Procurement Procedures - Chapter 6: Qualification-Based Procurement

Procedures for qualification-based procurement of goods, services, and professional services

QB 1 - Introduction

This chapter outlines Hillsborough County's (County) formal procedures for qualification-based procurement of goods, services, and professional services to ensure compliance with applicable laws and policies. The procedures outlined in this chapter aim to maintain fairness, encourage competition, and support the County's objectives in procurement and contracting.

QB 2 - Formal competitive sealed Request for Proposal (RFP)

RFP solicitations are used to competitively procure commodities and services over $50,000 when factors other than price are considered or is established around general guidelines and a conception of the need rather than a firm specification.

QB 2.1 - Submission errors

Once a solicitation is closed, a proposer may not withdraw or alter their submission unless allowed by the solicitation document.

QB 2.2 - Single proposal submittal analysis

Procurement Services Responsibilities

If only one proposal is received, Procurement Services will review the solicitation process to determine if proper procedures were followed, identify reasons for the lack of responses, and prepare a submittal analysis.

Requesting Department’s Responsibilities

When only one proposal is received, the RD’s evaluation committee shall evaluate and score the proposal.

Rejection of the Single Proposal

If the single proposal analysis reveals the offer is not fair and reasonable, then Procurement Services may reject all. If the project is re-solicited, appropriate changes should be made to encourage greater competition.

QB 2.3 - Initial responsiveness check

Procurement Services will review proposal submittals to determine initial responsiveness but is not responsible for identifying undisclosed deviations within the entire content. If in the County's best interest, Procurement Services will request Management & Budget to conduct a financial review of proposer(s) to assess financial stability.

If a submittal fails to meet responsiveness requirements, Procurement Services will notify the proposer(s) that their proposal(s) has been deemed unacceptable. If the unacceptable proposer wishes to challenge the County’s notice, the proposer must submit a written objection to Procurement Service within five (5) business days after receipt of the unacceptable notice. The five (5)-day period begins on the business day following the date of notice and ends at 5:00 p.m. (EST) on the fifth day. The proposer must include all relevant documents, information, and evidence necessary to support the objection. Once received, Procurement Service will review and take appropriate next steps. After the five (5)-day period has expired without a challenge, Procurement Services will continue with the procurement process.

QB 2.4 - Procedure for handling deviations

Deviations in proposals may be either material or immaterial. The RD will make an initial determination on the materiality of deviations against the solicitation specifications and notify Procurement Services immediately. Procurement Services will assess the validity of the recommendation and take appropriate action.

Immaterial Deviations

Immaterial or minor deviations are those that do not alter the substance of the proposal and do not provide undue competitive advantage to a proposer. These deviations may be waived. Examples include, but are not limited to, formatting inconsistencies, or inaccurate page counts.

Material Deviations

Material deviations are ones that deprive the county of its assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed, and guaranteed according to the proposal’s specific requirements; or provide the deviating proposer with an undue competitive advantage. These deviations may not be waived. Examples include, but are not limited to, deviations affecting the price, quality, or delivery of goods or services offered.

QB 2.5 - Reference checks & documentation for proposals

The Evaluation Committee Chair must have received and completed reference checks prior to the evaluation committee meeting.

The RD or evaluation committee chair is responsible for developing specific questions for reference checks and contacting the references provided by the proposers. The results must be documented and incorporated into the evaluation summary.

The project manager, evaluation committee chair, or designee conducts reference checks uniformly and documents the process as part of the evaluation summary. Documentation must include the RFP number, title, proposer’s name, and results, and this information is submitted through EPS.

General Questions

The questions below are examples that could be asked by the RD when conducting a reference check of a proposer:

(A) Did the proposer deliver according to the schedule?
(B) Did the proposer deliver within budget?
(C) Did the proposer respond in good faith to resolve problems, request additional compensation or justify change orders?
(D) Would you contract with this proposer again?
(E) Have you debarred this proposer from doing business with you?
(F) Has this proposer ever defaulted on a contract with you, or have they been terminated and/or not renewed when the option was available?

(i) If yes, please describe in detail.
(ii) Would you fax or email public records in relation to this action.
(iii) Was the proposer cooperative with the transition to the new proposer (e.g. transition of data/records)?

(G) How would you rate the proposer’s overall performance with regard to quality: Poor; Satisfactory; Good or Exceptional?
(H) How would you rate the proposer’s overall performance with regard to timeliness: Poor; Satisfactory; Good or Exceptional?
(I) Can you elaborate on the proposer’s particular strengths, if any?
(J) Can you elaborate on the proposer’s particular weaknesses, if any?
(K) Would you recommend this proposer to Hillsborough County?
(L) Are you aware of any reason that Hillsborough County should consider not contracting with this proposer?

QB 2.6 - Request for clarification during evaluation

If clarification is needed to evaluate a proposal, the Evaluation Committee Chair should develop clarification questions and immediately provide them through the EPS. Procurement Services will send the questions to the proposer(s) with a specified response deadline and then forward the returned clarification to the Evaluation Committee Chair for review.

QB 2.7 - Evaluation committee

Purpose and Members of the Evaluation Committee

An evaluation committee is used to review the technical aspects of proposal submittals for compliance with specifications and make recommendations on awards. The evaluation committee must consist of at least three (3) members who are recommended by the RD’s Director as having knowledge of or a working interest in the specified commodities or services. The RD shall designate an evaluation committee member to serve as committee chair.
At the discretion of the RD, Director of Procurement, or designee, interested stakeholders may be engaged to serve as advisors to the evaluation committee. Such stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, representatives of professional associations, community groups, and consultants. Advisors shall not be members of the evaluation committee and shall not participate in the actual scoring, ranking, and/or selection of vendors.
Any member of the public may attend an evaluation committee meeting, but the public may not participate in the evaluation process.

Instructions to Committee Members

An instructional email will be sent to each evaluation committee member with meaningful instructions to comply with.
Attend all scheduled meetings, including any oral presentation (interviews) by proposers. Meetings are recorded and staff should conduct themselves accordingly.
Note: No person shall serve on an evaluation committee if the person has a conflict of interest with respect to the proposer being evaluated.
Note: Committee members are precluded from communicating with each other outside of the Evaluation Committee Meeting(s), and must follow THE CONE OF SILENCE.

Committee Members’ Pre-Meeting Responsibilities

Procurement Services will release the proposals to the evaluation committee members. The evaluation committee members must sign the Conflict of Interest e-form in the County’s electronic procurement system (EPS) prior to accessing the proposals. Once signed and prior to the evaluation meeting, the committee members must individually review proposals in compliance with the instructional email and enter the individual scores for each proposal in the EPS.

Evaluation Committee Scheduling

Procurement Services will coordinate scheduling for evaluation committee members and ensure public notice complies with Sunshine Law. Evaluation committee meetings are scheduled at least 24 hours in advance, unless circumstances arise requiring a shorter time frame (subject to approval by the Director of Procurement).

Guidelines to Evaluate Proposals

The evaluation committee members shall:

(A) Thoroughly review all proposal submittals in accordance with the specification criteria and report any deviations to Procurement Services immediately;
(B) Ensure a thorough, unbiased and equitable evaluation of all proposal submittals and treat all proposers fairly;
(C) Evaluate the proposal submittals based upon the written response to the scope of work and other pertinent information required by the terms of the proposal only;
(D) Refrain from using any personal knowledge or assumptions about the proposer gained prior to the evaluation process; and

QB 2.8 - Demonstrations/Presentations (if applicable)

Responsibilities of the Requesting Department

The RD must provide a complete list of requirements for the demonstration and specify whether the County or the proposer will provide, and ensure County-provided items are available at the demonstration.
Prior to the demonstration, coordinate with Risk Management to determine if proof of insurance is needed, and if required, forward insurance requirements to Procurement Services.
After demonstration, the Evaluation Committee Chair will reconvene the evaluation committee for final scoring.

Responsibilities of Procurement Services

Obtain the proposer's insurance certificate(s) and forward to Risk Management for approval (if required), then schedule the demonstration for each presenter at a mutually agreed location and time.

QB 2.9 - Scoring

The evaluation committee shall evaluate, score, and/or rank the submissions using consensus scoring, individual scoring, or other reasonable methods to determine the ranking of submissions based solely on the published criteria and relative weights thereof.

Procurement Services will provide the pricing score after the evaluation committee has finalized their consensus scoring.

The Evaluation Committee Chair is responsible for preparing an evaluation summary of all evaluation committee meeting(s) including a brief description of the project, an explanation of scoring for each proposal (including details for each evaluation criteria), the final scores, and the committee’s recommendation for award.

QB 2.10 - Tied proposals (Non-CCNA)

In the event two (2) or more proposals receive identical scores, preference will be given in the following order:

A proposer that submitted a signed Drug Free Workplace form¹with the proposal
A proposer that is both a Service-Disabled Veteran Business and a Hillsborough County registered Small Business Enterprise²
A proposer that is a Minority or a Small Business Enterprise, certified or registered by the County³
A proposer that received the most points in the highest-weighted evaluation criteria, as determined by the specifications
Otherwise, the proposer may be awarded by drawing lots. The lots being drawn will be recorded and performed by Procurement Services.

QB 2.11 - Recommendation for selection and award of contract

The Evaluation Committee Chair must submit a signed recommendation and executive summary to Procurement Services. The executive summary must include a written explanation If a proposal is deemed unacceptable.

QB 3 - Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA)

The CCNA⁴ establishes selection and contracting procedures by which the County must select professional firms in the fields of architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, and surveyors and mappers. The CCNA mandates selection based on factors like personnel quality, minority business considerations, past performance, adherence to time and budget, workload, and prior County work. The procedures outlined below ensure the County’s compliance with the CCNA, for selecting professional services.

QB 3.8 - Competitive selection

The evaluation committee shall evaluate, score, and/or rank the submissions using consensus scoring, individual scoring, or other reasonable methods to determine the ranking of firms based solely on the published criteria and relative weights thereof.

Procurement Services will provide Past Performance, Volume of Work, and DM/DWBE Participation scores after the evaluation committee has finalized their consensus scoring.

QB 3.9 - Decrease in scoring

Following the initial ranking, scoring decreases may occur if the evaluation committee considers additional information during a reconvened evaluation committee meeting. Reasons for decreases may include changes in a shortlisted professional firm’s project team that negatively affect their ability to deliver the proposed quality of services, discovery of conflicting or misleading information in the CCNA submission, or evidence of the firm providing misleading information. No scores can increase unless there is a formal presentation.

QB 3.10 - CCNA interviews via formal presentations

Formal presentations may be required at the evaluation committee's discretion. If required, Procurement Services will schedule them based on initial rankings. Attendance by evaluation committee members is mandatory, though presentations will proceed even if members are not present, and no substitutions are allowed.

If formal presentations were held, the evaluation committee members will have the opportunity to adjust their initial consensus score based on the presentation in a subsequent evaluation meeting.

QB 3.11 - CCNA tiebreaker procedure

In the event two or more professional firms receive identical total scores in the initial or final ranking, tiebreakers will be applied as follows:

A professional firm that submitted a signed Drug Free Workplace form⁵ with the proposal.
A professional firm that has the lowest total dollars of work over the past two (2) fiscal years.
A professional firm that received the most points in the highest-weighted evaluation criteria, as determined by the specifications.
Otherwise, the professional firm may be awarded by drawing lots. The lots being drawn will be recorded and performed by Procurement Services.

QB 3.12 - Select and authorize negotiations

After the notice of intent to recommend award is published and the protest period ends, Procurement Services will seek Board approval of the selection and authorization for the RD to negotiate with the top-ranked firm(s).

QB 3.13 - Competitive negotiations

After Board approval, the RD can begin negotiations with the authorized forms. If negotiations with a firm fail, the RD must submit a termination request to Procurement Services, which will notify the firm in writing that the negotiations are formally terminated.

The RD will then proceed to negotiate with the next highest ranked firm(s) as needed until a satisfactory agreement is reached. Board approval may be needed to begin negotiations with the next highest ranked firm(s). All negotiations and the basis for determining fair and reasonable pricing must be documented.

QB 4 - Rejection of proposal submissions

The County may reject any proposal if the proposer or proposal is found to be unacceptable or if rejection serves the County’s best interest.

QB Notes

See Fla. Stat. § 287.087
As set forth in Part III, Section 1 of the Hillsborough County Economic Development Department Small/Minority Business Development Office Operational Procedures, pursuant to the Board directive given at the December 16, 2009, regular meeting based on a staff report regarding Service-Disabled Veterans Preference Program.
Pursuant to Board Resolution No. R06-264, as amended by Resolution No. R11-020, Resolution No. R12-156, and Resolution No. R15-105
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 287.055
See Fla. Stat. § 287.087