UWF CONTRACTS
WORKSHOP
Professional & Construction Services
Procurement and Project Delivery Methods
An Overview of the University of West Florida
Capital Projects Procurement Process
Dave O’Brien, A.V.P. & Chief Contracting Officer
Jim Barnett, A.V.P. Facilities Development & Operations
UWF Administrative Services Division Pensacola, Florida
(850) 473-7075
The Three Principles Of UWF Public Contracting
Transparency
Equal Treatment
Competition
Three Pillars of Public
Contracting
Pillar I
Pillar II
Pillar III
Laws, Regulations & Policies
Procedures
Auditors
•
Prospective bidders/proposers are often confused between Pillar’s I & II with
respect to UWF’s flexibility.
•
UWF Procurement & Contracts has some flexibility regarding the adaptation of
Procedures (Pillar II) to support different types of projects to provide “Best
Value” to the University.
•
The tenants under Pillars I & III are usually quite explicit and not subject to
change or adaptation without Legislative action or Boards of Governors and
Trustees prior approval.
Private vs. Public Owners

Private Owners have fewer procurement &
legal restraints than Public Owners.

Private Owner is the ultimate authority.

Private Owners can “play favorites” and
are not bound by competition.

Private Owners have more flexibility to
creatively negotiate favorable contract
terms.
Private vs. Public Contracts

Public contracts derive from statutes,
regulations, policies, etc.

Public sector contracts normally require
competitive procurement.

Contracting officers cannot commit the
University beyond their authority.

Public contracts are standardized with less room
for negotiations.
UWF Procurement Requirements
 Florida Statutes
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/?CFID=231372660&CFTOKEN=34444173
 Florida Board of Governors Regulations
http://www.flbog.org/about/regulations/regulations.php
 UWF Board of Trustees Regulations & Policies
 UWF Procurement & Contracts Procedures
Competition Is The Cornerstone To
Procurement In Florida
 Florida has statutory requirements that Public sector
contracts be awarded based on a competitive solicitation.
 The Florida State Supreme Court has put forth their
opinion that, since the State Government (including State
Universities) are major employers and are political in
nature, there is the potential for public assumption that
there may be impropriety and that the government cannot
be trusted to meet and negotiate suitable terms without at
least the appearance of impropriety or special favor.
 Competitive bidding helps to mitigate against the
appearance of favoritism toward a particular contractor
and provides a level playing field for all to participate.
Solicitation Methods






Invitation to Bid (ITB)
Request for Proposals (RFP)
Request for Quotation (RFQ)
Invitation to Negotiate (ITN)
Request for Information (RFI)
Professional Qualifications Solicitation (PQS)
Competitive Process for
Qualifications Based Solicitations
(Professional Qualifications Solicitations)






CCNA-FS 287.055 - Architects, Engineers, Surveyors
QBS Process is also used for Continuing, CM@Risk & Design-Build
Contracts
Three step process
Public Announcement
 Typically the public announcement is the scope of the project
Competitive Selection Process
 The criteria for selection is contained and published in the solicitation
document (PQS/RFP/ITN)
 The agency (UWF) will choose the three most-qualified firms for a
particular project to make an oral presentation to the evaluators.
Competitive Negotiation
 The agency (UWF) may then negotiate with the top ranked firm for
services.
 Fees will not be discussed until this step
Qualifications Based Process
 Public Announcement
In accordance with Florida Statutes and Board of Governors Regulations,
UWF publicly announces each occasion when following services are required:
Professional services for a project, with estimated construction costs exceeding
$250,000 unless a competitively awarded continuing contract is used;
Professional services for planning or study activity when the fee is expected to
exceed $50,000 unless a competitively awarded continuing contract is used;
Construction projects estimated to exceed $200,000 unless a competitively
awarded continuing contract is used;
Continuing contracts for professional services or construction services. There is
no limit on the total value of the continuing contract, but no single construction
project may exceed $2,000,000 and no single study or plan may exceed
$200,000.
Note: Projects are announced in the Florida Administrative Weekly
and in the Pensacola News Journal.
Evaluation & Selection



Responses are reviewed to ensure that each is responsive to submission requirements.
Responsive submittals are referred to an Evaluation Committee for review and evaluation.
Scores are converted to a ranking order of responses. Evaluator rankings are aggregated
to establish an overall ranking for each response.
Typical Evaluation Criteria include:






Firm experience
Demonstrated understanding of overall concept
Approach to development of project
Experience of Proposed Team and Personnel assigned to project
Ability to respond/location
The 3-4 top-ranked firms are invited to make oral presentations. The Evaluation
Committee provides a list of topics to be addressed in presentations. A new set of
evaluation criteria is developed based on the topics provided by the committee.
Weights of criteria will vary depending on the needs of the project. However, the weight for
ability to respond is generally set at 10% but has been as much as 20% for trade contracts.
Contract Negotiation
Following the presentations, evaluators score and rank each of the short-listed firms against
criteria provided in the invitation to present. Ranking from the evaluation of responses has
no bearing on the final ranking following the presentation.
Following the interviews and the final evaluation meeting,

the University will negotiate with the top ranked firm.

If the University is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the top ranked firm, it will
terminate negotiations with that firm and undertake negotiations with the next highest ranked firm.

This process will continue until the University is able to negotiate a satisfactory contract.
If unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with one of the short-listed firms, the University

may select additional firms for negotiation,

reinstate negotiations following the original order of priority,

award without negotiation, or

may withdraw the solicitation and pursue an alternate delivery method.
All decisions shall be based on the course of action deemed to be in the best interest of the
University.
Construction Manager @ Risk
 Best Used With Multi-Year Appropriations and
Multi-Phase Projects
 Key Components:
 Pre-Construction Fee
 Cost of Work
 General Conditions including staffing
 CM Managed Contingency
 CM Fee
Design-Build Delivery
Best Used With Limited Schedule; Pre-Engineered
Components, and Specialty Construction –
Residence Halls
Owner holds single contract with an entity
responsible cradle-grave for design and
construction of the project.
The Design-Builder “DB” could be an A/E, a
Contractor or a joint venture organized for
delivery of the project.
Design-Build Delivery
 Key Components:
 Pre-Construction Fee
 Cost of Work
 General Conditions including staffing
 D/B Managed Contingency
 D/B Fee
Design-Bid-Build
 Best Used With One Phase & Funding Year; Building of
Moderate Difficulty or Infrastructure Project.
 Owner holds separate contracts with:
- Design Professional
- General Contractor (GC)
 A/E selected via Qualifications Based Selection CCNA –
Negotiated Fee.
 GC selection resulting from Sealed Bid.
Putting Your Best Foot Forward
1. Perform a thorough review of the solicitation
documents to identify questions and concerns.
2. Be fully responsive to minimum requirements.
3. Prepare response to address the evaluation
criteria.
4. Do not contact or “lobby” UWF staff outside of
Procurement & Contracts.
5. Attend and participate in pre-bid conferences
6. DELIVER BID/PROPOSAL BY DEADLINE!!!
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes one proposal better than another?
The degree your submittal addresses the Evaluation Criteria and
following the format specified in the proposal is the key.
Our firm has done work at UWF in the past. Do we have to submit
to the level of detail we would for a new client?
Yes! Each and every procurement must stand on its own. In fairness to
all, only information contained in the written submittal will be used.
How much detail is required in my submittal?
Enough information to prove you meet or exceed expectations. To simply
paraphrase a UWF requirement is not sufficient. Examples work best.
How do we know our submittal will be given full consideration?
Following the format specified, making it easy to read and make sure you
address the evaluation criteria.
F. A. Q. CONTINUED
The best Dog & Pony show wins in the Oral Presentation. Right?
No! BUT. . . firms reaching the oral presentation phase are very close in the
evaluators’ eyes so putting your best foot forward by being organized and by
communicating in a clear and concise manner is important. It has been our
experience that more proposals have been lost due to lack of preparation in
this phase of the evaluation. Remember: Preparation is the key.
Our firm lost. What’s the point of attending a debriefing?
The debriefing is an opportunity to learn of your submittals strengths &
weaknesses in the eyes of the evaluators and improve your ability to compete
for the next solicitation.
We have concerns with the fairness of the process, whom should
we tell?
Please contact the procurement professional listed in the solicitation document or
the Chief Contracting Officer at UWF. Our experience has been that most firms
who debriefed with us may have left disappointed in the outcome but did not
feel they were treated unfairly by the process.
Questions