4J Stadium. June - September 1999

New Search

AUG -26 -1999 15:56 SD4J FACILITIES MANAGMENT 15416873686 P.04/05 Further, you imply that WRG should have been chosen over WBGS to avoid time delay for fee negotiation. The fee negotiation was completed on 8/23/99, one business day after the scheduled NTP. The loss of one business day will not affect the overall schedule. My finding is that fee differential between the two firms is relatively minor, certainly not supporting a finding of non- responsiveness or nonresponsibility. 3. You list your qualifications as the first section of your letter of protest. It is the qualifications of WBGS which must be successfully challenged for a protest to be upheld. My finding is that the qualifications of your firm are not grounds for consideration in this protest. 4. You list your synthetic athletic field experience in comparison with that of WBGS, and the proportion that this represents of the entire project, and imply that this better qualifies your firm for the project. The selection criteria were listed in the RFP. The selection criteria could have been protested - no protest was received. Athletic field experience and youth sports park experience, together, represents 20% of the overall scoring for proposals. They were also factors considered in the interview. It was the opinion of the selection review committee, made up of technical professionals and school personnel, that WBGS scored higher in terms of the proposal and interview criteria, than did WRG. As a competitive process, it is incumbent upon the proposers to demonstrate, through the proposals and interviews, that they are not only qualified for the project, but more qualified than other proposing firms. My finding is that District followed the selection process outlined in the RFP, and that WBGS demonstrated that they were more qualified to perform this project, 5. OAR. 1376-035-0070(2) states that "A public contracting agency shall not consider a selection protest submitted after the time period established in this section, unless a different deadline is provided in the RFP." Your protest is dated and was received on 8/25/99. The deadline established in the RFP is 48 hours from the notice of final selection. The notice of intent to award was sent to you on 8/17/99. My finding is that your protest may not have been submitted in a timely fashion. Consequently, on behalf of the District, I must respectfully deny your protest in that the findings do not support an affirmative non - responsiveness or non - responsibility test. It is our intent to execute a contract with WBGS within a day or two. You may, if you wish, schedule a meeting with me to discuss this issue. Because the contract for professional services is between the School District and the consultant, the City Council is not involved. As explained above, it is the Superintendent or designee, not the School Board, that reviews and acts upon protests. (School Board meetings are typically held twice a month and there is opportunity for public comment at the beginning of every meeting). As we discussed, I believe your firm did a very good job with the proposal and presentation. In the professional opinion of the committee, using the criteria of the RFP, WBGS was deemed to be a more suitable fit for this project.