OAR 731-070-0140
Evaluation of Unsolicited and Competing Proposals
(1)
Evaluation Panel. An Evaluation Panel shall be appointed by the Director and shall consist of not fewer than five nor more than nine members, at least three of whom shall be employees of the Department.(2)
Evaluation Panel Review. After expiration of the time to submit Competing Proposals to an unsolicited Proposal, the Evaluation Panel will review the Competing Proposals to determine whether they satisfy the requirements of OAR 731-070-0050 (Submission of Unsolicited Proposals for OIPP Projects) and qualify for full evaluation.(3)
Competing or Non-Competing Proposals. As part of its initial review of Competing Proposals under section (2) of this rule, the Evaluation Panel shall make a preliminary assessment whether any of the Competing Proposals differ from the original unsolicited proposal in such a significant and meaningful manner that they should be treated as an original unsolicited proposal. If the Evaluation Panel believes that a proposal submitted as a Competing Proposal should be treated as an original unsolicited proposal and that it satisfies the requirements of OAR 731-070-0050 (Submission of Unsolicited Proposals for OIPP Projects), the Evaluation Panel shall forward the proposal to the Director, who shall determine whether the proposal should be submitted to the Commission for preliminary review and approval under OAR 731-070-0120 (Commission Preliminary Review of Unsolicited Proposals), and the proposal shall thereafter be processed under these rules in the same manner as an unsolicited Proposal.(4)
Proposer Presentations. At any time during this evaluation process, the Evaluation Panel may request proposers to make presentations to the Evaluation Panel. Proposers shall be afforded not less than 10 business days following written notification from the Evaluation Panel to prepare such presentations. The format of these presentations will include a formal presentation by the proposer, followed by any questions the Evaluation Panel may have pertaining to the Project, proposal or the presentation. These meetings will allow the Evaluation Panel to seek clarification of Project elements and complete deliverable requirements, and provide proposers with the opportunity to further explain their proposed Projects. If there is an issue to which the proposer is unable to respond during the formal presentation, the Evaluation Panel may, at its discretion, grant the proposer a reasonable period of time in which to submit a written response.(5)
Evaluation Factors. When assessing any original unsolicited Proposal or qualifying Competing Proposal, the Evaluation Panel may take into consideration any or all of the following factors:(a)
Qualifications and Experience. Does the proposer propose a Team that is qualified, managed, and structured in a manner that will enable the Team to complete the proposed Project?(A)
Experience with Similar Infrastructure Projects. Have members of this Team previously worked together or in a substantially similar consortium or partnership arrangement constructing, improving or managing transportation infrastructure? Has the lead firm managed, or any of the member firms worked on, a similar privatization project?(B)
Demonstration of Ability to Perform Work. Does the Team possess the necessary financial, staffing, equipment, and technical resources to successfully complete the Project? Do the Team or member firms have competing financial or workforce commitments that may inhibit success and follow-through on the Project?(C)
Leadership Structure. Is one firm designated as lead on the Project? Does the organization of the Team indicate a well thought out approach to managing the Project? Is there an agreement/document in place between members?(D)
Project Manager’s Experience. Is a Project Manager identified, and does this person work for the principal firm? If not, is there a clear definition of the role and responsibility of the Project Manager relative to the member firms? Does the Project Manager have experience leading this type and magnitude of project?(E)
Management Approach. Have the primary functions and responsibilities of the management team been identified? Have the members of the Team developed an approach to facilitate communication among the Project participants? Has the firm adequately described its approach to communicating with and meeting the expectations of the state?(F)
Financial Condition. Is the financial information submitted on the firms sufficient to determine the firms’ capability to fulfill its obligations described in the proposal, and is that capability demonstrated by the submitted information?(G)
Project Ownership. Does the proposal identify the proposed ownership arrangements for each phase of the Project and clearly state assumptions on legal liabilities and responsibilities during each phase of the Project?(H)
Participation of Small Businesses and Businesses Owned by Women and Minorities. What is the level of commitment by the proposers to use small, minority-, and women-owned business enterprises in developing and implementing the Project?(I)
Competitive Subcontracting. To what extent have adequate and transparent procurement policies been adopted by the proposer to maximize opportunities for competitive procurement of work, services, materials and supplies that the proposer will outsource?(b)
Project Characteristics. Is the proposed transportation facility technically feasible?(A)
Project Definition. Is the Project described in sufficient detail to determine the type and size of the Project, the location, all proposed interconnections with other transportation facilities, the communities that may be affected, and alternatives (e.g. alignments) that may need to be evaluated?(B)
Proposed Project Schedule. Is the time frame for Project completion clearly outlined? Is the proposed schedule reasonable given the scope and complexity of the Project?(C)
Operation. Does the proposer present a reasonable statement setting forth plans for operation of the Project or facilities that are included in the Project?(D)
Technology. Is the proposal based on proven technology? What is the degree of technical innovation associated with the proposal? Will the knowledge or technology gained from the Project benefit other areas of the state or nation? Does the technology proposed maximize interoperability with relevant local and statewide transportation technology? Can the proposed Project upgrade relevant local technology?(E)
Conforms to Laws, Regulations, and Standards. Is the proposed Project consistent with applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, or reasonably anticipated modifications of state or federal statutes, regulations or standards? Does the proposed design meet applicable state and federal standards?(F)
Federal Permits. Is the Project outside the purview of federal oversight, or will it require some level of federal involvement due to its location on the National Highway System or Federal Interstate System or because federal permits are required? Does the proposal identify the primary federal permits and agencies that will be involved in review and oversight of the Project?(G)
Meets/Exceeds Environmental Standards. Is the proposed Project consistent with applicable state and federal environmental statutes and regulations? Does the proposed design meet applicable state environmental standards? Does the proposal adequately address air quality issues?(H)
State and Local Permits. Does the proposal list the required permits and provide a schedule for obtaining them? Are there known or foreseeable negative impacts arising from the Project? If so, is there a mitigation plan identified? Are alternatives to standards or regulations needed to avoid those impacts that cannot be mitigated?(I)
Right of Way. Does the proposal set forth a method or plan to secure all property interests required for the Transportation Project?(J)
Maintenance. Does the proposer have a plan to maintain any facilities that are part of the proposed Transportation Project in conformance with Department standards? Does the proposal clearly define assumptions or responsibilities during the operational phase including law enforcement, toll collection and maintenance? Under the proposal, will maintenance and operation of any new facilities be consistent with standards applied throughout the highway system and use the same work-forces and methods?(c)
Project Financing. Has the proposer provided a financial plan which will allow for access to the necessary capital to make a substantial contribution of non-state, private-sector, or other innovative financing resources to the financing of the facility or Project?(A)
Financing. Did the proposer demonstrate evidence of its experience, ability and commitment to provide a sufficient private-sector contribution or other innovative financing contribution of funds or resources to the Project as well as the ability to obtain the other necessary financing?(B)
Financial Plan. Does the financial plan demonstrate a reasonable basis for funding Project development and operations? Are the assumptions on which the plan is based well defined and reasonable in nature? Are the plan’s risk factors identified and dealt with sufficiently? Are the planned sources of funding and financing realistic? Is the proposer prepared to make a financial contribution to the Project? Does the proposer adequately identify sources of non-state funding that it anticipates including in the Project financing, and does the proposer provide adequate assurance of the availability of those funds and the reliability of the funding sources?(C)
Estimated Cost. Is the estimated cost of the Project reasonable in relation to the cost of similar projects?(D)
Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Does the proposal include an appropriately conducted analysis of projected rate of return and life-cycle cost estimate of the proposed Project or facility?(E)
Business Objective. Does the proposer clearly articulate its reasons for pursuing the Project? Do its assumptions appear reasonable?(d)
Public Support. Has the proposer demonstrated sufficient public support for the proposed Project or proposed a reasonable plan for garnering that support?(A)
Community Benefits. Will the Project bring a significant transportation and economic benefit to the community, the region, or the state? Are there ancillary benefits to the communities because of the Project?(B)
Community Support. What is the extent of known support or opposition for the Project? Does the Project proposal demonstrate an understanding of the national and regional transportation issues and needs, as well as the impacts the Project may have on those needs? Is there a demonstrated ability to work with the community? Have affected local jurisdictions expressed support for the Project?(C)
Public Involvement Strategy. What strategies are proposed to involve local and state elected officials in developing the Project? What level of community involvement is contemplated for the Project? Is there a clear strategy for informing and educating the public and for obtaining community input throughout the development and life of the Project?(e)
Project Compatibility. Is the proposed Project compatible with, or can it be made compatible with state and local comprehensive transportation plans?(A)
Compatibility with the Existing Transportation System. Does the Project propose improvements that are compatible with, or that can be made compatible with, the present and planned transportation system? Does the Project provide continuity with existing and planned state and local facilities?(B)
Fulfills Policies and Goals. Does the proposed Project help achieve performance, safety, mobility or transportation demand management goals? Does the Project improve connections among the transportation modes?(C)
Enhance Community-Wide Transportation System. Has the proposer identified the specific way in which the Project benefits affected community transportation systems? Does the Project enhance adjacent transportation facilities?(D)
Conformity with Local, Regional and State Transportation Plans. Does the Project conform with, or can it achieve conformity with, city and county comprehensive plans and regional transportation plans? Does the Project conform with, or can it achieve conformity with, plans developed by the Oregon Transportation Commission under ORS 184.618 and any applicable regional transportation plans or local transportation programs? If not, are the steps proposed under OAR 731-070-0060 (Contents and Format of Detailed or Competing Proposals)(1)(b) to achieve conformity with such plans adequate and appropriate to provide a high likelihood that the Project and the applicable plans can be brought into conformity?(E)
Economic Development. Will the proposed Project enhance the state’s economic development efforts? Is the Project critical to attracting or maintaining competitive industries and businesses to the region, consistent with stated objectives?(6)
Factors for Proposals that Include Tolling. If the Project financing component of a proposal includes a plan to impose tolls, the Evaluation Panel shall specifically consider:(a)
The opinions and interests of units of government encompassing or adjacent to the path of the proposed Tollway Project in having the Tollway installed;(b)
The probable impact of the proposed Tollway Project on local environmental, aesthetic and economic conditions and on the economy of the state in general;(c)
The extent to which funding other than state funding is available for the proposed Tollway Project and the extent to which resources other than tolls would be required to be established or maintained as necessary security to support such a financing;(d)
The likelihood that the estimated use of the Tollway Project will provide sufficient revenues to independently finance the costs related to the construction and future maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the Tollway Project, including the repayment of any loans to be made from moneys in the State Tollway Account or other accounts;(e)
With respect to Tollway Projects, any portion of which will be financed with state funds or department loans or grants:(A)
The relative importance of the proposed Tollway Project compared to other proposed Tollways; and(B)
Traffic congestion and economic conditions in the communities that will be affected by competing Tollway Projects;(f)
The effects of Tollway implementation on other major highways in the state system and on community and local street traffic;(g)
The amount and classification of the traffic using, or anticipated to use, the Tollway;(h)
The amount of the toll proposed to be established for each class or category of Tollway user and, if applicable, the different amounts of the toll depending on time and day of use;(i)
The extent of the Tollway, including improvements necessary for Tollway operation and improvements necessary to support the flow of traffic onto or off of the Tollway;(j)
The location of toll plazas or toll collection devices to collect the toll for the Tollway;(k)
The cost of constructing, reconstructing, improving, installing, maintaining, repairing and operating the Tollway;(L)
The amount of indebtedness incurred for the construction of the Tollway and debt service requirements, if any;(m)
The value of assets, equipment and services required for the operation of the Tollway;(n)
The period of time during which the toll will be in effect;(o)
The process for altering the amount of the toll during the period of operation of the Tollway;(p)
The method of collecting the toll;(q)
The rate of return that would be fair and reasonable for a private equity holder, if any, in the Tollway; and(r)
Tolling policies adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission.(7)
Evaluation Panel Recommendation For Detailed and Competing Proposals. For any Detailed Proposal that receives a favorable evaluation, the Evaluation Panel will prepare a written recommendation, based on facts and circumstances presented in the proposal or known to ODOT, that the proposal merits consideration for negotiation of a final agreement. The Evaluation Panel will report its assessments and recommendations to the Director. The Director will review the Evaluation Panel’s assessments and recommendations and based on that review shall:(a)
Select one Detailed Proposal and forward the selection to the Commission with a recommendation that the Detailed Proposal constitutes an acceptable basis for an agreement to enter into a public-private partnership with the proposer; or(b)
Reject all Detailed Proposals.
Source:
Rule 731-070-0140 — Evaluation of Unsolicited and Competing Proposals, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=731-070-0140.