RFP for Quality Assurance Review - State System of Higher Education

ADVERTISEMENT IN PA BULLETIN 

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education 

Request for Proposal 

RFP PASSHE-QAR-2005-1 

Centrally Held Open End Contracts for 

Quality Assurance Reviews of Construction Plans and Specifications 

(QA Reviews & Related Services) 

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (System), through the Office of the Chancellor, 

expects to centrally contract with 2 or more firms to be available on an as-needed basis to perform 

Quality Assurance Reviews of Construction Plans and Specifications (QA Reviews and Related 

Services) for projects that will occur throughout the System. Proposers shall be current and experienced 

providers of the types of services desired and shall have proven and documented methodologies, 

procedures, and checklists for the performance of the types of services desired. 

The System includes the Commonwealth’s 14 state-owned universities located throughout Pennsylvania, 

Dixon University Center in Harrisburg, and various branch campuses and other facilities operated by the 

Universities. Anticipated work includes reviews for various projects undertaken by the System and its 

Universities associated with the construction and renovation of higher education facilities. 

The Request for Proposal (RFP) is available at the following Web Address: 

http://www.passhe.edu/content/?/office/finance/facilities/procurement. Interested and qualified firms 

can obtain an RFP preferably from the web site or from Dorethe Latin, Construction Support Secretary, 

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, Dixon University Center, Office of the Chancellor, 

Construction Support Office, 2986 North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110. Requests for the RFP 

can be faxed to (717) 720-4111, or e-mailed to dlatin@passhe.edu. A Pre -Proposal Conference will be 

held on September 14, 2005. Responses to the RFP are due on October 5, 2005, by 4 p.m. 

The System encourages responses from small firms, minority firms, women-owned firms, and firms that 

have not previously worked for the System, and will consider joint ventures that enable these firms to 

participate in System contracts. Non-discrimination and equal opportunity are the policies of the 

Commonwealth and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. 

Department: 

Location: 

Duration: 

Contact: 


Throughout Pennsylvania at State -Owned Universities and Related Facilities 

2 Year Contract with renewal options, 6-year maximum term 

Jim Barbush, Facilities Contracts Manager

This Page Blank

August 25, 2005 

RE: 

INVITATION TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 

RFP PASSHE-QAR-2005-1 

Centrally Held Open End Contracts for Quality Assurance Reviews of Construction Plans 

and Specifications (QA Reviews & Related Services) 

To: 

Qualified Firm 

You are invited to submit a response to the attached Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP explains the 

procedures and requirements whereby the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (System), 

through the Office of the Chancellor, expects to centrally contract with one or more firms to be available 

on an as-needed basis to perform Quality Assurance Reviews of Construction Plans and Specifications 

(QA Reviews & Related Services) for projects that will occur throughout the System. 

The attached Request For Proposal (RFP) is available at the following web address: 

http://www.passhe.edu/content/?/office/finance/facilities/procurement. 

Projects will be located at the 14 state-owned universities (Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, 

East Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg, 

Slippery Rock, and West Chester), Dixon University Center in Harrisburg, and the various branch 

campuses of the Universities. 

Universities and the Office of the Chancellor will solicit proposals from contracted firms to provide QA 

Reviews & Related Services in 6 Categories of Service: 

1. Interdisciplinary Reviews 

2. Constructability Reviews 

3. Forensic Reviews 

4. As-Built Reviews 

5. Other Reviews Within the Scope of Work and Developed by the Contracted Firms 

6. Workshops to Train System Staff in the Performance of QA Reviews 

Proposers shall be current and experienced providers of the types of services desired and shall have 

proven and documented methodologies, procedures, and checklists for the performance of the types 

of services desired. 

A non-mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference is scheduled to be conducted at 10 a.m., Wednesday, 

September 14, 2005, at: 


Dixon University Center 

Office of the Chancellor 

2986 North Second Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-1201 

South Hall, Room 107/108 

Questions may be submitted to the Contact Person, in writing, prior to the Pre -Proposal Meeting. 

All attendees at the Pre-Proposal Conference and Requestors of the RFP that have signed in as attending 

the Pre-Proposal Conference or requesting the RFP will be issued an Addendum providing written 

answers to all submitted questions. 

The Universities: 

Bloomsburg California Cheyney Clarion East Stroudsburg Edinboro Indiana 

Kutztown Lock Haven Mansfield Millersville Shippensburg Slippery Rock West Chester

Five (5) copies of your Proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the RFP to the 

following Issuing Officer by 4 p.m., Wednesday, October 5, 2005: 

James E. Barbush, Facilities Contracts Manager 




Construction Support Office 



If you have questions regarding this transmittal, please contact either the Issuing Officer or the Contact 

Person (contact information provided in Part I of the RFP). 

Sincerely, 

Jim Barbush 

Facilities Contracts Manager 

JEB/ddl 

Enclosure: ITQ PASSHE-QAR-2005-1 (If invitation is mailed) 

TO AID THE SYSTEM IN EVALUATING RESPONSES TO THIS RFP AND DEVELOPING A 

USEFUL LIST OF PROPOSERS, ALL PROPOS ERS SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING 

INFORMATION BY E-MAIL (PREFERRED) OR FAX: 

PROPOSER’S COMPANY NAME 

Proposer’s Mailing Address 

(Must provide street address in addition to any P. O. Box in case of express mailing) 

Contact Person’s Name 

Contact Person’s Title 

Contact Person’s Phone, Fax, & E-Mail Address 

This information will allow the System to efficiently communicate with Proposers 

regarding important information, such as Addenda, concerning the RFP. 

As the first line of communication from the System to the Proposer, 

e-mail is preferred over mail, phone, and fax. 

SUBMIT THE INFORMATION BY E-MAIL (PREFERRED) OR FAX TO: 

Dorethe Latin 

Construction Support Secretary 

e-mail: dlatin@passhe.edu 

Fax: 717-720-4111 







The Universities: 

Bloomsburg California Cheyney Clarion East Stroudsburg Edinboro Indiana 

Kutztown Lock Haven Mansfield Millersville Shippensburg Slippery Rock West Chester

Version Dated August 15, 2005 


__________________________________________________ 

Request For Proposal 

Centrally Held Open End Contracts 

For 

Quality Assurance Reviews 

Of 

Construction Plans And Specifications 

__________________________________________________ 

RFP SSHE-QAR-2005-1 

__________________________________________________ 

Utilizing 

Contract Form QAR 2005 

Standard Form Of Agreement 

Open End Contract For Quality Assurance Reviews Of Construction Plans And Specifications 

(QA Reviews & Related Services) 

__________________________________________________ 

ISSUING OFFICE 




Office of Administration and Finance 


CONTRACTING OFFICER 

Steven R. Dupes 

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities 

ISSUING OFFICER 

James E. Barbush 


AUGUST 2005 

RFP SSHE-QAR-2005-1


This Page Blank 

RFP SSHE-QAR-2005-1


REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 

FOR 

Quality Assurance Reviews of Construction Plans & Specifications 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Part I 

GENERAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSERS 

Part II 

INFORMATION ABOUT THE STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDCUATION 

Part III 

WORK STATEMENT 

Part IV 

INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM PROPOSERS 

Part V 

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 

ATTACHMENTS 

ATTACHMENT 1 QUALIFICATION REQUEST & MAP OF THE UNIVERSITIES 

ATTACHMENT 2 PA BUSINESS CERTIFICATION FORM 

ATTACHMENT 3 PASSHE FORM 150 ASP – APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT 

ATTACHMENT 4 CONTRACT FORM 


Table of Contents 

Page i





Page ii



FOR 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PART I 

I-1. 

I-2. 

I-3. 

I-4. 

I-5. 

I-6. 

I-7. 

I-8. 

I-9. 

I-10. 

I-11. 

I-12. 

I-13. 

I-14. 

I-15. 

I-16. 

I-17. 

I-18. 

I-19. 


PURPOSE & SCOPE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 

PROBLEM STATEMENT 

ISSUING OFFICE, CONTRACTING OFFICER, & ISSUING OFFICERS FOR THIS RFP 

TYPE OF CONTRACT 

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE 

AMENDMENT TO THE RFP 

RESPONSE DATE 

PROPOSALS 

REJECTION OF PROPOSALS 

INCURRING COSTS 

ECONOMY OF PREPARATION 

ORAL PRESENTATION 

PRIME PROPOSER RESPONSIBILITIES 

DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSAL CONTENTS 

DEBRIEFING CONFERENCES 

NEWS RELEASES 

SYSTEM PARTICIPATION 

COST DATA – NEGOTIATION OF FEES 

NOTICE AS TO FILING A PROTEST 

PART II DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION and BACKGROUND 

II-1. PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

PART III WORK STATEMENT 

III-1. 

III-2. 

III-3. 

III-4. 

OBJECTIVES 

HISTORICAL AND ANTICIPATED VOLUMES OF WORK 

SCOPE OF SERVICES 

PROCEDURES 

PART IV INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM PROPOSERS 

IV-1. REQUIRED INFORMATION 

IV-2. DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED INFORMATION 

PART V CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 

V-1. 

V-2. 

SELECTION PROCESS 

EVALUATION CRITERIA 

ATTACHMENTS 

ATTACHMENT 1 QUALIFICATION MATRIX & MAP OF UNIVERSITIES 


ATTACHMENT 3 PASSHE FORM 150 ASP - APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT 




Page i





Page ii




EXPANDED TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PART I 

I-1. 

I-2. 

I-3. 

I-4. 

I-5. 

I-6. 

I-7. 

I-8. 

I-9. 

I-10. 

I-11. 

I-12. 

I-13. 

I-14. 

I-15. 

I-16. 

I-17. 

I-18. 

I-19. 



A. SELECTIONS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS 

B. DEFINITION OF SERVICES RELATED TO QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS 

1. Interdisciplinary Review 




5. Other Reviews Related To Scope Of Work & Developed By Contracted Firms 

6. Workshops To Train System Staff In The Performance Of QA Reviews 

C. REPLACEMENT OF EXPIRED CONTRACTS 

D. BROADEN AVAILABLE SERVICES 

E. CONTENTS OF THIS RFP 


A. SYSTEM WIDE COVERAGE 

B. DEFINITION OF SERVICES (TYPES OF SERVICES) 

C. PROJECT SIZE AND GOVERNING THRESHOLDS 

C. THE PROCESS 



A. MULTIPLE AWARD CONTR ACTS (OPEN END CONTR ACTS) 

B. NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONTRACTS 

C. NEGOTIATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS WORK ORDERS 

D. CONTENTS OF THE OPEN END CONTRACTS 

E. CONTRACT PERIOD 

F. RENEWAL YEARS – ESCALATION 


• IF A PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE IS HELD 

• IF A PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE IS N O T HELD 


RESPONSE DATE 

PROPOSALS 








NEWS RELEASES 




A. PROTEST SUBMITTAL 

B. TIME FOR FILING OF PROTEST 

C. GROUNDS FOR PROTEST 

D. DECISION BY OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR 



Page i


PART II DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION and BACKGROUND 

II-1. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

A. CURRENT COMPOSITION 

B. AUTHORIZATION 

C. GOVERNANCE 

PART III WORK STATEMENT 

III-1. OBJECTIVES 

III-2. 

III-3. 

III-4. 



A. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 





5. Other Reviews Related To Scope Of Work And Developed By The Contracted Firms 


B. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES FOR CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEW 

C. RESPONSIBILITIES 

PROCEDURES 

A. ISSUANCE OF RFP & SELECTION OF FIRMS 

B. ADMINISTRATION OF MASTER OPEN END CONTRACTS 

C. ADMINISTRATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORK ORDERS (IWOs) 

PART IV INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM PROPOSERS 

IV-1. 

IV-2. 

REQUIRED INFORMATION 

• THE FORMAT OF THE PROPOSAL 

• ALL REQUIREMENTS 

• EACH ADDENDUM, 

• FIVE (5) COPIES 

• SELECTED TYPES OF SERVICE. 

• PROPOSALS SHALL BE INDEXED WITH TABS 1 THROUGH 8 

DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED INFORMATION 

Tab 1 Letter Of Interest 

Tab 2 Qualification Request........................See Attachment 1 

Tab 3 Pa Business Certification .................See Attachment 2 

Tab 4 PASSHE Form 150 ASP.....................See Attachment 3 

Tab 5 Understanding The Scope Of Work 

Tab 6 Management Summary 

Tab 7 Other Information 

PART V CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 

V-1. 

V-2. 


A. SELECTION BOARD 

B. NEGOTIATION BOARD 

C. LEGISLATED CRITERIA 


A. UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM 

B. PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS 

C. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 

D. ABILITY TO RESPOND EXPEDITIOUSLY 

ATTACHMENTS 

ATTACHMENT 1 QUALIFICATION MATRIX & MAP OF UNIVERSITIES 


ATTACHMENT 3 PASSHE FORM 150 ASP - APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT 




Page ii


PART I 


I-1. 


A. SELECTIONS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS 

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (System), through the Office of the 

Chancellor, expects to centrally contract with firms to be available on an as-needed basis to 

perform services related to Quality Assurance Reviews (QA Reviews) of Construction 

Plans and Specifications for projects that will occur within 

(i) the System, 

(ii) the System’s institutions, or 

(iii) other Commonwealth Agencies at the System’s sole discretion. 

The System will select a number of firms as deemed necessary by the System with a goal 

of 2 or 3 firms to provide services at any location within the System. 

For the System and its institutions, a request for services will either come from a 

University or from the Office of the Chancellor. 

For other Commonwealth Agencies, a request for services may come from the specific 

Commonwealth entity that requires the services and arranges with the System for acquisition 

of those services. 

University locations and Regions of the System are shown in Attachment 1 – 

Qualification Request & Map Of Universities. 

The System encourages all firms, including small firms, minority business enterprises, and 

women’s business enterprises, capable of performing the work solicited by this RFP to submit 

Proposals. The System will consider joint ventures and subcontract arrangements that will 

enable firms to participate. 

B. DEFINITION OF SERVICES RELATED TO QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS 

QA Reviews are methods of quality control that are applied to Construction Documents and 

result in improving the quality of the documents by locating design errors, omissions, 

conflicts, ambiguities, inconsistencies, and coordination problems for correction prior to 

publishing the documents as part of a construction contract, therefore, avoiding costs and 

claims that might result if the corrections were not made. 

QA Reviews are multi-disciplinary reviews that expose conflicts between the disciplines of 

Civil, Structural, Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and other Separate Primes. 

QA Reviews are performed from a construction perspective and not a design perspective. 

QA Reviews and related services may consist of: 





5. Other Reviews Related To Scope Of Work And Developed By Contracted Firms 



Part I – General Information 

Page 1 of 24


C. REPLACEMENT OF EXPIRED CONTRACTS 

Contracts that result from this RFP are intended to replace an expired Open End Agreement 

with a firm that previously provided some of the services (“Interdisciplinary Coordination 

Review”) requested in this RFP. 

D. BROADEN AVAILABLE SERVICES 

Under the previous Open End Agreement, services were limited to “Interdisciplinary 

Coordination Review”, defined as the conduct of an interdisciplinary coordination review of 

the contract documents, to assure their accuracy. With this RFP, the System desires to 

broaden the scope of work to cover various services in addition to 

Interdisciplinary Coordination Review, such as Constructability Reviews, Forensic Reviews, 

As-Built Reviews, Other Reviews related to the Scope of Work and developed by Contracted 

Firms, and Workshops to train System Staff in the Performance of QA Reviews. 

E. CONTENTS OF THIS RFP 

This RFP provides interested firms with sufficient information to enable them to prepare and 

submit Proposals for the System’s consideration concerning the need for Centrally Held 

Contracts For Quality Assurance Reviews (QA Reviews) of Construction Plans and 

Specifications 

This RFP contains 

- Instructions governing the Proposals to be submitted and the materials to be included. 

- A description of the services to be provided. 

- Requirements that shall be met to be eligible for consideration. 

- General evaluation criteria. 

- Other requirements to be met by each Proposal. 

I-2. 


A. SYSTEM WIDE COVERAGE 

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, through the Office of the Chancellor, 

desires to centrally contract with a sufficient number of firms (a number deemed necessary 

by the System with a goal of 2 or 3 firms) under Open End Design Agreements in order to 

have firms available to perform Quality Assurance Reviews (QA Reviews) of Construction 

Plans and Specifications for projects throughout the entire System. 

Projects may occur at any location within the System that is defined as follows: 

The System is comprised of 14 institutions of higher education owned by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Branch Campuses, Education Centers, and the 

Office of the Chancellor (Dixon University Center). 

The 14 Universities are located at Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East 

Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, 

Shippensburg, Slippery Rock, and West Chester. 

See Attachment 1 for a map showing and listing the institutions. 

Projects may occur for other Commonwealth Agencies. If such requests for services occur, 

the System will coordinate with the Agency and the firms the development of procedures to 

meet the needs of the requests. 





B. DEFINITION OF SERVICES (TYPES OF SERVICES ) 

Various firms have defined terms and developed methods to perform the QA Reviews that 

are requested by this RFP. Defined terms and methods of performance may vary 

between firms. Such as, one firm has defined Constructibility Review as something other 

than that as defined by another firm. For the purposes of this RFP, the requested services 

(the various types of reviews and the training workshop) are defined as follows: 

1. Interdisciplinary Review may be defined as a method to expose inconsistencies, 

conflicts, and coordination problems between disciplines and separate primes that 

may cause design related Change Orders. 

2. Constructability Reviews may be defined as detailed checking of plans and 

specifications for compatibility, feasibility, factors unique to the design and end 

product to be achieved, and consideration of construction methods, means, and 

materials. 

Interdisciplinary Reviews and Constructability Reviews may include the detailed 

examination of contract documents in order to identify Discrepancies that may cause 

Contractors to refuse to bid on a project, or cause Contractors to submit inaccurate bids, 

excessive requests for information, and change orders to contracts. 

Discrepancies are identified as items in drawings, specifications, or requirements that 

are incomplete, unclear, inconsistent, at variance with related items, missing (not located 

per reference), improperly identified, not identified, or otherwise confusing or misleading. 

3. Forensic Reviews may be defined as a means to analyze a problematic project to 

determine what caused certain problems and assist in regaining control of the project. 

4. As-Built Reviews may be defined as a means to determine if As-Built Drawings 

accurately show what has been constructed. 

5. Other Reviews Related To The Scope Of Work And Developed By Contracted Firms 

may be defined as methods, other than those already described in this RFP, that are 

geared to identifying discrepancies that would affect costs and schedules for construction 

projects. 

6. Workshops To Train System Staff In The Performance Of QA Reviews may be 

defined as seminars conducted by contracted firms that train System personnel in the 

performance of QA Reviews and related tasks associated with this RFP. 

A firm may have other definitions for the above services that are geared to their particular 

means of providing the needed services. A firm may use their definitions of services in their 

Proposal as long as the firm clearly defines and explains in the Proposal the processes and 

methods that are used by the firm to conduct the services. 





C. PROJECT SIZE AND GOVERNING THRESHOLDS 

Project Limits. QA Reviews can be performed for any project size, without any limit of 

Estimated Construction Cost. 

Individual Work Order Limits. The University may execute Individual Work Orders to a limit 

of $50,000 without approval of the Contracting Officer. For Individual Work Orders that 

exceed $50,000, the University shall obtain approval from the Office Of The Chancellor, via 

the Contracting Officer, as delegated to the Construction Support Office. 

D. THE PROCESS 

Contracts will be held and administered by the Issuing Office (Construction Support 

Office/CSO). CSO is located in the Office of the Chancellor, within the Facilities Division of 

the Office of Administration and Finance at the Dixon University Center in Harrisburg, PA. 

On an as-needed-basis and for each selected project, the System, whether the Office of 

the Chancellor or one of the Universities, will request a proposal from a contracted firm. An 

Individual Work Order will be issued to a contracted firm after receipt of a proposal and 

successful negotiations. 

Usage Of Contracts. Based on past experience with similar open end contracts, the System 

anticipates that these contracts will be sufficiently utilized. However, even if a Contract is 

entered into, there is no guarantee that any particular Proposer that is awarded a Contract 

will be awarded Individual Work Orders for any particular projects or for any particular amount 

of services for the term of the Contract. 

Distribution Of Work. In assigning Individual Work Orders, the System will attempt to 

provide, but will not guarantee, sufficient work and similar amounts of work to each firm. 

Distribution may be affected by an individual University’s need to work with a specific firm, 

whether that need is created by performance or necessary preferences. 





I-3. 


This RFP is issued by the Office of the Chancellor of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher 

Education, under the direction of the Contracting Officer and the Director of Construction 

Management. 

The specific Issuing Office is the Construction Support Office within the Office of Administration 

and Finance. The Construction Support Office is the sole point of contact for this RFP. 

The Contracting Officer will be responsible for administering the Contract that will be awarded 

from this solicitation. 

The Director of Construction Management will be responsible for oversight of work performed 

by the Construction Support Office. 

The Issuing Office will be the point of contact for responses to questions regarding this RFP. All 

technical questions or requests for clarification shall be directed to the Issuing Officer by the date 

stated in the cover letter transmitting this RFP. 

The Contact Person may be contacted to request information or copies of the RFP. The 

Contact Person may also accept questions for response by the Construction Support Office and 

answer administrative questions regarding information in this RFP until the date stated in the 

cover letter transmitting this RFP. 

ISSUING OFFICE: 

MAILING ADDRESS: 

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education PA State System of Higher Education 





Office of Administration and Finance Harrisburg, PA 17110 

Construction Support Office (CSO) 

CONTRACTING OFFICER: 

Steven R. Dupes 

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities 




DIRECTOR OF CSO: 

Robert F. Unger 

Director of Construction Management 




ISSUING OFFICER 

CONTACT PERSON: 

Jim Barbush 

Dorethe Latin 


Construction Support Secretary 



Phone: 717-720-4119 Phone: 717-720-4113 

Fax: 717-720-4111 Fax: 717-720-4111 

E-mail: jbarbush@passhe.edu 

E-mail: dlatin@passhe.edu 

THIS RFP & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. The above information (Office, Officers, 

Contact Person, and Contact Information) pertains only to the issuance of this RFP, the 

development and execution of contracts with successful Proposers, and the administration of 

those contracts. 

UNIVERSITY’S WORK ORDER ADMINISTRATION. Similar information (University’s Office, 

University’s Officers, and University’s Contact Information) will be provided by a University 

when a contracted firm is solicited to do work under this contract. Universities will issue 

documents for the solicitation of services that will result in the issuance of an Individual Work 

Order that will be administered by the University. 





I-4. 


A. MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS / OPEN END CONTRACTS 

Upon selection and after successful negotiations, the selected firms will be expected to enter 

into a Contract (Standard Form Of Agreement For Centrally Held Open End Contracts For 

Quality Assurance Reviews Of Construction Plans And Specifications) with the System. 

Open End Contracts may be awarded to more than 1 firm. 

The Contracts will allow the System and its Universities to acquire services during the 

contract period through the issuance of Individual Work Orders. Under the Contract and for 

each specific assignment, the System, either through the Office of the Chancellor or the 

Universities, will request a proposal from a firm for the performance of specified services. 

Based on satisfactory past performance and acceptance of the firm’s proposal, the System 

will issue an Individual Work Order to the firm. 

A sample of the Contract Form is provided in Attachment 4. 

B. NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONTRACTS 

Prior to entering into a Contract, negotiations regarding fees (billable rates and overhead 

rates) will be undertaken with Firms 

(i) whose Proposals show them to be qualified, responsible, and capable of performing 

the work, and 

(ii) who, in the judgment of the Selection Board, scored high enough against defined 

selection criteria to warrant this effort. 

If negotiations are entered into, the System will request financial information from the Firm in 

order to evaluate billable rates and overhead rates. 

C. NEGOTIATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS WORK ORDERS 

Negotiations for Individual Work Orders will be conducted with the firm by the University 

where the work is to occur. The solicitation of work, negotiations, and the 

issuance/execution/administration of Individual Work Orders will be performed by University 

staff (University’s Office, University’s Officers, and University’s Contact Information). 

D. CONTENTS OF THE OPEN END CONTRACTS 

A Contract between the System and a Firm that results from this RFP shall contain all the 

terms and conditions agreed to by the parties, including the following: 

(i) This RFP 

(ii) A successful proposal (response to this RFP) 

(iii) A fully executed Contract approved and delivered with appropriate System and 

Commonwealth attorneys’ signatures. (Sample Contract Form in Attachment 4) 

(iv) All exhibits incorporated in fact or by reference 

(v) Applicable Requests For Proposal and Individual Work Orders that will be issued in 

accordance with the provisions of this RFP and the Contract 

E. CONTRACT PERIOD 

The term of the Contract will be 2 initial years, plus 2 optional renewal terms of 2 years each, 

for a maximum of 6 years. Any offer of renewals or extensions to the Contract will be as 

determined by the System. 





F. RENEWAL YEARS – ESCALATION 

As the basis for any increase in the Direct Labor (and billable) Hourly Rates for any 

subsequent renewals of the Contract, the Firm and the System both agree to use 

The Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) 

US City Average 

as published by 

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ 

The CPI-U Index for the month in which Proposals are due shall be used as the basis for 

computation of all increases for subsequent renewals. 

This CPI-U Index shall be compared to the most recently available CPI-U Index when the 

Contract is renewed. 

I-5. 


• IF A PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE IS HELD 

1) A Pre-Proposal Conference may be held prior to Proposal submission. 

2) Refer to the cover letter of this RFP for location, time, and date. 

3) Attendance at the Pre-Proposal Conference is not mandatory. 

4) The Pre-Proposal Conference is for information only, to clarify any points in the RFP that 

may not be clearly understood. 

5) Questions may be forwarded to the Issuing Office prior to the conference to ensure 

sufficient analysis can be made before an answer is supplied. All questions shall be 

submitted, in writing, to the Issuing Officer as stated in the cover letter for this RFP. 

6) Answers furnished during the Pre-Proposal Conference will not be official until written 

verification is issued by the Issuing Office. All answers will be officially provided in an 

addendum to all firms that requested the RFP and provided the System with a mailing 

address. A copy will be available at the Issuing Office and on the web page indicated in 

the cover letter transmitting this RFP. 

7) In view of the limited facilities available for the conference, the System requests that the 

Firm’s representation be limited to 2 individuals per Proposer. 

• IF A PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE IS N O T HELD 

1) In order to clarify any points in the RFP, questions may be submitted to the Issuing 

Office. All questions shall be submitted, in writing, to the Issuing Officer as stated in the 

cover letter for this RFP. 

2) All answers will be officially provided in an addendum to all firms that requested the RFP 

and provided the System with a mailing address. The addendum will be available at the 

Issuing Office and posted on the System’s website at an address to be indicated in the 

cover letter transmitting this RFP. 

I-6. 


For any necessary revisions to any part of this RFP, addenda will be issued to all firms that 

requested the RFP and provided the System with a mailing address. 

Addenda will be available at the Issuing Office and posted on the System’s website at an address 

to be indicated in the cover letter transmitting this RFP. The Proposer may request the web 

address from the Issuing Office. 

If the RFP is acquired from the web site and the Proposer has not provided the System with an 

address, the Proposer is obligated to obtain any issued addenda from the web site. 

Receipt of each issued addendum shall be acknowledged in the Proposal if required by 

the Addendum. 





I-7. 

RESPONSE DATE 

To be considered, sealed Proposals shall arrive at the Issuing Office on or before the time and 

date specified in the cover letter for this RFP. 

Proposers that mail Proposals shall allow sufficient mail delivery time to ensure the timely receipt 

of Proposals. Proposals received after the Proposal Due Date will not be evaluated. 

I-8. 

PROPOSALS 

To be considered, (i) Proposers shall submit a complete response to this RFP, 

(ii) Proposals shall be in the format provided in Part IV, and 

(iii) Proposals shall only be submitted to the Issuing Office. 

The required number of copies of each Proposal shall be submitted to the Issuing Office. No 

other distribution of Proposals will be made by the Proposer. 

Proposals shall be signed by an official authorized to bind the Proposer to the provisions of this 

RFP and a potential Contract. 

For this RFP, the Proposal shall remain valid for at least 120 days. 

The contents of a selected Proposal will become contractual obligations if a Contract is entered 

into. Clauses within the Proposal that are in conflict with the intent of this RFP or in conflict with 

the potential Contract will not be valid. 

I-9. 


The System, at its own discretion, reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals received as a 

result of this RFP, or to negotiate separately with competing Proposers. 

The System, at its own discretion, reserves the right to cancel the RFP any time prior to a fully 

executed Contract, and if desired, reissue the RFP 

I-10. 


The System is not liable for any costs incurred by Proposers prior to issuance of an Individual 

Work Order awarded under the Open End Contract. 

I-11. 


Proposals shall be prepared simply and economically, providing straightforward, concise 

descriptions of the Proposer’s ability to meet the requirements of the RFP. 

I-12. 


A Proposer who submits a Proposal may be required to make an oral presentation of the 

Proposal to the System. A presentation is intended to provide an opportunity for the Proposer to 

clarify the Proposal to ensure thorough and mutual understanding. The Issuing Office will 

schedule a presentation if such are deemed necessary. 

I-13. 


A selected Proposer is considered to be the “Prime Proposer” and will be required to assume 

responsibility for all services offered in the Proposal whether or not they are produced directly by 

the Prime Proposer’s firm. 

The System will consider the selected Prime Proposer to be sole point of contact with regard to 

all contractual matters. 





I-14. 


Proposals will be held in confidence and will not be revealed or discussed with competitors, 

unless subject to the Commonwealth’s “Right to Know Law”. 

A Proposal that is selected and becomes part of a Contract resulting from this RFP is not 

confidential and will be subject to the Commonwealth’s “Right to Know Law”. 

All submitted materials become the property of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and may be 

returned only at the Commonwealth’s option. 

Submissions to the Commonwealth may be reviewed and evaluated by any person other than 

competing parties at the discretion of the Commonwealth. 

The Commonwealth has the right to use any or all ideas presented in any reply to this RFP. 

Selection or rejection of the responses does not affect this right. 

All responses become the property of the System. 

I-15. 


The Award of contracts is expected within 120 days from the RFP’s closing date. If a notice of 

award is not received within 120 days of the RFP’s closing date (or any written extension thereof) 

the Proposer may assume that they were not selected for the work. 

All Proposers, whether selected or not, will be notified of the names of selected Proposers and 

will be given the opportunity to be debriefed. 

Upon written request, a Proposer will be orally debriefed as to the basis for non-selection. The 

purpose of the debriefing is not to compare Proposals, but to provide information that may assist 

the individual Proposer in preparing better proposals in the future. 

Requests for oral debriefing shall be made in writing to the attention of the Issuing Officer within 

150 days after closing date cited for submittal of Proposals. The Issuing Office will set the time 

and location of the debriefing. 

I-16. 

NEWS RELEASES 

News releases pertaining to this RFP may not be made without prior System approval, and then 

only in coordination with the Issuing Office. 

No name or likeness of the System or any of its Universities may be used without the expressed 

written permission of the System or University. 

I-17. 


Generally, the System’s staff will not participate with the Proposer in the performance of work. 

However, there may be circumstances where the System and the Proposer will work together 

jointly. 

Examples of joint effort could be the development of administrative manuals or contracts forms 

that require the System’s input as well as a Proposer’s expertise. For a project that requires joint 

effort, the responsibilities of both parties Projects will be explained in the Individual Work Order 

and cooperation of the firm is expected. 

I-18. 


DO NOT SUBMIT ANY COST AND PRICING INFORMATION WITH THE PROPOSAL. 

The negotiation of fees and the submission of cost data will only be required from firms chosen by 

the Selection Board in accordance with the selection criteria and processes cited in this RFP. If 

negotiations of overhead rates, hourly rates, and fees fail with a selected firm, the System may 

move to the next selected firm. 





I-19. 


A. PROTEST SUBMITTAL 

A Proposer, Prospective Proposer, or Prospective Firm that is aggrieved in connection with 

the solicitation or award of a Contract under the Commonwealth Procurement Code, except 

as provided in 62 Pa.C.S.A. § 521 (relating to cancellation of invitations for bids or requests 

for proposals) may file a Protest with the Office of the Chancellor at the following address: 




Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 

Copy Of Protest Submittal. A copy of any Protest shall be simultaneously mailed to the 

Contracting Officer for this RFP, the name and address as stated previously in this RFP. 

B. TIME FOR FILING OF PROTEST 

If the Protestant is a Prospective Proposer, a Protest shall be filed with the Office of the 

Chancellor at the aforementioned address prior to the Proposal’s due date. 

If the Protestant is a Proposer or Prospective Firm, the Protest shall be filed with the Office of 

the Chancellor at the aforementioned address within seven (7) days after the aggrieved 

Proposer or a Prospective Firm knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the 

protest. 

In no event may a Protest be filed later than seven (7) days after the date the Contract was 

awarded. 

If a Proposer, Prospective Proposer, or Prospective Firm fails to file a Protest, or files an 

untimely Protest, the Proposer, Prospective Proposer, or Prospective Firm will have waived 

the right to Protest the solicitation or award of the Contract in any forum. 

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education will disregard Protests that are untimely 

filed. 

C. GROUNDS FOR PROTEST 

A Protest shall state all grounds upon which the Protestor asserts that the solicitation or 

award of the Contract was improper. The Protestor should submit with the Protest any 

documents or information deemed relevant to the protest. 

D. DECISION BY OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR 

Upon receipt of the Protest, the Office of the Chancellor will render a decision in accordance 

with the procedures outlines within the Commonwealth Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S.A. 

§1711.1 et seq. 

End of Part I 





PART II 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION AND BACKGROUND 

II-1. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

A. CURRENT COMPOSITION 

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education in Pennsylvania is composed of: 

• 14 State-Owned Universities 

• 4 Branch Campuses 

• Several Regional Centers 

• The McKeever Environmental Learning Center 

The scope of facilities owned and operated by the System, briefly stated and estimated, 

includes the following: 

• 4,698 Acres of land occupied by campuses 

• 862 Buildings with 25 Million Sq. Ft. for classrooms, residences, administration, 

and student support 

The 14 Universities, each having an enrollment of 1,400 to 14,000 students each, have a 

total enrollment of over 104,000 undergraduate and graduate, part-time and full-time 

students. 

The System has an education and general budget of approx. $1 billion. 

The System employs approximately 12,000 people. 

This information is from 

the System’s profile information as posted on the System’s web site on May 20, 2004 

and should also be in the 

Facilities Facts Report that is part of the Facilities Inventory Report 

B. AUTHORIZATION 

The State System of Higher Education was established by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania through Act 188 of 1982 (24 P.S. §§ 20-2001A, et seq.). The System has 

become commonly known as the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE). 

Act 188 of 1982 (24 P.S. §§ 20-2001A, et seq.) established the System as: 

a body corporate and politic constituting a public corporation and government 

instrumentality which shall be known as the State System of Higher Education, 

independent of the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the System, 

which shall consist of the following institutions, and such other institutions, presently 

existing or newly created, as may hereafter be admitted by the Board in concurrence 

with other agencies as required by law: 

(1) Bloomsburg University of PA ( 8) Kutztown University of PA 

(2) California University of PA ( 9) Lock Haven University of PA 

(3) Cheyney University of PA (10) Mansfield University of PA 

(4) Clarion University of PA (11) Millersville University of PA 

(5) East Stroudsburg University of PA (12) Shippensburg University of PA 

(6) Edinboro University of PA (13) Slippery Rock University of PA 

(7) Indiana University of PA (14) West Chester University of PA 


Part II – Organization & Background 



Act 188 established the primary mission of System as follows: 

• To provide instruction to undergraduate and graduate students, to and beyond the 

master’s degree, in the liberal arts and sciences, and in the applied fields, including 

the teaching profession. While the Universities share this common mission, each 

also embraces specific missions in business, human services, public administration, 

and/or technology. 

• The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education is committed to providing high 

quality education at the lowest possible cost to the students. This commitment is 

maintained in every effort that the System undertakes. 

C. GOVERNANCE 

Act 188 established the administrative structure of System as follows: 

• The Board of Governors – The primary policy and control authority for the System. 

The Board of Governors has overall responsibility for planning and coordinating the 

development and operation of the System, is the approval authority for all System 

facilities projects, and consists of the following 20 members: 

- The Governor or designee 

- The Secretary of Education or designee 

- 2 Senators 

- 2 House Representatives 

- 6 Citizens 

- 3 Students 

- 5 University Trustees 

The Board of Governor’s Policies, as published on the System’s web site 

(http://www.sshechan.edu/ssbogmnu.htm), govern the operation of the System, including 

the conduct of construction and services. 

• The Chancellor – The Chief Executive Officer appointed by the Board of Governors and 

responsible for the overall administration of the System. 

• University President – The Chief Executive Officer at the University level. 

• Council of Trustees for each University – the governing board at the University level. 

• Council Of Presidents – A group consisting of the 14 University Presidents and the 4 

Vice Chancellors in the Office of the Chancellor. Advises the Chancellor and proposes 

System-wide policy. 

See Attachment 1 for a map showing locations and listing the institutions. 

End of Part II 


Part II – Organization & Background 



PART III 

WORK STATEMENT 

III-1. 

OBJECTIVES 

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (the System), through the Office of the 

Chancellor, expects to centrally contract with a sufficient number of firms in order to have a body 

of firms available to perform Quality Assurance Reviews (QA Reviews) of Construction Plans and 

Specifications throughout the entire System. The System will contract with the firms under an 

Open End Services Agreement, titled Open End Contract For Quality Assurance Reviews Of 

Construction Plans And Specifications (QA Reviews & Related Services) 

III-2. 


Historical data available for similar, centrally held contracts is as follows: 

Third Party Reviews: 

Reporting Period (Jan 1998 to May 2003): ...................... 4.5 Years 

Total Amount of Services ......................................$600,000 During Reporting Period 

$130,000 Per Year (average) 

Total Number of Work Orders ........................................ 155 During Reporting Period 

35 Per Year (average) 

Construction Value of Projects (approx.) ..........$200,000,000 During Reporting Period 

An anticipated volume of work has not been estimated, but the need for centrally held open 

end contracts is obvious based on past experience and the possible increase in work that will 

result from projects that will be delegated from DGS to the System’s Universities.. 

Usage Of Contracts. (See this RFP’s Part I, Section I-2 Problem Statement, Paragraph D - The 

Process, regarding no guarantees for any work .) 

III-3. 


Under Open End Contracts, the Universities and the Office of the Chancellor will be able to issue 

Individual Work Orders for Quality Assurance Reviews on an as-needed basis. 

A scope of potential services includes the following: 





5. Other Reviews Related To The Scope Of Work And Developed By Contracted Firms 



Part III – Work Statement 



A. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 


Interdisciplinary Review may be defined as a method to expose inconsistencies, 

conflicts, and coordination problems between disciplines and separate primes that 

may cause design related Change Orders. 

An Interdisciplinary Review is based on the sequence of construction and may be 

conducted at one or more stages of plan development as deemed appropriate by the 

System and specified in an Individual Work Order. 

An Interdisciplinary Review may be performed at any phase of the design process, 

whether Preliminary, Pre-Final, or Final. 

Examples of items checked include, but are not limited to: 

i. Placement of structures on a site 

ii. Column and column line locations, and the dimensions governing them 

iii. Elevations of structural components 

iv. Dimensional locations of structural and interior finishing components 

v. Locations and sizes of wall and floor openings 

vi. Locations, size, and depth of utility services 

vii. Location and space available for mechanical, electrical, and other equipment 

viii. Compatibility between power supply and equipment specifications 

ix. All other items related to coordination between design disciplines 

Refer to Paragraph I-2, Item B. Definition Of Services (Types Of Services) for other 

comments on Interdisciplinary Reviews, Constructability Reviews, and Discrepancies. 


Constructability Reviews may be defined as detailed checking of plans and 

specifications for compatibility, feasibility, factors unique to the design and end 

product to be achieved, and consideration of construction methods, means, and 

materials. (EXACTLY AS PREVIOUSLY STATED) 

Constructability Reviews expose inconsistencies between design disciplines that are 

known to cause many design-related Change Orders. 

A Constructability Review will normally be performed when Contract Documents are at 

the Pre-Final or Final Design Phase. 

Examples of items checked include, but are not limited to: 

i. Detailed checking of plan views, sections, details, elevations, schedules, and notes 

for location, consistency, and dimensional accuracy; 

ii. Compatibility between specifications and drawings for each discipline and separate 

prime; 

iii. Feasibility of constructing items as drawn, considering material properties, 

fastenings and support; 

iv. Compatibility between components for location and integrity of the whole; 

v. Consideration of likely jobsite conditions at the time each component must be 

constructed or placed; 

vi. Recognition of existing conditions, including prior new work; 

vii. Other factors, unique to the design and end product to be achieved. 

Refer to Paragraph I-2, Item B. Definition Of Services (Types Of Services) for other 

comments on Interdisciplinary Reviews, Constructability Reviews, and Discrepancies. 






Forensic Reviews may be defined as a means to analyze a problematic project to 

determine what caused certain problems and assist in regaining control of the project. 

For a project that is experiencing unusual and unnecessary cost overruns, the System 

may want to clearly establish the causes of the problems, either during the project or after 

project completion. The System may want to determine, for litigation or other purposes, 

the causes of major costs overruns and assign responsibility for them. 


As-Built Reviews may be defined as a means to determine if As-Built Drawings 

accurately show what has been constructed. 

The scope and requirements of an As Built Review would be defined in an Individual 

Work Order. 

5. Other Reviews related to the Scope of Work and developed by the contracted firms 

Other Reviews related to the Scope of Work and developed by the contracted firms may 

be defined as methods, other than those already described in this RFP, that are geared 

to identifying discrepancies that would affect costs and schedules for construction 

projects. 


Workshops to train System staff in the performance of QA Reviews may be defined as 

seminars conducted by contracted firms that train System personnel in the performance 

of QA Reviews and related tasks associated with this RFP. 

The scope and requirements of a workshop would be defined in an Individual Work 

Order. 

A firm may have other definitions for the above services that are geared to their particular 

means of providing the needed services. A firm may use their definitions of services in their 

Proposal as long as the firm clearly defines and explains in the Proposal the processes and 

methods that are used by the firm to conduct the services. 

Various fi rms have defined terms and developed methods to perform the QA Reviews that 

are requested by this RFP. Defined terms and methods of performance may vary 

between firms. Such as, one firm has defined Constructibility Review as something other 

than that as defined by another firm. For the purposes of this RFP, the requested services 

(the various types of reviews and the training workshop) are defined above. 





B. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES FOR CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEW 

Because there are various definitions for some of the QA reviews covered by this RFP, 

and because Universities may have different requirements for the different reviews 

that they may request, this RFP will not define Tasks and Deliverables for all listed 

Reviews. Instead, this RFP lists examples of Tasks and Deliverables for 

Constructibility Reviews. Specific Tasks and Deliverables will be defined at the time 

each Individual Work Order is developed and negotiated. 

CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS 

1. Tasks. For the purposes of this RFP, a Constructibility Review consists of the 

following work items: 

• Initial Tasks:--------Separate and Independent Reviews of each of the 5 major design 

disciplines (Civil, Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, and Electrical) 

and such sub-disciplines as may exist. 

• Final Task:----------Interdisciplinary Coordination Review between all disciplines. 

2. Design Review Required. For a Constructibility Review to be valid, the following shall 

apply: 

(i) the Contract Documents prepared for each design discipline shall have been first 

subjected to detailed Design Review by a Professional, and 

(ii) the recommended changes shall have been made or, if determined appropriate at the 

sole discretion of the System, been provided to the firm providing the Constructibility 

Review. 

3. Schedule. A Constructibility Review will normally be performed when Contract 

Documents are at the Pre-Final or Final Design Phase 

The time to be allowed for reviews is estimated at one to four weeks, depending on the 

size and scope of the project. 

The time required for corrections is unknowable, but will be recognized as essential in 

establishing proposed bid dates. 

4. Constructibility Review Comments. A Constructibility Review shall limit notes and 

comments to readily-observable facts. 

Examples: “Detail 4 is at variance with Plan View for this item.” 

“No Hardware Schedule has been found in submitted documents.” 

Comments need to clearly identify the drawing sheet or specification section/paragraph. 

5. Constructibility Review Format. A Constructibility Review shall be conducted using 

standard methodologies, procedures, and checklists that have been developed 

specifically for the performance of Third Party Reviews. 





6. Constructibility Review Report. A Constructibility Review Report shall be issued 

providing the results of the Constructibility Review. The report shall include the following: 

- A detailed listing that identifies and describes all discrepancies and recommended 

changes. 

- Mark-up Drawings showing all discrepancies. 

Electronic format for the listing is preferred, with capability for the University to enter and 

track the disposition of each comment. 

The Constructibility Review Report shall be provided to the University that issued the 

Individual Work Order. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Construction Support 

Office. 

7. Review Of Constructibility Review Report. Upon receipt of the Constructibility Review 

Report, the University and the Design Professional shall review the comments of the 

Constructibility Review and determine if the comments are viable such that changes 

should be made to the Contract Documents prior to bidding. 

Debriefing. If necessary, the University will request a verbal debriefing from the 

Reviewer concerning the contents of the Constructibility Review Report. 

Response To Constructibility Review Report. The University shall issue a written 

response to the Reviewer, with a copy sent to the Construction Support Office, indicating 

which comments were accepted and which comments were not accepted, providing 

justification for unaccepted comments. 

8. Changes To Contract Documents. The University and the Design Professional shall 

assure that accepted changes have been made to the Contract Documents. 

9. A Constructibility Review does not include the following: 

- Evaluations, questions, and comments common to Peer Reviews 

- Value Engineering 

- Other examinations of proposed Contract Documents 

Reviewers shall not express personal opinions regarding the following: 

- Suitability of design 

- Choice of materials 

- Engineering calculations 

- Other matters that are and shall remain the designers responsibility 

C. RESPONSIBILITIES 

Supervision Of Services. A Quality Assurance Review shall be performed under the 

direct supervision of, and be submitted by, an owner or principal of the review firm. This 

person may be a registered professional in one of the traditional disciplines, with at least 

10 years of direct experience in, and responsibility for, project design and/or construction. 

Professional Liability, Contractors General Liability, and other insurance. The 

Professional shall secure and maintain insurance in accordance with Article 5 of Rider B of 

the sample contract that is contained in Attachment 4 of this RFP. The Professional shall 

also secure and maintain adequate Professional Liability Insurance. 





III-4. 

PROCEDURES 

A. ISSUANCE OF RFP & SELECTION OF FIRMS 

Under this RFP, a sufficient number of firms will be selected for negotiations to provide 

Quality Assurance Reviews and related services. 

The Office of the Chancellor will conduct negotiations to determine hourly wage rates for 

specific job classifications and overhead rates. 

B. ADMINISTRATION OF MASTER OPEN END CONTRACTS 

After successful negotiations, the System will enter into Master Open End Contracts with the 

successful firms. The Contracts will be administered by the Construction Support Office 

within the Office of the Chancellor. 

The Office of the Chancellor (Construction Support Office) will monitor the assignment of 

IWOs, the value of individual IWOs, the accumulated value of IWOs assigned to specific 

Master Open End Contracts, the results of reports issued by firms, and actions taken by the 

Universities regarding the issued reports. 

C. ADMINISTRATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORK ORDERS (IWOs) 

Projects for which services will be required will be determined locally, the local office at the 

project location, whether at the Office of the Chancellor or at a University. The 

determinations will be made in accordance with the System’s policies. 

For a selected project, the local office will request a proposal from one or more of the 

contracted firms for requested services. Proposals will be reviewed, negotiated, and 

accepted at the local office. 

After acceptance of a proposal, the local office will obtain an IWO Number from the 

Construction Support Office. The local office will prepare, issue, execute, and administer the 

IWO. 

The local office will inform the Construction Support Office of the following information: name 

of project, construction cost, IWO amount, and final IWO cost. The Construction Support 

Office will maintain an accounting of all issued IWOs. 

End of Part III 





PART IV 

INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM PROPOSERS 

IV-1. 

REQUIRED INFORMATION 

Non-Responsive RFPs will not be considered. 

For a Proposal to be considered for responsiveness, the following shall occur: 

• The format of the Proposal shall be as specified in this part. Any other information 

thought to be relevant, but not applicable to the enumerated categories, may be provided as 

an Attachment to the proposal. 

• All requirements specified in this RFP shall be submitted. 

• Each Addendum, if required by the individual Addendum, shall be acknowledged and 

made part of the Proposal. 

• FIVE (5) COPIES of each Proposal shall be submitted to the Issuing Office. No other 

distribution of Proposals will be made by the Proposer. 

• The Proposer shall submit the required number of copies of one Proposal to include 

all the selected Categories of Service. 

DO NOT SUBMIT SEPARATE PROPOSALS FOR EACH CATEGORY OF SERVICE. 

• Proposals shall be indexed with Tabs 1 through 8 as described below and following. 

TAB 1 

LETTER OF INTEREST 

TAB 2 QUALIFICATION MATRIX ............................................See Attachment 1 

TAB 3 PA BUSINESS CERTIFICATION...................................See Attachment 2 

TAB 4 APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT.....................See Attachment 3 

PASSHE FORM 150 ASP 

1. Applicant Name 

2. Parent Company Name 

3. Type Of Firm 

4. Minority Owned Firm 

5. Legal Structure Of Firm 

6. Personnel By Discipline 

7. Joint Venture Firms And Responsibilities 

8. Subcontracted Firms 

9. Key Personnel In Prime Firm / Joint Venture 

10. Key Personnel In Subcontracted Firms 

11. Relevant Experience (5 Projects) 

12. Additional Comments 

13. Related Work - Current & Previous Work 

14. Bankruptcy 

15. Legal Sanctions 

16. Signature 

TAB 5 

TAB 6 

TAB 7 

UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF WORK 

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 

OTHER INFORMATION 


Part IV – Information Required 



IV-2. 

DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED INFORMATION 

The Proposal shall clearly provide all information that is requested under this RFP. The RFP 

shall be presented in the following format and include: 

TAB 1 LETTER OF INTEREST 

The Letter Of Interest shall be concisely presented and include, at a minimum, the 

following information that shall be clearly delineated so that the services being proposed 

can be quickly identified by a reviewer of the Proposal: 

Item A. 

Item B. 

Item C. 

Item D. 

Types Of Service. The Proposer shall list the Types of Services that the 

firm desires to offer to the System. The Types of Services shall also be 

indicated on the Qualification Request in Attachment 1. Types Of 

Services are as follows: 





5. Other Reviews related to the Scope of Work and developed by the 

contracted firms 

6. Workshops to train System staff in the performance of QA Reviews 

Abilities Offered By The Proposer. The Proposer shall provide a brief 

narrative that describes the abilities offered by the firm pertaining to Types Of 

Services requested. 

Experience Offered By The Proposer. The Proposer shall provide a brief 

narrative that describes the experience offered by the firm pertaining to 

Types Of Services requested. 

Other Information. The Proposer may provide other information that they 

deem relevant to the types of work that the firm desires to offer to the 

System. This information shall be concise, and may reference items 

provided in Tab 7. 

TAB 2 QUALIFICATION REQUEST SEE ATTACHMENT 1 

The Qualification Request shall be completed. The Proposer shall select the Universities 

and the Types Of Services for which participation is desired. 

TAB 3 PA BUSINESS CERTIFICATION SEE ATTACHMENT 2 

The Business Certification Form shall be completed. If an application process has 

started with the Commonwealth and is not complete on the Proposal Due Date, explain 

the circumstances in the Proposal. A Contract will not be issued to a Proposer for 

signature if a certification is pending. If the System determines that a Proposer without 

certification is eligible for an award of a Contract, then the Proposer shall submit 

documented evidence of certification to the Issuing Office no later than the time the 

System is ready to send contracts to all Proposers for signature. Contracts could be sent 

to successful Proposers for signature within 60 days of the Proposal Due Date. 

TAB 4 PASSHE FORM 150 ASP – APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTSEE ATTACHMENT 3 

The Proposer shall complete and sign PASSHE Form 150 ASP. The Proposer does not 

need to repeat information that is included in the other tabs of the Proposal. 

If information would be duplicated in the form, cross reference to the other tabs of the 

Proposal. 





TAB 5 UNDERSTANDING THE SCOPE OF WORK 

The Proposer shall provide a concise narrative stating an understanding of the Scope Of 

Work presented by the RFP for those Categories Of Service for which the firm is 

proposing. 

The narrative should be limited to one page per Category Of Service. 

TAB 6 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 

Organization Chart. The Proposer shall provide an organization chart showing the 

organization of the home office, branch offices, joint venture offices, subcontracted 

services, and staff that the Proposer expects will be available to perform the tasks of an 

Individual Work Order. 

Responsible Contact – This RFP. The Proposer shall provide the names, titles, 

addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of the individuals who are 

responsible for preparing this RFP and responding to questions concerning the Proposal. 

Responsible Contact – Future RFPs for IWOs. The Proposer shall provide the names, 

titles, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of the individuals who will be 

responsible for receiving Requests for Proposals for Individual Work Orders and for 

preparing and submitting responses to those RFPs. 

Work Order Management & Performance. Assuming that the Proposer will be selected 

to execute a Contract and will be successful in obtaining Individual Work Orders, the 

Proposer shall provide a narrative discussing how the firm will manage Individual Work 

Orders and performance of the tasks required. 

Home Office, Branch Offices, & Subcontracted Services. The Proposer shall explain 

how the firm’s main office, any branch offices, and any subcontracted services will assign 

staff and meet the needs of individual Universities. 

During execution of a Contract, the Prime Proposer shall provide proper 

communication, coordination, control, interdisciplinary review, final accountability, 

and liability for accomplished design and services provided by any member of the 

team, whether Prime Proposer, Joint Venture Partner, or Subconsultants. 

• Proposals shall demonstrate how the Prime Proposer and other team members will 

be responsible to each other to perform in the best interest of the System. 

• In the Proposal, each entity of the team, whether Prime Proposer, Joint Venture 

Partner, or Subconsultant, shall commit to the execution of the Contract in a manner 

that is in the best interest of the System. 

• Any contracts concerning Joint Ventures and Subconsultants shall be submitted to 

the System or University upon request of the System or University. 

• During the execution of the Contract, failure to adequately meet this commitment may 

adversely affect a firm’s ability to obtain additional work under the Contract, and 

possibly result in Contract Termination, at the discretion of the System. 

TAB 7 OTHER INFORMATION 

Photographs And Other Materials. In addition to the information listed above, 

photographs and/or other materials may be provided to show the applicability of the firm’s 

experience in the Categories of Services that are being proposed. 

Any other information thought to be relevant, but not applicable to the enumerated 

categories, should be provided as an Attachment to the Proposal. 

All addenda received shall be acknowledged and made part of the submission to be 

considered in compliance with the provisions of the RFP. 

End of Part IV 










PART V 

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 

V-1. 


All Proposals submitted are subject to review by a Selection Board and a Negotiating Board. The 

board members are free to make judgments concerning any Proposal based on the member’s 

experience, interpretation of information contained in Proposals, and information known by and 

available to the System. 

All recommendations for selection made by the Boards shall be final pursuant to the 

Act 188 of 1982 (24 P.S. §§ 20-2001A, et seq.). 

A. SELECTION BOARD 

The Selection Board will review the qualifications of interested Proposers and identify the 

Proposers deemed to be the most highly qualified to provide the services required. 

The Selection Board will base reviews on selection criteria established by the Board. 

The Selection Board will rank the identified firms in priority order by qualifications, and 

formally transmit the results to the Negotiation Board. 

B. NEGOTIATION BOARD 

The Negotiation Board will negotiate billable rates and overhead rates with the top selected 

firms in order of preference. 

The Negotiations Board will open negotiations with firms of lower preference only if billable 

rates cannot be established with the firms of higher preference. 

C. LEGISLATED CRITERIA 

The System is mandated by 

Act 188 of 1982 (24 P.S. §§ 20-2001A, et seq.) and 

Act 57 of 1998 (62 Pa.C.S.A. 101 et seq.), Commonwealth Procurement Code, 

to perform the selection of architects and engineers with consideration given to, but not 

limited to, the following factors: 

(1) Equitable Distribution of contracts among qualified architects and engineers; 

(2) Capability To Perform the design and construction services for the contract being 

considered; 

(3) Geographic Proximity of the architect or engineer to the proposed facility; 

(4) Ability of the architect or engineer to furnish the necessary available manpower to 

perform the services required by the project; and 

(5) Any Other Related Circumstances peculiar to the proposed contract. 


Part V – Criteria For Selection 



V-2. 


For proposals that have been submitted in accordance with Part IV of this RFP, the following 

areas will be considered in evaluating Proposals and making selections: 

A. UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM ........................................... Proposal’s Tab 1 & Tab 5 

This refers to the Proposer’s understanding of the System’s needs and objectives that 

generated this RFP and the nature and scope of the work involved. 

B. PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. Proposal’s Tab 4 & Tab 6 

This refers to the Proposer’s ability to meet the RFP terms. 

Evaluations will consider: 

• The quality and relevance of similar services that have been completed by the Proposer 

and how those projects/services relate to the System’s needs and objectives. 

• How recently those similar services have been performed. 

• The Proposer’s ability to provide services for the Categories of Services proposed. 

• Associations with subcontracted firms. 

• Other criteria established by the Selection Board. 

References that are required to be stated in the PASSHE Form 150 may be contacted. 

C. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. Proposal’s Tab 4 & Tab 6 

This refers to the competence of individual personnel who would be assigned to projects. 

Qualifications of individual personnel will be evaluated on the basis of their education, 

experience, and credentials with particular emphasis given to their experience with projects 

and services similar to those described in the RFP. Strong consideration will be given to the 

qualifications of those individuals who will be responsible for managing the work. 

D. MANAGEM ENT & ABILITY TO RESPOND EXPEDITIOUSLY ..... Proposal’s Tab 2 & Tab 6 

This considers the Proposer’s ability to effectively manage and perform multiple Work Orders 

and respond expeditiously to the System’s needs. Items considered will be organizational 

structure, home office location, branch and field office location, size of staff, and other similar 

items. 

The Proposer shall specifically address this with respect to the Universities which the 

Proposer has selected on the Qualification Matrix. 

E. GENERAL ITEMS ...................................................................... Proposal’s Tab 3 & Tab 7 

This considers the overall presentation of the Proposal, verification of Tab 3 (PA Business 

Certification), review of information in Tab 7 (Other Information). 

End of Part V 


Part V – Criteria For Selection 



ATTACHMENT 1 

QUALIFICATION MATRIX 

& 

MAP OF UNIVERSITIES 


Attachment 1 – Qualification Matrix & Map Of Institutions




Attachment 1 – Qualification Matrix & Map Of Institutions


ATTACHMENT 2 

PA BUSINESS CERTIFICATION FORM 


Attachment 2 – PA Business Certification Form




Attachment 2 – PA Business Certification Form


ATTACHMENT 3 

PASSHE FORM 150 ASP 

APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT 


Attachment 3 – SSHE Form 150 ASP




Attachment 3 – SSHE Form 150 ASP


ATTACHMENT 4 

CONTRACT FORM


Version Dated August 15, 2005

OFFICIAL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Final Version Dated September 19, 2005 



for 


of 


(QA Reviews and Related Services) 





5. Other Reviews 

6. Workshops to Train System Staff 

A D D E N D U M N O. 1 

“ O F F I C I A L ” 

Responses to Questions 

ISSUE DATE 

September 19, 2005 

The purpose of Addendum No. 1 is to issue the “Official Responses to Questions.” 

The Pre-Proposal Conference was conducted on the date, time, and location stated in the Invitation 

Letter. The only documentation of that meeting is this Addendum. 

Questions were submitted prior to, and during, the Pre-Proposal Conference. Answers provided at 

the Pre-Proposal Conference, whether written or verbal, were “unofficial answers.” Answers 

contained in this Addendum are the “official answers,” may differ from the “unofficial answers,” 

and do take precedent over the “unofficial answers.” 

This Addendum is to be posted on the System’s web site at the same address at which the RFP is 

advertised. At the Pre-Proposal Conference, firms were instructed to obtain all Addenda from the 

web site. 

Except as revised by this Addendum, all requirements of the RFP remain unchanged. 

RFP - Centrally Held Contracts For QA Reviews 

OFFICIAL Responses To Questions 

RFP SSHE-QAR-2005-1 Page 1 of 5


1. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE SYSTEM 

• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 

(1) All necessary information will be posted on the System’s web site. 

(2) Proposers shall provide correct e-mail addresses and names of contact persons (2 contact 

persons may be submitted). 

(3) Proposers shall be responsible to notify the System of any changes in contact information. 

(4) Pre-Proposal Minutes will be posted on the System’s web site as an Addendum. 

(5) List of firms to be posted on the System’s web site. 

(6) Schedule 

RFP Release ..............................................................August 2005 

Proposal Submittal...................................................As stated in Invitation Letter 

Evaluations and Awards..........................................Date to be Announced 

Negotiation of Hourly and Overhead Rates...........Date to be Announced 

Contract Execution...................................................Date to be Announced 

2. SMALL FIRMS, MBEs, & WBEs 

Is there any DBE REQUIREMENT or goal? 

There is no goal stated in the RFP for level of MBE/WBE participation. 

As stated in the RFP: 

The System encourages all firms, including small firms, minority business enterprises, and women’s 

business enterprises, capable of performing the work solicited by this RFP to submit Proposals. The 

System will consider joint ventures and subcontract arrangements that will enable firms to participate. 

3. HISTORICAL DATA 

In Part III of the Work Statement, it lists HISTORICAL DATA. Are the 155 reviews referenced 

that were performed over the 4.5 years just the ones Redi-Check did or does that number include ones 

that the other consultants did? 

The Historical Data includes only work assigned to RediCheck. RediCheck was the firm awarded to 

do these services under the previous contract. 

4. UNIVERSITY USAGE OF SERVICES 

Under the previous Project Management Contract, the Universities had to use the Consultant's 

services if they didn't have certain (Level 3?) status. WILL SOME OF THE UNIVERSITIES BE 

REQUIRED TO USE THESE SERVICES OR WILL IT BE TOTALLY VOLUNTARY? 

At this time, there is no requirement from the Office of the Chancellor that any University must use 

the services requested by the RFP. The Construction Support Office is aware that Universities have 

expressed great interest in using the requested services. The Construction Support Office strongly 

recommends to the Universities the use of services that will avoid significant costs in construction. 





5. CHANGES IN CONTRACT LANGUAGE 

Can the System consider the following changes to the standard agreement? 

a. Add, at the bottom of Paragraph 1.11, the following statement: 

"to the extent such claims or demands arise out of the Professional's negligent acts, errors or 

omissions." 

b. Add Paragraph 1.19.3, as follows: 

"Professional shall have no liability for the System's or any third party's reuse of documents 

once the documents become the property of the System." 

c. Replace the current language of Paragraph 4.1.1 with the following, as our brokers have 

historically informed us that this type of language is broader than our insurance coverage: 

"Professional shall exercise due and reasonable care in observing those federal, state and 

local codes, standards, statutes, and regulations applicable at the time Consultant prepared 

its Scope of Services." 

Any suggested changes to the contract language may be reviewed by the Construction Support Office 

and its Legal Counsel. That will not be done in time for the release of this Addendum. 

A determination of use on the above change will be made before execution of a contract. 

6. USE OF PA/QA CONTRACT FOR THESE SERVICES 

Have there been any assignments made out of THE PA/QA CONTRACT, and if so, how many? 

Services requested by this RFP have not been acquired under the PA/QA Contract. 

7. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION 

Page 17 of Part III - Work Statement, Item C - Responsibilities. 

If the owner or principal who is supervising the review is a Construction Management Professional, 

what type of registration would they be required to have (or must the review supervisor be a 

registered architect)? 

Not all the services requested by this RFP are required to be performed under the direction of a 

Registered Professional. Where necessary work is of a nature to be performed by a Registered 

Architect or Registered Engineer, such work may be described in the Individual Work Order issued 

by the University for the particular project and shall be described in the firm’s proposal that respond 

to the University’s request for services that leads to the Individual Work Order. 

8. NUMBER OF FIRMS TO BE SELECTED 

Clarify the following statement of the RFP 

The System will select a number of firms as deemed necessary by the System with a goal 

of 2 or 3 firms to provide services at any location within the System. 

The System’s goal is to select an adequate number of firms that will cover all Universities within the 

System with at least 2 firms for each University. 





9. OTHER AGENCIES 

Clarify the following statement of the RFP 


Commonwealth entity that requires the services and arranges with the System for acquisition of 

those services. 

The System’s goal is to allow other agencies of the Commonwealth to use awarded contracts if 

requested. There are currently no requests for the type of services being requested. 

10. DESIGN REVIEW 

Clarify Design Review of Plans and Specifications 


Commonwealth entity that requires the services and arranges with the System for acquisition of 

those services. 

Services requested under this RFP do not include the routine Design Review of Plans and 

Specifications that are done as a part of most every project. Those Design Review Services are done 

under other Professional Agreements. 

Refer to the following statements of the RFP on Page 16 of 24: 

2. Design Review Required. For a Constructibility Review to be valid, the following shall apply: 

(i) the Contract Documents prepared for each design discipline shall have been first subjected to 

detailed Design Review by a Professional, and 

(ii) the recommended changes shall have been made or, if determined appropriate at the sole 

discretion of the System, been provided to the firm providing the Constructibility Review. 

Services requested under this RFP, such as Forensic Review, may include Design Review of Plans 

and Specifications. 

11. SELECTIONS BOARD 

Who will be on the Selections Board for review of Proposals. 

The Board will consist of at least 3 and at most 5 System Staff. The Board will most likely consist of 

2 Construction Support Staff and 3 University Staff. 

12. UNIVERSITY SELECTION 

Will selection of University be a criteria for selection? 

No. The Proposer’s selection of Universities is not a criteria for selection. Proposers have the 

choice of selecting any or all of the Universities. There are no points added or deducted because of 

University selection. 

13. COMMISSIONING & LEED CERTIFICATION 

Are Commissioning and LEED Certification mandated for major projects? 

Commissioning and LEED Certification are not mandated by the System at this time. 





14. ELECTONIC VERSION OF WEB POSTINGS 

Can PASSHE Form 150 ASP be made available electronically for our use? 

Yes. Firms may request from the System’s Contact Person electronic forms of items posted on the 

System’s web site for this RFP. 

15. PROPOSAL TABS 

Part IV (IV-1) of the RFP indicates that Proposal shall be indexed with Tabs 1 through 8 but only 

describes 7 tabs. Should there only be 7 tabs? 

Yes, Proposals are required to be submitted with the 7 described tabs. 

16. SUBCONSULTANTS 

Is it acceptable for a firm to submit on more than one team? 

Yes, firms can be contracted with more than one proposing team. 

17. INSURANCES 

Are the stated insurance coverages required for all services requested under this RFP? 

There may be certain services that do not require the stated insurance coverages. 

A firm’s Proposal shall state what insurances requirements are being met. If certain coverages are 

not to be provided for a specific service, the firm’s Proposal shall state such and provide written 

explanation. 




This Page Blank

OFFICIAL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS September 23, 2005 



for 


of 


(QA Reviews and Related Services) 

1. Interdisciplinary Review 




5. Other Reviews 

6. Workshops To Train System Staff 

A D D E N D U M N O. 2 

“ O F F I C I A L ” 

Responses to Questions 

ISSUE DATE 

September 23, 2005 

The purpose of Addendum No. 2 is to issue an “Official Responses to Questions.” 

Additional questions were asked after the Pre-Proposal Conference. 

Except if revised by this Addendum, all requirements of the RFP remain unchanged. 




OFFICIAL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS September 23, 2005 

1. SUBMITTAL OF CHECKLISTS FOR METHODOLOGY 

Can checklists for methodologies be submitted in electronic format on a CD? 

Yes. 

2. FORENSICS 

Does Forensics apply to the review of disputes and claims, or is it related to post-project 

analysis, such as the determination of the cause of structural problems. 

DELETE THE FOLLOWING: 

• On page 3, the RFP states the following: 

Forensic Reviews may be defined as a means to analyze a problematic project to determine what 

caused certain problems and assist in regaining control of the project. 

• On page 15, the RFP states the following: 

Forensic Reviews may be defined as a means to analyze a problematic project to determine what 

caused certain problems and assist in regaining control of the project. 

For a project that is experiencing unusual and unnecessary cost overruns, the System may want 

to clearly establish the causes of the problems, either during the project or after project 

completion. The System may want to determine, for litigation or other purposes, the causes of 

major cost overruns and assign responsibility for them. 

ADD THE FOLLOWING: 

Forensic Reviews may be defined as a means of analyzing the contract documents of a 

problematic project to determine if and how error and omissions and/or other deficiencies in the 

contract documents may have led to those problems. Problems may include, but are not limited 

to, excessive cost overruns, excessive RFIs, delays, interferences, structural deficiencies, and 

dimensional conflicts. 

The System may want to clearly establish the causes of the problems, either during the project or 

after project completion. The System may want to determine, for litigation or other purposes, the 

causes of major cost overruns and/or delays and assign responsibility for them. 

3. “(EXACTLY AS PREVIOUSLY STATED)” 

What is the meaning of the phrase - “(EXACTLY AS PREVIOUSLY STATED)” - that appears several 

times in the RFP? 

DELETE “(EXACTLY AS PREVIOUSLY STATED)” where it appears in the RFP.

RFP for Quality Assurance Review - State System of Higher Education

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?