RFP & RFQ – Guidance for Contract Managers (CMs)

Introduction

  • Guidance applies to the process for procuring all contracts pursuant to an RFQ/RFP process, including professional service contracts, generalservice contracts, as-needed contracts, design-build contracts, construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) under Chapters 6 and 21 of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
  • While this is meant to be a thorough guide, individual procurements may require additional steps or deviations from the ones set forth below in managing procurement process.

RFPand/or RFQ

  • Use RFP when seeking proposals that explain how project or services will be carried out.
  • Use RFQ when (1) seeking a firm with skill set for carrying out a project and a project proposal is not sought; or (2) establishing a qualified pool of candidates.
  • Note that an RFQ may be used as the first step in a two-step procurement process followed by an RFP issued to pre-qualified respondents.

Issuance

  • Standard form for RFP is available on SFO Connect, but CM is required to substantially customize the form by tailoring the solicitation to the particular project need, especially in the areas of scope, qualifications, submissions and selection criteria.
  • Design a fair process – the RFP or RFQ sets forth the “rules of the game” by which a successful firm will be selected; follow those rules throughout the process.
  • Staff shall inform the Airport Director (via their Director or Chief) if the oral interview score is less than 25% of the points allocated for the evaluation process.
  • Do not discuss the design of the RFP or RFQ with any firm (prime or subconsultant) that might submit a Proposal or Statement of Qualifications (SOQ).
  • The Minimum Qualifications (MQs) need to be clear and objectively verifiable; ideally, MQs are pass/fail (such as holding a license). MQ requirements should not be so rigorous as to unreasonably narrow the field of likely respondents and preclude competition.
  • The initial term of the contract and any term extensions must be identified in the RFP or RFQ.
  • The schedule for submission of proposals or qualifications needs to be reasonable – firms should have sufficient time to prepare submittals, and no one firm should be advantaged or disadvantaged.
  • Avoid 5 p.m. deadlines. Pick an earlier time in the afternoon in order to minimize issues that may arise with office closing or staff leaving for the day.
  • Once RFP or RFQis issued, staffmustavoid one-on-onecommunications with prospective respondents.
  • All potential respondents are entitled to get the same information about the RFP or RFQ in order to ensure a fair competitive process.
  • Potential respondents must submit questions in writing to the contract manager in accordance with the RFP or RFQ terms; staff will prepare written answers thatwill be posted on the City's Office of Contract Administration (OCA) website in the form of anAddendum (Change Notice) at or for construction contracts at made available to all interested firms.
  • Allow sufficient time between the deadline for submission of written questions or requests for clarification and any due date for staff to prepare and post written answers.
  • Allow sufficient time between the posting of the last Addendum (Change Notice) and the RFP or RFQ submittal due date for firms to consider the additional information and revise submittal.
  • No further questions can be considered after the due date unless an Addendum (Change Notice) is issued which extends the question period due date for all potential respondents.

Pre-Proposal Conference or Pre-Statement of Qualifications (SOQ)

  • Attendance at the conference should be optional; mandatory attendance (where a firm may not submit a Proposal or SOQ if it did not attend conference) is justified only in those exceptional cases whereinformation regarding the project or services sought cannot be practically communicated except by attendance.
  • Notify and invite Contracts Administration Unit (CAU), Small Business Affairs Office (SBAO) and Contract Monitoring Division (CMD formerly Human Rights Commission)to the Pre-Proposal or Pre-SOQ Conference.
  • Note: Absent the existence of an articulated claimof discrimination, CMD has no statutory role if the contract is federally funded or falls under the Airport Concession Disadvantage Business Enterprise (ACDBE) requirements, or if the procurement has no LBE requirement either at the prime or at the subcontractor level.
  • The agenda for the Conference should include:
  • CM description of scope of work, background information, and procurement process; the CM presentation should include the following:

rules about communication with staff during the procurement process;

questions from firms relating to the RFP or RFQ are to be submitted by email to the address identified in RFP or RFQ;

issuance of Addendum (Change Notice) to address changes to the RFP or RFQ, as well as written responses to questions;

posting of Addendum (Change Notice) and other additional information on OCA's website at or for construction contracts at

provision of OCA's website at or for construction contracts at to attendees;

restatetime deadlines for objections to RFP or RFQ terms, for questions and for responsive submittal.

  • CMDexplanation of the requirements if elements of San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 14B apply.
  • SBAOexplanation offederal DBE requirements if federally-funded contract or contract is subject to ACDBE requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 23 or DBE requirements of Title 49 CFR, Part 26.
  • Solicitation of attendees’ comments, questions, concerns, and objections relating to theservices sought, or to the RFP or RFQ terms, including Minimum Qualifications.
  • Staff's answers to questions raised at the conference are posted on OCA's websiteat or for construction contracts at and made available to all interested firms.

Receipt of Proposals or Statements of Qualifications (SOQs)

  • Staff receiving the Proposals or SOQs should write or stamp the date and time of receipt on the top page of the submittals.
  • Submittals received after the submittal deadline will not be considered and should not be forwarded to the evaluation panel for review.
  • Prior to sending proposals or SOQs to the evaluation panel, CM will review the submittals to determine (1) whether the MQs are met and (2) whether the submittals are responsive to the RFP or RFQ (i.e., everything asked for in the RFP or RFQ has been submitted). Only those submittals that meet the MQs and are responsive to the RFP or RFQ are submitted to the evaluation panel.
  • If submittal is unclear on whether the firm meets the MQs, after consultation with Legal, staff should send a letter or email requesting clarification and seeking additional information on firm’s ability to meet the MQs.
  • If staff determines that a firm fails to meet the MQs andafter consultation with Legal, staff will immediately notify the firm in writing that it does not meet the MQs, that its submittal will not considered by the evaluation panel, and that the firm will not be eligible for award of the contract.
  • A firm that has been disqualified because it does not meet the MQs or its proposal is non-responsive may file a protest within five (5) business days of City's written determination; the protest should be resolved before the evaluation panel scores the submittals.

Evaluation Panel Selection

  • CM and any staff who worked on developing the RFP or RFQ should not serve as panel members; the CM directs the procurement process and advises the panel.
  • When possible, the panel should consist of an odd number of panelists (at least 3).
  • Select panelists who have expertise in the subject area (as subject matter experts), who would be able to apply their independent professional judgment in the selection process, and who are willing to devote the time necessary for the process. The panel, as a group, should reflect diversity in ethnicity and gender, and should include at least 50% of individuals who are not Airport employees.
  • For external panelists, the CM should try to not have two panelists from the same City department or same company. CM responsible for the RFP or RFQ should ensure their Director or Chief approves of the list of potential panelists.
  • If your RFP or RFQ has a subcontracting requirement, submit the list of potential panelists to the CMDnot fewer than ten (10) business days prior to the submittal due date for Proposals or SOQs for all non-federalor non-ACDBE contracts.
  • Ensure that panelists have no interest in the contract by sending and collecting from panel members a Panelist's Impartiality/Conflict of Interest Statement before transmitting any RFP or RFQ materials to the panelists.

Panel Orientation

  • Notify and invite CAU, SBAO and CMD to the Panel Orientation.
  • If the orientation meeting is conducted inperson, CM can provide RFP or RFQ, Proposals or SOQs, any Addenda (Change Notices), and score sheet to panel members at the meeting. If orientation is conducted by teleconference, at a minimum the score sheet should be provided to the panelists prior to the teleconference so panelists can follow along when staff explains the score sheet and evaluation criteria.
  • Panel should be instructed not to score until after the orientation briefing.
  • The CM's orientation agenda should include the following points:
  • Review basic ground rules:

Panelist should notparticipate if there is a conflict of interest; all Panelist's Impartiality/Conflict of Interest Statements should be turned in to CM before RFP or RFQ materials are distributed.

Panelists (including staff serving on panels) should not participate in any staff level meetings to discuss the overall panel review process, including participating in discussions with legal counsel.

Panelists should independently score the submittals; discussions are limited to panel group discussions; one-on-one individual panel member discussions should not be taking place – questions are to be directed to CM or CAU.

The panel is not a jury; a panelist's role is not to seek consensus or try to persuade or influence others on the panel.

Panel members should not discuss the proposals/submittals or oral interviews with anyone outside the process.

If panelists are contacted by any of the proposing firms or their representatives, panelists should be informed that they are not permitted to discuss the submittals or interviews, and should refer the inquiries to CM.

  • Overview of the project: What the Airport is looking for – give a high-level overview of the services requested and any background information that would be helpful in assisting the panel in its review; don’t restate what is in the RFP but let the panel know the Airport’s needs.
  • Overview of RFP or RFQ and addenda.
  • Instructions on how to review and score the proposals:

Panelists to review the RFP or RFQ and accompanying documents.

Read all proposals before scoring so panelists can compare the submittals; scores are preliminary until panel has opportunity to discuss the submittals at evaluation panel meeting. Scores may be adjusted as a result of the discussion before they are finalized.

Panelists should be consistent in their scoring pattern to ensure fairness (e.g. if grading tough on typos, bad grammar, etc. in one proposal, apply this same standard to all proposals).

  • Explanation of selection criteria and score sheet:

Explain each selection criterion and give the panelsufficient information to enable it to carry out its evaluation.

  • Put yourself in the place of the panel and ask yourself whether you would be able to answer or judge in the fashion you are asking the panel to judge, and then think about the information that you would provide to help the panel evaluate.
  • For example, if the evaluation criterion is the financial strength of the firm in carrying out the scope of work, consider what summary or meaningful information staff can provide to the panel to assist in digesting the financial reports. At a minimum, staff should consider providing a Dun & Bradstreet business credit report if available, or any TRW credit reports. In complex cases, staff can consider seeking review of financial information fromexpert Business and Finance staff who may be able to prepare an objective report on the financial statements for the panel's use. Consider also whether the panel would knowhow much capital a firm should typically be required to have to carry out the services. Provide the panel with some parameters.

When you ask the panel to judge a broad evaluation category, such as a Proposer's Business Plan, it is helpful to the panel if you would break down the factors that the panel can consider in evaluating this category, such as: does the plan show growth; do the revenue projections appear realistic; do the assumptions in the revenue projections make sense; are the rates or fees for services reasonable and customer-friendly; does the marketing plan clearly outline how the firm plans on attracting new business? The more guidance staff is able to give to the evaluation criteria, the less likelihood ofwidely divergent scores between panel members.

Explain the score sheet. Maximum points for each category are the maximum that can be awarded per proposal; not the total category points to be divided among all the proposals.

Explain to panelists that they should not state their scores or ranking for an individual firm.

Panelists should not discuss rating discounts or a firm’s LBE status, even though this information may be in a firm’s proposal or SOQ.

Explain that a zero (0) should be given only if a firm fails to submit any information relating to a given category, and a panelist is unable to give a score. Caution the panel that the information is sometimes incorrectly organized and may appear elsewhere in the submittal.

Explain to panelists that if they award similar points to individual firms, it will be inferred from the close scores that all of the firms are equally able to perform the work and can be viewed as almost interchangeable.

  • Applicability of Sunshine Ordinance to evaluation materials:

Panelists' identity and score sheets, including any notes and written comments made by panelists on the written proposals or RFP or RFQ, are subject to public disclosure once they are turned in at the end of the evaluation process.

  • Describe the remaining steps in the selection process leading to contract award.
  • Give the panel an opportunity to ask staff questions that may be helpful to the panel in conducting its review.
  • Staff's response to questions raised by the panel during any phase of the process is limited to factual information; staff should not provide opinions, editorial comments or judgments about the submittals or otherwise usurp the role of the evaluation panel.

Evaluation Meeting

  • Notify and invite CAU, SBAO and CMD to the Evaluation Meeting.
  • The panelists will have the opportunity to discuss among themselves the strengths and weaknesses of the submittals. Each panelist may independently adjust his/her individual scores after the discussion before the scores are finalized.

Oral Interviews

  • Notify and invite CAU, SBAO and CMD to the Oral Interviews.
  • State in the RFP or RFQ that oral interviews may be conducted, the number of firms that may be interviewed (e.g., it could be all pre-qualified firms or up to ## pre-qualified or highest-ranking firms based on written scores), and the process for interviews if conducted.
  • State in the RFP or RFQ how the oral interviews for those firms invited to an interview are to be scored. Options:
  • Score from the written proposal is added to the score from the oral interview to derive a final score for the firm.
  • Highest scoring firms from the written submittals are declared finalists and are invited to an interview; interviews are scored separately, and the highest scoring finalist based solely on the oral interviews is invited to contract negotiations.
  • No points are allocated for the oral interviews, but as a result of the interviews each panelist may independently adjust his/her individual scores for the written proposals before the scores are finalized.
  • At the conclusion of the interviews, the panel may conduct a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of each proposer and finalize his or her scores.
  • When the panel discussion is concluded and each panelist is satisfied with his or her scores, the original score sheets will be collected and maintained by the CAU panel facilitator.

Final Results

  • After final tabulation of the scores, staff may present the final results of the scoring to the panel, noting that final scores may be affected by the addition of LBE discount points, if any. Once the scores are disclosed, no further changes to the scores by the panelists are permitted.
  • The panel facilitator will communicate with the CMD representative for the addition of LBE discount points for final scoring.

Protest Procedures