Invitation and Selection Process Consultant PQC

Invitation and Selection Process Consultant PQC

For further information or additional copies of this document contact either: Principal Policy Manager Building Policy Unit Works Division Telephone 07 3224 5482 Fax 07 3224 5498 Email bpu@publicworks.qld.gov.au or PQC Registrar PQC Infoline 1800 072 621 Telephone 07 3224 5241 Fax 07 3224 5498 Email pqcregistrar@publicworks.qld.gov.au Department of Public Works GPO Box 2457 Brisbane Qld 4001 Updated May 2008 ISBN No. 1 876690 17 8 www.build.qld.gov.au

Contents 1.0 Introduction... 2 2.0 Policy context... 4 3.0 The Consultant PQC System...5 4.0 Pre-invitation activities... 8 5.0 Consultant invitation... 8 6.0 Consultant selection... 14 7.0 Awarding the commission... 17 Attachment 1 - Schedule of Commission Types, Service Activities and Building Industry Consultants...19 Attachment 2 - Assessment of Value of Consultant Opportunities... 20 Attachment 3 - Increasing Opportunities for Superior Consultants...21 Attachment 4 Evaluation criteria and sub-criteria for consultancy proposals... 22 1

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This document explains the Queensland Government s invitation and selection process for building industry consultants for a prescribed range of higher value and risk commissions associated with government building projects. The guideline forms part of the Prequalification (PQC) System suite of documents that support the Queensland Government s Capital Works and Maintenance Management Frameworks. Use of the guideline will result in more efficient, transparent and consistent government building procurement and procurement of associated maintenance services, enhanced service delivery and greater industry confidence in the Government's selection practices. It promotes industry development through careful and judicious use of the Government's purchasing power and sets performance standards that recognise and reward consultants that demonstrate superior performance. 1.2 Definitions Building Industry Consultant Government building project Principal Agency Terms of Reference An organisation or individual contracted directly to the principal to provide particular services in relation to a government building project (refer Attachment 1). The terms Building industry consultant and consultant are used interchangeably in this guideline. This term as defined in the Capital Works Management Framework. The State of Queensland acting through a particular agency nominated in the consultant invitation documents. A Queensland government department' as that expression is defined in the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977. The document issued by the Principal to the Consultant for the purpose of describing the scope of the project and the scope of the services to be provided by the Consultant 2

1.3 Who should read this guideline? This guideline is specifically intended for: Queensland Government officers or their agents involved in the procurement and/or management and maintenance of government building projects; and building industry consultants seeking to provide services associated with government building projects. 1.4 Review of the guideline The Department of Public Works (DPW), in consultation with government agencies and industry bodies, will periodically review this guideline and amend the contents as/if required. 1.5 Related documents This guideline should be read and used in conjunction with the following policy and guideline documents and Australian Standard relevant to the procurement of government building projects and associated maintenance services (and as amended from time to time): 1.5.1 Policy and guideline documents the Queensland Government State Procurement Policy and in particular, the associated Better Purchasing Guides Prequalifying Suppliers and Engaging and Managing Consultants, DPW; the Capital Works Management Framework (CWMF) and associated guidelines and policy advice notes, DPW; the Maintenance Management Framework (MMF) and associated guidelines, DPW; associated PQC System documents, DPW - in particular: the Consultant PQC: Service Risk Assessment guideline; the Consultant PQC: Performance Reporting guideline; the Consultant PQC: Review Processes guideline; the PQC Database: User Guide; and the Conditions of Prequalification (incorporated in the Application Guide). the Queensland Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry (Code of Practice), Departments of Employment and Industrial Relations, Main Roads and Public Works; and the Local Industry Policy, Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry. 1.5.2 Australian Standard This guideline should be read and used in conjunction with the Australian Standard Code of Ethics and Procedures for the Selection of Consultants - AS4121 (1994). 3

2.0 Policy context 2.1 Queensland Government Procurement Policy The procurement of government building projects is a purchasing function. The State Procurement Policy is the overarching Queensland Government policy relevant to such procurement. The State Procurement Policy has three equally ranking objectives, namely to: advance Government priorities; achieve value for money; and ensure probity and accountability for outcomes. The Government priorities are as developed by the government of the day and amended from time to time. Value for money is defined, not simply in terms of the initial cost of the service, but also in terms of the need to satisfy agency and whole-of-government objectives flowing from the Government priorities. In this context, the total transaction costs (including costs to government) need to be considered, together with whole-of-life cost implications and the impact of any relevant project specific criteria. Probity and accountability for outcomes also need to be demonstrated. This means that agencies need to adequately document the process so that an audit trail is available. Timely and accurate recording of the key events in the invitation and selection process should occur in the PQC Database and elsewhere as appropriate. The State Procurement Policy objectives are required to be addressed for all purchasing, including the procurement of government building projects. Accordingly, they are reflected in the policy intent and objectives of the consultant invitation and selection process covered in section 2.3. The State Procurement Policy covers procurement by agencies, statutory bodies and Government Owned Corporations and their subsidiaries. Among other things, the State Procurement Policy incorporates a suite of Better Purchasing Guides, one of which, previously mentioned in section 1.5, covers the circumstances under which prequalification of suppliers is considered appropriate. 2.2 Capital Works Management Framework (CWMF) The CWMF is referenced in, and complements, the State Procurement Policy; specifically providing a policy framework for managing the risks associated with building procurement by agencies. The PQC System for building industry consultants is an integral part of the CWMF covered in the section dealing with the selection of consultants and contractors (section 2.4.4 of the CWMF refers). 4

The requirements of the CWMF and the PQC System for building industry consultants and contractors are binding on all agencies. 2.3 Intent and objectives of invitation and selection process The policy intent of the whole-of-government building industry consultant invitation and selection process, that incorporates the PQC System, is to achieve an efficient and sustainable market in the building construction industry. Agency participants in the process need to understand the intent and associated objectives which are to ensure: the Government s building capital works procurement processes associated with the selection of consultants are consistent, fair and transparent; the scope, extent and threshold of commissions that require the prequalification of building industry consultants will have a direct relationship to the risk to Government arising from the service; an effective vehicle exists for the achievement of value for money (as defined in section 2.1) and the implementation of the Government s priorities; savings to government and industry through the lowering of overhead costs; access, through a whole-of-government database, to objective and quantifiable data to support the invitation and selection process and to allow the government to monitor its impact (including the ability to measure and monitor the distribution of the Government s building work relating to building industry consultants); enhanced confidence in the ability of the Government s building industry consultants to deliver satisfactory time, cost and quality outcomes; industry has enhanced confidence that the Government applies competence, consistency and probity in the selection of building industry consultants; consultants compete for government building projects against their peers; there is an effective capacity and appropriate mechanisms for Government to respond to any evidence of either, superior consultant performance, or less than adequate consultant performance (which could include non-compliance with relevant government policy, contractual and/or legislative requirements); building industry development and long term sustainability are facilitated; and all relevant government policies are supported through the process. 3.0 The Consultant PQC System 3.1 Overview The Consultant PQC System is an integral part of the building industry consultant invitation and selection process and provides the key point of contact for industry with the process through consultant registration. 5

Prequalification, in this case, is the process by which building industry consultants are assessed against predetermined criteria as a basis for differentiating their capability with respect to particular types of commission associated with government building projects. Only consultants that satisfy the criteria can become prequalified, registered and eligible to provide proposals for the particular types of commission identified in Attachment 1. The PQC System contains records of registered consultant entity and office details, information on past performance on commissions and the types of commissions each consultant is prequalified to undertake. It also provides a comprehensive assessment of each consultant s capabilities and commitment to continuous improvement against prescribed criteria. The application for prequalification incorporates a self-assessment component by which each consultant is assigned to one of four PQC levels from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates that the consultant has effective work practices and 4 indicates the consultant is at the leading edge of practice for the services provided even when compared globally with other leaders across diverse industry sectors. The various services involving government building project commissions are correspondingly rated according to their risk with service risk ratings from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest). On any building project, there is likely to be a number of separate services required, each having a potentially different risk rating. Consultants must be appropriately registered in the System and have a PQC level that matches or exceeds the PQC service risk rating to be eligible to submit proposals for government building project commissions. Further information on service risk assessment is available in the Consultant PQC: Service Risk Assessment guideline. In contrast to the operation of the PQC System for building industry contractors, with its option to use an open tendering process, invitations to consultants to submit proposals mostly involve a select list process. Select lists of consultants may be drawn directly from the PQC System database or from submissions received as a result of an Expressions of Interest process involving prequalified consultants. Central to the effective operation of the PQC System is a performance reporting system. When performance evaluation and reporting is completed in a timely and consistent manner, the performance data can be used to assist in the selection of consultants for new commissions. This is generally carried out during and/or at the conclusion of each commission and the results are retained in the PQC System. Further information on performance evaluation and reporting is available in the Consultant PQC: Performance Reporting guideline. If the PQC Registrar has a concern about any prequalified consultant, that consultant is placed under review while an investigation and inquiries are being pursued. A Seek Advice flag is recorded against the consultant in the PQC System at the same time. The Seek Advice flag does not necessarily exclude the consultant from being considered for a particular commission, but alerts users of the PQC System to seek further information from the PQC Registrar. Further information on reviews of prequalified consultants is available in the Consultant PQC: Review Processes guideline. 6

3.2 When does the PQC System apply? The PQC System should be used for commissions of the particular types identified in Attachment 1 where the consultancy fee is: $30,000 or higher; or less than $30,000 and the service risk rating is 3 or 4. These consultancy fee/service risk thresholds are scheduled in Table A. Table A - Consultancy Fee/Service Risk Thresholds Consultancy Fee Value Service Risk Rating(s) Does the PQC System apply? <$30,000 1 or 2 No normal provisions of State Purchasing Policy apply, however agencies may use the sub-register of consultants for these minor commissions (refer subsection 3.2.1). 3 or 4 Yes $30,000 All Yes If an agency proposes not to use the PQC System to source consultants for commissions covered by the System, prior approval is required from the Director-General, DPW. 3.2.1 Minor government building project commissions Minor commissions of the particular types identified in Attachment 1; i.e. those below the dollar and risk thresholds associated with the PQC System, are not recorded on the PQC System database. However, DPW maintains a sub-register of consultants that may be accessed by agencies for use on such commissions. The sub-register ensures the availability of a pool of consultants that meet minimum standards with respect to, for example, registration/licensing, business/trading arrangements and insurances, for minor commissions. Consultants seeking registration on the sub-register only are required to complete parts one and three of the application for prequalification but are not required to complete the self-assessment part of the application and are not assigned a PQC level. Prequalified consultants will be automatically listed for minor commissions also, unless they have nominated a minimum fee level at or above the $30,000 threshold on their application form. 7

Where there are standing offer or period consultancy arrangements for consultants to provide services associated with government building projects, care should be taken to ensure that only prequalified consultants are used for individual commissions where the dollar and risk thresholds require use of the PQC System. Further information on the PQC System for consultants is available at the Works Division, DPW website www.build.qld.gov.au or from the PQC Registrar, (toll free telephone 1800 072 621, facsimile 07 3224 5241, email pqcregistrar@publicworks.qld.gov.au, mail address GPO Box 2457 Brisbane Qld 4001). 4.0 Pre-invitation activities The quality of the initial planning and documentation prepared by agencies is critical to the selection of suitable consultants and ensuring successful project outcomes. Prior to inviting and selecting consultants through the PQC System, the agency needs to undertake or ensure that the specific tasks, as outlined in the CWMF, are undertaken. They include: preparation of a comprehensive and well defined Terms of Reference (refer CWMF guideline Project Definition); preparation of a commission fee estimate (advice is available from Works Division, DPW with respect to determination of estimates); and selection of an appropriate procurement method (refer CWMF guideline Procurement Selection and Generic Contracts). For commissions where the PQC System applies, it is essential that a project record be created in the PQC System database and maintained as necessary during the invitation and selection process and subsequent commission (refer PQC Database: User Guide). Steps should also be taken during a project s initial planning phases to identify the availability of prequalified consultants specific to the commission requirements. This is particularly important where specialist or unique services are required. In cases where there are too few or no prequalified consultants that offer the required service, it may be necessary to seek consultants not currently registered on the PQC System through an expressions of interest process. 5.0 Consultant invitation 5.1 Invitation methods Two methods are available to identify prequalified consultants who will be invited to submit proposals select invitation and expressions of interest. Both methods ultimately involve the preparation of a shortlist of consultants but the initial approach differs. 8

5.1.1 Select invitation The Queensland Government uses the select invitation method for most consultant commissions. This requires a shortlist of prequalified consultants to be identified and these consultants are then invited to submit proposals. Initially, a long list of consultants is drawn from the PQC System database using criteria that correspond to the commission requirements, for example, with respect to: commission type and service activity the consultant will need to have appropriate qualifications and meet relevant registration or licensing requirements; the PQC service risk rating for the commission - the consultant s PQC level must meet or exceed this; any requirement for the consultants to have certified management systems; the location of the project the consultant is required to nominate the geographic areas of operation across Queensland within which they seek to offer their services; the value of the commission - the consultant is required to nominate minimum and maximum values of commissions they are interested in for the geographic areas of operation across Queensland within which they seek to offer their services; type of work associated with the commission, i.e. new, refurbishment, or fitout, - the consultant is required to provide evidence of experience and capability associated with the nominated type(s) of work at the time of application; and type of project i.e. civic, residential, health care, office, etc, - the consultant is required to provide evidence of experience and capability associated with the nominated type(s) of project at the time of application. It is essential, therefore, that each commission is correctly established in the PQC System database. The next step involves analysing the detailed commission requirements as a basis for reducing the long list of appropriately prequalified and eligible consultants to the shortlist of consultants who will be invited to submit proposals. Factors taken into account in preparing the select list from the long list include: previous opportunities of the consultants on the long list to submit proposals for government building project commissions (taking into account the size of the consultant firm and the period of registration on the PQC System refer Attachment 2); the consultant s demonstrated performance, particularly on previous government building project commissions (with superior performance rewarded with an increase in the number of invitations to submit proposals refer Attachment 3); the consultant s current commitments and capacity to service any new commitments; the consultant s PQC level relative to the PQC service risk rating; and the status and nature of any current review of a consultant on the PQC System. 9

The number of consultants on the select list is determined by factors such as type and value of the commission, service risk and urgency, however it should generally not be less than three or more than five. This will minimise the risk of multiple commissions being awarded to a consultant without a competitive process and facilitate the approach to price scoring described in section 6.1.2.1. Notwithstanding, there are circumstances, e.g. emergent commissions or where the service is highly specialised or unique, that an exception to this provision may be warranted, resulting in a select list of one or two consultants. In such cases, the reason for any departure from the general provision should be recorded. A selection panel should determine the select invitation list of consultants. The panel should comprise at least two people; namely, the agency officer administering the commission (i.e. a professionally qualified person - preferably from the same or related discipline as the required consultant) and a person with a sound knowledge of the register of prequalified consultants. In determining the final list, it is advisable to have identified additional consultants beyond the select list in the event that one or more consultants are not in a position to submit a proposal. The proposed select invitation list, and the documented methodology used to determine it, should then be reviewed and approved by an appropriately delegated senior officer, and retained for probity and audit purposes. Prior to finalising the list, it is good practice to contact the short-listed consultants and determine their availability and/or interest in being invited to submit a proposal. Any decline by a consultant at that stage will not reduce that consultant s opportunities to be invited to submit future proposals. To enhance consistency across government and in accordance with the CWMF, where the commission fee is estimated to exceed $100,000, agencies are required to consult with Works Division, DPW when preparing select invitation lists. 5.1.2 Expressions of interest Expressions of interest should only be used as an invitation method where: special skills or a high level of innovation are required (eg. associated with a design competition); or it is desirable to facilitate opportunities for consultants to work together (in particular to meet the policy objectives associated with local industry participation). In relation to the second dot point, an expressions of interest process may not be necessary if there is an adequate pool of prequalified consultants in the area where the project is located. However, if this is not the case and the project is identified for reporting under the Local Industry Policy, an expressions of interest process should be used. The Local Industry Policy applies to infrastructure and resource based projects valued at more than $5 million that are undertaken by departments and agencies, and to similar projects in regional and rural Queensland valued at more than $2.5 million. Private sector projects supported by government may also be subject to the provisions of the Policy. 10

To achieve optimum local industry participation, advertising for expressions of interest should be limited to the relevant local area (i.e. geographical areas as described in the PQC System) and include provision for principal consultant-subconsultant and consortia arrangements. This provision will enable prequalified local consultants that may not meet the prequalification requirements to undertake a particular commission in their own right to seek a principal consultant with whom they could undertake the commission or alternatively enter into a consortium arrangement with another or other consultants and be considered for shortlisting and invitation. Consortia, when established for particular commissions, are required to be prequalified. The application package for prequalification of consortia is available from the PQC Registrar. The expressions of interest process involves an invitation to prequalified consultants to make submissions: to state their ability to meet specific project requirements, either individually or by combining their abilities; and to be assessed as the basis for determining their inclusion or otherwise in a shortlist for invitation to submit a consultancy proposal. Specific activities should be undertaken in the early planning stages of the expression of interest, to manage risk associated with the procurement of consultant services. They include: assessment of supply market for the consultant services; alignment of project requirements and the supply market capability; and preparation of the expression of interest Terms of Reference. The invitation for the expression of interest, evaluation of submissions and preparation of select lists should be managed by the relevant agency. However, to enhance consistency across government and in accordance with the CWMF, where the fees are estimated to exceed $100,000, agencies are required to consult with Works Division, DPW when preparing select lists using this method. After a decision has been made to seek expressions of interest, Terms of Reference should be prepared. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the effort and documentation required from consultants is minimised. The Terms of Reference should limit the requested information to that which is essential to assess the consultant s capability and interest. It should not require duplication of information that has already been provided and is available in the PQC System, nor should it require information more appropriately addressed in the subsequent stages of selection. Whether invited by letter or public advertisement, the invitation for expressions of interest should always explicitly state the intention of the expression of interest process, which is to identify a shortlist of consultants for invitation to submit a proposal for ultimate selection as the consultant. 11

5.2 Managing invitation activities This section should be read in conjunction with the Australian Standard Code of Ethics and Procedures for the Selection of Consultants - AS4121 (1994) and the State Procurement Policy. The invitation activities need to be managed to enable invited consultants to develop proposals appropriate to the Terms of Reference and within the nominated timeframe. These activities include preparation and distribution of documents, responding to consultant inquiries during the proposal preparation period, and receiving and closing of proposals. For some commissions, it may also be appropriate to schedule pre-invitation briefings with consultants on the select list. 5.2.1 Invitation documents The invitation documents for a commission underpin the agreement between the agency and the consultant. All reasonable steps should therefore be taken to ensure that adequate time is allowed for the preparation of these documents and that they are clear and accurate to reduce the likelihood of subsequent amendments. The agency should provide an invitation package to each of the consultants on the select list. The package should contain all information necessary to enable the consultants to prepare a concise and conforming proposal. The same package should be given to all consultants. As a minimum, the package should include: a Letter of Invitation including evaluation criteria and any applicable weightings; conditions of offer; the Terms of Reference detailing the specific service requirements and scope of the commission; a copy of the General Conditions of Engagement of Consultants; a copy of any Special Conditions of Engagement; and instructions regarding the required structure and/or format of proposals. The invitation should not require consultants to provide information that has already been provided and is available in the PQC System. Consultant responses to price and non-price criteria (covered in section 6.2.1 and Attachment 4) should always be sought in separate parts (envelopes or electronic files depending on whether the process is paper based or involves etendering) to allow the relative merits of each consultant s non-price proposal to be assessed separately and before the fee proposal is sighted. This should be made clear to consultants in the instructions relating to the format of proposals. 5.2.2 Enquiries/amendments during the invitation period The agency officer nominated to manage the commission should promptly attend to and record any enquires and responses relating to invitation documents for a particular commission. Where it is considered necessary to provide information to consultants as a result of an enquiry, the information should be issued to all invited consultants as an addendum as soon as possible. Each consultant should be requested to confirm receipt of all addenda at the time of submitting their proposal. 12

Amendment to invitation documents during the invitation period should be avoided. However, if required, amendments should be provided as addenda to all invited consultants and the consultants requested to confirm receipt of such addenda. If the amendments are significant and require extensive consideration or are issued late in the invitation period, an assessment should be made of the likely impact on the adequacy of the proposals sought and whether the invitation period should be extended. If it is subsequently determined to extend the invitation period, the extension should also be handled as an addendum. 5.2.3 Receiving and closing of proposals A closing date, time, and place of lodgement should be nominated in the invitation documents. The closing date should allow a reasonable time for the preparation of proposals and take account of addenda that may have been issued and public holidays that fall within the proposal period. Agencies should have a documented and auditable system in place to ensure the security and confidentiality of all proposals received prior to the closing time. When receiving paper-based proposals, the use of a locked box provides assurance that proposals are appropriately secured. Where electronic lodgement of proposals is used, processes need to be in place to ensure that the electronic files are stored securely. Unless an agency has an electronic tendering system, proposals should be opened as soon as practicable following the closing time, checked, dated and signed by at least two people, their receipt recorded in a register and acknowledged in writing. Alternatively, where an electronic tendering system is used, the receipt of proposals will be electronically recorded and acknowledged. 5.2.4 Consultant Fees While fees are an important aspect of any proposal, it is important that they are not overemphasised relative to the non-price evaluation criteria. Consultants should receive a fee commensurate with the level of required service. A number of key industry bodies produce fee guides for varying types and levels of service. These may be helpful as a reference, subject to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act (Cwth). Fees should be determined in accordance with requirements specified in the invitation documents and will usually be described in the form of a lump sum or percentage of the estimated building cost. It is expected that the fee will take into account such factors as specified quality requirements, required documentation levels, known risks and contractual obligations (e.g. ownership of copyright) together with any value-adding to be delivered by the consultant through activities such as research, option studies, design innovations and coordination of subconsultants. Where there is a particular need to achieve a required level of service, agencies may find it beneficial to fix a minimum fee for commissions. 13

Generally, consultants cannot claim fees for the preparation of proposals. However, where the commission is complex and is likely to involve considerable cost to the consultants in preparing their proposals, the agency should give consideration to allowing invited consultants to claim some portion of their costs. In such cases, these arrangements should be identified in the invitation documents. Where there is any uncertainty regarding appropriate consultant fee levels, when to fix a minimum fee or the circumstances where payments should be considered for the preparation of proposals, advice should be sought from Works Division, DPW. 6.0 Consultant selection 6.1 Evaluation methods The State Procurement Policy Better Purchasing Guide Engaging and Managing Consultants references two methods for the evaluation of consultant proposals: Value selection; and Qualification Based Selection. 6.1.2 Value Selection Value Selection should be the evaluation method used where the commission service requirements are either well defined and/or of a routine nature (i.e. in the majority of cases). This evaluation methodology will identify proposals that represent the best value for money, with value for money being determined using an evaluation of consultant responses to both price and non-price criteria. This method rewards the consultant who has the highest overall weight adjusted score for both price and non-price criteria. 6.1.2.1 Price scoring The highest score for the price criterion should be awarded to the proposal offering the fee closest to the average and the lowest score(s) should be awarded to the fee(s) furthest from the average, whether above or below. This approach requires a minimum of three fee proposals and will result in a negative score if a fee is less than half the average. The score should then be weight-adjusted using whatever pre-established weighting has been determined for the price criterion. The price score should then be added to the scores for the non-price criteria to arrive at an overall score for each proposal. Subject to value for money considerations, where three proposals have been sought by an agency but only two proposals are received, the highest score for the price criteria will generally be awarded to the proposal offering the lowest price. However, where three proposals have been sought and only one proposal is received, the officer responsible for the invitation process should carefully consider whether invitations for proposals should be re-called.. 6.1.3 Qualification Based Selection Qualification Based Selection should be the evaluation method used when the commission service requirements lack definition and/or require significant innovation. 14

The Qualification Based Selection method identifies consultants who are best qualified to address the commission's non-price selection criteria. Selection is based on an evaluation of consultant responses to non-price criteria only (i.e. the fee proposal is not considered in the initial evaluation). The fee proposal should be opened only after a preferred consultant is identified and then only for that preferred consultant. The fee proposal is used as the starting point for negotiations with the preferred consultant regarding the scope of work and associated fees. If agreement cannot be reached with the preferred consultant, negotiations may then begin with the second ranked consultant and so on through the rankings until agreement is reached. All unopened fee proposals should be returned to unsuccessful consultants. The Qualification Based Selection method and the associated negotiations require professional and technical expertise. Agencies should seek advice from Works Division, DPW before committing to this method. Evaluation criteria and weightings Under the CWMF, agencies are required to consult with DPW on the proposed evaluation criteria and weightings for all High Risk/Significant (HRS) projects (as defined in the CWMF) and consultancies. In this regard, advice is available from Works Division, DPW. 6.2.1 Evaluation criteria The evaluation of consultants should be undertaken using price and non-price evaluation criteria. The approach to evaluation of consultant responses to the price criterion through their fee proposals is covered in section 6.1. The non-price criteria include: understanding project objectives; methodology; resource strategy; value adding; and support for local industry. Information sought from consultants in response to these criteria should be limited to the critical aspects of the service to be provided. The level of detail sought in the proposals should be commensurate with the value and service risk associated with the commission. The evaluation criteria and associated sub criteria are addressed in further detail at Attachment 4 - Evaluation criteria and sub-criteria for consultancy proposals. 15

6.2.2 Weightings The weightings for particular criteria should be aligned to the achievement of an appropriate balance of project and community outcomes, while at the same time being responsive to factors such as project size, complexity, profile, budget, timeframe, specialist nature, site conditions and location. 6.3 Evaluation of proposals The aim of the proposal evaluation process is to identify the most advantageous proposal for the agency, that is, the proposal that offers the best value for money as the term is defined in the State Procurement Policy (refer section 2.1). The review and evaluation process must be transparent, fair and equitable. It is good practice to document and randomly audit the process to verify that it is working effectively. Any discrepancies should be noted and addressed before a final recommendation is made. Any proposal that is not lodged by the closing date (unless a consultant can provide a reasonable written explanation of causes beyond their control which caused this) or that does not comply with the requirements of the conditions of offer included in the invitation package may be deemed non-conforming and be rejected without evaluation. The Principal also has the option to reject all proposals and recall invitations in accordance with the conditions of offer. However, it is important that this step be undertaken with good reason. 6.3.1 The evaluation panel The evaluation of submissions is to be undertaken by an evaluation panel of at least three people (including agency representation) comprising: one professionally qualified officer involved in preparing the invitation documents; one officer (preferably from the same discipline as the consultant required) with sound technical knowledge and capable of understanding and interpreting the proposals; and one officer with a sound knowledge of the State Procurement Policy, the CWMF and procedural requirements. One of the panel members should assume the role of evaluation panel chairperson. The panel chairperson is responsible for ensuring that the proposal evaluation process is conducted in a timely, competent and accountable manner. 6.3.2 Proposal evaluation plan On high value, high risk and/or sensitive commissions it may be appropriate to prepare a proposal evaluation plan to assist evaluators in their task and help ensure that the process is conducted in a timely, competent and accountable manner. The plan should comprise: a description of the evaluation criteria and associated weightings. It may also be useful to provide a list of sub-criteria presented in the form of a checklist to assist evaluation of the proposals (refer Attachment 4 for a list of sub-criteria); 16

a description of the scoring method to be used; and a brief explanation of the evaluation method being used (that is, Value Selection or Qualification Based Selection refer section 6.1) and an overview of the steps in the process. 6.3.3 Approach when the proposal fee is very low Care should always be exercised in selecting proposals where the whole or a key element of the proposal is at a fee level considered well below the average proposal fee, and/or the fee estimate for the commission. While the price scoring approach used in the Value Selection method significantly reduces the likelihood of a proposal with a very low fee emerging as the preferred proposal, this could occur if the consultant scored highly in response to the non-price criteria. Low fee proposals may also be encountered where there is a sole invitee or two invitees. In this situation, it is good practice to request the consultant offering the very low fee to review their proposal and/or respond to questions regarding particular aspects of the proposal and confirm in writing that the Terms of Reference and contractual obligations are fully understood before proceeding. If the consultant has made a mistake in preparing their proposal, there is an opportunity for the consultant to withdraw the proposal. 6.3.4 Pre-approval activities Prior to recommending a preferred consultant, the identified consultant s current workload should be clarified and a check should be undertaken through the PQC System database to confirm that the consultant is still eligible to undertake the commission in terms of currency of registration/licensing, management systems, insurances or any other issues that may preclude the awarding of the commission to that consultant. 7.0 Awarding the commission Subject to satisfactory pre-approval checks, the evaluation panel should nominate the preferred consultant to the relevant approving authority. After approval at the appropriately delegated management level, a Letter of Commission should be issued to the successful consultant commissioning the consultant under the General Conditions of Engagement (refer section 7.1). Some agencies may require that a purchase order be raised prior to the issue of a Letter of Commission to meet financial reporting requirements. Each unsuccessful consultant should be advised in writing of the outcome of the evaluation process and of the name of the successful consultant. 7.1 Standard consultant agreement DPW maintains a standard consultant agreement for building industry consultants (General Conditions of Engagement for Consultants) available to agencies for the engagement of these consultants. 17

As this standard agreement is revised periodically, agencies should check with Contract Services, DPW, to ensure they have the latest version before seeking proposals from consultants. 7.2 Debriefing Debriefing meetings to discuss evaluation results should be available to consultants upon request. The debriefings should be held on an individual basis and be conducted by a member of the evaluation panel, preferably the chairperson. The purpose of the debriefing is to provide constructive feedback on areas where the consultant could improve for future proposals. In this regard, the panel should advise the consultant on: the adequacy of the consultant s proposal in relation to the evaluation criteria; and the relativity of the consultant s response to each of the criteria in comparison to the successful consultant, taking care not to disclose actual scores. 18

Attachment 1 - Schedule of Commission Types, Service Activities and Building Industry Consultants Commission Type - Survey/Site investigation Service activity Geotechnical Building Industry Consultant Registered civil engineer (BPEQ) Engineering technologist/associate (Civil) (NETR registered) Site classifier (QBSA) Commission Type - Design and documentation Service activity Acoustics Building Industry Consultant Registered engineer (BPEQ) Mechanical (HVAC) Registered mechanical engineer (BPEQ) Mechanical contractor (QBSA) Surveying Licensed consulting surveyor (SBQ) Commission Type - Design and documentation Service activity Building Design Building Industry Consultant Registered architect (BOA) Building designer (QBSA) Residential designer (QBSA) Structural Vertical transportation Fire Registered civil engineer (BPEQ) Engineering technologist/associate (Civil) (NETR registered) Registered engineer (BPEQ) Registered engineer (BPEQ) Landscape Design Environmental Civil Engineering Energy Hydraulics/Plumbing Landscape architect (eligible for corporate membership of AILA) Registered civil engineer (BPEQ) Environmental scientist practicing in environmental engineering Landscape architect (eligible for corporate membership of AILA) Registered civil engineer (BPEQ) Engineering technologist/associate (Civil) (NETR registered) Registered electrical/mechanical engineer (BPEQ) Engineering technologist/associate (electrical/ mechanical) (NETR registered) Mechanical contractor (QBSA) Registered civil engineer (BPEQ) Hydraulics services designer (QBSA) Security Registered electrical/ mechanical engineer (BPEQ) Engineering technologist/associate (electrical/ mechanical) (NETR registered) Commission Type Building Project Management Service activity Building project management Building Industry Consultant Project manager (holding building and construction / property industry related tertiary qualification and eligible for full membership of AIPM) Commission Type - Cost Management Service activity Cost Planning and management Bill of Quantities Commission Type - Compliance Service activity Building Certification Building Industry Consultant Quantity surveyor (eligible for AIQS membership) Quantity surveyor (eligible for AIQS membership) Building Industry Consultant Building surveyor (QBSA) Building surveyor assistant (QBSA) Building surveyor technician (QBSA) 19

Attachment 2 - Assessment of Value of Consultant Opportunities In line with the objective to achieve a consistent, fair and transparent consultant selection process, the PQC System database record of each consultant s previous opportunities to submit proposals for government building project commissions is used to determine the initial order of the long list of prequalified consultants when a select list is being prepared. Opportunities are considered, not only in terms of the total dollar value of commissions for which the consultant has previously been invited to submit a proposal, but also take account of the size of the consultant entity and the period of time the consultant has been registered on the PQC System. A moderated ratio referred to as the Adjusted Value of Opportunities (AVO) ratio is determined for each consultant on the long list. The size of the consultant entity is used to recognise industry sustainability as a factor in determining the AVO ratio on the basis that a small consultant entity would receive a greater benefit than a large consultant entity from the same commission. The period of time the consultant has been registered on the PQC System is used as a factor in determining the AVO ratio on the basis that it would be reasonably expected that if two consultants have had the same total dollar value of opportunities and the entities are the same size, then the entity that was first prequalified and registered should be higher in the initial ordering of the long list. The Adjusted Value of Opportunities (AVO) ratio for each consultant is determined using the formula: AVO = RVO NVO av PR 100% where: AVO is the Adjusted Value of Opportunities ratio; RVO is the Raw Value of Opportunities in $ for the total period of registration; NVO av is the average annual Net Fee Value of the consultant (excluding fees paid to subconsultants where the consultant is the Principal Consultant); and PR is the consultant s Period of Registration on the PQC System in years. 20

Attachment 3 - Increasing Opportunities for Superior Consultants Consultants awarded superior consultant status through performance reporting on government building project commissions are identified in the PQC System. Whenever these consultants appear on a long list during the preparation of a select invitation list, at least one should be given priority consideration for inclusion on the select list. This should generally be the superior consultant, who has previously had the least opportunity to submit proposals for government building project commissions (i.e. the lowest Adjusted Value of Opportunities ratio). There may be scope to include other superior consultants on the same select list, however consideration also needs to be given to consultants on the PQC System that have previously performed adequately, those who have not had a government building project commission and, within this group, those that have not previously been invited to submit a proposal. The following diagram illustrates the preferred approach. Shortlist example for commission with Service Risk Rating of 3 N N A A S N N A A A S A A A A S A A A S Short List of five (say) with number of untried consultants limited in line with perceived risk. Adequate consultant with lowest Adjusted Value of Opportunities (AVO) moves off the select list. Superior consultant with lowest Adjusted Value of Opportunities (AVO) moves onto the select list. Long List of 20 (say) including 3 consultants with superior (S) status, four consultants not previously invited (N) and the remaining consultants having previously performed adequately (A). 21

Attachment 4 Evaluation criteria and sub-criteria for consultancy proposals The following criteria identified in section 6.2.1 should be used to evaluate consultant proposals: Understanding project objectives Methodology Resource strategy Value adding Support for local industry Price Each of these is addressed in this attachment together with relevant sub-criteria, which agencies may use at their discretion. 1) Understanding project objectives The consultant s understanding of project objectives is important, particularly for design commissions associated with larger projects. Consultant responses to this criterion should convey the consultant s analytical understanding of the objectives and not simply repeat those stated in the Terms of Reference. The consultant s understanding of project objectives should also be evident in their response to other criteria. Relevant sub-criteria that consultants could be requested to address in their proposals include: the scope of work identified in the Terms of Reference; project objectives and deliverables in terms of time, cost, quality and function; design intent; operational efficiency requirements / intended service delivery from the facility; flexibility requirements; built asset whole-of-life factors such as maintenance, operating costs, etc. 2) Methodology This criterion is concerned with the consultant s processes for delivery of the required service. Consultant responses may include diagrammatic representation of the proposed processes, reporting relationships, systems, procedures, etc. Relevant sub-criteria that consultants could be requested to address in their proposals include: process management overall design (or trade package) documentation process programming issues cost planning and cost management 22

built asset whole-of-life cost issues training, handover and commissioning processes buildability issues quality management, safety and environment policies management systems key support equipment and systems built asset whole-of-life cost issues alternative forms of procurement strategy for maximising value for money community consultation strategy environmental management/sustainability 3) Resource Strategy The criterion is seeks to clarify how the consultant will resource the project in line with the project objectives. The required resources should be outlined, including back-up resources and any special expertise considerations. Relevant sub-criteria that consultants could be requested to address in their proposals include: capability of the project team (both managerial and supervisory personnel and key team members); personnel backup strategies; referees; resource management strategies; management structures and reporting relationships (including identification of key activities and the proportion of time that identified personnel will be allocated to these activities); past and current time related performance; impact on agency resources; use of special information technology packages. 4) Value adding This criterion provides consultants with an opportunity to state benefits that they can offer over and above those sought in the Terms of Reference. The information provided should demonstrate how the consultants propose to add value to the delivery process or the project outcome. Relevant sub-criteria that consultants could be requested to address in their proposals include: innovative approaches to design issues described in the Terms of Reference; incorporation of research and development findings into project deliverables; prior knowledge of the particular site; 23

understanding of local issues; special skills of personnel (may also be reflected in resources section); contribution to the built environment. 5) Support for local industry This criterion is concerned with local industry participation issues and requires consultants to explain how full, fair and reasonable access to government building work will be provided. The criterion is particularly relevant to commissions for projects in regional Queensland. Relevant sub-criteria that consultants could be requested to address in their proposals include: strategy for use of local subconsultants and/or service providers and suppliers; strategy for providing training and/or skills/technology transfer to local consultants and/or local service providers or suppliers; and opportunities for local product specification / import replacement. 6) Price (fees) This criterion is relevant to both Value Selection and Qualification-based Selection as it provides the basis for assessment of value for money of consultant proposals. Under Value Selection, price scores are calculated using a price scoring formula; whereas under Qualification-based Selection, price scoring is relevant only to the extent of providing a starting point for negotiations with the preferred consultant after that consultant has been initially identified based on responses to the non-price criteria. Consultant fees need to be stated in accordance with the invitation documents. Generally, this will be in the form of a lump sum or percentage of the estimated building cost or based on an hourly rate with an agreed maximum limit. 24