STATE OF OREGON

Acting by and through its Department of Administrative Services, State Procurement Services, on behalf of the Office of Economic Analysis, is issuing this Request for Proposals under:

OregonBuys® Bid Number S-10700-00017703 for

METHODOLOGY REVIEW OF HIGHWAY COST ALLOCATION

STUDIES

Date of Issue: August 6, 2026

Opening Date and Time: September 4, 2026 at 5:00 PM Pacific Time

Single Point of Contact: Miranda Longs

Address: 1225 Ferry St. SE City, State, Zip: Salem, OR 97301 Phone: 971-349-0200 E-mail: Miranda.longs@das.oregon.gov

The State of Oregon promotes equal opportunity for all individuals without regard to age, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion or creed, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

The State of Oregon (“State”), acting by and through its Department of Administrative Services, State Procurement Services (“SPS”) is issuing this Request for Proposal (“RFP”) on behalf of the Of�ice of Economic Analysis (“OEA” or “Agency”). The purpose of this RFP is to seek proposals from quali�ied entities to review the methodology used when conducting a Highway Cost Allocation Study (“HCAS”).

Details on the Scope of Services are included in Section 2 of the RFP.

SPS anticipates the award of one (1) Contract resulting from this RFP. The initial term of the Contract is anticipated to be up to two (2) years, with options to renew.

Budget: The initial budget will be based on the successful Proposer’s submitted price proposal and the �inal budget will include additional amounts determined by OEA for any Change Orders, etc.

1.1. Schedule

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events. All times are listed in Pacific Time.

All dates listed are subject to change.

Event Date Time Pre-Proposal Conference N/A N/A Questions / Requests for Clarification Due August 18, 2026 5:00 PM PT Answers to Questions / Requests for Clarification Issued (approx.) August 21, 2026

RFP Protest Period Ends 7 calendar days prior to RFP Opening Opening (Proposal Due) See RFP cover page Issuance of Notice of Intent to Award (approx.) September 11, 2026

Award Protest Period Ends 7 calendar days after Notice of Intent to Award

1.2. Single Point of Contact

The Single Point of Contact (“SPC”) for this RFP is identi�ied on the cover page, along with the SPC’s contact information. Proposer shall direct all communications related to any provision of the RFP only to the SPC, whether about the technical requirements of the RFP, contractual requirements, the RFP process, or any other provision.

1.3. RFP and Attachments

This RFP includes the following attachments that are incorporated:

• Attachment A: Sample Contract o Sample Contract: Exhibit A – Statement of Services o Sample Contract: Exhibit B – Insurance Requirements o Sample Contract: Exhibit C – Independent Contractor Certi�ication o Sample Contract: Exhibit D – Change Order Form

• Attachment B: Proposal Form

• Attachment C: Price Proposal Form

• Attachment D: Certi�ied Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan

2. BACKGROUND, SCOPE OF SERVICES, SPECIFICATIONS

2.1. Background

Oregon has a long history of conducting highway cost allocation studies, which are used to determine how road user taxes are structured. The �irst study was done in 1937, and the most recent was completed in 2025. These studies compare the revenue paid by different vehicle classes with their use of the highway system to ensure that each class is contributing a fair share to the highway fund.

In 2025, the Oregon State Legislature enacted House Bill 3991 (“HB 3991”), which was amended in 2026 under House Bill 4007 (“HB 4007”), requiring the Department of Administrative Services to review the methodology used when conducting a HCAS. This review includes two parts: a high-level assessment of the HCAS methodology to determine if Oregon’s approach aligns with practices used in other U.S. studies and a detailed examination of the data, assumptions, and models used in the HCAS. The in-depth analysis must identify and evaluate key factors that in�luence the study’s results, such as the technical methods, cost allocation procedures, and assumptions related to system usage and roadway characteristics, while also assessing the extent to which the constitutional framework is being upheld. Additionally, the report and recommendations should be written in non-technical language whenever possible, to ensure they are clear and easily understood by all interested parties.

Section 30 of HB 4007 (2026) is the relevant section that applies to this work. It is included below for reference.

“SECTION 30. Section 14, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2025 (special session), is amended to read:

Sec. 14.

(1) In consultation with the study review team described in ORS 366.506, the Oregon

Department of Administrative Services shall undertake a review of the methodology for the highway cost allocation study required under ORS 366.506.

(2) The department shall examine all aspects of the methodology for the highway cost allocation study, including but not limited to the following:

(a) The revenues and expenditures included in the highway cost allocation study;

(b) How costs are allocated across different classes of vehicles;

(c) What constitutes a class of vehicle;

(d) The data used in the highway cost allocation study;

(e) The level of granularity to which cost responsibility is calculated for potential rate changes; and

(f) Whether equity should be analyzed based on an estimate of the future biennium’s revenue and expenditures or a retrospective analysis of past actual revenue and expenditures.

(3) The department may provide recommendations for updating the methodology for the study, including any changes in statute needed to improve the outcome of the study and ensure fairness and proportionate revenue and costs for each class of vehicle.

(4) The department shall submit a report in the manner provided by ORS 192.245, and may include recommendations for legislation, to the Joint Committee on Transportation no later than [June 30, 2026] March 15, 2028.”

2.2. Scope of Services

The successful Proposer shall review the HCAS methodology conducting both a high-level comparison to practices used in other studies and a detailed analysis of the data, assumptions, and models involved. This includes, but is not limited to, evaluating key factors such as technical methods, cost allocation procedures, and assumptions related to system usage and roadway characteristics, while also ensuring the study complies with constitutional requirements. The review shall also highlight �indings and provide practical recommendations to improve transparency, fairness, and consistency in the methodology.

2.3. Relevant Documents

Document Name Document Location House Bill 3991 (2025) https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025S1/Downloads/Mea sureDocument/HB3991/Enrolled

House Bill 4007 (2026) https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Downloads/Mea sureDocument/HB4007

2025 Highway Cost Allocation Study https://www.oregon.gov/das/oea/Documents/ECONW-HCAS-

Cost-Allocation-Study-2025-27-Corrected.pdf Prior HCAS Reports Links to prior reports may be found here:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/OEA/Pages/hcas.aspx

Oregon Constitution https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.

aspx

2.4. Minimum Qualifications

To be considered for evaluation, the Proposal must demonstrate how Proposer meets all requirements of this section:

2.4.1. Proposer Requirements

Proposer must demonstrate recent (within the past ten years) experience in conducting methodology reviews on transportation analyses for a county, state, or federal entity, with a focus on methodology development, review, or validation processes.

2.4.2. Key Person Requirements

• Proposer must have at least one (1) Key Person who has a minimum of �ive (5) years’ experience within the last ten (10) years providing methodological analyses related to the transportation sector.

• Proposer must have at least one (1) Key Person who is able to provide context, explain data, describe �indings, and answer questions in technical and non-technical terms.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025S1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3991/Enrolled https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025S1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3991/Enrolled https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4007 https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4007 https://www.oregon.gov/das/oea/Documents/ECONW-HCAS-Cost-Allocation-Study-2025-27-Corrected.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/das/oea/Documents/ECONW-HCAS-Cost-Allocation-Study-2025-27-Corrected.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/das/OEA/Pages/hcas.aspx https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx

2.5. Specifications of Work

Agency anticipates the following tasks and deliverables will be applicable to the work:

2.5.1. Project Management

The successful Proposer shall provide comprehensive project management services to ensure the successful execution of the project. This includes organizing and leading team conference calls, documenting meeting notes, and maintaining an updated project schedule. These activities shall facilitate clear communication, track progress, and address any issues promptly throughout the project duration.

Within one week of the Contract’s execution, the successful Proposer shall schedule and coordinate a project kick-off meeting in collaboration with the Agency’s Contract Administrator. The purpose of this initial meeting is to review and clarify the Statement of Services, and to identify necessary informational resources such as subject matter experts, data, and reference materials. During the kick-off meeting, the team shall also de�ine goals and milestones, and develop a project control document outlining milestones, required resources, and timelines. This document shall be subject to periodic updates with mutual consent to adapt to project needs. Additionally, the successful Proposer shall facilitate weekly virtual meetings to discuss project progress, upcoming resource requirements, and any encountered roadblocks. After each meeting, the successful Proposer shall provide summarized notes capturing key points and action items. The frequency of these meetings may be adjusted through mutual written agreement between the Agency and successful Proposer as the project progresses.

Anticipated Deliverables:

• Kick-Off Meeting: Successful Proposer shall coordinate a kick-off meeting with Agency within one week of Contract execution.

• Project Control Document: Successful Proposer shall provide the project control document developed in the kick-off meeting to Agency for review and approval.

• Meetings: Successful Proposer shall facilitate weekly meetings with the Agency and after each meeting successful Proposer shall provide meeting notes to the Agency that summarize key points and action items. Agency and successful Proposer may alter the frequency of these meetings by mutual written consent.

2.5.2. In-Depth Review

Conduct an in-depth review of the HCAS methodology. Including a high-level comparative analysis of the sources of funding for states of comparable populations, road lanes, etc. Assess whether the methodology used in Oregon aligns with practices across the U.S. and evaluate the robustness, equanimity, and reliability of the HCAS model and its related technical aspects, based on relevant criteria.

The successful Proposer shall begin by providing a draft list of evaluation criteria for the Agency’s review and feedback, followed by a draft outline for further input. Once these preliminary materials are reviewed and re�ined, the successful

Proposer shall prepare and submit a draft version of the assessment to the Agency. This draft shall serve as a basis for gathering additional feedback, revisions, and clari�ications to ensure alignment with project requirements.

Finally, the successful Proposer shall deliver a �inal version of the assessment that incorporates all prior feedback, ensuring it fully addresses the Agency’s expectations and requirements. The �indings from this high-level review shall be included in the �inal report detailed under section 2.5.3. and this review should be conducted concurrently with the work outlined in that section.

• Draft List: Successful Proposer shall provide a draft list of evaluation criteria for Agency’s review and feedback.

• Draft Outline: Successful Proposer shall provide a draft outline of the report for Agency’s review and feedback.

• Draft Assessment: The successful Proposer shall prepare and submit a draft version of the report. The purpose of this draft is to gather the Agency's feedback, including any requested revisions or clari�ications needed to ensure the report meets the project requirements.

• Final Assessment: Successful Proposer shall provide a �inal report that incorporates and is responsive to Agency’s prior feedback.

2.5.3. Detailed Review, Evaluation, and Report

Successful Proposer shall provide a comprehensive review and report of the data, assumptions, and model(s) used in Oregon’s HCAS analysis. This review shall identify and assess key factors that in�luence the study’s results, such as the technical methods employed, cost allocation procedures, and embedded assumptions related to system usage and roadway characteristics. The successful Proposer shall thoroughly examine all aspects of the HCAS methodology, including but not limited to:

• The revenues and expenditures that are incorporated into the study including both State and federal sources.

• What constitutes a class of vehicle.

• How costs are distributed across different vehicle classes using criteria based on engineering and scienti�ic judgment, including weight and fuel type.

• The criteria used to de�ine each vehicle class, including how these de�initions are connected to industrial engineering methods and the relationship between these criteria and the standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of�icials

(“AASHTO”).

• The data sources, and the quality of these sources, used in the study.

• The level of detail used to assign cost responsibility, especially for potential rate adjustments.

• Whether the analysis should be based on projected future revenue and expenditures or a retrospective review of past actual data and the best methods for obtaining and linking data to future or past work (i.e.

planning, Preliminary Engineering (“PE”), Construction Engineering (“CE”), right of way, maintenance activities, admin, etc.).

Additionally, successful Proposer shall prepare a summary report of their �indings, including recommendations on whether to maintain the current methodology, adjust it, or re-design the methodology. The recommendations should focus on ensuring fairness and proportionality of revenue and costs across vehicle classes. The report must also include an estimate of the effort required to implement any suggested improvements and the potential bene�its and challenges associated with implementing those changes.

• Draft Outline: Successful Proposer shall provide a draft outline for Agency's review and feedback, which incorporates the key elements described above.

• Draft Report: Successful Proposer shall prepare and submit a draft version of the report to the Agency to gather the Agency's feedback, which may include requested revisions or clari�ications needed to ensure the �inal report meets the project requirements.

• Draft Summary Report: Successful Proposer shall prepare and submit a draft summary report to the Agency to gather the Agency's feedback.

• Final Summary Report and Final Report: Successful Proposer shall provide �inal summary report and �inal report that incorporates and is responsive to Agency’s prior feedback. These �inal documents shall be completed by January 14, 2028.

o Successful Proposer shall deliver the �inal documents ensuring that they conform with digital accessibility requirements that meet, or exceed, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.1 (Levels AA), which includes Non-Visual Desktop Access (“NVDA”), keyboard navigation, magni�ication, and speech-to-text capability.

2.5.4. Participation in Legislative Meetings

The successful Proposer shall be available to participate in up to three virtual or in-person meetings with the legislative body, if needed. These meetings shall provide an opportunity to clarify or discuss any aspects of the �inal report, ensuring that the legislative body fully understands the �indings and recommendations. The meetings shall be scheduled at mutually convenient times to support effective communication and project transparency.

Anticipated Deliverables:

• Legislative Meetings: As requested by the Agency, the successful Proposer shall attend and participate in up to three (3) meetings with the legislative body. The purpose of these meetings is to provide clari�ications and answer questions, ensuring the meeting attendees fully understand the successful Proposer’s �indings and recommendations.

2.5.5. Additional Analysis

Agency may request additional analysis or research. For any additional analysis/research, Agency and successful Proposer shall use a change order, substantially in the form found in Attachment A: Sample Contract, Exhibit D – Change Order Form. Successful Proposer shall work with Agency to complete a change order form to specify the work to be done, the data to be incorporated, the staff needed to perform the work, the number of hours successful Proposer will need to complete the work, and the due dates for the deliverables. The costs associated with a change order form shall be based on the hourly rates for successful Proposer’s Key Persons and other personnel that was submitted in their price proposal form (Attachment C).

• Additional Analysis: Upon both parties’ acceptance of a change order form, successful Proposer shall perform the work and deliver the deliverables as set forth in the form.

2.5.6. Delivery Schedule

Agency anticipates the following schedule will be applicable to the project.

Task/Deliverable No. Deliverable Description Due Date

4.1. Project Management

4.1.1. Project Kick-Off Meeting and Project Control

Document

Within 1 week after Contract execution.

4.1.2. Weekly Meetings Ongoing

4.2. High-Level Review

4.2.1. Draft List 2/1/2027

4.2.2. Draft Outline 10/1/2027

4.2.3. Draft Assessment 12/3/2027

4.2.4. Final Assessment 1/14/2028

4.3. Detailed Review, Evaluation, and Report

4.3.1. Draft Outline 2/1/2027

4.3.2. Draft Report 12/3/2027

4.3.3. Final Report 1/14/2028

4.4. Participation in Legislative Meetings

4.4.1. Legislative Meetings TBD

4.5. Additional Analysis

4.5.1. Detailed in each approved Change Order, if any.

3. SOLICITATION PROCESS

3.1. Posting of the RFP, Amendments, or other Communications

SPS will post the RFP and all documents or other communication on OregonBuys®.

Documents will not be mailed or emailed to prospective Proposers. As a courtesy, SPS may post the RFP and other documents or notices on other websites, but OregonBuys® is the of�icial place for all information related to this RFP. (For notes on OregonBuys®, see Section 5 below.)

Modi�ications, if any, to this RFP will be made by written Amendment(s) published in OregonBuys® only. Prospective Proposer is solely responsible for checking OregonBuys® to determine whether or not any Amendment(s) have been issued.

Amendment(s) are incorporated into the RFP by this reference.

3.2. Pre-Proposal Conference

A Pre-Proposal Conference will not be held for this RFP.

3.3. Questions

Persons interested in the RFP may submit written questions or requests for clari�ication via OregonBuys® or an email to the SPC. These must be received on or before the due date and time for Questions/Requests for Clari�ication identi�ied in the Schedule (see Section 1.1. above). SPS will answer the questions as soon as possible. All questions must:

• Reference the OregonBuys® bid number and RFP title.

• Identify Proposer’s name and contact information.

• Refer to the speci�ic area of the RFP being questioned or clari�ied (i.e. page, section and paragraph number).

3.4. Protests of the RFP or Amendments

3.4.1. Protest of the RFP

Prospective Proposer may submit a written protest of anything contained in this RFP, including , the RFP process, Scope of Services, and the Sample Contract. Any protest of the RFP must be received on or before the due date and time set forth in the Schedule (see Section 1.1. above). This is prospective Proposer’s only opportunity to protest any provision of the entire RFP.

3.4.2. Protest of an Amendment

Prospective Proposer may submit a written protest of an RFP Amendment.

Protest(s) of an Amendment, if issued, must be received on or before 5:00 pm Paci�ic Time on the second Business Day following the issuance of the Amendment, unless otherwise set forth in the Amendment.

3.4.3. Requirements to Submit a Protest

Protest(s) must be sent to the SPC via email within the time frames set forth above. A protest must:

• Reference the OregonBuys® bid number and RFP title,

• Identify Proposer’s name and contact information,

• Be sent by an authorized representative of the Proposer,

• Specify the grounds for the protest, including:

o Grounds that demonstrate how the procurement process is contrary to law, unnecessarily restrictive, legally �lawed, or improperly speci�ies a brand name, and o Evidence or documentation that supports the grounds on which the protest is based.

• State the proposed changes to the RFP provisions or other relief sought.

SPS will address all protests within a reasonable time and will issue a written decision to the respective Proposer. Protests that do not include the required information may not be considered by SPS.

3.5. Proposal Requirements

The Proposal must address each of the items listed in this section and all other requirements set forth in this RFP. A Proposal that merely offers to provide the Supplies or Services as stated in this RFP may be considered non-Responsive to this RFP and will not be considered further.

Proposer must submit one copy of the following required documents electronically through OregonBuys® (see the process for electronic submission at:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Forma l%20Solicitation%20Response.pdf).

The following required documents together comprise Proposer’s “Proposal”:

• Attachment B, Proposal Form: Proposer shall complete and submit one copy of Attachment B, bearing the Proposer’s authorized representative’s Signature.

Proposer should not reference or incorporate links to websites or online documents in its responses, as they will not be accessed or viewed during the evaluation process.

Attachment B’s additional documents:

o Project Plan o Resumes

• Attachment C, Price Proposal Form: Proposer shall submit one copy of Attachment C, as a separate electronic response �ile.

• Attachment D, Certi�ied Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan: (If applicable)

*If Proposer believes any of the information in either Attachment B or C is exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Laws, Proposer must submit a redacted copy of the applicable Attachment(s), in addition to an unredacted copy of the Attachment(s), and Proposer must also detail the applicable exemption in a written statement submitted along with the redacted copy.

All Proposals must be submitted on or before the Opening (see RFP cover page). LATE

PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR EVALUATED.

3.6. Opening

There will be no public opening of Proposals. SPS will post the names of all Proposers on OregonBuys® within three Business Days after Opening, but no other information will be available. Proposals received will not be available for inspection until after the evaluation process has been completed and the Notice of Intent to Award is issued pursuant to OAR 125-247-0630.

3.7. Rejection of Proposals

SPS may reject a Proposal for any of the following reasons:

• Proposer fails to substantially comply with all prescribed RFP procedures and requirements, including but not limited to the requirement that Proposer’s authorized representative sign the Proposal.

• Proposer has undisclosed liquidated and delinquent debt owed to the State or any agency, board, commission, department or division of the State.

• Proposer fails to meet the responsibility requirements of ORS 279B.110.

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20Solicitation%20Response.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20Solicitation%20Response.pdf

• Proposer makes any contact regarding this RFP with State representatives such as State employees or of�icials other than the SPC or persons authorized by the SPC, or inappropriate contact with the SPC.

• Proposer attempts to in�luence a member of the evaluation committee.

• Proposal is conditioned on SPS’ acceptance of any other terms and conditions or rights to negotiate any alternative terms and conditions that are not reasonably related to those expressly authorized for negotiation in the RFP or Amendment(s).

3.8. Proposal Evaluation

3.8.1. Responsiveness Determination

Responsiveness includes a determination that a Proposal substantially complies with the RFP and all prescribed procurement procedures and requirements.

SPS will conduct an initial Responsiveness check of all Proposals submitted prior to the Opening to determine if Proposer has submitted all required documents and information and meets the Minimum Quali�ications set forth in Section 2.4.

SPS will continue its review throughout the evaluation process to determine if the Proposal is Responsive to all RFP requirements. If the Proposal is unclear, the SPC may request clari�ication from Proposer. However, clari�ications may not be used to rehabilitate a non-Responsive proposal. If the SPC �inds the Proposal non- Responsive at any time during the evaluation process, the Proposal may be rejected; however, SPS may waive mistakes in accordance with OAR 125-247- 0470.

3.8.2. Responsibility Determination

Prior to award of a Contract with any Proposer, SPS must determine whether a Proposer is Responsible based upon the information set forth in Attachment B – Proposal Form. SPS may reject a Proposer found to be not Responsible, any time prior to award.

3.8.3. Evaluation Process

Each Proposal meeting the initial Responsiveness check will be independently evaluated by members of an evaluation committee. Evaluation committee members may change, and SPS may have additional or fewer evaluators during additional rounds of competition, if any.

Evaluators will assign a score for each ‘Evaluation Criterion’ listed in Section 3.8.4.

‘Score and Point Calculation’ based upon the value and explanations list below;

except that the Price Proposal will be scored as described in Section 3.8.5. ‘Price Evaluation’.

Evaluators will score each Evaluation Criterion using a percentage value as explained below:

SCORE EXPLANATION

90%-100%

OUTSTANDING - Response meets all the requirements and has demonstrated in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and project. The Proposer provides insight into its expertise, knowledge, and understanding of the subject matter.

75%-89% VERY GOOD – Response provides useful information, while showing experience and knowledge within the category. Response demonstrates above average knowledge and ability with no apparent deficiencies noted.

50%-74% ADEQUATE – Response meets all requirements in an adequate manner. Response demonstrates an ability to comply with guidelines, parameters, and requirements with no additional information put forth by the Proposer.

11%-49% FAIR – Proposer meets minimum requirements but does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the subject matter.

0%-10% RESPONSE OF NO VALUE – An unacceptable response that does not meet the requirements set forth in the RFP. Proposer has not demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.

During evaluations the SPC may request further clari�ication if a Proposal is unclear to assist the evaluation committee in gaining additional understanding of a Proposal. A response to a clari�ication request may only clarify or explain portions of the already submitted Proposal and may not contain new information not included in the original Proposal.

SPS, at its option, may hold one or more evaluation committee meetings, including a �inal evaluation committee meeting to review scores. Evaluation committee members may change their scores up to the time that SPS requests �inal scores. If an evaluation committee member elects to change its independent score the member changing their score must line out the original score, initial and date the change. The member may also include the reason for the change on their scoring sheet, or not.

3.8.4. Score and Point Calculation: The points available for each evaluation criterion are listed in the table below.

Evaluation Criterion Available Points Proposer’s Experience and Team 35

Project Plan 40

Price Proposal 25

TOTAL POINTS 100

Using the scores received from each evaluator the points awarded for each criterion will then be calculated as described in the example below.

EXAMPLE:

For evaluation criteria worth 35 Points, Proposer A receives the following scores:

100% from evaluator #1 (35 x 100% = 35 points)

90% from evaluator #2 (35 x 90% = 31.5 points) 95% from evaluator #3 (35 x 95% = 33.25 points)

The SPC will average the scores for each evaluation criteria (calculated by totaling the points awarded by each evaluator for that category and dividing by the number of evaluators).

EXAMPLE:

35 + 31.5 + 33.25 = 99.75 points / 3 = 33.25 out of 35 points.

Proposer A received 33.25 out 35 Points for this evaluation criterion.

3.8.5. Price Evaluation

The SPC will conduct the price evaluation. The SPC will award a score to each Price Proposal (Attachment C) based upon the percentage of the proposed price as compared to the lowest Proposer’s price using the following formula:

3.8.6. Preferences

Oregon prefers Oregon Small Business Enterprises (“OSBE”), as described in OAR 125-246-0230. For evaluation purposes, SPS may apply an OSBE preference by increasing the score or point total of any Proposal submitted by an OSBE by 1%.

3.8.7. Please Note: If SPS receives only one Proposal, SPS may dispense with the evaluation process and Intent to Award protest period and proceed with Contract Negotiations and award.

3.9. Additional Rounds

SPS may determine an apparent successful Proposer(s) at the end of Round 1 with no additional rounds of competition. However, SPS may, at its option, conduct additional round(s) of evaluation, if SPS believes additional rounds of competition may be in the best interest of the State.

If SPS elects to conduct additional rounds of evaluation, SPS will issue a Notice of Competitive Range based upon a natural break in the scoring. SPS will send notice to all Proposers to be included in the additional round with instructions and next steps.

If a Proposer is excluded from an additional round, the Proposer may submit a written protest of its exclusion to the SPC within seven (7) calendar days of the issuance of the Notice of Competitive Range. The protest must be emailed to the SPC, and the protest must include: (i) the OregonBuys® Bid Number, (ii) identify the Proposer (including the Proposer’s name and contact information), and (iii) state the reason for the protest. SPS will address all protests within a reasonable time and will issue a written decision to the respective Proposer. Protests that do not include the required information may not be considered by SPS.

3.10. Ranking and Award

SPS will determine the score from each Proposer’s Proposal by averaging the scores for each Proposer in a given round of competition. SPS will calculate the score by totaling the points awarded by each evaluation committee member and dividing by the number of evaluation committee members. SPS will rank the Proposers from highest to lowest based upon the score. If SPS conducts two or more rounds, SPS will add points from all rounds to determine a Proposer’s �inal ranking.

SPS, if it awards a Contract, will award a Contract to the highest-ranking Responsive and Responsible Proposer. SPS may award less than the full Scope of Services described in this RFP.

SPS will issue a Notice of Intent to Award a Contract to the selected Proposer, subject to successful negotiation of any negotiable provisions.

3.11. Protest of the Award

An “Affected Proposer” may protest the Intent to Award. A Proposer is an Affected Proposer only if the Proposer would be eligible for a Contract award in the event the protest was successful and is protesting for one or more of the following reasons as speci�ied in ORS 279B.410:

• All higher ranked Proposals are non-Responsive.

• SPS failed to conduct an evaluation of Proposals in accordance with the criteria or process described in the RFP.

• SPS abused its discretion in rejecting the protestor’s Proposal as non-Responsive.

• SPS’ evaluation of Proposal or determination of award otherwise violates ORS

Chapter 279B or ORS Chapter 279A.

The protest must be emailed to the SPC within seven (7) calendar days of the Notice of Intent to Award, and the protest must:

• Reference the OregonBuys® Bid Number,

• Identify the Proposer (including the Proposer’s name and contact information),

• Be signed by an authorized representative of Proposer, and

• Specify the grounds for the protest.

SPS will address all protests within a reasonable time and will issue a written decision to the respective Proposer. Protests that do not include the required information may not be considered by SPS.

4. CONTRACT NEGOTIATION AND ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS

4.1. Contract Negotiation

After issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award, SPS will enter into Contract negotiations with the successful Proposer. By submitting a Proposal, Proposer agrees to the terms and conditions of the Sample Contract (Attachment A), except for the provisions that SPS has identi�ied as negotiable.

SPS is willing to negotiate only the following terms in the Sample Contract:

• Statement of Services

• Change Order process

• Term

• Indemni�ication and Limitation of Liability

• Required Insurance Limits

BE ADVISED: SPS is not required to make any changes to the Sample Contract, and many provisions cannot be changed. Proposer is also cautioned that the State of Oregon believes modi�ications to the standard provisions constitute increased risk and increased cost to the State. All modi�ications to the Sample Contract are subject to review and approval by the Oregon Department of Justice.

In the event that the parties have not reached mutually agreeable terms within 14 calendar days after the beginning of negotiations with an apparent successful Proposer, SPS may extend or terminate negotiations with that Proposer. If SPS terminates negotiations, SPS will revoke the Notice of Intent to Award to that Proposer and issue a new Notice of Intent to Award to the second highest-ranking Proposer and begin the negotiation process again.

4.2. Additional Submissions from Successful Proposer(s)

A Proposer that is selected for a Contract award under this RFP must submit the following:

• Proposer’s tax identi�ication number and backup withholding status on a completed W-9.

• Pay Equity Certi�icate, if Proposer employs 50 or more full-time workers and the value of the Contract exceeds $500,000.00, Proposer shall, if applicable, submit to SPS a true and correct copy of an unexpired Pay Equity Compliance Certi�icate, issued to Proposer by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. For instructions on how to obtain the certi�icate, visit:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/Procurement/Pages/PayEquity.aspx.

• Nondiscrimination in Employment Certi�ication: Proposer must certify that Proposer has in place a policy and practice of preventing sexual harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination against employees who are members of a protected class. The policy and practice must include giving employees a written notice that the policy both prohibits, and prescribes disciplinary measures for, conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or unlawful discrimination.

5. OREGONBUYS®

OregonBuys® is the State of Oregon’s electronic procurement system and all Proposers must be registered in OregonBuys® to do business with the State. Registration is free. To create a Proposer account, click the blue “Supplier Registration” button in the top right corner of the OregonBuys® website: https://oregonbuys.gov/bso.

PROPOSER IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING ITS PROPOSER INFORMATION IS

CURRENT AND CORRECT IN OREGONBUYS®. SPS WILL ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY

FOR MISSING OR INCORRECT PROPOSER INFORMATION.

OregonBuys® Assistance: Parties needing assistance with OregonBuys® (this includes registration) may contact the OregonBuys® Helpdesk by telephone at (855) 800-5046 or by email at support.oregonbuys@das.oregon.gov.

https://www.oregon.gov/das/Procurement/Pages/PayEquity.aspx https://oregonbuys.gov/bso

6. LEGAL CONCERNS

6.1. Choice of Law

This RFP is subject to the laws of the State of Oregon, including the Public Contracting Code, found at ORS 279A and 279B and the DAS Model Contracting Rules, found at OAR 125-246 and 125-247. Venue for any administrative or judicial action relating to this RFP, evaluation, and award is the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a proceeding must be brought in a federal forum, then it must be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In no event shall this Section be construed as a waiver by the State of Oregon of any form of defense or immunity, whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States or otherwise, to or from any claim or consent to the jurisdiction of any court.

6.2. Procurement Authority

SPS has authority to issue this RFP under ORS 279A.050 and ORS 279A.140.

6.3. Procurement Method

SPS is using the Competitive Sealed Proposal method, pursuant to ORS 279B.060 and OAR 125-247-0260. SPS may use a combination of the methods for Competitive Sealed Proposals, including optional procedures: a) Competitive Range; b) Discussions and Revised Proposals; c) Revised Rounds of Negotiations; d) Negotiations; e) Best and Final Offers; and f) Multistep Sealed Proposals.

6.4. Definitions

De�initions for the terms used in this RFP and its attachments are found in the RFP, DAS Model Contracting Rules found at OAR 125-246-0110, or as de�ined below, if any.

Terminology speci�ic to the OregonBuys® system may be found at:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys-glossary.pdf.

6.5. Ownership/Permission to Use Materials

Proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the State.

Proposer grants the State a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license for the rights to copy, distribute, display, prepare derivative works of and transmit the Proposal documents solely for the purpose of evaluating the Proposal, awarding a Contract, or as otherwise needed to administer the solicitation process, and to ful�ill obligations under Oregon Public Records Laws. Proposals, including supporting materials, will not be returned to Proposer.

6.6. No Liability for Transmission Issues

Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring its Proposal is received by SPS in accordance with the RFP requirements before Opening. SPS is not responsible for any delays in mail or by common carriers or by transmission errors or delays, or for any mis-delivery for any reason. Per OAR 125-247-0330(6) in the event of a failure of an E-Procurement System that interferes with the ability of a Person to submit Electronic Offers, to protest or to otherwise participate in the procurement, SPS may cancel the procurement or may extend the date and time of receipt of Electronic Offers by providing notice of the extension immediately after the E-Procurement System becomes available.

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys-glossary.pdf

6.7. Electronic Signatures

By submitting a response to the RFP, Proposer agrees with SPS that signatures and other forms of authorized representative certi�ication, showing on documents submitted via OregonBuys® or email are “Electronic Signatures” under ORS Chapter 84 and bind the signing party and are intended to be and can be relied upon by the parties.

6.8. Cost of Submitting a Proposal

Proposer must pay all costs of proposing including, but not limited to, the cost to prepare and submit Proposal, samples and other supporting materials, or to participate in demonstrations, if required by this RFP.

6.9. Proposal Modification or Withdrawal

If a Proposer wishes to make modi�ications to a submitted Proposal, the Proposer must withdraw its Proposal and submit its modi�ication. To be effective the modi�ication must include the OregonBuys® bid number and be submitted to the SPC prior to Opening.

Proposer must include an explanation of the modi�ications that includes a statement that the amendment or modi�ication amends and supersedes the previously submitted Proposal. The explanation must reference the RFP and affected section or sections. The modi�ied Proposal may consist of only the section or sections modi�ied or the entire proposal if the modi�ications are extensive.

It is the responsibility of the Proposer to ensure that a modi�ied Proposal is submitted before the due date and time identi�ied in Section 1.1. All modi�ications made to a Proposal before the due date and time must be made in writing and must be properly signed by Proposer’s authorized representative.

If a Proposer wishes to withdraw a submitted Proposal, Proposer must submit a Written notice signed by an authorized representative of its intent to withdraw to the SPC via email prior to the Opening in accordance with OAR 125-247-0440. To be effective the notice must include the OregonBuys® bid number.

6.10. Cancelation and/or Rejection of Proposals; Damages

Pursuant to ORS 279B.100, SPS may reject any or all Proposals in whole or in part and may cancel this RFP at any time when the rejection or cancellation is in the best interest of the State. SPS, the State, and their of�icers, employees and agents are not liable to any Proposer for any loss or expense caused by or resulting from the delay, suspension, or cancellation of this RFP, or rejection of any or all Proposals.

6.11. Oregon Public Records

All submittals are public records and subject to public inspection after SPS issues the Notice of Intent to Award pursuant to Oregon Public Records Laws (ORS 192.311 through 192.478). Application of the Oregon Public Records Law will determine whether any information is exempt from disclosure. If Proposer believes any of its Proposal is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law, Proposer shall mark all such information as “Con�idential” and submit a fully redacted copy of the Proposal. Proposer also must detail in its submittal the applicable exemption.

6.12. Commitment to Fair Access

The State of Oregon is committed to taking steps towards promoting fair and accessible procurement processes for all small and resource limited businesses by reducing obstacles and negative impacts. SPS encourages all businesses to submit Proposals for this contracting opportunity.

6.13. Certified Firm Participation

Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 200, SPS encourages the participation of small businesses, certi�ied by Oregon’s Certi�ication Of�ice for Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID) in all contracting opportunities. This includes certi�ied small businesses in the following categories: disadvantaged business enterprise, minority business enterprise, woman business enterprise, veteran business enterprise, or an emerging small business. SPS also encourages joint ventures or subcontracting with certi�ied small business enterprises.

6.14. Recycled Products

Proposer shall use recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible in the performance of the contract services or work set forth in this document and the subsequent Contract. (ORS 279B.055(2)(f), ORS279B.225, and ORS279B.270- 279B.280)