Laserfiche WebLink
David Hartwig <br />March 3, 1997 <br />Page 3 - Memorandum <br />I have gleaned the following notions from the FTA information. First, <br />because of grant funding from FTA to the transit district and Marion County, we <br />must adhere to the solicitation and selection matters required by FTA. The County <br />may use the processes which we have generally identified by resolution. These <br />processes a11ow the use of RFPs, rather than formal competitive sealed bids in many <br />cases. In order for the County process to work, we must still conform to certain <br />minimum FTA criteria. These are as follows: <br />1. No contract may be let for more than five years, including options, without <br />prior written FTA approval. <br />2. The RFP process must be an open competitive process. This means that <br />qualification standards may not be arbitrarily set, there must be full <br />opportunity for competition among reasonably qualified sources of <br />c~~.p~~'~~'~~^i~r€ennation, and the selection process must be carried out in a fair and non- <br />arbitrary manner. <br />3. No in-state preferences may be granted except for architectural and <br />engineering services. A and E services are broadly defined to include the <br />architect, project management, construction management, and engineering. <br />4. The competitive RFP must include publication, solicitation of an adequate <br />number of qualified sources, a technical review process to select the <br />successful proposer, and the contract must be awarded to the most responsible <br />firm considering advantages to the Courthouse Square Project, including <br />consideration of price and other factors. <br />'I'he RFP process is generally acceptable when sealed bids are not appropriate. <br />The FTA does not absolutely require one process or the other. Sealed bids are <br />preferred for construction contracts. But the issue is to look at what method is most <br />appropriate in the circumstances. <br />There aze reasons why a sealed bid would not be appropriate for the <br />demolition/abatemenbrecycling contract. Even though these services are provided by <br />a variety of sources, the parties to this project would not necessarily be satisfied with <br />the lowest priced responsive bidder. The sealed bid process assuxnes there is little or <br />no discussion necessary with the proposers or bidders. That does not appear to be <br />the case here. It also assumes that a firm, fixed price is the key factor and a feasible <br />