Design_Services_RFQ_Selection_Process_Manual.pdf

DESIGN SERVICES

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)

SELECTION PROCESS MANUAL

Marion County Public Schools

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

LOBBYING 1

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) SELECTION PROCESS 1

OVERVIEW 1

SELECTION COMMITTEE 2

SELECTION COMMITTEE COMPOSITION 2

ORIENTATION 3

SELECTION CRITERIA 3

ADVERTISING 3

RECEIPT AND OPENING OF RESPONSES 3

SELECTION PROCESS 3

STEP 1 – REVIEW RESPONSES AND DEVELOP SHORT LIST 4

PRE-SCREENING CHECKLIST 4

INITIAL SCREENING 4

FORM 1 INSTRUCTIONS 4

RELATED PROJECT OR CONTINUING CONTRACT EXPERIENCE 4

PROJECT TEAM 5

OFFICE LOCATION 5

MINOTITY, WOMAN-OWNED OR SMALL BUSINESS 6

STEP 2 – PRESENTATIONS, INTERVIEWS, AND RANKING 6

FORM 2 INSTRUCTIONS 7

PROJECT TEAM 7

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 7

TIMELINE AND QUALITY CONTROL 7

COST CONTROLS/VALUE ENGINEERING 8

KNOWLEDGE OF SITE AND LOCAL CONDITIONS 8

VOLUME OF WORK WITH MCPS 8

RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD 9

NEGOTIATION AND AWARD PROCESS 9

SOLICITATION PROCESS CLOSE OUT 10

APPENDIX 1 – RFQ SELECTION CRITERIA

• SELECTION COMMITTEE CONE OF SILENCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM

• SELECTION COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIALITY and CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM

• PRE-SCREENING CHECKLIST

• INITIAL SCREENING – FORM 1

• SELECTION COMMITTEE EVALUATION – FORM 2

• RECOMMENDED RUBRIC

1. INTRODUCTION

The Marion County Public Schools (MCPS) Facilities Department (Facilities) collaborates with the Procurement Services Department (Procurement) to facilitate the solicitation and selection processes for design and design-related services required by the District.

Facilities define the scope of work, budget and specifications for construction, renovation, and deferred maintenance work needed at District campuses. Procurement ensures that District procurement actions comply with School Board policies and that all transactions are carried out in a fair, objective and unbiased manner under the highest ethical standards.

The provisions of Florida Statutes, Chapter 112, Part III, Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, and the School Board’s policies apply to all District employees.

The purpose of this RFQ Selection Process document is to define District processes for selecting providers of design services for architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering and other appropriate consulting services. Designers selected pursuant to the District’s RFQ Selection Process shall be required to offer design services, potentially including a design study, and all phases of design and construction administration and any additional or associated work or extensions of the work on the site, as may be necessary for the advertised project. These services are not limited to the process of building, altering, repairing, improving, or demolishing any structure or building, or other improvements including roadways, utilities, and facility site work.

LOBBYING

From the time a formal solicitation is released until an award is made by the School Board, vendors, contractors, consultants, or their representatives are prohibited from lobbying any Board Member or District Personnel regarding the formal solicitation. All inquiries must be written and directed to Procurement. Lobbying is defined as any action taken by an individual, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, syndicate, corporation, and all other groups who seek to influence the governmental decision of a Board Member or District Personnel on the award of a contract. Lobbying by any respondent or any individual on behalf of a vendor will result in rejection/disqualification of said response.

Violation of the provision regarding lobbying may also result in debarment of the vendor.

2. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) SELECTION PROCESS

A. OVERVIEW

The following basic procedures will be followed to procure professional services in those situations to which the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA) applies, including to procure professional design services. This process shall be referred to as the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Selection Process.

All responses received on time that satisfy the minimum RFQ requirements shall be scored and ranked by the Selection Committee in accordance with the established screening criteria. A short list of top-ranked Respondents will be invited to make oral presentations to the Selection Committee. The Committee will score and rank short-listed firms in accordance with the scoring criteria defined in the specific RFQ.

B. SELECTION COMMITTEE

The goal of the Selection Committee is to evaluate the Respondents on an equitable basis.

Committee meetings shall be facilitated by the Procurement designee. All vendor contact and/or communication regarding the RFQ or the RFQ selection process shall be made in writing to the Procurement designee.

SELECTION COMMITTEE COMPOSITION

Each RFQ Selection Committee shall be comprised of a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of nine (9) voting members. Those members that are required to participate on the committee are noted. Any position that is required may be filled by a designee of a voting member. Procurement and Facilities Department administrators will decide in advance of releasing each RFQ the number and composition of departments to be represented, based on the scope of work.

Representatives from any of the following areas may participate on the committee and department administrators/supervisors will select their designee:

1. Procurement (non-voting facilitator) (required)

2. Business Services (including, but not limited to CFO, Finance, and Food Service)

(required)

3. Facilities Department Director (required)

4. Facilities Department Construction Coordinator (required)

5. Operations (including, but not limited to Support Services, Technical Services, Custodial, and Facilities)

6. Security, Risk, and Safety

7. Curriculum & Instruction (including, but not limited to Tech & Info Services, Principal, Supervisor, CTE)

8. At least one alternate District staff member should participate on the committee.

The scores of an alternate member shall only be considered and tabulated if a primary member is unable to complete the interviews and selection process, in which case the primary member’s scores shall not be considered or tabulated.

9. Community Representative(s) designated by the Superintendent with no conflict of interest with respect to the specific RFQ, as determined by Procurement and Facilities. If possible, up to two community members shall participate on projects greater than $15 million in value.

i. An Alternate for the Community Representative may also be selected to take part in the process in the event the primary member is unable to attend a meeting. If selected, the Alternate shall participate in Orientation and Committee meetings.

ii. Lobbying and conflict of interest restrictions that apply to District staff shall also apply to the community representative.

Each Committee Member shall complete and sign the Evaluation Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Form and Cone of Silence Acknowledgment Form. Committee meetings will comply with the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law. Notice of public committee meetings shall be posted on the Facilities web page that originates at:

https://www.marionschools.net/departments/facilities/public_information https://www.marionschools.net/departments/facilities/public_information

ORIENTATION

Prior to commencing oral presentations by the short-listed Respondents, the Procurement designee shall review the scoring criteria in the RFQ Selection Process document and familiarize members with the provisions of the public records law, the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law, and the scoring instrument (Form 2).

C. SELECTION CRITERIA

Standard selection criteria are defined in Appendix 1, RFQ Selection Criteria (Template).

The template defines the process for RFQ Qualification and Selection Criteria. Each RFQ may have unique requirements that result in customizing the RFQ criteria, points, and/or weighting, in advance of publishing the RFQ. Adjustments to RFQs for projects greater than $10 million require Board approval. If required, project-specific RFQ Selection Criteria shall be established in advance of publishing the RFQ and shall be included in the solicitation.

D. ADVERTISING

Prior to advertising, Facilities will collaborate with Procurement to develop a vendor list inclusive of firms registered with the School District and others identified through research who may be interested in responding to the specific RFQ. The District will attempt to contact vendors who have expressed an interest in submitting a response to RFQs for construction-related services.

Procurement will prepare a legal notice and submit it to the Facilities Department Director for review. Upon approval, the information will be submitted to the local and/or regional newspapers of general circulation for advertising in accordance with Florida Statutes.

Based on HB 7049 Legal Notice the advertisement on the MCPS Main Homepage with a link to the documents shall suffice in lieu to the advertisement in local and/or regional newspapers. In addition, the RFQ will be publicly posted on the Procurement website. All publications will specify the date, time, and location of the mandatory pre-proposal conference if one is requested by the District, and when responses are due.

E. RECEIPT AND OPENING OF RESPONSES

Responses to the RFQ will be received by Procurement and publicly opened at the date, time, and location specified in the RFQ or any addenda.

F. SELECTION PROCESS

The selection process includes the following steps:

STEP PURPOSE DESCRIPTION

1A Verify

Minimum Qualifications

Review written Responses for compliance with minimum RFQ requirements.

1B Score and

Rank Written Responses

Review and score written Responses that comply with minimum RFQ requirements, and develop a short list of top-ranked Respondents.

Both, the initial review meeting as well as the final scoring meeting will be open to the public and may be recorded.

2 Score and

Rank Presentations

Presentations, Interviews, and Ranking: Respondents on the shortlist and their project team deliver presentations that demonstrate their capabilities and proposed approach to the specific project. Presentations are scored and ranked.

The interviews are not open to the public and will be recorded in compliance with F.S. 286.0113. The final tabulation meeting is open to the public and may be recorded.

Appendix 1, RFQ Selection Criteria, describes the District’s standard selection criteria, points that may be earned per category, and weight assigned to each selection category. If a project has unique requirements, adjustments to the standard selection and scoring criteria, including categories, points allocated per category, or weight per category, may be made during the planning phase in advance of the release of the RFQ. Such modifications shall be vetted by the Procurement and the Facilities Department Director, with justification for the modifications documented in the contract file, in advance of the RFQ release. All RFQ documents shall consistently reflect any changes. RFQ adjustments to projects greater than $10 million shall require Board approval.

STEP 1 – REVIEW RESPONSES AND DEVELOP SHORT LIST

The purpose of Step 1 of the selection process is to review the responses to the RFQ for compliance with the minimum requirements, conduct an objective evaluation of all compliant responses, and develop a Short List of the most qualified Respondents.

PRE-SCREENING CHECKLIST

After opening all timely responses, Procurement and Facilities staff will complete a Pre- Screening Checklist to determine whether Respondents have met the minimum RFQ requirements. Proposals that meet all requirements will proceed to the Initial Screening phase. As appropriate, validation of financial information received may be conducted by District financial services and/or audits staff. At the District’s discretion, for large projects, an independent Consultant may perform this task for the District.

INITIAL SCREENING

Initial Screening – Form 1 shall be completed for each response that complies with the RFQ minimum requirements, as reflected on the Pre-screening Checklist. Respondents will be evaluated and scored on the information presented in their RFQ Response and other quantifiable relevant information on file with the District. Each Respondent will be ranked based on their Form 1 Total Score.

FORM 1 INSTRUCTIONS

A. RELATED PROJECT OR CONTINUING CONTRACT EXPERIENCE

Consideration will only be given to the successful completion of previous projects comparable in scope, size, and complexity for categories 1 and 2, and to years of Continuing/Term Contract experience for category 3. Respondents must list up to five

(5) projects and Continuing/Term Contracts that best illustrate the experience of the firm. Projects must have been completed and term contracts must have been commissioned within the last fifteen (15) years. Projects listed may not be considered for more than one category.

1. EXPERIENCE WITH FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS

PROJECTS K-20 (MAXIMUM 30 POINTS) Consider comparable SREF projects for which the Respondent has provided the general required services for Florida Public School Systems K-20 clients.

SCORING: Each creditable project = 6 points

2. EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER PROJECTS (MAXIMUM 20 POINTS)

List comparable non-SREF projects for which the responding firm has provided the general required services for clients other than Florida Public School Systems clients.

SCORING: Each creditable project = 4 points

3. EXPERIENCE WITH CONTINUING/TERM CONTRACTS

(MAXIMUM 20 POINTS) List comparable Continuing/Term Contracts for which the responding firm has provided the general required services for clients.

SCORING: Each year of each creditable Continuing/Term Contract = 4 points

B. PROJECT TEAM (MAXIMUM 20 POINTS)

1. PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL STAFF (MAXIMUM 10 POINTS) This component describes the general and specific project-related capabilities of the Respondent’s in-house staff and should demonstrate the depth of the firm’s organization, including management, technical, and support staff.

This also shall include any other discipline that is not included in the in-house staff (for example Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing engineers, structural engineers, etc.) Respondents should emphasize employees’ experience with public educational projects.

SCORING: Based on relevant experience in relation to the project.

2. STAFF ADEQUACY (MAXIMUM 10 POINTS) This component describes the adequacy of the in-house office staff to show the capability to furnish required services. List recent, current, and projected projects based on the design fee. Provide a summary on capability of proposed staff to furnish requested services.

SCORING: Based on relevant experience in relation to the project.

C. OFFICE LOCATION (MAXIMUM 10 POINTS)

Identify the location of the responding firm’s office which will have direct responsibility for the proposed project(s)/contract.

SCORING: Points will be automatically assigned based on the office location of the submitting firm. Location means the address where the business entity has maintained a permanent place of business with full-time employees for a minimum of one (1) year prior to the date of issuance of the request for qualifications. The permanent place of business may not be a post office box, but a physical address. The Respondent must actually conduct business from that location. In the case of a joint venture (JV), the JV will be assigned points based on the office location of the Lead JV Partner.

D. MINORITY, WOMAN-OWNED OR SMALL BUSINESS (5 POINTS)

A respondent that is a Minority, Woman-Owned Business, or Small Business shall be allotted 5 points. Respondent must be certified by one of the following to qualify as Minority, Woman-Owned Business, or Small Business:

• State of Florida Office of Supplier Development (MBE)

• Federal Government 8(a) program

• US SBA Veteran Certification (VOSB or SDVOSB)

• US SBA Woman-Owned (WOSB or WBE)

• Florida Department of Transportation Small or Disadvantaged Business

Enterprise (S/DBE) Programs, or

• City of Ocala DSBE programs

In the case of a Minority/Woman-owned or Small Business joint venture (JV), all partners in the JV must qualify individually and jointly as a Minority/Woman-owned or Small Business. A copy of the Minority/Woman-owned or Small Business certificate(s), in the name of the JV, must be submitted in the RFQ response.

Upon conclusion of the Initial Screening, each firm will be notified, of whether or not, they have been selected to make a presentation to the Selection Committee. Only firms selected to interview will be contacted for discussions or to make a presentation to the Selection Committee.

A minimum of three firms with the highest scores should be Short Listed and evaluated through oral presentations and interviews. The Procurement designee will invite Short Listed firms in writing to make an oral presentation before the Selection Committee. The written notice will indicate the date, time, location, and schedule for the presentations, and advise of presentation scoring criteria specified in the RFQ. Time will be allowed for questions and answers after each presentation/interview.

STEP 2 – PRESENTATIONS, INTERVIEWS AND RANKING

During the public Selection Committee meeting, the Committee members will evaluate and score the short listed firms based on their written RFQ responses and oral presentations/interviews using the Selection Evaluation Committee – Form 2. Committee members may discuss their score sheets and decision rationale. A staff member from Procurement will serve as the facilitator and advise on compliance matters. Committee

LOCATION SCORE

Marion County 10 Adjacent County (Alachua, Levy, Citrus, Sumter, Lake, Volusia, Putnam)

State of Florida 3 Outside Florida 0 members will have the opportunity to ask questions during the questions and answer (Q&A) session after each presentation. Selection Committee members shall be allowed to change their score sheets after the Selection Committee discusses the Responses, if necessary.

Interviewing firms are advised that any commitments/representations made during interview presentations, discussions, or Q&A sessions are subject to incorporation into the Agreement for Services with the Board and may be used in future evaluation of the selected firms’ performance. Interviewing firms will be expected to address the following key points during their presentation.

• Project Team

• Approach and Methodology

• Timeline and Quality Control

• Cost Controls/Value Engineering

• Knowledge of Site and Local Conditions

• Volume of Work with MCPS

Each member’s final score sheet shall be submitted to the Audits Department designee who will tabulate them. In order to determine the final evaluation score for each firm, the highest and lowest of the Selection Committee scores for each firm will be dropped and an average of the remaining scores, to develop a final evaluation score. The final ranking for each firm shall be determined by the final evaluation score.

FORM 2 INSTRUCTIONS – FINAL EVALUATION (MAXIMUM 110 POINTS

TOTAL)

A. PROJECT TEAM- (MAXIMUM 25 POINTS)

Interviewing firms should identify actual staff to be assigned to this project, or describe their ability and experience, and identify the function of each within their organization and their proposed role on this project/contract. Respondents should provide an organizational chart, as it relates to the proposed project, indicating key personnel and their relationship to this project. It should be understood that those individuals listed as the firm’s project team in the RFQ response, will actually execute the project.

B. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY (MAXIMUM 25 POINTS)

Interviewing firms should demonstrate verbally and/or visually their overall plan/approach to the project(s). Firms should demonstrate their knowledge of applicable building codes, including State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF), and regulations for the design of public educational facilities. Firms should demonstrate their ability to perform constructability analyses for the advertised project during the design and construction phases and describe at least one specific example of such an analysis.

C. TIMELINE AND QUALITY CONTROL (MAXIMUM 15 POINTS)

Interviewing firms should describe scheduling techniques used to effectively manage and execute projects similar to the advertised project. Firms should demonstrate their approach to quality control/assurance throughout the various phases of the project.

D. COST CONTROLS/VALUE ENGINEERING (MAXIMUM 15 POINTS)

Interviewing firms should demonstrate their ability to evaluate design/building systems, construction techniques, and materials to optimize available project resources. Firms should have specific examples of how they would implement on the specific project.

E. KNOWLEDGE OF SITE AND LOCAL CONDITIONS (MAXIMUM 20

POINTS)

Interviewing firms should demonstrate their knowledge of the site and local conditions that might influence the design approach. In addition, firms with previous MCPS experience should address their experience with those projects as an indication of their ability to deliver quality workmanship in an effective and timely manner. Firms without previous MCPS experience should address their experience with other projects as an indication of their ability to deliver quality workmanship in an effective and timely manner.

F. VOLUME OF WORK WITH MCPS (MAXIMUM 10 POINTS)

Pursuant to F.S. 287.055(4)(b) with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of work, the District shall evaluate data showing total dollar amounts of projects awarded to Respondent within the past two years. For purposes of this analysis, the award date shall be the date of contract approval by The School Board of Marion County and the two-year period shall be the two-year period prior to the response deadline for the respective RFQ. The dollar amount of the projects awarded will reflect the estimated construction budget listed on the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for each project. The District will not consider work performed under continuing contracts in the volume of work with MCPS.

Dollar Value of MCPS Projects Score Less than $50,000,000 10 points $50,000,001 - $100,000,000 5 points More than $100,000,000 0 points

Beginning July 1, 2025, and each July 1 thereafter, the department shall adjust the dollar value of MCPS projects on the preceding June 30 by using the change in the June-to-June Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

This item will be scored by the Design Coordinator prior to the interview with the objective of effecting an equitable distribution of work among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selecting the most highly qualified firm(s).

In the event of a tie (identical final score for two (2) or more interviewing firms), preference for the selection shall be given to firms in the following tiebreaker sequence:

1) Summation of each firm’s Form 1 and Form 2 scores. The firm with the highest total score shall be the highest-ranked firm; and

2) If a tie remains, then the top-ranked firm shall be determined by a vote of the Selection Committee.

G. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD

a. After determination of the highest-ranking firm is finalized, that firm shall be recommended to the Board to move forward to begin contract negotiations.

b. License/Insurance: The successful firm(s) must have the proper license and insurance coverages for the required services. Firms must submit proof of license and insurance coverage. Sample certificates of license and insurance coverage for the required services include, but are not limited to the following:

1) Professional License either for the corporation or the principal partner of the firm;

2) Professional Liability Insurance Practice Policy;

3) Workers’ Compensation/Employers Liability Insurance (as required by F.S.);

4) General Liability Insurance;

5) Automobile Liability covering all owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles used in connection with the operations of the firm; and

H. NEGOTIATION AND AWARD PROCESS

A negotiation team shall be formed to include the Director of Facilities, the Construction/Design Coordinator, and a Procurement designee(s). Facility Procurement facilitator shall take the lead role in the negotiation process with the highest-ranked firm for the purpose of executing a contract. To ensure compliance with School Board Policies, Procurement Procedures, and standard contract terms and conditions, the Procurement designee(s) shall attend strategic negotiation meetings, including but not limited to the contract negotiation meetings with Facilities staff and the top-ranked firm. The School Board Attorney shall also review the final contract and all exhibits for compliance.

The negotiation team shall negotiate a fair, competitive, and reasonable contract. Any changes to the standard contract language shall be submitted to the School Board Attorney, who will ensure that the changes are in compliance with applicable law before the final contract is presented to the School Board for approval. The quality control and verification of all applicable exhibits, and financial and insurance requirements shall be the responsibility of the Facilities Department.

Should the negotiation team be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the highest-ranked firm(s), the negotiation team shall formally terminate negotiations and undertake negotiations with the next highest-ranked firm(s). Should the negotiation team be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the next most qualified firm(s), the negotiations shall terminate.

Failure to include the project team(s) in the contract as identified in the selection process may result in termination of negotiations or contract.

I. SOLICITATION PROCESS CLOSE OUT

After the final negotiation process occurs, an analysis of the selection process may be conducted. Procurement may request feedback from Selection Committee members, from the firms participating in the selection process, and if desired, from the industry, regarding suggested changes to the selection process and opportunities for improvement.

Recommendations will be reviewed and if aligned with industry best practices and in the best interest of the District, changes to the selection process may be implemented.

APPENDIX 1 – RFQ SELECTION FORMS/CRITERIA

SELECTION COMMITTEE CONE OF SILENCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM

SELECTION COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIALITY and CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FORM

PRE-SCREENING CHECKLIST

INITIAL SCREENING – FORM 1

SELECTION COMMITTEE EVALUATION – FORM 2

RECOMMENDED RUBRIC

Project # and Title: ________________________ Cone of Silence Begin Date: _____________________________ (The cone of silence terminates at the time the Board acts on a written recommendation regarding contract award;

provided, however, that communications are permitted when the Board receives public comment at the meeting when the recommendation is presented. The cone of silence may also terminate for other reasons. In these situations, the Facilities Department will inform the Selection Committee members, in writing, when the cone of silence terminates.)

CONE OF SILENCE DURING COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS

In conjunction with Board Policy 6324 – A cone of silence is hereby established for all competitive selection processes including Invitations to Bids (IFB), Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and Invitations to Negotiate (ITN) for the provision of goods and services. The cone of silence is designed to protect the integrity of the procurement process by shielding it from undue influence prior to the recommendation of contract award. The cone of silence shall be imposed on these procurements after advertisement of same and terminates at the time the Board acts on a written recommendation from the purchasing department or planning and construction department regarding contract award; provided, however, that communications are permitted when the Board receives public comment at the meeting when the recommendation is presented.

The cone of silence prohibits any communication regarding a particular IFB, RFP, RFQ, or ITN between:

1. A potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist (lobbyist is anyone that is advocating on behalf of the vendor at the explicit or implicit urging from the vendor), or consultant and the staff of the District, including school principals; and

2. A potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist (lobbyist is anyone that is advocating on behalf of the vendor at the explicit or implicit urging from the vendor), or consultant and any one (1) or more of the School Board members or member-elects.

Any person, whether employed by the District or not, who knowingly violates a provision of the aforementioned cone of silence shall be prohibited from serving on a District competitive selection committee.

I, _______________________________________________, hereby agree to abide by the School (Print Name) District’s “Cone of Silence” and not to discuss, copy, or otherwise disclose, or permit to be disclosed any information I have received or have been given access to in connection with this matter with anyone other than in the prescribed setting for the evaluation of this matter.

Furthermore, I have been provided a copy of School Board Policy 6324 – Cone of Silence and I have read and understand my responsibilities in regards to upholding the cone of silence for this project.

Signature Date

SELECTION COMMITTEE

CONE OF SILENCE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM

http://www.marionschools.net/

Project # and Title: _______________________________________________________

CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

I understand that I am prohibited from serving on the Selection Committee if I have a conflict of interest with respect to the business/firm/vendor/consultant being evaluated. I understand and agree to disclose such conflict of interest, in writing, to the Facilities Department prior to performing the said evaluation. I also understand that the following activities, interests, and relationships are considered to be a conflict of interest which requires that I disclose such conflict to the Facilities Department and which prohibits me from serving on the Selection Committee for the business/firm/vendor/consultant with which I have a conflict:

(1) If I am currently employed or have had past employment with the business/firm/vendor/consultant being evaluated within one (1) year prior to the evaluation; or

(2) If I am currently serving as a consultant or have served as a past consultant for or with the business/firm/vendor/consultant being evaluated within one (1) year prior to the evaluation; or

(3) If I have an ownership interest (stocks or assets) in the business/firm/vendor/consultant being evaluated at the time of the evaluation (mutual funds are excluded); or

(4) If I have a family member (spouse, child, sibling, parent, in-law) with an ownership interest in the business/firm/vendor/consultant being evaluated at the time of the evaluation (mutual funds are excluded); or

(5) If I am serving as an officer and/or director in the business/firm/vendor/consultant being evaluated at the time of the evaluation; or

(6) If I am a party to any current or past litigation/lawsuit with or against the business/firm/vendor/consultant being evaluated.

I hereby agree not to discuss, copy, or otherwise disclose, or permit to be disclosed any information I have received or have been given access to in connection with this matter with anyone other than in the prescribed setting for the evaluation of this matter.

Further, I understand and agree that any other activity, interest, or relationship that could be viewed as a conflict of interest or that conflicts with Florida State Statute Section 112.313 (Government Code of Ethics) must be disclosed in writing to the Facilities Department prior to service on the Selection Committee, whereupon, the Facilities Department shall determine as to whether a conflict exists.

Signature Date

Printed Name Department/Title

SELECTION COMMITTEE

CONFIDENTIALITY and

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

http://www.marionschools.net/

MARION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS PRE-SCREENING CHECKLIST

DESIGN SERVICES REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

Project Title: _______________________________________________ RFQ Number: _____________________ Date: ___________

PROPOSER INFORMATION (PRIME FIRM)

Name: __________________________________________________________

Joint Venture (Yes/No): _______

ITEM PRE-SCREENING CRITERIA: YES NO COMMENTS

Has the firm submitted a license either for the corporation or the principal partner of the firm?

Has the firm submitted insurance certificates to satisfy the advertised minimum requirements?

If the firm is a joint venture, do all entities meet the requirements in items 1and 2 above?

Reference Check – Last three (3) schools -electronic

All REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED

Pre-Screening Form Completed by:

Name: ___________________________________________ Signature: __________________________________________

Name: ___________________________________________ Signature: __________________________________________

Form Date: January 2025

MARION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS INITIAL SCREENING – FORM 1

Project Title: _______________________________________________ RFQ Number: _____________________ Date: ___________

PROPOSER INFORMATION (PRIME FIRM)

Name: __________________________________________________________ Joint Venture (Yes/No): _______

INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA MAX SCORE COMMENTS

A. Related Project Experience

1. Florida Public School Systems K-20 30

2. Other Project Experience 20

3. Continuing/Term Contract Experience 20

B. Project Team

1. Professional/Technical Staff 10

2. Staff Adequacy 10

C. Office Location 10

D. Minority/Woman-Owned Business/Small Business 5

TOTAL 105

Screening Form Completed by:

Name: ____________________________________________ Signature: _________________________________________ Form Date: January 2025

MARION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS SELECTION COMMITTEE EVALUATION – FORM 2

Project Title: _______________________________________________ RFQ Number: _____________________ Date: ___________

PROPOSER INFORMATION (PRIME FIRM)

EVALUATION CRITERIA: MAX SCORE COMMENTS

A. PROJECT TEAM

The Respondent’s Presentation Team included proposed project personnel who participated in the presentation and communicated their knowledge, skills, and abilities relevant to the project implementation and success. Respondent provided and described organizational chart as it relates to the proposed project indicating key personnel and their roles; described the size of the team they will use including project managers, superintendents; etc. Respondent explained how they will accomplish the project objectives the most efficient way. It should be understood that those individuals listed as the firm’s project team in the RFQ response, will actually execute the project. 25

B. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The Respondent described their approach to Project Management to be applied to the project(s) defined in the RFQ. The approach demonstrates sound business practices that are anticipated to be beneficial to the overall project implementation, for both the Respondent and the District. Respondent provided at least one example of construction analyses that will be used for this project. 25

C. TIMELINE AND QUALITY CONTROL

The Respondent submitted a proposed timeline for the project and described the steps and quality assurance measures the Respondent proposes to undertake to complete the Scope of Work. The timeline is realistic, accommodates unexpected delays, and is compatible with the District’s desired timeline. 15

D. COST CONTROLS/VALUE ENGINEERING

The Respondent described their approach to Cost Controls to be applied to the project(s) defined in the RFQ. The approach demonstrates sound business practices that are anticipated to be beneficial to the overall project implementation, for both the Respondent and the District. Firm gave specific examples of how they would implement on this specific project.

E. KNOWLEDGE OF SITE AND LOCAL CONDITIONS

The Respondent demonstrated knowledge of the project site and local conditions that will impact the implementation of the RFQ project(s). 20

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE SCORED BY THE DESIGN COORDINATOR:

F. VOLUME OF WORK WITH MCPS

Pursuant to F.S. 287.055(4)(b) with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of work, the District shall evaluate data showing total dollar amounts of projects awarded to Respondent within the past two years. For purposes of this analysis, the award date shall be the date of contract approved by The School Board of Marion County and the two-year period shall be the two-year period prior to the response deadline for the respective RFQ. The dollar amount of the projects awarded will reflect the estimated construction budget listed on the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for each project. The District will not consider work performed under continuing contracts in the volume of work with MCPS.

The points will be distributed as follows:

Number of MCPS Projects Score

Less than $50,000,000 10 $50,000,001 - $100,000,000 5 More than $100,000,000 0 10

EVALUATION TOTAL SCORE 110

SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBER NAME: ____________________________________________________

SIGNATURE: _____________________________________________________ Form Date: January 2025

Recommended Rubric

The scoring will be in accordance with the following scale:

• 100% Exceptional – Exceeds evaluation standards in a beneficial way and meets the outcomes identified and contains strengths and no weaknesses or deficiencies. The proposal submitted is innovative, comprehensive, and complete in all details and meets or exceeds performance standards.

• 80% Exceeds Expectations – Exceeds specification requirements in a beneficial way and meets the outcomes identified. Comprehensive and complete and has no significant weaknesses. May be lacking some of the strengths but generally meets performance standards.

• 60% Meets Expectations – Meets outcomes and performance standards and may contain weaknesses which are not significant and may be correctable.

• 40% Acceptable – The proposal is slightly below the standard for evaluation but for the most part complies with that standard.

• 20% Below Minimum Standards – Fails to meet evaluation standards. Lacks essential information to support the proposal. Does not contain the outcomes and contains significant weaknesses.

• 0% Unacceptable – Fails to meet minimum evaluation standards. Demonstrated a lack of understanding of requirements or omissions of major areas.