(1) In phase one, the evaluation committee
shall evaluate statements of qualifications and performance data submitted by
all responsive businesses in regard to the particular project, and select,
ranked in the order of their qualifications, up to three firms deemed to be the
most highly qualified to perform the required services. The selection criteria
should include but are not limited to:
(a)
experience, organization and reputation of the respondent's team on similar
projects, based on relevant factors such as:
(i) history of on-time and on budget
projects;
(ii) design excellence of
completed projects;
(iii) clear
lines of authority and responsibilities;
(iv) team and key personnel
qualifications;
(v) availability of
key team members;
(vi) ability to
work with the state of New Mexico;
(vii) litigation and compliance
record;
(viii) health and safety
record.
(b) financial
capacity of the respondent based on relevant factors such as:
(i) ability to raise and commit funds for the
project and continuing operations and maintenance;
(ii) reasonableness of the cash flow
analysis.
(2)
In phase two, PCD shall invite the short listed firms to submit their response
to the phase two RFP documents including detailed specific technical concepts
of solutions, costs and scheduling, as well as their financial proposal.
(a) A mandatory pre proposal conference will
be conducted to allow short-listed firms the opportunity to submit questions of
clarification.
(b) Unsuccessful
phase two offerors submitting a responsive proposal may be paid a stipend to
cover proposal expenses.
(c) The
evaluation committee may conduct interviews with, and may require public
presentation by, all offerors responding to the RFP regarding their
qualifications, their approach to the project, and their ability to furnish the
required services. The evaluation committee may also choose to visit examples
of one or more of the responding offeror's completed projects.
(d) The evaluation committee shall evaluate
the short listed offerors with selection criteria stated in the phase two RFP
documents including the weight given to each criterion. The selection criteria
should include but are not limited to:
(i)
phase one qualifications;
(ii)
quality of proposed design, including response to RFP objectives, and clarity
in sustainability proposals;
(iii)
strength of financial proposal, including detailed description of project
costs, and detailed description of the rent calculation methodology;
(iv) financial analysis will be discounted
for similar lengths of term back to a net present value at the state's then
existing cost of tax exempt capital.
(e) Presentation requirements to properly
judge the offers should be stated in the RFP and should include but are not
limited to:
(i) the maximum number and size of
drawings or technical submittals allowed;
(ii) types of media that can be used in the
presentation;
(iii) the format
allowed for the financial proposals.
(f) Upon completion of the evaluation
process, the selection will be made and the highest ranked offeror will be
invited to negotiations.
(3) During phase three, PCD will conduct
negotiations with the selected offeror.
(a)
PCD should consider the offeror's overall project plan, schedule, financial
proposal, benefits and risks to the state.
(b) The lease-purchase agreement and related
documents for the lease-purchase agreement in a final form approved by name's
office will be negotiated incorporating specific terms, including the state's
and offeror's respective responsibilities, the economic parameters, development
standards and requirements, and a performance schedule. The agreement shall not
become effective until it has been ratified and approved by the
legislature.
(c) The offeror, with
PCD cooperation, will complete the project approval processes and any required
environmental or historic board review.
