm, you are free to do so provided you notify me at least one business day in advance.

You will be allotted 30 minutes for your presentation, 10 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes before and after for setup and knockdown. Please do not use any video, slides, or models. Our preferred medium is presentation boards or flip charts with firms responsible for bringing their own easels. No handouts other than an agenda with the consultant's team representatives listed are desired.

Please bring five individuals to represent your proposed team, including your Project Principal, Project Manager, Project Architect, Project Interior Designer, and Lead Civil Engineer, since this study involves detailed programming and site investigation services.

If you wish to review the standard services agreement we intend to employ as the basis for your consultant contract, you may obtain a copy from this office by calling and requesting that it be made available to you by fax or electronic media.

A mandatory site visit will be conducted in advance of your interview at 10:00 a.m. on July 21, 2000. At that time, you will be provided a site survey and will have the opportunity to ask questions. While oral answers may be provided at that time, you should rely only on those written responses that subsequently will be e-mailed to your office.

Ver 2.0

Page 23 of 35

March 2003

At least five business days prior to your scheduled interview, please have delivered to this office seven copies of Standard Form 330 Part I (SF 330) for your proposed team and SF 330 Part II for any consultants added or changed since your original submittal (see attached SF 330 Part I & II) . These forms should be submitted without cover letter or binding (stapled only), and the SF 330 may be modified only as follows: Item F may be expanded to provide one page per project with the requested information, inclusive of
project photographs or illustrations. (Firms are encouraged to include projects where individuals proposed to work on the project have had significant professional roles.) Item H may be enlarged to no more than 5 pages and should expand upon all the required information submitted in the initial response submittal.
Please remember that no one on your team should have any contact with any agency personnel, other than the signer, for the purpose of discussing this project on penalty of possible disqualification. We look forward to your presentation.
Very truly yours,
Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority
Copy: Selection Committee Members

Ver 2.0

Page 24 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 10a EXAMPLE NOTIFICATION TO FIRM THAT DID NOT MAKE THE SHORTLIST

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Mr. Cletus de la Renta, AIA Nextime Design, Inc. 123 Sourtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30333

July 1, 2002

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Dear Mr. de la Renta:

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I wish to thank your firm for submitting the qualifications of your team for the above referenced assignment. Unfortunately, the Georgia Building Authority has elected not to select your firm for this particular project.

We appreciate your interest in Georgia Building Authority projects and hope that you will consider responding to future opportunities.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Ver 2.0

Page 25 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 11 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING AND SCORING FORM

(This form may also be used as the evaluation criteria for the Final Submittal Package (SF 330 Part I).

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

The Selection Committee may reuse the same selection criteria weighting as used in the shortlisting process or adjust the weighting at its discretion based on new information or perceptions. Normally, the following weighting would be utilized:

7-8-10 -

Highly Important

4-5-7

-

Important

1-2-4

-

Not Critical

For the purposes of this final selection, the following weights have been assigned to the selection factors

Weight

1

Capacity: The firm demonstrated adequate capacity to give the project

the attention it deserves.

2

The proposed team members have adequate experience in the product

type.

3

The proposed subconsultants involved in the project demonstrated the

capability of handling this type/size project.

4

The firm has unique experience and qualifications to design this

size/type project.

5

The firm demonstrated a proven history for completing design within

established schedules.

6

The firm demonstrated a proven history for producing well coordinated

quality contract documents.

Project Specific Approach

7

The firm provided an innovative approach for meeting or exceeding the

schedule requirements.

8

The proposed team had synergy between the key team

representatives. The proposed team connected well with the selection

committee.

9

The design options were feasible and in line with the program goals.

10

They recognized and addressed the technical challenges. They

demonstrated they have the ability to solve problems.

11

They provided a realistic plan on how they will ensure quality plans and

specs for this project.

12

They provided a realistic and appropriate schedule approach for the

project.

13

They provided a realistic and appropriate cost control approach for the

project.

14

They conveyed good solutions to potential problems.

Subsequently, each firm should be rated on a scale of 1 to 9 points on each weighted selection factor in

accordance with the following scale:

7-8-9

-

Excellent

4-5-7

-

Good

1-2-4

-

Weak

A total score for each firm should then be compiled by multiplying each weighted selection factor by the firm's quality score on each factor and then totaling all the individual weighted factor scores to arrive at the firm's total score.

Ver 2.0

Page 26 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 12 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION FIRM SCORING FORM (Each Selection Committee member should fill out one form per proponent.)

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________

LEAD FIRM NAME: _____________________________________________________________

EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

SELECTION FACTORS Capacity: The firm demonstrated adequate capacity to give the project the attention it deserves.
The proposed team members have adequate experience in the product type.
The proposed subconsultants involved in the project demonstrated the capability of handling this type/size project. The firm has unique experience and qualifications to design this size/type project.
The firm demonstrated a proven history for completing design within established schedules.
The firm demonstrated a proven history for producing well coordinated quality contract documents.
The firm provided an innovative approach for meeting or exceeding the schedule requirements.
The proposed team had synergy between the key team representatives. The proposed team connected well with the selection committee. The design options were feasible and in line with the program goals.
They recognized and addressed the technical challenges. They demonstrated they have the ability to solve problems. They provided a realistic plan on how they will ensure quality plans and specs for this project.
They provided a realistic and appropriate schedule approach for the project.
They provided a realistic and appropriate cost control approach for the project.
They conveyed good solutions to potential problems.

WEIGHT

RATING 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3 7-8-9 4-5-6 1-2-3

SCORE

Ver 2.0

Page 27 of 35

TOTAL SCORE:

______
March 2003

APPENDIX 13 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION SCORING SUMMARY OF ALL SHORTLISTED FIRMS
(Ranks represent averages of Selection Committee's scores.)
PROJECT: ____________________________________________________________________
EVALUATION DATE: ___________________________________________________________

FIRM

SELECTION CRITERIA

Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater Rater SCORE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

RANK

NOTE: Normally, the opportunity to negotiate a final agreement should be offered to the highest rank firm. Signatures of Selection Committee Members: 1. 4. 5. 2. 3. 6. 7.

Ver 2.0

Page 28 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 14 EXAMPLE FINAL SELECTION RECOMMENDATION LETTER

1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Ms. Jonetta Jones Executive Director Georgia Building Authority 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

August 1, 2000

Dear Ms. Jones:

The Selection Committee for the above-referenced project has conducted a shortlisting and interview process as provided in Chapter 22 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, in particular O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6. This project was first published on www.ganet.org/purchase/ on June 1, 2000.

The services required of the selected consultant may be described generally as the development of a predesign study for a new multi-agency administrative office building to be constructed on Capitol Avenue adjacent to I-75/85 in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. The scope of predesign services will be generally in accordance with the latest version of Predesign of Major Capital Projects: Recommended Guidelines published by the Office of Planning and Budget and the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission. As currently envisioned, the building complex will include approximately 275,000 sf of administrative space (80% open / 20% closed offices), a cafeteria, a 550-car parking deck, a "mini-mall" of public services, and related ancillary facilities. The total project square footage and construction cost are currently believed to be in the range of 500,000 sf and $55,000,000, respectively.

Attached please find the Shortlist Final Scoring Form of All Responding Firms and the Final Selection Scoring Form of All Shortlisted Firms (which indicates the selection factors deemed most relevant). Based on the final results of our screening process, we recommend to you as the Authority's Principal Representative (as defined under O.C.G.A. Section 50-22-6) that the Georgia Building Authority enter into final contract negotiations with the most highly ranked firm, XYZ Architects, Inc.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Attachments Copy w/ attachments: Selection Committee Members

Ver 2.0

Page 29 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 15 EXAMPLE NOTIFICATION LETTER TO SELECTED FIRM

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Ms. Susan Smith, AIA XYZ Architects, Inc. 123 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

August 15, 2000

Dear Ms. Smith:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above referenced project, I am pleased to inform you that your firm has been selected to enter into contract negotiations for the advertised predesign study. Congratulations!

Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we can proceed to finalize the agreement for the services of the selected XYZ Architects' team. However, I must remind you that if we are unable to conclude a mutually agreeable contract for the required services, the Georgia Building Authority will be obliged to terminate negotiations with XYZ Architects and enter into discussions with the second-ranked firm.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Copy: Selection Committee Members

Ver 2.0

Page 30 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 16 EXAMPLE STANDARD FORM CONTRACT
PLEASE CONTACT THE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OF THE GEORGIA STATE FINANCING AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION AT
(404) 463-8599 FOR A COPY OF THE CONTRACT CURRENTLY IN USE.

Ver 2.0

Page 31 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 17 RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES ON ARCHITECTURAL SCOPES AND FEES
CURRENTLY UNDER
DEVELOPMENT

Ver 2.0

Page 32 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 18 EXAMPLE LETTER TO UNSUCCESSFUL PROPONENTS GIVING NOTICE OF AWARD NOTICE OF
CONTRACT AWARD

GEORGIA BUILDING AUTHORITY 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Jane Doe, Director of Facilities

Mr. Sam Roberts, AIA The ABC Group. 321 Fifth St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Re: Predesign Study New State Office Building at Capitol Avenue Atlanta, Georgia

September 1, 2000

Dear Mr. Roberts:

On behalf of the Selection Committee for the above-referenced project, I wish to thank The ABC Group for submitting the qualifications of your team for the above referenced assignment. However, the Georgia Building Authority has elected to contract with another team lead by XYZ Architects, Inc.

We appreciate your interest in Georgia Building Authority projects and hope you will consider responding to future opportunities.

Very truly yours,

Jane Doe Director of Facilities Georgia Building Authority

Attachment

Ver 2.0

Page 33 of 35

March 2003

APPENDIX 19 SAMPLE SF 330 IN BLANK

Ver 2.0

Page 34 of 35

March 2003

53314

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53
[FAR Case 2000608]
RIN 9000AJ15
Federal Acquisition Regulation; New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to replace SF 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire, and SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Projects, with SF 330, ArchitectEngineer Qualifications. SF 330 reflects current architect-engineer practices in a streamlined and updated form, organized in data blocks that readily support automation. DATES: Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before December 18, 2001 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. Submit electronic comments via the Internet to: farcase.2000608@gsa.gov
Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2000608 in all correspondence related to this case. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at (202) 5014755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 219 0202. Please cite FAR case 2000608. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
An interagency ad hoc committee developed SF 330. The ad hoc committee based the development of the form on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council Technical Report No. 130, ``[Joint

Federal-industry] Survey on the Use of SFs 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' 1996 (The Federal Facilities Council is an arm of the Congressionally charted National Academy of Sciences.) The report states that Federal agencies and the architectengineer industry strongly endorse maintaining a structured format for presenting architect-engineer qualifications. The report also concludes that the SFs 254 and 255 need improvement.
Both Federal and industry architectengineer practitioners believe that the forms need streamlining, as well as updating to facilitate electronic usage. Hence the SFs 254 and 255 have been consolidated into SF 330. The SF 330 reflects current architect-engineer practices in a streamlined and updated form organized in data blocks that readily support automation.
The proposed rule replaces SFs 254 and 255 with SF 330 and makes related FAR revisions in 1.106, 36.603, 36.702, 53.2362 and 53.301330. The proposed rule makes the following changes:
Merges the SFs 254 and 255 into a single streamlined SF 330.
Expands essential information about qualifications and experience such as an organizational chart of all participating firms and key personnel.
Reflects current architect-engineer disciplines, experience types and technology.
Eliminates information of marginal value such as a list of all offices of a firm.
Permits limited submission length thereby reducing costs for both the architect-engineer industry and the government.
Facilitates electronic usage by organizing the form in data blocks.
SF 330, Part II, Block 5.b. requests information based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Effective October 1, 2000, the FAR was revised to convert size standards and other programs in the FAR that are currently based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code system to NAICS (65 FR 46055). The SF 330 has been revised to comply with the aforementioned, October 1, 2000, FAR revision.
Pending public comment, this is not considered a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule only replaces two standard forms, with one consolidated streamlined standard form. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 1, 36, and 53 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2000608), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 10413) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements. The proposed rule replaces the current SF 254, ArchitectEngineer and Related Services, and the current SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Project, Questionnaire, with a new SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications. The current SF 254 approved information collection requirement states that it takes 1 hour to complete; and the current SF 255 approved information collection requirement states that it takes 1.2 hours to complete. Experience has shown that these hours are substantially underestimated. The SF 330, ArchitectEngineer Qualifications, has been developed by an interagency ad hoc committee, based on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council Technical Report No. 130, ``[Joint Federal-industry] Survey on the Use of SFs 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' 1996. Accordingly, the FAR Secretariat has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning OMB control number 900000XX, New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors, to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
Annual Reporting Burden
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 29 hours (25 hours for Part 1 and 4 hours for Part 2) per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53315

reviewing the collection of information. Because of the tailoring required by the form for each project submittal, there are virtually no savings in burden hours by repeat submittals.
The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
Respondents: 5000. Responses per respondent: 4. Total annual responses: 20,000. Preparation hours per response: 29. Total response burden hours: 580,000.
D. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden
Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than December 18, 2001 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 5014755. Please cite OMB Control Number 900000XX, FAR Case 2000608 New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors, in all correspondence.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53
Government procurement.
Dated: October 11, 2001.
Al Matera,
Director, Acquisition Policy Division.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose to amend 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
PART 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
1.106 [Amended]
2. Amend Section 1.106 in the table following the introductory text by removing from the column ``FAR segment'' the entries ``SF 254'' and ``SF 255'' and their corresponding OMB Control Numbers; and by adding, in sequential order, to the FAR segment column ``SF 330'' and the corresponding OMB Control Number ``900000XX''.
PART 36--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS
3. Amend Section 36.603 by--
a. Revising paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph (c);
b. Removing from paragraph (d) introductory text ``shall'' and adding ``must'' in its place;
c. Removing from paragraph (d)(1) ``SF 254'' and adding ``SF 330, Part II'' in its place; and
d. Removing from paragraph (d)(2) ``SF's 254 and 255'' and inserting ``SF 330'' in its place.
The revised text reads as follows:
36.603 Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.
* * * * *
(b) Qualifications data. To be considered for architect-engineer contracts, a firm must file with the appropriate office or board the Standard Form 330, ``Architect-Engineer Qualifications'', Part II, and when applicable, SF 330, Part I.
(c) Data files and the classification of firms. Under the direction of the parent agency, offices or permanent evaluation boards must maintain an architectengineer qualifications data file. These offices or boards must review the SF 330 filed, and must classify each firm with respect to-- * * * * *
4. Amend Section 36.702 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

36.702 Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer services.
* * * * *
(b) The SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, shall be used to evaluate firms before awarding a contract for architect-engineer services:
(1) Use the SF 330, Part I--ContractSpecific Qualifications, to obtain information from an architect-engineer firm about its qualifications for a specific contract when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Part 1 may be used when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, if the contracting officer determines that its use is appropriate.
(2) Use the SF 330, Part II--General Qualifications, to obtain information from an architect-engineer firm about its general professional qualifications. * * * * *
PART 53--FORMS
5. Amend Section 53.2362 by revising the section heading and paragraph (b); and by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraph (d) as (c). The revised text reads as follows:
53.2362 Architect-engineer services (SFs 252, 330, and 1421).
* * * * *
(b) SF 330 (xx/01), Architect-Engineer Qualifications. SF 330 is prescribed for use in obtaining information from architect-engineer firms regarding their professional qualifications, as specified in 36.702(b)(1) and (2). * * * * *
53.301254 and 53.301255 [Removed]
5. Sections 53.301254 and 53.301 255 are removed.
53.301330 [Added]
6. Section 53.301330 is added as follows:
53.301330 Architect-Engineer Qualifications.
BILLING CODE 6820EPP

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53316

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53317

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53318

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53319

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53320

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53321

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:45 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 19OCP3

53322

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53323

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53324

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53325

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53326

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

53327

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3

53328

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 0126203 Filed 101801; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820EPC
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 22:05 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19OCP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 19OCP3