The Request for Qualifications: Attracting and Selecting the Best Qualified Design-Builder - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 176

This section should indicate if presentations, or interviews, will be required and
should provide general guidelines for the presentations by proposers. Information about
the duration, possible date, and expectations would be helpful to proposers as they plan
their strategy for the SOQ and interview.
The RFQ should also present the rights and authority of the owner. Such rights
could include the ability to cancel the procurement at any time without penalty, the right
to request additional information, the right to select or short-list a proposer or proposers
that are deemed the best qualified to meet the needs of the owner.
Any anticipated activities of the owner during the selection period should be pre-
sented. For example, state if the owner intends to contact references that were cited by
proposers or if site visits will be allowed.
According to the WDBC Handbook (2010) most successful DB projects begin with a
well-planned procurement process based on the owner's objectives, priorities, and expec-
tations. Clearly conveying this information should minimize unnecessary expenditures of
time and resources for both the owner and potential design-builders.
To maintain fair competition among proposers, any restrictions that require con-
tact with owner representatives during the selection process should be identified. The
owner's policy regarding disqualification for unapproved contact or other actions should
be included.
The RFQ should clarify environmental and other permit responsibilities for the
project. In some cases, the owner has the responsibility for environmental permits (e.g.,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit, Operation Permit for
water treatment plants) and as a result, the owner also carries the responsibility for any
delays that may occur due to acquiring permits. For most water and wastewater projects,
however, the DB team is responsible for obtaining all of the necessary permits but with
the assistance of the owner.
A statement should be included in the RFQ regarding the costs incurred by propos-
ers while preparing their bids or proposals. Depending on the nature of the project and
submittal requirements of the RFQ, owners sometimes offer a stipend to offset a portion
of the proposers' costs to submit. Stipend amounts in recent years have varied widely
depending on the size and nature of the project, detailed submittal requirements, and
other factors. The more complicated the submittal requirements, the higher the cost to
propose will be. Some owners expect proposers to be responsible for any and all proposal
costs. Qualification-based selection (QBS) processes require a lower level of proposer
effort, so stipends are less frequently considered.
Many RFQs include a disclaimer of the accuracy of information in the RFQ docu-
ment or in materials that are referenced (e.g., geotechnical reports, environmental impact
studies, preliminary or conceptual design studies). Statutory or local requirements must
be considered. Also, when the RFQ provides elements such as a design criteria package,
disclaimers of this nature are included in the RFQ. They must be carefully considered and
crafted to protect the owner from accuracy-related litigation or change orders.
For public owners, public records statutes and information disclosure requirements
that apply to the DB project should be stated. The potential release of SOQ documents
to third parties after submittal needs to be disclosed in the RFQ. Owners also should
consider if and when selection information or results will be disclosed to the public: Will
submittal rankings be disclosed before presentations are given? Will score sheets be