09 24 03 RFP Manual

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/09-24-03-rfp-manual 1/38

Purchasing Policy and Procedures Manual September, 2003

CITY OF PENSACOLA

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL MANUAL

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual


City of Pensacola TABLE OF CONTENTS i

Request for Proposal Manual September, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 Procedures and Guidelines for Awarding Contracts by Competitive Sealed Proposals

1.1 Purpose and Policies

Section 2 Overview of the Request for Proposal Process

2.1 Definition2.2 Justification for Use2.3 General Procedures

Section 3 General Requirements of the RFP

3.1 Drafting the RFP3.2 Elements of the RFP

A. RFP Cover SheetB. General InformationC. Schedule of ActivitiesD. Administrative InformationE. Special Terms and ConditionsF. Evaluation/Selection ProcessG. Required SubmittalsH. QualificationsI. Proposal Format RequirementsJ. Specifications/Scope of Work

Section 4 Planning The Evaluation Process

4.1 Appointment of the Evaluation/Selection Committee4.2 Development of Evaluation Criteria

A. General ConsiderationsB. Sample Criteria

4.3 Weighing the Evaluation Criteria4.4 Establishing Minimum Qualification Requirements4.5 Determining the Proposal Rating Method

A. Numerical RatingsB. Narrative Ratings

4.6 The Evaluation Sheet4.7 Cost/Revenue

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual


City of Pensacola TABLE OF CONTENTS ii


Section 5 Solicitation of Proposals

5.1 Public Notice5.2 RFP Availability and Distribution5.3 Communications with Proposers

Section 6 Pre-Proposal Conferences and Site Visits

6.1 Information to Potential Proposers6.2 Scheduling6.3 Conducting

A. Record KeepingB. Agenda of the Pre-Proposal ConferenceC. Agenda of the Site Visit

6.4 Post Conference/Site Visit Activities

Section 7 Addenda to the RFP

Section 8 Receipt of Proposer Submissions

8.1 General Procedures8.2 Letters of Withdrawal8.3 Late Submissions8.4 Opening of Submissions8.5 Sole Responses to the RFP

Section 9 Evaluation Guidelines: An Overview

9.1 Pre-Evaluation Procedures

A. Screening the Evaluation/Selection Committee for Conflicts of InterestB. Screening Proposals for Compliance with Minimum Qualification

RequirementsC. Initial Meeting of the Evaluation/Selection Committee

9.2 Independent Evaluation by Committee Members9.3 Proposal Clarifications9.4 Oral Presentations and Interviews9.5 Determination of Proposer Responsibility9.6 Evaluation Committee's Recommendation9.7 Qualitative Appraisal Evaluation

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual


City of Pensacola TABLE OF CONTENTS iii


Section 10 Evaluation Guidelines: Price

10.1 Evaluating Price Separately from Technical Criteria10.2 Qualitative Appraisal Evaluation - Non-Revenue Generating Solicitations10.3 Qualitative Appraisal Evaluation - Revenue Generating Solicitations

Section 11 The Recommendation For Award

11.1 General Procedures

Section 12 Evaluation Guidelines: Negotiations

12.1 Forming the Competitive Range12.2 Nature of Negotiations12.3 The Conduct of Negotiations12.4 Inappropriate Negotiation Techniques12.5 Best and Final Offers

Section 13 The Unsuccessful Proposer

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Standard Clauses

Exhibit 2 Evaluation Sheet

Exhibit 3 Signature Sheet

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual


City of Pensacola TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Page 1


Section 1 Procedures and Guidelines for Awarding Contracts by Competitive SealedProposals

1.1 Purpose and Policies

These guidelines describe the rules and procedures for awarding contracts by Competitive

Sealed Proposals also known as Request For Proposals (RFP).

The goal is to help facilitate an ethical, efficient, competitive and cost-effective process for acquiring high quality goods and services. Briefly, the purpose and policies underlying theseguidelines serve to:

• Simplify, clarify and standardize the City's procedures;

• Encourage the continued development of appropriate contracting policies and practices;

• Make as consistent as possible the uniform application of these guidelines throughoutthe City departments;

• Insure the fair and equitable treatment of all proposers who respond to solicitations;

• Increase the cost effectiveness of procurements and maximize the purchasing power of public funds;

• Foster effective broad-based competition;

• and safeguard the integrity of the procurement system, protecting against corruption,waste, fraud, and abuse.

This document is intended to assist departments to:

•appropriately determine and justify the use of Competitive Sealed Proposals;

• administer the solicitation and receipt of proposals;

• evaluate proposals;

• conduct negotiations;

• and award contracts.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual


City of Pensacola Section 2 Page 1


Section 2. Overview of the Request for Proposal Process

2.1 Definition

A request sent to vendors asking for a reply to the requirements as listed in the Request for Proposal at a certain time and date. A Request for Proposal allows for the consideration of

factors other than price when selecting a consultant or contractor. While the Invitation to Bid isused for procurements when award can be based on price alone, the RFP method is avaluable means of ensuring that specialized experience, professional skills and innovation arealso given consideration when selecting a contractor. When the requirements of a projectcannot be suff iciently defined, the RFP process is appropriate for soliciting that information theCity requires in order to select the most qualified contractor at the best price to the City.

2.2 Justification for Use

The procedures for awarding contracts by Request for Proposals shall apply when goods andservices are required for a project whose estimated amount fee exceeds $10,000. Thisprocedure shall apply, though not be limited, to the purchase of financial services, accountingservices, investment management, actuarial consulting, risk management and insurance

consulting, claims adjusting, training and instructional services, personnel services, researchand feasibility studies, medical services, computer software development, facility operations,lease or rental of real property, concession agreements, franchise agreements, managementconsulting services, advertising and promotion, ordinance codification and specializedcommunication, data processing, heavy construction and maintenance equipment.

The Request for Proposal method should be used when it has been determined that that usethe Invitation to Bid is not practicable. Use of the RFP method should be considered under thefollowing circumstances:

• specifications cannot be made sufficiently definite and certain to permit selection basedon bid price or evaluated price alone;

• judgment is required in evaluating competing proposals, and it is in the best interest of the City to require a balancing of price, quality, qualifications and other factors;

• testing, experimentation or evaluation is required with a new product or technology or anew source for a product or technology;

• the required services can be provided in a number of ways;

• and/or responses may contain varying levels of service which may require negotiation.

These procedures may not apply to:

• the acquisition of architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, land surveying,mapping, and design-build services which are specifically and separately governed bythe Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA), Section 287.055, Florida Statutes;

• selection of bond underwriting firms and attorney services;

• or to lease of private property for City use;

• or to the routine and emergency purchase of:

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




o commodities, equipment and services required to support the operation of the Cityof Pensacola;

o and construction services relating to the maintenance and repair of buildingfacilities for which the Invitation to Bid is practicable because the scope of work or

the project can be specifically defined by detailed plans and specifications.


The process consists of the development and release of an RFP, evaluation of thoseproposals, negotiations with proposers, if desired, and selection of that proposal which bestcombines price, quality, services and any other factors deemed appropriate.

The RFP process presents complicated challenges. The basis for the decision to use an RFPinvolves not only price, but also such considerations as quality, availability and timeliness.RFPs offer an opportunity for selecting proposals that offer the best mix of a number of criteriain addition to price.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 3 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP

The RFP is the document that describes the goods or services being sought by the department, thespecific requirements that must be met by proposers and the process by which proposers will beevaluated and selected for award. Although each RFP is unique, there are basic elements that everyRFP must contain so that potential proposers understand both the nature and intent of the

procurement and the specific requirements for submitting a proposal. A well written RFP willencourage the submission of quality proposals and support the selection of the one proposal that bestmeets the City's needs.

3.1 Drafting the RFP

Drafting the RFP is the responsibility of the Issuing Department working in conjunction withPurchasing and Risk Management. This includes the evaluation and selection process to beused and the criteria and associated weights. In instances where a consultant is utilized todraft the RFP, the consultant must be advised that their participation in a proposal submitted inresponse to that RFP, whether as a contractor or a subcontractor will not be allowed. The finaldocument must be submitted to Purchasing for review, logging and issuing of a control number.Purchasing shall maintain the master file for all RFPs issued by the City. The Risk

Management department will review the RFP for insurance requirements.

3.2 Elements of the RFP

Although each procurement is unique, there are certain prescribed elements that must becontained in every RFP. A general description of the required sections of the RFP and thecontent areas that each must address are outlined below.

A RFP Cover Sheet

The RFP cover sheet must clearly indicate the name of the Issuing Department and, if appropriate, the specific department/division soliciting the proposal; the title of the RFP;the RFP number issued by Purchasing, the authorized contact person address andtelephone number and email address.

B General Information

A brief statement which identifies the requesting department, describes the relevantoperations which will be affected by the RFP, describes the reason for the RFP andprovides an overview of the requested goods or services relative to achieving specificgoals, including history and background. The proposal must tell the vendors whatrelation the scope of work has to the City’s ongoing program, and must include astatement of the specific goals to be accomplished by the project. (This section may bedescribed as telling a story as to what we need.)

C Schedule of Activities

A schedule of milestones related to the award of the Contract:

• Release date of the RFP;

• Date, time and location of a pre-proposal conference or site visit, if any;

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




• Date by which all written inquiries must be received;

• Proposal due date;

• Projected proposer selection date;

• Projected contract award date;

• Projected contract start date.

D. Administrative Information

A list of statements (“boilerplate”)which address specific issues related to the contractaward process (Exhibit 1).

Intent of Specifications Proposal Withdrawals

Legal Requirements Determination of Award to be Based on Best Interest of CityInterpretations Rejection of Proposals

Sealed Proposals Delivery

Alternate Solutions TaxExceptions to Specifications Payment of Invoices

Proposal Bond Public Entity Crimes

Discounts Licenses, Registration and Certificates

Mistakes Permits and Taxes

Approved Equivalents or Equals Public Records

E. Special Terms and Conditions

This section prescribes any special terms and conditions that may be applicable to aparticular RFP. These might include insurance and bonding requirements, deposits,inspection, or acceptance testing requirements or the type of contract that will benegotiated. This section might also address whether or not a consultant who performs

preliminary phases of work will perform or will be prohibited from participating in suchsubsequent phases.

An RFP may be issued without Special Terms and Conditions which may be negotiatedafter evaluation and ranking of all proposals.

E. Evaluation/Selection Process

This item is a general description of the evaluation process and a list of the factors to beevaluated. Each evaluation factor must be related to the specifications. Keep in mindthat the evaluation factors are the basis for the award.

• a description of the composition of the Evaluation Committee (for example “at least

three persons will be able to evaluate the components of the solicitation);

• a list of objective minimum qualification requirements if any (e.g. licenses, location,defined service area, years of experience, available equipment);

• a list of criteria with corresponding weight that will be applied to the evaluation of allproposals;

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




• a brief description of the procedures that will be used to evaluate the proposals,(e.g. evaluation of required submittals, evaluation of price, oral interviews,presentations).

G. Required Submittals

Clearly define the requirements necessary for a proposal to be considered responsive. At a minimum, the proposal package must be comprised of:

• Technical Proposal – a narrative which addresses the Scope of Work, theproposed approach to the work, the schedule of work and any other informationcalled for by the RFP or which the proposer deems relevant;

• Signature Page - a form, that when completed and submitted with the proposalpackage serves as the proposer’s acknowledgement to contract with the City tosupply the goods or services set fourth in his response to the RFP. (Exhibit 3)

• Price Proposal – a presentation of the proposer’s total offering price, including thecosts for providing each component of the required goods or services and the

dollar amount which will be attributed to subcontractors, if any;

• Acknowledgment of Addenda – a form, that when completed and submitted with theproposal package serves as the proposer’s acknowledgement of the receipt of addenda to the RFP which may have been distributed prior to the proposalsubmission deadline.

H. Qualifications

• Minimum Qualification Response - responses to a list of minimum qualificationrequirements and supporting documentation;

• Statement of Qualification - a statement which may include business and financialreferences, a copy of the most recent certified audit, latest annual reports, list of similar work performed identifying current status and any other pertinent records.In addition, proposers may be asked to submit an organization outline or chartidentifying the names and titles of project team members, reporting relationshipswithin the project, a resume or summary of each project team member includingpast performance on similar projects, or qualifications.

I. Proposal Format Requirements

Prospective offers should be given detailed instructions as to the manner and format thatshould be followed in responding to the RFP. A specific, consistent format for theproposals is helpful in evaluating the responses. It is recommended that a transmittalletter be requested. This letter is a general overview of the bidder’s proposal. It is agood starting point for the Evaluation Committee to see what the bidder is proposing.Remind the proposers to include a signature and pricing page.

A set of instructions on how proposals are to be prepared should include:

• when, where and by what means the City will receive proposals;

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




• the number of signed originals and copies to be submitted;

• page limitations, if any;

• proposer preparation of the envelope or package containing the proposal;

• transmittal letter;

• an explanation of how the vendor proposes to complete the project;

• previously related experience of the contractor;

• a list of references from recent customers;

• a budget breakdown detailing how the vendor arrived at the prices quoted;

• the total cost of the project.

o

Vendor to supply cost and pricing data, as complete as possible to insurethat there are no hidden costs or misunderstandings on costs and prices.

o Cost data is defined as the elements that make up the cost, such as out-of-pocket expenses, and actual expenses of performing a contract. Variable,fixed expenses of performing a contract. Variable, fixed, semi-variable, directand indirect costs must be examined to determine if they are fair andreasonable costs.

o Pricing data is defined as information which would prove that the vendor’sasking price is fair and reasonable. Such information as price lists, purchaseorders from customers showing what the customer paid for the same material,catalog sheets, independent government costs estimates, published market

prices of commodities, competitive published price lists may be used todetermine whether a vendor’s price is fair and reasonable.

o Travel costs and expenses.

J.Specifications/Scope of Work

The most important part of the RFP is its specifications (also known as Scope of Work)which provides as much detail as possible about the goods or services being sought.

This section of the RFP should be introduced by a general statement describing thegoods or services to be provided, a summary of the work to be done and the expectedresult. The body of this section, a detailed description of each required task, should

include:

• directions and requirements to which the proposer must respond pertaining to themanner in which the work is to be performed;

• a clear statement of the work to be preformed, including a quantitative andqualitative description of what is to be furnished by the vendor;

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




• a statement of each service to be provided specifying target population, eligibilityrequirements and expected benefits for each type of service;

• a description, where possible, of staffing requirements and total projected staff hours;

• a listing of realistic and clearly stated completion requirements;

• and, a statement of how the contract will be monitored and how contractor performance will be measured.

Quality specifications identify the basic requirements of a project, while at the same timeaffording, if desired, an opportunity for proposers to be innovative and provide newsolutions or alternatives. Depending on the needs, specifications may also encourageproposers not only to provide detailed responses to the needs but also to offer expertiseor new approaches toward satisfying the RFP requirements.

The City may have become aware of new technologies or systems that were developingconcurrently with the RFP process. For those situations it might be prudent to

incorporate in the RFP a request for the latest available information from the proposers -information that the City may not yet know, but may want to consider.

Conversely, if the City is satisfied that the specified goods or services will completelyaddress its requirements, the specifications should be written in such a manner as todeter proposers from submitting unwanted alternate suggestions.

Clear and concise specifications help determine what the evaluation criteria should beand create a more definitive evaluation process. When specifications leave little room for misinterpretation, the City is better able to support later determinations of proposaldeficiency.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 4 Planning the Evaluation Process

Planning the evaluation process is a critical part of the RFP process. It sets the stage for the eventualproposal evaluation by defining the parameters within which the evaluation will take place. In planningthe evaluation process, the Issuing Department determines how proposals will be evaluated, whatcriteria will be used to evaluate the proposals, the relative importance of each criterion and how the

evaluation will be documented. The Issuing Department will determine who will evaluate the proposals.

4.1 Appointment of the Evaluation/Selection Committee

The Evaluation/Selection Committee is responsible for evaluating proposals based on theestablished criteria and recommending a proposal based on the best combination of qualityand price. Members of the Evaluation/Selection Committee must possess the expertiserequired to perform an independent appraisal of the proposals and be free from bias or apotential or actual conflict of interest.

In general, the size and complexity of an RFP will determine Evaluation/Selection Committeemembership. The Evaluation/Selection Committee may be organized so that each member willevaluate every component of the RFP, or it may be divided into sub-committees (i.e., specific

groups of special expertise) comprised of one or more members responsible for evaluatingonly assigned criteria of the RFP.

For procurements involving more than one department, the committee should include arepresentative from the department(s) that will be the direct user of the goods or services. It isdesirable to have representatives from as many of the other participating department(s) aspossible on the committee.

4.2 Development of Evaluation Criteria

A General Considerations

The criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals should be tailored to each RFP andshould include only those factors that will be relevant to the selection of a contractor.Criteria should be developed by the Issuing Department.

B. Sample Criteria

There is no limit to the number of criteria that may be used. However, too few criteriamay result in insufficient parameters for the evaluation of proposals and may make itdifficult for Evaluation/Selection Committee members to distinguish between good andpoor proposals. For example, a proposal might be selected that is weak in an area thatwas not previously identified with a corresponding criterion, and was not, therefore,subject to evaluation.

The use of too many criteria, on the other hand, may result in the committeeunnecessarily reviewing information not critical to the evaluation. Consequently, thecommittee’s evaluation process will become not only more time consuming but also shiftthe focus away from the truly important criteria.

Sample evaluation criteria, in no particular order of importance include:

• experience and history of the proposer’s firm or individual;

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




• qualifications of the staff members assigned to the project;

• relevant work experience or past performance of the firm on similar projects;

• relevant work experience or past performance of the proposed staff on similar

projects;

• an exhibited understanding of the project and the City’s objectives;

• Proposers detailed plans to meet the objectives of each task, activity etc. pursuantto any schedule;

• cost/revenue;

• the adequacy of a project management plan and methodology;

• previous City experience;

• adherence to proposal requirements as outlined in the RFP (responsiveness);

• oral presentations;

• financial and other resources relevant to the firm’s ability to perform the requiredwork;

• capacity to perform;

• and/or the overall quality of the proposal.

4.3 Weighting the Evaluation Criteria

Once the evaluation criteria have been selected, some measure of their relative importancemust be understood by the Evaluation/Selection Committee and conveyed to potentialproposers within the RFP document. Criteria must be listed in descending order of importanceand may (must) be accompanied by specific weights (either points or percentages totaling aconstant - typically 100).

Inevitably, price will be a major point of discussion. Whether or not price is a weighted criterionwill be at the discretion of the Issuing Department.

4.4 Establishing Minimum Qualification Requirements

Minimum qualification requirements are those objective standards that the Issuing Departmentmay decide a proposer must meet in order to be considered for award. Such objective

standards may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• licenses • location• service area • years of experience• a track record of service • technical/professional certifications

Minimum qualification requirements must be determined at the time that evaluation criteria aredeveloped. Proposers must be informed in the RFP that failure to satisfy these minimumrequirements or to provide documentation that these requirements will be met will render the

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




proposal nonresponsive and ineligible for consideration of award. Minimum qualificationrequirements may neither be waived nor supplemented after proposals have been opened.

4.5 Determining the Proposal Rating Method

Ratings are the means by which the members of the Evaluation Committee express their

evaluation of how well each proposal meets the criteria in the RFP. Ratings must be numericaland may or may not be narrative. In any form, they must communicate whether, and how wellin the judgment of the evaluator, the proposer has demonstrated the ability to respond to therequirements of the RFP.

A. Numerical Ratings

The simplest and most common rating system involves a numerical scale equal to 100.Each criterion is evaluated against the maximum score based on its previouslydetermined weight in the evaluation. The total of all weights, and the maximum score, istherefore 100. A variation of this method allows committee members to assign a pointrating from 1 to 10 for each criterion response. Each rating is then multiplied by theassigned weight of the particular criterion and the total divided by 10. This same system

can be used for any numerical scale.

There are some common pitfalls in the use of numerical ratings that should be avoided.Committee members often assign varying increments of ratings when evaluating aproposal with the best response in a certain area a 10, the ones in the middle a 5, andthe worst a 0. Another committee member might reach the conclusion about the relativevalue of the proposals but assign ratings ranging from 5 to 8 to convey that judgment.This situation can result in a distortion of the overall ratings since one evaluator’s ratingswill have more impact on the results than those of other evaluators.

One way to avoid this problem is for the Evaluation Committee to agree on somereasonable and consistent rating system prior to initiating the evaluation process.

Individual evaluators must be consistent in their own approach to each of the proposals,with comparable proposals receiving similar ratings. Therefore, one evaluator’s toprating of 8 will be as valid as another’s top rating of 10 so long as evaluators areconsistent in applying their own evaluation logic on every proposal they rate. Anydifferences should be addressed when the committee meets to determine its overallratings.

B. Narrative Ratings

Narrative ratings may be used to help avoid the possible distortion of purely numericalratings; however, they may only be used in conjunction with a numerical rating/ranking.

Narrative descriptions, if utilized, must address a proposal’s specific strengths andweaknesses for each criterion. This can be an expressive and useful means of identifying, and later justifying, the committee’s eventual selection.

4.6 The Evaluation Sheet

After the evaluation criteria have been developed and weights assigned, evaluation sheetsmust be used to evaluate the proposals. Each evaluation sheet provides the opportunity for easy-to-read comparisons of all responses to the RFP, and is designed to readily identify therelative capabilities of each proposer in each criteria category. All evaluation criteria and

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




weighted values must be listed. Evaluation sheets become a required end document of theselection process. (See Exhibit 2, “Evaluation Sheet”)

4.7 Cost/Revenue

Cost/revenue may be a weighted or unweighted criteria. In instances where cost/revenue isnot a weighted criteria, cost/revenue must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope andconsidered only after the technical proposals have been evaluated.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 5 Solicitation of Proposals

It is important to attract competitive responses from as many qualified proposers as possible. Thelarger number of contractors aware of a procurement, the more likely it is that the City will receive agreater number of high quality proposals. Contractors become aware of the RFP through the receiptof the RFP, Notices of Solicitation and, in some cases, public advertising.

5.1 Public Notice

In all cases, the City must advertise the solicitation twice prior to the proposal due date. Public noticesmust be placed in newspapers of general circulation including minority newspapers and may be placedin professional publications, industry and association newsletters, magazines or other periodicals aswell as the internet.

The RFP or notice thereof must be sent by Purchasing to vendors on the vendor registration list whohave registered for the commodity code(s) used for the RFP.

5.2 RFP Availability and Distribution

The RFP must be available for public inspection and distribution at a location designated by the Issuing Agency. In cases where the Issuing Department determines that an RFP contains lengthydocumentation, drawings or other items that would be costly for the County to reproduce, the IssuingDepartment may decide to request that potential proposers pay a reasonable fee for such documents.

5.3 Communications with Proposers

Any communications with proposers must be authorized by the contact person(s) designated in theRFP. No communication is permitted between City staff or consultants and potential or actualproposers about any matter related to the procurement which may give an unfair advantage to oneproposer over another. For example, confirming or reiterating information already contained in theRFP is acceptable. However, expanding or supplementing that information is unacceptable unlesssuch new information is disseminated in the form of an addendum to all those known to have receivedthe RFP or who attended a mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference. When appropriate, this contactperson should require the potential proposer to follow up oral inquiries in writing.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 6 Pre-Proposal Conferences and Site Visits

Pre-proposal conferences and site visits further familiarize potential proposers with the requirements of the RFP. They provide potential proposers with a face-to-face opportunity to question the content or intent of the RFP and to interact with City personnel regarding deficiencies or ambiguities they believeare present.

Pre-proposal conferences or site visits are not required. They are recommended, however, for anyRFP in which an opportunity to discuss the RFP or inspect the site might enhance the quality of proposals. The Issuing Department has the option to require mandatory attendance at the pre-proposal conference or site visit.

As an alternate to holding a pre-proposal conference, the department may choose to ask vendors tosubmit questions in writing. A time limit is given to the vendors, after which no further questions will beconsidered. An addendum, which gives answers to the questions , is distributed to all vendors havingthe RFP.

6.1 Information to Potential Proposers

Pre-proposal conferences or site visits must be announced in public notices, Notices of Solicitation and the RFP. Appropriate dates, locations and times must be included.

If attendance is mandatory, it must be clearly stated with a caution that proposals will beaccepted from only those who attended the pre-proposal conference or site visit.

6.2 Scheduling

The Issuing Department, is responsible for scheduling the pre-proposal conference or site visit.Sufficient time should be allowed after the RFP has been issued for potential proposers to

become familiar with the requirements o the RFP. Scheduling should also provide sufficienttime before the proposal is due to allow potential proposers to incorporate the informationgained at the pre-proposal conference or site visit into their proposals.

6.3 Conducting

The Issuing Department is responsible for coordinating the attendance of appropriate Cityrepresentatives and will act as moderator for the conference or site visit.

Any verbal statement of a material nature made at the pre-proposal conference must befollowed up in writing in the form of an addendum and distributed to all prospective proposerspresent at the conference and/or who have obtained a copy of the RFP.

A. Record Keeping

The Issuing Department must maintain a written record of all who attend the pre-proposalconference or site visit, including City personnel. This record should include eachperson’s name, title, signature, corporate name, address and telephone number. TheIssuing Department must record or keep a written record of the pre-proposal conferenceor site visit through the use of a stenographer, tape recorder, videotape or notes takenby appropriate Issuing Department staff. The recording acts as a ready reference andchecklist if there is a need to publish an addendum.

B. Agenda of the Pre-Proposal Conference

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




All City personnel attending the Pre-Proposal Conference on behalf of the IssuingDepartment should be introduced by the moderator at the beginning of the pre-proposalconference. A presentation should be made to summarize the objectives and describethe requirements for the RFP. It is good practice to encourage potential proposers tosubmit written questions prior to the pre-proposal conference. This provides anopportunity for the Issuing Department to prepare meaningful responses to questions

that may require additional research.

When questions have been submitted in advance, the Issuing Department shouldrespond to them in the order that their substance appears in the RFP and withoutidentifying the source of the question.

The Issuing Department must indicate that it may modify or otherwise substantiateanswers given at the conference by issuing an addendum. This is important becauseresponses at a conference may be incomplete or incorrect. If a question can’t beanswered just state that an answer will be researched and issued as part of anaddendum.

C. Agenda of the Site Visit

A site visit is a tour of a physical location related to the requirements of the RFP.Discussion at the site visit is appropriate only when all new information disseminated isrecorded and will be distributed as an addendum to all potential proposers known tohave received the RFP or who attended the site visit if it was mandatory. It is suggestedthat a pre-proposal conference be scheduled in conjunction with the site visit to respondto any questions or concerns.

6.4 Post Conference/Site Visit Activities

The Issuing Department must document the proceedings of the pre-proposal conference anddiscussion at the site visit in the form of a written summary which will become part of thepermanent RFP file. If any new information emerged at the pre-proposal conference or sitevisit, an addendum containing such information must be distributed to those contractors whowere in attendance and, if the conference or site visit was not mandatory, to all contractorsknown to have received the RFP.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 7 Addenda to the RFP

An Issuing Department may need to change an RFP prior to proposal due date. Changes may includerevised submission requirements, revisions in the scope of work, correction of errors or omissions,clarification of ambiguities, the provisions of additional information or answers to questions frompotential proposers. All changes, including those resulting from pre-proposal conference or site visit,

are addenda to the RFP. An addendum is the only authorized and appropriate method for communicating information to potential proposers. Addenda must be distributed to all potentialproposers known to have received the initial RFP or all potential proposers who attended a mandatorypre-proposal conference or site visit.

Addenda become an integral part of the RFP and must be considered by both the proposer whenpreparing their proposal and by the Evaluation Committee when evaluating the proposals.

INFORMATION DISSEMINATED BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN ADDENDA IS NOT BINDING.Responses to telephone or face-to-face inquiries which may give potential proposers an advantagemust be carefully controlled. Any new information released to one potential proposer must bedistributed to all others known to have received the RFP or who attended a mandatory pre-proposalconference or site visit. The Initiating Department is responsible for drafting addenda. All addenda will

distributed by Purchasing who will be responsible for their issuance and distribution.

In order to allow sufficient time for the Issuing Department to provide appropriate responses to theconcerns of potential proposers, it is required that the Issuing Department require that writtenquestions be received by the Issuing Department no later than a specified number of days prior to theproposal submission guideline.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 8 Receipt of Proposer Submissions


The RFP must instruct proposers to address their submissions to the Purchasing Activity andto include their own name and address on the outside envelope or package. Proposals must

be submitted at or prior to the time and date indicated in the RFP.

8.2 Letters of Withdrawal

A proposer may submit a letter withdrawing a previously submitted proposal. A letter of withdrawal received prior to the date and time set for the receipt of proposals shall be effective. After the submission due date, a proposer wishing to withdraw an offer may only do so uponthe expiration of 90 days (or other such longer period as is specified in the solicitation) after the opening of proposals if notification of such withdrawal is received by the Purchasing Activitywriting prior to award

8.3 Late Submissions

ALL DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE ARE LATE ANDWILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

8.4 Opening of Submissions

Documents may only be opened after the date and time set for the submission of proposals. All documents received by the submission deadline are to be opened under the supervision of the Purchasing Activity

8.5 Sole Responses to the RFP

When a single proposal has been received in response to an RFP, an award may berecommended only after the Purchasing Activity has documented in writing that:

• a sufficient number of other contractors had a reasonable opportunity to respond, andwhy as a result of inquiries made by the Purchasing Activity, representative firms chosenot to submit proposals;

• the proposal submitted meets minimum requirements for award and has been fullyevaluated and rated;

• the offered price is fair and reasonable based on a cost or price analysis;

• the contractor is responsible;

• and Resolicitation would not be in the City’s best interest.

The above information must be documented as part of the required Recommendation for Award.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 9 Evaluation Guidelines: an Overview

9.1 Pre-Evaluation Procedures

Proposal evaluation involves an assessment of both the quality of the proposals and the abilityof the proposers to fulfill the requirements of the RFP. The successful proposer will be the one

evaluated most favorably by the Evaluation Committee. Thus, in every RFP, the evaluationprocess is a critical effort and must be carried out efficiently and equitably if it is to be fair andresult in the best contract for the CITY.

A. Screening the Evaluation/Selection Committee for Conflicts of Interest

After all proposals have been received, the Issuing Department must provide theproposals to each committee member and request that they report any actual or potentialconflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an unbiased evaluation of the proposals.

B. Screening Proposals for Compliance with Minimum Qualification Requirements

When the RFP contains prescribed minimum qualification requirements, theEvaluation/Selection Committee is permitted to evaluate only those proposals that havemet these requirements. The Issuing Department must initially screen the proposals andeliminate those that have failed to meet the minimum qualification requirements or other issues of responsiveness. The Evaluation/Selection Committee shall review therecommendations for rejections as a result of a proposal being non-responsive. Whenminimum qualification requirements have not been prescribed, all responsive proposalsreceived prior to the submission deadline must be evaluated by the EvaluationCommittee.

C. Initial Meeting of the Evaluation/Selection Committee

Prior to undertaking the evaluation of the proposals, the Chairperson should hold aninitial meeting to review the pre-established criteria and relative weights, approve theevaluation procedures and discuss other issues relative to the RFP. This is a goodopportunity for the Issuing Department to distribute sets of the received proposals withthe appropriate evaluation sheets to the committee members.

9.2 Independent Evaluation by Committee Members

The Evaluation Committee members independently read and evaluate each proposal. Theythen record their evaluations in the form of ratings on individual evaluation sheets and signand date the sheet.

Upon completion of their initial independent review, and prior to actually evaluating the

proposals, the Evaluation Committee may choose to meet to discuss the proposals as a group.During the independent evaluation period, the Evaluation/Selection Committee may also meetif an issue or concern is identified that requires the full Committee’s attention.

9.3 Proposal Clarifications

The proposals forwarded by the Issuing Department to Evaluation Committee members maycontain clerical mistakes, minor omissions or other irregularities. Alternatively, proposersmight independently recognize a need to clarify their proposals. In either case, clarificationsmay need to be made in order for the committee to properly evaluate the proposals.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




When the Evaluation Committee has determined that there is a need for a clarification, thePurchasing Activity must contact the proposer on behalf of the Evaluation Committee. Therequest for clarification must be in writing and must advise the proposer of the section of theproposal in which clarification in requested. The proposer may only clarify that portion of theproposal.

The request for clarification must not involve any suggestions for improving the content of theproposal. For example, the request should not indicate that the price seems too high or that aspecified service seems too limited. The request may, however, point out obviousdiscrepancies. If one section of a proposal states that “three auditors per day will beprovided”, and later refers to “two per day”, there is an obvious need for clarification. Amisplaced decimal in a quantity or a missing page or paragraph leading to an obviouslyunintended result are other examples of circumstances requiring a clarification.

When proposal clarifications are initiated by the proposer, Purchasing and the IssuingDepartment must decide whether it is in fact the correction of a clerical mistake, a minor omission or other irregularity rather than a presentation of a new concept or an improvement tothe proposal. If deemed to be a clarification, Purchasing will forward the required written

submissions to the Issuing Department.

9.4 Oral Presentations and Interviews

Oral presentations or interviews provide an opportunity for proposers to explain details of their proposal, and for the Evaluation/Selection Committee to interact with and assess the personneland management of the proposer.

Oral presentations or interviews may either be designated as an evaluation criteria andconducted as part of the evaluation process, as described below, or serve as part of thenegotiation process.

When the Evaluation/Selection Committee chooses to conduct oral presentations or interviews,the Issuing Department, after consultation with the Evaluation/Selection Committee, mustprepare appropriate questions or topics to be addressed that are specific to each proposal.Proposers must be given ample notice of their scheduled presentation or interview date. It issuggested that the list of questions or topics to be addressed be included with that notice. Allwritten comments or responses to questions resulting from the presentation or interview, andany accompanying documentation, become a part of the proposal.

Proposers must be advised that it is not an opportunity to change their proposals or presentnew concepts. Proposers may only elaborate on their previously submitted proposals andrespond to any questions posed by the Evaluation Committee. The agenda should includeconsideration of all information previously requested of the proposers by the EvaluationCommittee.

9.5 Determination of Proposer Responsibility

The Evaluation Committee determines at what point in the evaluation process to verifyproposers’ capabilities. Such verification must include, where applicable, but is not limited tothe following:

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




• the contact of at least two references for each proposer still being considered;

• the results of a site investigation and interviews conducted with the proposer’s staff.

The Evaluation Committee must maintain a written report of the reference checks, performanceevaluation reviews and any other forms of verification of proposer capability to the Committee,

and must consider that report before a final recommendation is made.

9.6 Evaluation Committee’s Recommendation

Upon completion of their independent evaluations, the Evaluation Committee meets to revieweach member’s individual ratings and to decide on the combined ranking of the proposals.

After discussing the proposal evaluations as a group, committee members may wish to changea rating to reflect new or previously misunderstood information. It is permissible for evaluationsheets to be amended as a result of such committee discussions.

The Chairperson will compile all of the members’ evaluation sheets to determine the EvaluationCommittee’s overall scoring of the proposals based on a method previously approved by the

Committee. The Committee must now take one of the following actions:

• determine that it is in the best interest of the City to award and make a finalrecommendation for award; or

• determine that it is in the best interest of the City to not recommend any award and torecommend either cancel or resolicit the RFP.

9.7 Qualitative Appraisal Evaluation

For professional services where the cost of the project or service is fixed or the RFP is beingissued as a result of receipt of a grant, a Qualitative Appraisal evaluation methodology may be

used to make a recommendation to the City Manager.

For revenue generating solicitations (i.e. lease of C ity property, concession agreements etc.) AQualitative Appraisal evaluation methodology, with the amount of revenue to be paid to the Citysubmitted in a separate sealed envelope and considered after the quality appraisal evaluationhas been completed, may be used to make a recommendation to the City Manager.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 10 Evaluation Guidelines: Price

There are two methods of considering price when evaluating an RFP. Price may be treated as aseparate component of the evaluation process or as a weighted criteria as part of a qualitativeevaluation.

10.1 Evaluating Price Separately from Technical Criteria (Where price is not a weightedcriteria)

Price is treated as a separate component of the evaluation process. In such cases priceproposals are solicited under separate cover concurrently with the technical proposals. Onlyafter the Technical Proposals have been rated and ranked are the price proposals openedand evaluated. The Purchasing Activity will open the sealed price envelopes and provide theresult to the Evaluation Committee at the appropriate time.

The separate evaluation of price and technical proposals allows the Evaluation Committee toevaluate the technical merits of the proposal without the knowledge and influence of the pricesassociated with them. This may reduce the pressure on the committee to immediately selectthe lowest price proposal. The committee has the option to consider all price proposalssubmitted or only those which correspond to a technical rating considered acceptable or better. Once the price proposals have been evaluated, the committee has the discretion toselect either the lowest priced acceptable proposal or, to choose a proposal with a higher levelof quality at a higher price. Selecting a higher priced proposal requires a detailed justification.

Although price in this process is evaluated separately from technical criteria, the directrelationship between price and technical criteria cannot be ignored. One method of evaluatingprice when it is being considered separately from technical criteria is to calculate a “price per technical quality point” for each proposal. This will produce a representation of the price of thetechnical quality in terms of dollars.

To calculate a “price per technical quality point”, the following formula must be applied:

PRICE

TOTAL TECHNICAL POINTS = PRICE/TECHNICAL POINT Example

ProposalTotal Technical

Price / Points = Points A $30,000 / 374 = $80.21B $29,000 / 355 = $81.69C $42,000 / 385 = $100.38

Based on the outcome in the above example, Proposal A should be strongly considered for selection since its price per technical quality point is the lowest.

This is not the only method for evaluating price. However, where the Issuing Departmentchooses to use a different method, the method must be included as part of the RFP document.

10.2 Qualitative Appraisal Evaluation (except for revenue generating solicitations)

Price can only be used as a weighted criteria as part of the Qualitative Appraisal Evaluationand is considered at the same time as the technical proposals.

The rationale for evaluating price in conjunction with the technical criteria is that the knowledgeof the prices associated with the technical proposals at the outset will result in a better overallevaluation of the proposals. This method is particularly effective in ensuring that when

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




proposers offer unsolicited additional features that have resulted in a higher price, theadvantage they may have gained in terms of high ratings on the technical criteria will be offsetby a correspondingly lower rating when price is evaluated.

Incorporating price into the decision making process before establishing any ranking of theproposals helps to guarantee that more moderately scaled, lower priced proposals will receive

the same consideration as those that offer more than is necessary for a higher price.

As previously discussed, the assignment of rating points for each criterion must be applied byall Evaluation Committee members on a pre-determined uniform approach. When evaluatingprice as a weighted criteria, it is important that the price of one proposal be considered inrelation to the price of all the other proposals. The method for accomplishing this is as follows:

The proposal with the lowest price is given the full weight (total possible points) assigned to thecriterion of price. Every other proposal is given points by the Evaluation/Selection Committeeproportionately in relation to the lowest price.

For example, the criterion of price has been assigned a full weight of 30 points out of 100 andthe proposals being evaluated offer the following prices:

Proposal A - $10,000

Proposal B - $10,500

Proposal C - $12,000

Proposal D - $14,500

The proposal with the lowest price, Proposal A at $10,000, would be given the full weight of theprice criteria, or 30 points, on each evaluation sheet. The proportional number of points to begiven to the remaining proposals would then be calculated as follows:

price of lowest proposal full weight ofprice of proposal being Evaluated X price criteria = POINTS

Example

ProposalLowest / Price BeingPrice Evaluated X

Full WeightPrice Criteria Points

A $10,000 / $10,000 X 30 30.00B $10,000 / $10,500 X 30 28.57C $10,000 / $12,000 X 30 24.99D $10,000 / $14,000 X 30 21.43

The application of the above formula will result in a uniform assignment of points relative to thecriterion of price.

Important: The above formula is tainted if the difference between the lowest and highest priceis more than 50%. Please refer to Appendix C for details.

10.3 Qualitative Appraisal Evaluation (for revenue generating solicitations)

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




The same process is utilized as stated in 10.2 above except that price is not considered untilafter rating of the technical proposals. Based on the technical ranking and price ranking, theEvaluation/Selection Committee will select the best proposal.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 11 The Recommendation for Award


The Evaluation Committee’s final recommendation must be consistent with the RFPspecifications and the evaluation criteria. Any committee member who feels that there are

procedural or substantive issues which prevent their support of the recommendation must beallowed to document that disagreement and include it with the evaluation sheets.

Once the Evaluation Committee has made its recommendation, the Issuing Department shallprepare a Recommendation for Award and submit it through the proper Council Committee

The recommendation must include a narrative of the evaluation and justification of the toprecommended firm based upon the evaluation.

The City Manager is responsible for reviewing and considering the Evaluation Committeerecommendations and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for their approval.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 12 Evaluation Guidelines: Negotiations

It is the intent of the City to make awards based on the proposals as submitted. After the selection of aproposer, with the approval and direction of the City Manager, the City may negotiate certainadjustments or refinements relating to terms and conditions, and cost (revenues) of deliverables withthe selected proposer which are in the best interest of the City.

Therefore, proposers must be advised in the RFP that they should submit their best proposal initially,since negotiations may not take place. However, the opportunity to negotiate is one of the definingcharacteristics of the RFP process. When used appropriately and selectively, negotiations offer anexcellent opportunity to improve the quality of proposals and enhance the overall benefits to the City.

12.1 Forming the Competitive Range

Upon completion of its evaluation of the proposals, the Evaluation Committee may determinethat it is not in the best interest of the City to award solely on the basis of initial proposals. Inthis case, the committee must form a competitive range, or short list, comprised of only thoseproposers who have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. This list may include asmany or as few proposers as the committee still wishes to continue considering. With separate

price proposals involved, a competitive range may be formed only after the price proposalshave been considered. Proposers not included in the competitive range should be notified inwriting by Purchasing in a timely fashion after the recommendation has been forwarded to theCity Manager.

12.2 Nature of Negotiations

The goals of negotiations are to seek refinement, enhancement and improvement of proposalsstill being considered. Negotiations encompass any oral or written communication between thenegotiating team and a proposer that provides an opportunity for the proposal to be revised or modified. It should be noted, however, that if during the course of negotiations the initialrequirements of the RFP are significantly modified, the City must consider issuing a new RFP.

At a minimum, negotiations should include the following elements:

• an attempt to resolve remaining uncertainties or mistakes, if any related to the proposal;

• advisement concerning deficiencies, if any exist, within the proposal;

• an opportunity for the proposer to submit a revision to the original proposal which is to thebenefit of the City.

12.3 The Conduct of Negotiations

Committee shall designate one or more persons each who will be responsible for the conduct

of these negotiations, and who will develop the framework for the conduct of negotiations. Thismay include the discussion of specified terms and conditions, problems or weaknesses in theproposals or areas where changes or improvements are desired. All verbal agreementsreached as a result of negotiations must be confirmed in writing.

12.4 Inappropriate Negotiation Techniques

During the conduct of negotiations it is imperative that the City be diligent about the disclosureof information. While the goals of negotiations are to improve the overall quality of proposals

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




and enhance the overall benefits to the City, the pursuit of these goals should not compromisethe City's obligation to ensure fairness.

A basic rule of negotiations is that one proposer must not be assisted to the detriment of anyother. Although it is acceptable to point out deficiencies in a proposal, it is not acceptable toreveal how one proposal compares to another.

In light of the above, the City must be careful to avoid inappropriate negotiation techniques.

12.5 Best and Final Offers

Best and final offers are the revised and corrected final proposals submitted by proposers after discussions and negotiations. When the City and the top ranked proposer can not reach a finalagreement, negotiations may be entered into with the next ranked proposer or recommendrejection of all proposals. The authorization must be sought from the City Manager in writing.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




Section 13 The Unsuccessful Proposer

The best interests of the City are served when unsuccessful proposers are notified of their status in atimely manner. Prompt notification serves to maintain a positive relationship with proposers and helpsto encourage their participation in future RFP’s.

Prepared by the Issuing Department, notices to unsuccessful proposers may paraphrase or otherwiseidentify in general terms, some or all of the major reasons why their proposal is no longer beingconsidered for award. Such notices, however, should make no comparisons with any other proposalsor specific ratings, nor should they include internal evaluation documentation.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual


City of Pensacola Exhibit 1 Page 1


STANDARD CLAUSES

General Conditions

To insure acceptance, all proposers submitting proposals to the City of Pensacola shall be governed by the following conditions, attached

specifications, and proposal form(s) unless otherwise specified. Proposals not submitted on the proposal form(s) provided shall be rejected,

and proposals not complying with these conditions will be subject to rejection.

1. Intent of Specifications: It is the intent of the specifications attached hereto to set forth and describe a certain service(s) to be

purchased by the City of Pensacola including all materials, equipment, machinery, tools, apparatus, and means of transportation

(including freight costs) necessary to provide the service(s).

2. Legal Requirements: All applicable provisions of Federal, State, County, and local laws including all ordinances, rules, and

regulations shall govern the development, submittal and evaluation of all proposals received in response to these specifications,

and shall govern any and all claims between person(s) submitting a proposal response hereto and the City of Pensacola, by and

through its officers, employees and authorized representatives ...a lack of knowledge by the proposer concerning any of the

aforementioned shall not constitute a cognizable defense against the legal effect thereof. The proposer agrees that it will not

discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age or disability.

3. Interpretations: All questions concerning the specifications or conditions shall be directed in wr iting to the Purchasing Office, or

as instructed on the Request for Proposal Page, at least ten (10) days prior to the proposal opening. Inquires must reference the

proposed service and the date of the proposal opening. Interpretations will be made in the form of an addendum with copies

mailed or delivered to each party represented on the vendors' list. The City Manager shall not be responsible for any other

explanation or interpretation.

4. Sealed Proposals: The specifications and all executed proposal forms must be submit ted in a sealed envelope. All proposals

must be signed by an authorized representative of the proposer. In the event more than one proposal opening is scheduled for the

same date and time, do not include proposals concerning different sets of specif ications within the same envelope. The face of

the proposal envelope shall be plainly marked identifying the service(s) proposed and the date of the proposal opening. It shall

be the sole responsibility of the proposer to assure receipt of proposal at the Purchasing Office, 6th floor of City Hall, prior to the

published time for the proposal opening. No proposal will be accepted after closing time for receipt of proposals, nor will any

offers by telephone, fax or Internet E-mail be accepted.

5. Alternate Solutions: During the drafting of written specifications, a sincere effort is made to describe services best suited to the

needs of the City. However, the City invites proposals with alternate solutions to the performance objectives set forth in the

specifications, unless a particular specification is expressly identified as mandatory.

6. Exceptions to Specifications: In order that consideration be given in evaluating proposals, any exceptions to or deviations from

the specifications as written must be noted and fully explained. The City Manager is the final authority in determining the

acceptability of any exceptions to specifications.

7. Proposal Bond: The particular service(s) outlined within the specifications attached hereto requires that a certified check,cashier's check, or proposal bond made payable to the City of Pensacola in the amount of $XXX.00 accompany yourproposal. To insure its prompt return, please include the company's name and return address on the face of your good faithcheck or draft. Checks or drafts accepted as good faith deposits will be retained within the City's Finance Department until award

and execution of contract is complete, or until a purchase order is issued to the successful proposer. Any proposer withdrawing his

proposal after the proposal opening forfeits the right of return of his good faith deposit.

8. Discounts: Terms offering a discount for prompt payment will be considered in determining the low proposal. The discount

period shall begin whenever (1) the conditions of the specifications have been fully met and the service(s) judged acceptable to

the City of Pensacola or (2) a correct invoice and other required documents have been received, whichever is later. Discounts

offered for a period of less than thirty (30) days will not be considered in determining low proposal.

9. Mistakes: Proposers are expected to examine the conditions, scope of work, proposal prices, extensions, and all instructions

pertaining to the services involved. Failure to do so will be at the proposer’s risk. Unit prices bid will govern in award.

10. Approved Equivalents or Equals: Any manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names, model numbers, etc. listed in the

specifi cations are for in format ion on ly and not intended to limit competition. The proposer may offer any brand for which he is an

authorized representative which meets or exceeds the specifications as written. If the proposal is based on an "approved

equivalent or equal" item, supportive information in the form of the manufacturer's printed literature or brochures, sketches,

diagrams, and/or complete specifications must accompany the proposal. The proposer must explain in detail the reasons why the

proposed equivalent or equal will meet specif icat ions and not be cons idered an exception thereto. The City of Pensacola reserves

the right to determine acceptance of proposed equivalent or equal items.

11. Proposal Withdrawals: No proposal may be withdrawn after closing time for receipt of proposals for a period of sixty (60) days

thereafter.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




12. Determination of Award to be Based on Best Interest of City: There is no obligation on the part of the City to award a contract to

the lowest proposer and the City reserves the right to award a contract or to negotiate a contract with a responsible proposer

submitting a responsive or best alternative proposal with a resulting negotiated contract which is most advantageous and in the

best interest of the City. The City shall be the sole judge of the proposal and the resulting negotiated contract that is in its best

interest and its decision shall be final.

13. Rejection of Proposals: The City of Pensacola reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals, to award proposals on a

spli t-order basis by item number, to waive any irregularities, technicalities, or informali ties, and to re -advertise for proposals whendeemed in the best interest of the City of Pensacola.

14. Delivery: Proposal quotations shall include all freight costs to Pensacola, Florida to a point(s) specifi ed herein or specified at the

time the purchase order is placed. No title to the item(s) ordered nor any risk of loss shall be passed to the City of Pensacola until

after receipt of delivery has been acknowledged by an authorized representative of the City of Pensacola.

15. Tax: The City of Pensacola is exempt from all State and local sales tax.

16. Payment of Invoices: The City of Pensacola issues checks for payment of invoices on the 10th of each month. The signed

receiving copy of the purchase order and a correct invoice must have been received by the Accounts Payable Activity prior to the

4th of the month. Items received on or after the 4th will be processed in the following month. All purchases are subject to

availability of funds in the City’s budget.

17. Public Entity Crimes: A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public

entity crime may not submit a proposal on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a proposal

on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit proposals on

leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant

under a contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount

provided in Section 287.017, for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted

vendor list.

18. Licenses, Registration and Certificates: Each proposer shall possess at the time of submitting its proposal all licenses,

registrations and certificates necessary to engage in the business of contracting (or special contracting if the work to be performed

necessitates a particular type of specialty contractor) in the City of Pensacola. Proposer must also possess all licenses, registrations

and certificates necessary to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations.

19. Permits and Taxes: The bidder shall procure all permits, pay all charges, fees, and taxes, and give all notices necessary and

incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the work. Bidders who use public roads of the City of Pensacola, Florida for

transport of goods of any kind which said goods were transported from a point without the City of Pensacola, Florida to a point

within the City of Pensacola shall obtain a “Use of St reets” permi t for a fee not in excess of the license paid for by local licensees

engaged in the same business.

20. Public Records: Any material submitted in response to this Request for Proposal will become a public document pursuant to

Section 119.07, F.S. This includes material which the responding proposer might consider to be confidential or a trade secret.

Any claim of conf iden tial ity is waived upon submission, e ffective af ter opening pursuant to Section 119.07, F .S.

ANY AND ALL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED HERETO WHICH VARY FROM THESE GENERALCONDITIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE.

Special Conditions

Negotiations - The contents of the proposal of the successful vendor will become the basis for contractual negotiations and a part of the

final contract.

Prime Vendor Responsibilities - The selected vendor will be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in his proposal.

The selected vendor will be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all chargesresulting from the contract.

Delays - The City of Pensacola reserves the right to delay scheduled due dates if it is to the advantage of the project.

Governing Law - Any dispute under a resulting contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of

Florida. Venue for any actions arising out of any contract will lie in Escambia County, Florida.

Termination - It shall be the sole right of the City of Pensacola to terminate any contract upon written notification to the Contractor.

Award Criteria - If this proposal is not properly signed or if any changes are not initialed , it will be considered non-responsive. Proposals

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




must be complete by standard word processor and signed in ink.

The City will accept the proposal(s) that appears to be in its best interest, and matters other than price will be considered in determining

the award. No binding contract will exist between the vendor and the City until the City executes either a written purchase order or a

contract.

The City of Pensacola reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or parts thereto, to waive any informalities in any proposal

and to reject the proposal of any individual or firm who has been delinquent or unfaithful to any contract with the City of Pensacola.

Testing - Vendor will develop, in cooperation with the City of Pensacola, an Acceptance Testing Plan demonstrating system acceptability.

A vendor conducted acceptance test shal l be successfully completed and system accepted by the Ci ty of Pensacola, prior to f inal payment.

Miscellaneous - Vendors are cautioned to verify their proposals before submission, as amendments to or withdrawal of proposals

submitted after time specified for opening of proposals will not be considered. All proposals received afte r the time stated i n paragraph

one, first page, of this request may not be considered and will be returned to the vendor. The vendor assumes the risk of any delay in the

mail or in handl ing o f the mail by emp loyees of the City of Pensacola, or any private courier, regardless whether sent by mail or by means

of personal delivery. The vendor assumes responsibilit y for having the proposal deposited on time at the place specified.

Vendor certifies that he/she has read, understands, and wi ll fully and faithfully comply with this Request For Proposal, its attachments and

any referenced documents. Vendor also certifies that the prices offered were independently developed without consultation or collusion

with any of the other vendors or potential vendors, and without any offer of gifts, payments or other consideration to any City employee,

officer, elected official, or vendor who has or may have had a role in the procurement process for the services and or goods/materials

covered by this contract.

Failure or delay by the City to exercise any right, power, or privilege shall not be deemed a waiver thereof.

Warranty and Use - The Vendor shall warrant all components, hardware, connections, and wiring to be free from defects in manufacture

and operations for a period of three (3) years after final acceptance by the City of Pensacola. Components, hardware, connections and

wiring found to be defective due to improper installation shall be removed and replaced with new material, including labor, at no cost to

the City of Pensacola.

Proposal Conditions

In submitting a response to this Request for Proposal, vendors hereby understand the following:

1. All project participants, consultants, engineers, and general vendors, must comply with all applicable Federal, State and

County laws pertaining to contracts entered into by governmental agencies, including non-discriminating employment.

2. Alternate proposals (two or more proposals submitted) will be considered for award. The City reserves the right to make the final

determination of actual equivalency or suitability of such proposals with respect to requirements outlined herein.

3. The proposals submitted, and any further information acquired through interviews, will become, and are to be considered, a

part of the final, completed contract. If there is any variance or conflict, the proposal specifications, conditions, and

requirements shall control.

4. The City may award a purchase contract, based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. Vendor's initial offer

should therefore be based on the most favorable terms available from a price and technical standpoint. The City may,

however, have discussion with those vendors that it deems in its discretion to fall within a competitive range. It may also

request best and final offers from such vendors, and make an award and/or conduct negotiations thereafter.

5. The City reserves the right to negotiate separately with any vendor after the opening of this Request for Proposal when such

action is considered in its best interest. Subsequent negotiations may be conducted, but such negotiations will not constitute

acceptance, rejection, or a counter-offer on the part of the City.

6. Prices and services proposed may not be withdrawn for a period of (insert # of days) days immediately following the

opening of this Request for Proposal.

Prices MUST also be free of federal, state, and local taxes unless otherwise imposed

by a governmental body, and applicable to the material on the proposal.

7. Vendors MUST return one signed original and (insert number of copies) (X) copies of the response to City of Pensacola,

Purchasing Activity, located on the 6th floor of City Hall, 180 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida or mailed to the City of

Pensacola, Purchasing Activity, P.O. Box 12910, Pensacola, Florida 32521-0062 before the specified date and time.

8. Envelopes containing vendor’s response must be sealed and marked on the lower left-hand corner with the vendor name

and address, proposal number, proposal opening date, and proposal opening time.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




9. The City interprets the term "best qualified proposer" as requiring the City to: (a) choose between the kinds of materials, goods,

wares, or services subject to the proposal, and (b) determine which proposal is most suitable for its intended use or purpose.

The City can consider, among other factors, such things as labor cost, service and parts availability, availability of materials and

supplies, and maintenance costs of items upon which proposals are received. The City can determine any differences or

variations in the quality or character of the material, goods, wares, or services performed or provided by the respective vendors.

10. All requested information must be supplied. If you cannot respond to any part of this request, state the reason. You may

provide supplemental information, if necessary, to assist the City in analyzing your proposal.

11. A purchase order and/or contractual agreement constitutes the City’s offer to the service provider upon the terms and

conditions stated herein, and shall become binding meeting the terms set forth herein when it is accepted by

acknowledgment or performance.

12. The City shall retain the right to reject any and/or all proposals received, and responses to this and/or related documents, if

determined to be non-responsive in any form, or if determined to be in the best interest of the City. It shall further be

understood that the vendor's sureties and insurers are subject to the approval of the City.

13. The vendor hereby certifies that he/she has carefully examined all of the documents for the project, has carefully and

thoroughly reviewed this Request for Proposal, that he/she has inspected the location of the project (if applicable), and

understands the nature and scope of the work to be done; and that this proposal is based upon the terms, specifications,

requirements, and conditions of the Request for Proposal and documents. The vendor further agrees that the performance time

specified is a reasonable time, having carefully considered the nature and scope of the project as aforesaid.

14. The vendor certifies that this proposal is submitted without collusion, fraud or misrepresentation as to other vendors, so that all

proposals for the project will result from free, open and competitive proposing among all vendors.

15. The City will not be responsible for any expenses incurred by any vendor in the development of a response to this Request for

Proposal. Further, the City shall reserve the right to cancel the work described herein prior to issuance and acceptance of any

contractual agreement/purchase order by the recommended vendor even if the City has formally accepted a recommendation.

Evaluation/Selection Process

The Evaluation/Selection Committee is responsible for evaluating proposals based on the established criteria and recommending a

vendor of choice based on the best combination of quality and price. The committee will conduct the evaluation process as follows:

1. Review and rank all responses

2. Select the best qualified vendor based on review and ranking

3. Schedule an oral presentation and demonstration.

4. Schedule site visits as appropriate.

5. Select qualified vendor of choice.

Selection Procedure

Selection shall be made of the vendor deemed to be fully qualified and best suited among those submitting proposals, on the basis

of the factors involved in the Request for Proposal, including price. Negotiations shall then be conducted with the vendor selected.

Price shall be considered, but need not be the sole determining factor.

Selection Criteria

The selection process will be based on the responses to this Request for Proposal and any interviews that may be deemed necessary to

verify the ability of the vendor to provide the services as requested. An appointed committee will conduct the selection process based on

the responses that meet the following criteria:

1. Meet all Request for Proposal objectives, conditions, and miscellaneous instructions and requirements as outlined herein.

2. Experience/qualifications of vendor with contracts for services similar in scope of those being requested.

3. Vendor’s understanding of the scope of the objectives and its approach to completing the project.

4. Inclusion of a company’s verifiable work experience references which are relevant to this type of request.

5. A review of the detailed schedule of all costs as furnished.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




No negotiations, decisions, or actions shall be initiated by any company as a result of any verbal discussion with any City employee prior

to the opening of responses to this Request for Proposal. The City of Pensacola reserves the right to select the proposal which best meets

the required quality requirements and technical specifications

Submittals

1. Vendor will address each of the items listed in Section V. Scope of Work as to how the vendor will meet each of these

requirements.

2. Vendor shall submit an architectural diagram of the proposed solution.

3. Vendor is to provide specific information as to the implementation process for their hardware upgrade. Recommended time

frames and tasks should be defined.

4. Vendor will provide detailed descriptions of how training will take place for City of Pensacola MIS personnel.

5. Vendor is to include a draft contract with response.

6. Vendors are to provide brief experience summaries of all proposed key personnel who will be assigned to this project, to include

their related experience and their proposed roles for this project.

7. Vendors must provide a summary of their history, experience and qualifications, including years in business, locations, size,

annual sa les, product evolution, and scope of product line, engineering staff, maintenance qualifications and financial stability.

8. Vendors are to provide a list of all installations for the past three years and specify on this list those installations that are of a

similar size and profile as the City of Pensacola.

9. Vendor will provide the City of Pensacola with referral sources for contact. These referral sources should be similar in size and

profile of the City of Pensacola’s proposed Internet configuration if possible. Vendor wi ll also specify those installations closest

to the City of Pensacola geographically.

10. Vendor is to provide detail cost analysis to complete this entire project as described in section V. Scope of Work and other

sections above. This will inc lude one-time costs and recurring costs.

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual




CITY OF PENSACOLAPROPOSAL NO. (XX-XX)

(Project Name)

EVALUATION SHEET

Name of Company

Partners of Affiliates:

Potential Rating

1. Ability to meet the functional requirements 40%

2. Cost 40%

3. Company Experience. 10%

4. Adaptability and interface to other systems 10%

100%

5. Oral Presentation\Demonstration\Site Visits

COMMENTS:

7/31/2019 09 24 03 RFP Manual



SIGNATURE SHEET

PROPOSAL NO. XX-XX

The undersigned, as Vendor, does declare that no other persons other than the Vendor herein namedhas any interest in this proposal or in the contract to be taken, and that it is made without any

connection with any other person or persons making a proposal for the same articles, and it is in allrespects fair and without collusion or fraud. The undersigned further declares that he has carefullyexamined the specifications and is thoroughly familiar with their provisions and penalties.

The Vendor proposes and agrees that, if this proposal is accepted, to contract with the City of Pensacola, Florida, in the form of contract specified, to furnish all the material, equipment, machinery,tools, apparatus, labor, means of transportation (including freight costs) necessary to provide:

(Project Name)CITY OF PENSACOLA

Legal Name of Firm:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Signature:

Name (type/print):

Title:

Telephone: Fax No.: Date:

Email Address

To receive consideration for award, this signature sheet must be returned as part ofyour response.