i-11 boulder city bypass design-build project … · i-11 boulder city bypass . design-build...

I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT

DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 14-011A

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Draft Request for Proposals February 5, 2014 Instructions to Proposers

RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL=2014-149 ____________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT GOALS .......................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 2

1.2.1 Project Description .............................................................................. 2

1.2.2 Scope of Design-Builder Obligations ................................................... 3

1.3 DOCUMENTS IN THE RFP ............................................................................. 4

1.4 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................. 4

1.5 TARGET PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE ...................................................... 10

1.5.1 Proposal Due Date ............................................................................ 11

1.6 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS ................................ 11

1.6.1 Proposal Contents ............................................................................. 11

1.6.2 Inclusion in Contract .......................................................................... 11

1.6.3 Project Funding and Financing .......................................................... 12

1.6.4 Commitments in the Proposal............................................................ 12

1.6.5 Required Forms ................................................................................. 12

1.6.6 Property of the RTC ........................................................................... 12

1.6.7 Errors ................................................................................................. 12

1.7 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 13

1.8 PREVAILING WAGE RATES ....................................................................... 13

1.9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES ............................................................................................. 13

1.9.1 DBE Requirements ............................................................................ 14

1.10 IMPROPER CONDUCT ................................................................................. 15

1.10.1 Prohibited Activities ........................................................................... 15

1.10.2 Non-Collusion Affidavit/Affirmation .................................................... 15

1.11 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT ....................................................................... 15

1.12 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSER’S ORGANIZATION ................................. 15

1.13 INELIGIBLE FIRMS ...................................................................................... 16

1.14 CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................ 17

1.14.1 Individual Conflict of Interest.............................................................. 17

1.14.2 Gratuities ........................................................................................... 17

i | P a g e REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Draft Request for Proposals February 5, 2014 Instructions to Proposers


1.14.3 RTC Employees ................................................................................ 17

1.14.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest ...................................................... 18

1.15 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ...................................................... 18

2.0 PROCUREMENT PROCESS ........................................................................ 19

2.1 METHOD OF PROCUREMENT .................................................................... 19

2.2 RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 19

2.2.1 RTC Designated Point of Contact ...................................................... 19

2.2.2 Identification of Proposer Authorized Representative ........................ 20

2.2.3 Rules of Contact ................................................................................ 20

2.3 QUESTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING THE RFP ............... 22

2.3.1 Submission of Questions, Requests for Interpretations ..................... 22

2.3.2 RTC Responses to Questions and Clarifications ............................... 23

2.4 ADDENDA, CORRESPONDENCE ............................................................... 23

2.4.1 Addenda ............................................................................................ 23

2.4.2 Correspondence and Information ...................................................... 24

2.4.3 Date For Issuance of Final Addendum and Responses to Questions 24

2.5 RESPONSIVE PROPOSAL .......................................................................... 24

2.6 CONFIDENTIALITY ...................................................................................... 25

2.7 PROPOSAL STIPEND .................................................................................. 26

2.8 PRE-PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS ................................................................ 26

2.9 PRE-PROPOSAL MEETINGS ...................................................................... 27

2.9.1 Informational Meetings ...................................................................... 27

2.9.2 One-on-One Meetings ....................................................................... 27

2.9.3 Questions and Responses During One-on-One Meetings ................. 28

2.9.4 Statements at Meetings ..................................................................... 28

2.10 EXAMINATION OF RFP ............................................................................... 28

2.10.1 Core Samples .................................................................................... 29

2.10.2 Site Access ........................................................................................ 29

3.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN SUBMISSIONS.............................................................................................................. 29

3.1 ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS (ATC) ........................................ 29

3.1.1 ATC Pre-Proposal Submittals ............................................................ 29

3.1.2 Submittal and Review of ATCs .......................................................... 30

ii | P a g e REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Draft Request for Proposals February 5, 2014 Instructions to Proposers


3.1.3 Contents of the ATC Submittal .......................................................... 31

3.1.4 Determinations by the RTC ............................................................... 32

3.1.5 Incorporating Into Proposal................................................................ 33

3.1.6 ATC Confidentiality ............................................................................ 33

3.2 PRE-PROPOSAL PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT ...................................... 34

3.2.1 Pavement Design Submission ........................................................... 34

4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS ............................ 35

4.1 SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSAL ................................................................. 35

4.2 MODIFICATIONS TO A PROPOSAL ........................................................... 36

4.2.1 Withdrawal of a Proposal ................................................................... 36

4.2.2 Public Opening of Proposals ............................................................. 36

4.3 DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS ................................................... 36

4.4 LEGAL AUTHORITY..................................................................................... 37

4.5 CURRENCY .................................................................................................. 37

4.6 PROPOSAL BOND ....................................................................................... 37

4.6.1 Bonding Requirements ...................................................................... 37

4.6.2 Return of Proposal Bond ................................................................... 37

4.7 PROPRIETARY BID DOCUMENTS.............................................................. 38

4.7.1 Delivery of Proprietary Bid Documents .............................................. 38

4.7.2 Review of Proprietary Bid Documents ............................................... 38

4.8 SIGNATURES REQUIRED ........................................................................... 38

4.9 DOCUMENT SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................ 38

4.9.1 Executive Summary ........................................................................... 38

4.9.2 Technical Proposal ............................................................................ 38

4.9.3 Price Proposal ................................................................................... 39

4.10 COST OF PREPARING PROPOSAL ........................................................... 39

4.11 OBLIGATION TO AWARD ........................................................................... 39

5.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS ........................................................................ 39

5.1 BEST-VALUE DETERMINATION ................................................................. 39

5.2 INITIAL RESPONSIVENESS AND PASS-FAIL EVALUATION ................... 40

5.2.1 Administrative/Legal “Pass/Fail” ........................................................ 40

5.2.2 Financial “Pass/Fail” .......................................................................... 41

5.3 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION ..................................................... 41

iii | P a g e REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Draft Request for Proposals February 5, 2014 Instructions to Proposers


5.3.1 Quality Factors and Evaluation Weighting ......................................... 42

5.3.2 Use of Adjectival Ratings for Technical Proposal Evaluation ............ 47

5.3.3 Technical Score ................................................................................. 48

5.4 PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION .............................................................. 48

5.4.1 The RTC’s Right to Reject Price Proposals ....................................... 48

5.5 PROPOSAL CLARIFICATIONS ................................................................... 48

5.6 INTERVIEWS/PRESENTATIONS ................................................................. 49

5.7 BEST AND FINAL OFFERS ......................................................................... 49

5.7.1 Purpose of Discussions ..................................................................... 50

5.7.2 Discussions Procedures .................................................................... 50

5.8 SELECTION .................................................................................................. 51

6.0 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ..................................................... 51

6.1 RECOMMENDATION OF SELECTED PROPOSER .................................... 51

6.2 NOTICE OF INTEND TO AWARD ................................................................ 51

6.3 FINALIZATION OF THE CONTRACT AND EXECUTION ............................ 52

6.4 CONTRACT AWARD .................................................................................... 52

7.0 PROTESTS ................................................................................................... 53

7.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................... 53

7.2 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................ 53

7.3 GROUNDS FOR PROTESTS ....................................................................... 53

7.4 TIME DEADLINES FOR FILING PROTESTS ............................................... 53

7.5 PROTEST BOND .......................................................................................... 54

7.6 CONTENTS ................................................................................................... 54

7.7 REVIEW OF PROTESTS BY THE RTC ........................................................ 54

7.7.1 Review Process. ................................................................................ 54

7.7.2 Effect on Pending Action ................................................................... 55

7.7.3 Ability to Proceed ............................................................................... 55

7.8 SUMMARY DISMISSAL ................................................................................ 55

7.9 BURDEN OF PROOF.................................................................................... 55

7.10 DECISION ON PROTEST ............................................................................. 56

7.11 APPEALS ...................................................................................................... 56

7.12 PROTESTER'S PAYMENT OF COSTS ........................................................ 56

7.13 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PROPOSERS ......................................... 56

iv | P a g e REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Draft Request for Proposals February 5, 2014 Instructions to Proposers

RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL=2014-149 ____________ 8.0 THE RTC’S RIGHTS AND DISCLAIMERS ................................................... 57

8.1 THE RTC’S RIGHTS ..................................................................................... 57

8.2 THE RTC DISCLAIMERS ............................................................................. 58

v | P a g e REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Draft Request for Proposals February 5, 2014 Instructions to Proposers

RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________

I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

INTRODUCTION 1.0

This Request for Proposals (“RFP”) is issued by the Regional Transportation of Southern Nevada (the “RTC”) to seek competitive Proposals for the I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build Project (the “Project”).

The RTC is issuing this RFP to those proposers who submitted a Statement of Qualifications (“SOQ”) during the Request for Qualifications (‘RFQ”) phase, and have been notified of their inclusion on the Short-List of proposers (the “Proposers”).

In the preparation of their Proposals, Proposers must comply with these Instructions to Proposers “(ITP”) during the procurement and in their responses to the RFP. Proposers shall also address the “Project Goals” identified in this ITP Section 1.1. Proposals shall be submitted in two separate parts: the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal as further described in ITP Exhibits A and B. Both parts will be evaluated as set forth in ITP Sections 7.0. The apparent best value Proposer will be then selected as set forth in ITP Section 7.1.

The intent of this procurement is to deliver the complete scope of the Project within the $273 million budget, inclusive of all elements described in ITP Section 1.2.1 Project Description and further described within these RFP documents while meeting the Project Goals and other quality objectives of the Project. All forms identified in this ITP are found in Exhibits C, D, E and F unless otherwise noted. All times in this ITP are Pacific Standard Time (PST) or Pacific Daylight Time (“PDT”), as applicable.

1.1 PROJECT GOALS

The RTC’s goals for the Project are: A) High quality, durable, maintainable, aesthetic and safe project; B) Cost below or matching budget; C) Minimization of impacts to the visitors of Hoover Dam and the Lake Mead

National Recreation Area; D) Sensitivity to the needs of the City of Boulder City, Western Area Power

Administration and the National Park Service; E) Minimization of impacts to the traveling and adjacent public during

construction; F) Meeting environmental commitments; G) Attractive aesthetic treatments and landscaping; and

1 | P a g e I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build Draft Request for Proposals Instructions To Proposers February 5, 2014


H) Meet or exceed the DBE Goal and encourage the use of local small business enterprises including women-owned and minority-owned business enterprises

Furthermore, the RTC hereby notifies all Proposers that it will not discriminate in the award of this contract on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability or national origin. See Design-Build Contract Section 8.2, Attachment 1 hereto for additional information and requirements.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES

1.2.1 Project Description

The proposed I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build Project will design and construct the section of future I-11 for a distance of approximately 12 miles from north of US-95 to US-93 at the Nevada Interchange with SR 172 in Boulder City, Clark County, Nevada, (see Figure 1).

The Project will consist of preparing designs for and constructing the following elements:

1) Approximately 12 miles of new 4-lane divided freeway on a new alignment, around the southern and eastern perimeter of Boulder City, from Station 183+00 to the Nevada Interchange as shown on Figure 1;

2) A new interchange at US-95;

3) Reconfiguration of the Nevada Interchange at US-93 and SR-172 serving Hoover Dam;

4) Realignment of US-93 at SR-172;

5) A scenic view parking area;

6) A truck climbing lane from the Nevada Interchange at SR-172 to the crest of the El Dorado Mountains;

7) Pavements, bridges, storm drainage facilities, off-highway vehicle and wildlife crossings, fencing, barrier rail, retaining walls, and other roadway and traffic facilities necessary for a controlled access freeway;

8) Excavation of rock and processing, hauling and placing excavated rock material;

9) Signs including guide signs for interchanges and the scenic view parking area;

10) Aesthetic treatments and landscaping;

11) Environmental Mitigation;


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ 12) Emergency Access at Buchanan Boulevard; and

13) ITS facilities.

1.2.2 Scope of Design-Builder Obligations

Design-Builder’s obligations will generally include all Work required to design and construct the Project in accordance with the requirements of the Design-Build Contract and other RFP Documents.

FIGURE 1


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ 1.3 DOCUMENTS IN THE RFP

The documents issued as part of this RFP (“RFP Documents”) consist of the following:

A. This ITP including Exhibits A-F;

B. Attachment 1 Design Build Contract Terms and Conditions (Design-Build Contract);

C. Attachment 2 Technical Provisions: Performance Specifications, Additional Technical Provisions, Revisions to the NDOT Standard Specifications, Quality Control and Quality Assurance Specifications, and ROW Plans;

D. Attachment 3 Federal Requirements;

E. Attachment 4 Third Party Agreements;

F. Attachment 5 Reference Documents; and

G. Any additional documents issued by Addenda to this RFP.

1.4 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable to the ITP:

“Addenda/Addendum” means supplemental additions, deletions, and modifications to the provisions of the RFP after the Advertisement date of the RFP. “Affiliate” means the following:

A) Any Person which directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the following: 1) The Design-Builder; or 2) Any other Principal Participant.

B) An Affiliate may also be any Person for which 10% or more of the equity interest in such Person is held directly or indirectly, beneficially or of record, by the following: 1) The Design-Builder; 2) Any Principal Participant; or 3) Any Affiliate of the Design-Builder under part (A) of this definition.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ For purposes of this definition, the term “control” means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to cause the direction of the management of a Person, whether through voting securities, by contract, by family relationship, or otherwise.

“Clarification” means a written or oral exchange of information that takes place between the RTC and a Proposer after the receipt of Proposals during the evaluation and selection process. The purpose is to address ambiguities, inconsistencies, omissions, minor errors or mistakes, and clerical errors in a Proposal.

“Contract” or “Design-Build Contract” means the written agreement between the RTC and the Design-Builder setting forth the obligations of the parties thereunder, including, but not limited to, the performance of the Work, the furnishing of labor and material, and the basis of payment. The Contract includes the Contract Documents identified in the RFP.

“Contract Documents” means the entire set of terms, conditions, requirements and directions that collectively constitute the obligations of the Design-Builder in the performance of the Work. The Contract Documents include the Contract, change orders and contract amendments, the Technical Provisions, the Final Design Documents, and the Contractor’s Proposal in response to the RFP, and all checklists, attachments, appendices, and amendments to any of these documents. The Order of Precedence of the Contract Documents is set forth in Section 1.2 of the Contract. Whenever separate publications are referenced in the Contract Documents, it is understood to mean the publication, as amended, which are current on the date of Advertisement, unless otherwise noted.

“Construction Work” means all of the construction activities the Design Builder is required to perform and complete under this Contract.

“Day” (whether used as a capitalized or lower case term) – A calendar day, unless otherwise defined or modified.

“Design-Build” or “DB” means the Project’s delivery method under which the RTC contracts with a single entity that has responsibility for the design and construction of the Project under a single contract with the RTC.

“Design-Builder” means the private partner selected pursuant to the RFP that enters into the Contract with the RTC to design and construct the I-11 Boulder City Bypass DB Project (also referred to as the “Design-Build Team”). For purposes of SB 506, the Design-Builder is the private partner in the Public-Private Partnership.

“Deficiency” means (1) any failure of a Proposal to meet any of the RTC’s requirements as specified in this ITP; or (2) any flaw in the Proposal which, in the RTC’s sole discretion, increases the risk of unsuccessful Contract performance to an unacceptable level.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ “Designer” means a Principal Participant or designer that leads the team furnishing or performing the Design of the Project and serves as Engineer of Record or Designer of Record.

“Design Work” means the scope of design services the Design Builder is required to perform and complete under this Contract.

“Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” Disadvantaged business enterprise or DBE means a for-profit small business concern: (1) that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more individuals who are both socially and economically disadvantaged or, in the case of a corporation, in which 51 percent of the stock is owned by one or more such individuals; and (2) whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of the socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who own it.

“Final Acceptance” means the acceptance of the Work by the RTC upon the completion of the Work as defined in the Contract, as set forth in a written notice from the RTC to the Design-Builder determining that all required tasks and elements of the Work have been completed in a satisfactory manner and in compliance with the Contract Documents.

“Final Design Documents” means the completed and stamped final construction plans (including drawings, elevations, sections, calculations, details and diagrams) and specifications needed by Design-Builder to build the Project.

“Governing Body of the RTC” means the elected representatives of the entities of Clark County, Nevada, including the County of Clark and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City and Mesquite, who make up the voting membership of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, and the Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation, who serves as an ex-officio member.

“Key Personnel” means the Design Builder’s Project Manager, Design Manager, Construction Manager, Quality Control Manager, Safety Manager, Rock Engineer/Blasting Specialist, Environmental Compliance Manager and Project Scheduler.

“NDOT” means the Nevada Department of Transportation.

“One-on-One Meetings” has the meaning as described in ITP Section 2.9.2.

“Pavement Design Report” has the meaning described in ITP Section 3.2.1. “Person” means any individual, firm, corporation, company, Limited Liability Company (LLC), Joint Venture (JV), voluntary association, partnership, trust, or unincorporated organization, or combination thereof. “Price Score” means the scoring of the Price Proposal as defined in ITP Section 6.1


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ “Principal Participant” means any of the following entities:

A) The Design-Builder (or Proposer); B) An individual firm, all general partners or joint-venture members of the Design-

Builder (or Respondent); and/or C) All Persons and legal entities holding (directly or indirectly) a 15% or greater

interest in the Design-Builder (or Proposer). “Public-Private Partnership” or “P3” means a contract entered into by the RTC and a private partner under which the private partner:

A) Assists the RTC in defining a project and negotiates terms for potentially carrying out the planning, designing, financing, constructing, improving, maintaining, operating or acquiring rights-of-way for, or any combination thereof, the project or any portion thereof; or

B) Assumes responsibility for planning, designing, financing, constructing, improving, maintaining, operating or acquiring rights-of-way for the project or any portion thereof.

“Project” means the improvements to be designed and constructed by the Design-Builder and all other Work product to be provided by the Design-Builder in accordance with the Contract Documents.

“Proposal” means the offer of the Proposer for the Work, when executed and submitted in response to an RFP in the prescribed format and on the prescribed forms. The Proposal includes the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal.

“Proposer” means a Respondent that has been placed on the Short-List and that submits a Proposal in response to this RFP.

“Proposer Authorized Representative” shall mean the individual authorized to act on behalf of the Proposer related to activities under this RFP.

“Punch List” means the list of Work that remains to be completed after achievement of Substantial Completion and shall generally be limited to minor incidental items of Work necessary to correct imperfections that have no adverse effect on the safety, use, or operability of the Project, but must be completed as condition of the Contract requirements. “Quality Assurance” means all planned and systematic oversight actions necessary to provide confidence that the Design-Builder is performing Quality Control in accordance with the Quality Management Plan, that all Work complies with the Contract and that all materials incorporated in the Work, all equipment, and all elements of the Work will perform satisfactorily for the purpose intended. Oversight actions include, but are not limited to, monitoring and verification of design through auditing, spot-checking and participation in the review of the design, and monitoring and verification of construction


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ through auditing, spot inspections and Verification Sampling and Testing at production sites and the Project site. “Quality Control” means the total of all activities performed by the Design-Builder, Designer, Subcontractor, producer or manufacturer to ensure that the Work meets Contract requirements. For design this includes, but is not limited to, procedures for design quality, checking, design review including reviews for constructability, and review and approval of working plans. For construction this includes, but is not limited to, procedures for materials handling and construction quality, inspection, sampling and testing of materials, plants, production and construction; material certifications, calibration and maintenance of equipment; production process control; and monitoring of environmental compliance. Quality Control (QC) also includes documentation for all QC design and construction efforts. “Quality Control Manager” means the individual employed by the Design-Builder who is responsible for the overall QC program of the Design-Builder, including the quality of management, design and construction. “Reference Documents” means the documents provided with and so designated in the RFP in Attachment 5. These documents, including plans contained therein and/or so designated, are not Contract Documents and are provided to the Design-Builder for informational purposes only and are relied upon at the Design-Builder’s own risk. “Request for Proposals or RFP” means The Request for Proposals issued by the RTC with respect to the Project, including the Instructions to Proposers (ITP) and all exhibits, forms, and attachments thereto and any subsequent Addenda in response to which a Proposal may be submitted by a Proposer/Design-Builder. The RFP will be issued only to Respondents who are on the Short-List. “Request for Qualifications and RFQ” means the written solicitation issued by the RTC seeking Statements of Qualifications that was used to identify and short-list the Respondents to receive the RFP for the Project. “Respondent” means a Person who submitted a Statement of Qualifications for the Project in response to the Request for Qualifications issued by the RTC. “RTC” means the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. “RTC Designated Representative” is as described in ITP Section 2.2.

“Short-List” means the list of those Respondents that submitted Statements of Qualifications and that the RTC has determined, through evaluation, were eligible to receive an RFP and were invited to submit Proposals.

“Subcontractor” means an individual, person, or entity having a direct contract with the Design-Builder for the performance of a part of the Work


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ “Specialty Subcontractor” means those consultants or subcontractors identified by the Proposer/Design-Builder to perform Work critical to the success of the Project such as the Subcontractors for blasting, bridges, retaining structures, pavement, landscaping, ITS, public information, or other specialty work.

“Statement of Qualifications” (SOQ) means the statement of qualifications submitted by a Proposer to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Project issued by the RTC.

“Substantial Completion” means the completion of the Work other than Punch List Items, as more specifically described in Article 11 of the Design-Build Contract.

“Supplier” means any Person that supplies machinery, equipment, materials or systems to the Design-Builder or any Subcontractor in connection with the performance of the Work that does not perform Work at the Site. Persons who merely transport, pick up, deliver or carry materials, personnel, parts or equipment or any other items or persons to or from the site shall not be deemed to be performing Work at the site. The term “Supplier” includes fabricators and material dealers.

“Technical Provisions” means collectively Attachments 2-5 to the RFP Documents include Attachment 2 - Performance Specifications, Attachment 3 - Special Provisions to the NDOT Standard Specifications, Attachment 4 – Preliminary Drawings and Geotechnical Information, and Attachment 5 – Reference Documents.

“Technical Score” means the score of the Technical Proposal has defined in ITP Section 6.1.

“Website” has the meaning described in ITP Section 2.2.

“Work” means the furnishing of all labor, material, equipment, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS),and other activities and incidentals necessary or convenient to the successful completion of the Project, the performance of all administrative, design, engineering, and other services required for the Project, and the carrying out of all other duties and obligations imposed by the Contract.

For the definitions of other initially capitalized terms, see Design-Build Contract, Section 1.1 Attachment 1 hereto.



1.5 TARGET PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE Activity Due Date

Issue Draft RFP to Short-List 2/10/14

Pre-proposal Meeting (All Proposers) 10:00am - Noon 2/19/14

Initial Questions + Comments on Draft RFP Due 2/28/14

Initial Comments on Design-Build Contract (DBC) & Technical Provisions Due 2/28/14

Industry Review One-on-One Meetings 3/5/14 – 3/6/14

Final Comments on Draft RFP including ITP, DBC & Technical Provisions 3/13/14

RTC Board Approval of Draft RFP & Evaluation Criteria 4/10/14

RTC Issue Final RFP including ITP, DBC and Technical Provisions 4/14/14

First ATC Submittals and Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Submission Due 4/24/14

First ATC One-on-One Meetings 5/1/14-5/2/14

RTC Response to Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Submission 5/8/14

Second ATC Submittals/Resubmissions of Pre-Proposal Design Submission 5/22/14

Final Date to Submit Request for Change in Proposer Organization 5/22/14

Second ATC One-On-One Meetings 5/28-5/29/14

Last Day to Submit Questions 6/02/14

RTC Response to Resubmissions of Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report 6/5/14

RTC Final Responses to ATCs 6/13/14

RTC Final Answers to Questions, Last Day to Issue Final Addendum and Organizational Change Approvals 6/13/14

Proposal Due Date 6/30/14

Proposal Evaluation Period 7/1/-8/18/14

RTC Board Action and Notice of Intent to Award to Selected Proposer 9/11/14

RTC Board Approval of Contract Award 10/9/14

Notice To Proceed 11/3/14



1.5.1 Proposal Due Date

The completed Proposals shall be delivered to the addressee at the address specified in ITP Section 2.2.1 by no later than 3:00 pm Pacific Time on the date specified in ITP Section 1.5 (the “Proposal Due Date”).

1.6 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS

1.6.1 Proposal Contents

As used in this procurement the term “Proposal” means a Proposer’s complete response to this RFP, including a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. Requirements for the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal are set forth in ITP Exhibits A and B and checklists setting forth the required contents and order is found in ITP Exhibit A, Table A-1 and ITP Exhibit B, Table B-1. The Proposal shall be organized in the order listed in ITP Exhibit A and ITP Exhibit B and shall be clearly indexed. Each Proposal component shall be clearly titled and identified and shall be submitted without reservations, qualifications, conditions or assumptions. Any failure to provide all the information and all completed forms in the format specified or submittal of a Proposal subject to any reservations, qualifications, conditions or assumptions may result in the RTC’s rejection of the Proposal or giving it a lower rating. All blank spaces in the Proposal forms must be filled in as appropriate. No substantive change shall be made in the Proposal forms.

1.6.2 Inclusion in Contract

The Proposal Information and the Pricing Information shall be included with and bound into the Contract at execution as specified in the Contract.

The Reference Documents will not form part of the Contract and do not constitute Contract Documents. The Reference Documents are made available to the Proposers for the purpose of providing such information as is in the possession of the RTC. The RTC does not represent or warrant that the information contained in the Reference Documents is be accurate, complete, pertinent, or of any value. Each Proposer shall use or elect to not use such information at its own risk and is solely responsible for its own independent due diligence in connection with the preparation and submission of its Proposal.



1.6.3 Project Funding and Financing The RTC intends to fund this project with funding from Fuel Tax Indexing (“FTI”) and federal Surface Transportation Program (“STP”) and state funds.

1.6.4 Commitments in the Proposal

The verbiage used in each Proposal will be interpreted and evaluated based on the level of commitment provided by Proposer. Proposers are required to make binding commitments to meet all requirements set forth in the RFP and the Contract Documents. Tentative commitments will be given no consideration. For example, phrases such as “we may” or “we are considering” will be given no consideration in the evaluation process since they do not indicate a firm commitment.

1.6.5 Required Forms

Each Proposer shall complete and include in its Proposal all of the forms provided in ITP Exhibits C - F (the “Proposal Forms”). Any failure to provide all the information or complete all of the Proposal Forms in the formats specified in ITP Exhibits A and B may result in the RTC’s rejection of the Proposal as non-responsive, or in the Proposal receiving a lower rating. All blank spaces in the Proposal Forms must be filled in as directed, and no change shall be made to the phraseology of the Proposal Forms or any item therein.

1.6.6 Property of the RTC

Unless a waiver is provided as specified in ITP Section 2.7, all documents submitted by Proposers in response to this RFP shall become the property of the RTC and, except for specified confidential records, will not be returned to Proposers. The concepts and ideas contained in each Proposal shall also become the RTC’s property, which the RTC may use as it determines, at its sole risk, and in its sole discretion.

1.6.7 Errors

If, at any time during this procurement, a Proposer identifies any mistake, error, conflict, or ambiguity in the RFP, or any of the documents it receives or submits to the RTC, such Proposer shall have an affirmative duty to: (i) notify the RTC of the mistake, error, conflict, or ambiguity, and, if appropriate; (ii) recommend a correction in writing and in accordance with ITP Section 2.2.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ 1.7 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

In order to preserve the ability of the RTC and NDOT to use federal funding for the Project, the RFP and the procurement process, must comply with applicable federal Laws and regulations. The RTC reserves the right to modify the RFP Documents to address any concerns, conditions or requirements of the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”). Proposers shall be notified by Addendum of any such modifications.

1.8 PREVAILING WAGE RATES

The selected Proposer is required to comply with all applicable Federal and State requirements regarding prevailing wages as set out in the Design Build Contract Section 8.4.. These provisions pertaining to wages and conditions of employment will apply to all Work performed by the Design-Builder with its own organization and with the assistance of workers under its immediate superintendence, and to all Work performed by Subcontractors. The provisions also apply to workers in Material sites that are devoted mostly to the production of Material for this Contract. When the final version of the RFP is issued, the relevant Prevailing Wage Schedule will be added as Appendix G to the Design-Build Contract.

1.9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES

In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, the RTC hereby notifies all Proposers that it will affirmatively ensure that in regard to any contract entered into, certified DBE firms will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals in response to our RFP and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin in consideration for an award. The RTC encourages contractors to make the effort to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of subcontracts, to help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs, and to assist in the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program. A commitment to meet the applicable contract goals as listed below or a good faith effort to do so shall be a condition of award and execution of all such contracts. The RTC is also requiring that an On-The-Job training (“OJT”) program be implemented as part of this Project.



1.9.1 DBE Requirements

1.9.1.1 General Requirements The Design Builder shall comply with the DBE Regulations of the Department of Transportation, as set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 26 entitled "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Programs; Final Rule.” The Design Builder agrees to ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR, Part 26 have an equal opportunity to participate in the performance of the contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds.

1.9.1.2 DBE Goal The RTC in consultation with NDOT and the FHWA has established the following DBE participation goals for the Project: 5% combined for the Work. Form NS to be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal includes a certification of the Proposer’s commitment to meet or exceed this goal. DBE’s must be certified by the Nevada Unified Certification Program (Nevada UCP) prior to the execution of the Design Build Contract for this Project in order for credit to be allowed toward the DBE goal. DBE certification requirements and a list of DBE’s that are currently certified by the Nevada UCP are available at www.nevadadbe.com.” The selected Proposer will be required to provide DBE commitments in the form required by the RTC as DBE Subcontractors are identified, in accordance with the Design Build Contract Section 8.2.

1.9.1.3 OJT Goal

As part of the Design-Builder’s Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action program, training shall be provided as follows:

The Design-Builders shall provide OJT aimed at developing full journeymen in the type of trade or job classification involved. The number of required hours of OJT training to be provided for this Project is set at 50,000 hours. Form NS to be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal includes a certification of the Proposer’s commitment to meet or exceed this goal.

Where the Design-Builder subcontractors a portion of the Work, he shall determine how many, if any, of the trainees are to be trained by the Subcontractor, provided, however, that the Design-Builder must retain primary responsibility for meeting the training requirements. Further details on the OJT program is provided in the Attachment 2


http://www.nevadadbe.com/

RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ Technical Provisions, Section B Other Technical Provisions, Section 7.0 and Attachment 3 Federal Requirements.

1.10 IMPROPER CONDUCT

1.10.1 Prohibited Activities

If a Proposer, or anyone representing a Proposer, offers or gives any advantage, gratuity, bonus, discount, bribe or loan of any sort to the RTC, including the RTC’s agents, consultants or anyone representing the RTC, at any time during this procurement process, the RTC shall: (i) immediately disqualify the Proposer; (ii) the Proposer shall forfeit its Proposal Bond (see also ITP Section 4.2.1); and (iii) the Proposer shall not be entitled to any payment as contemplated under ITP Section 2.9 or otherwise. In addition, the RTC may exercise such other rights and remedies as are available at law or in equity, including the right to sue the Proposer for damages.

1.10.2 Non-Collusion Affidavit/Affirmation Each Proposer shall submit a Non-Collusion Affidavit (ITP Exhibit D, Form NC) as set forth in ITP Exhibit A, Section A11.7.

1.11 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT

All correspondence regarding this RFP, any Proposal, and the Contract shall be in the English language. If any original documents required for the Proposal are in any other language, each Proposer shall provide an English translation, which shall take precedence in the event of conflict with the original language.

1.12 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSER’S ORGANIZATION

If a Proposer wishes to change the organization represented in its Statement of Qualifications by adding, deleting or substituting a Principal Participant, Key Personnel, Designer or any Specialty Subcontractor, the Proposer shall submit to the RTC a written request for the RTC’s approval of such change on Form OC prior to the date specified in ITP Section 1.5, and the Proposer must receive written permission to do so from the RTC prior to the Proposal Due Date (ITP Section 1.5 specifies the RTC response date.). The approval of such change will be submitted on Form OC (ITP Exhibit D). Proposer is to include each separately approved change in the Appendix E of the Proposal submission. Any such change is taken at the Proposer’s risk and action on any such request shall be in the sole discretion of the RTC.

If a request is made to add or substitute a Principal Participant, an individual identified as Key Personnel, Designer or any other Specialty Subcontractor, the Proposer shall submit, with Proposer’s request, the information that was required in the RFQ for each


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ Principal Participant, any Key Personnel, Designer or any other Specialty Subcontractor, including legal and financial data, as well as the information required to evaluate the new Principal Participant, Key Personnel, Designer or other Specialty Subcontractor’s qualifications. The submittal must demonstrate that the substitute firm or individual meets the applicable criteria in the RFQ. If a request is made to delete a Principal Participant, Key Manager, Key Personnel, Designer or other Specialty Subcontractor, the Proposer shall submit such information as may be required by the RTC to show that the changed organization still meets the RFQ criteria (e.g., pass/fail and relevant RFQ evaluation criteria). Any request to change a Proposer’s organization must be received by the RTC not later than the Change in Proposer Organization date shown in (ITP Section 1.5).

1.13 INELIGIBLE FIRMS

Each Proposer shall be aware of and comply with the requirements of 23 CFR 636.116, and include in its Proposal a full disclosure of all potential organizational conflicts of interest. In addition, any firm that is rendered ineligible due to any state or federal action is ineligible to participate on any Proposer’s team. Firms and individuals (including any affiliate thereof) that are ineligible to participate on any Proposer’s team include without limitation:

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

CDM Smith

Kleinfelder

G.C. Wallace

Jacobs

Citigroup

Strategic Solutions

Woodbury & Associates

Slater-Hanifan

Restrepo Consulting Group

Silver State Traffic Data

New Fields

Far Western


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ 1.14 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

1.14.1 Individual Conflict of Interest

No employee, officer, or agent of the RTC shall participate in the selection, or in the award or administration, of the Contract (including the determination of the Short-List pursuant to this RFQ) if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when one of the following has a financial or other interest in any firm proposing on or selected for the award:

1) The employee, or an officer or agent of the employee;

2) Any member of the employee’s immediate family;

3) The employee’s business partner; or

4) An organization which employs, or is about to employ, any of the above.

1.14.2 Gratuities

The RTC’s officers, employees, and agents shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from Proposers, prospective Proposers, Subcontractors to Proposers, or other parties to sub agreements whereby the intent could reasonably be inferred as influencing the employee in the performance of his or her duties or was intended as a reward for any official act on his or her part.

1.14.3 RTC Employees

The RTC seeks to eliminate and avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest and unethical conduct by current or former RTC employees in transactions with the RTC.

Consistent with this concept, no current or former RTC employee may contract with, influence, advocate, advise, or consult with a third party about an RTC transaction, or assist with the preparation of SOQs or Proposals submitted to the RTC while employed by the RTC or within one (1) year after leaving the RTC’s employment if he/she was substantially involved in determining the work to be done or process to be followed while an RTC employee.

All Proposers, vendors, or contractors who anticipate contracting with the RTC must identify, in their Proposal submission, any such current or former RTC employees involved in the preparation of their Proposal or the anticipated performance of work or services if awarded the Contract. Failure to identify former RTC employees involved in this transaction may result in the RTC denying or terminating the successful Proposer’s contract.



1.14.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest

Prior to entering into the Contract, the Design-Builder is required to inform the RTC of any real or apparent organizational conflict of interest. Such organizational conflict of interest exists when the nature of the work to be performed under a contract may, without some restriction on future activities, result in an unfair competitive advantage to the Design-Builder, or may impact the Design-Builder’s objectivity in performing the Contract work.

Each Proposer will be required to sign and submit with their Proposal in Appendix H, an RTC Organizational Conflict of Interest Statement (See ITP Exhibit D, Form OCIS) certifying that it has no organization conflicts of interest with the RTC. This is to confirm the information provided as part of the SOQ. An organizational conflict of interest exists when a person or business entity has an unfair competitive advantage because of other activities or relationships with other persons. An organizational conflict of interest exists when any of the following circumstances arise:

A) When the Proposer is unable, or potentially unable, to provide impartial and objective assistance or advice to the RTC due to other activities, relationships, contracts, or circumstances.

B) The Proposer has an unfair competitive advantage through obtaining access to nonpublic information during the performance of an earlier contract.

C) During the conduct of an earlier procurement, the Proposer has established the ground rules for a future procurement by developing the specifications, evaluation factors, or similar documents.

1.15 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

The project has received required environmental clearance. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) was issued in 2005. Environmental Re-evaluations in 2009, 2011 and 2013 have been approved. Copies of the FEIS, the ROD, and the re-evaluations are included in the Reference Documents.



PROCUREMENT PROCESS 2.0

2.1 METHOD OF PROCUREMENT

The Contract will be procured through a single Design-Build Contract (“Contract”). The authority of the RTC for the procurement of the Work to be performed under this Contract is authorized by and will be in accordance with 23 CFR 636 and Nevada Revised Statutes 338.1721 through 338.1727, and SB 506 (Nevada Legislature 2011) using a selection process that considers price and other factors identified in this RFP (also known as “best value”). The intent of the RTC is to award the Contract to the Proposer that submits a responsive Proposal that provides the best value to the RTC, using the evaluation factors set forth in ITP Sections 5.6.3 through 5.6.4.

The RTC will accept Proposals for the Project only from those firms that have been placed on the Short List. The RTC will not review or consider alternative proposals.

The successful Proposer will be selected using the evaluation and selection process set forth in ITP Section 6.11.

2.2 RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER INFORMATION

The RFP will be issued in electronic format via a secure website to the teams who have been notified of their inclusion on the Short-List from the person designated as the RTC’s point of contact in ITP Section 2.2.1. The RTC will provide the RFP and certain other information concerning the Project that was not available during the RFQ stage and may not be publicly available. To access this information, the Proposer will submit a request for website access and be provided with a password in order to access such information and a secure website address (the “Website”); the RTC anticipates updating the Website, as appropriate, during the procurement process. In order to have access to the Website, a Proposer’s authorized representative(s) must execute and return Form PC (Proposer Confirmation) to the RTC Designated Representative and include the designation of the Proposer Authorized Representative as further detailed in ITP Section 2.2.2.

Proposers will receive notice via email upon activation of their access to the Website.

2.2.1 RTC Designated Point of Contact

All correspondence associated with this RFP must be in writing and submitted to the RTC’s Designated Representative as the official point of contact , as further detailed, below. Proposers must include “I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build Project” in the subject line of all correspondence.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ RTC Designated Representative:

Ms. Debra Coleman, Purchasing Analyst

Email: [email protected]

All email correspondence shall be followed by delivery of an original by U.S. mail or other means to the RTC’s Designated Representative at the following address:

Debra Coleman, C.P.M. Purchasing and Contracts Analyst,

Re: RFP 14-011

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

600 Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350

Las Vegas, Nevada 89106

All correspondence must be in writing and the RTC will not consider any correspondence delivered in any other way except as specified in this ITP Section 2.2 or as provided for in connection with One-on-One Meetings under the process set forth in ITP Section 2.9.2.

2.2.2 Identification of Proposer Authorized Representative

A Proposer shall identify an individual authorized to act on behalf of Proposer relating to this procurement (“Proposer Authorized Representative”). The Proposer shall submit as part of Form PC to the RTC’s Designated Representative in conjunction with activating website access as outlined in ITP Section 2.2 above. If a Proposer changes its Proposer Authorized Representative to receive documents, communications or notices in connection with the procurement subsequent to its submission of its Proposal, Proposer shall provide the RTC’s Designated Representative with a revised form PAR providing the required information for such new Proposer Authorized Representative. Failure to identify a Proposer Authorized Representative in writing may result in Proposer failing to receive important communications from the RTC. The RTC is not responsible for any such failure.

2.2.3 Rules of Contact

Each of the following rules of contact shall apply during this procurement:

A. No Proposer or any of its team members may communicate with another Proposer or its team members with regard to any aspect of the procurement, except that (i) Subcontractors that are shared between two or more Proposer teams may communicate with their respective team members so long as


mailto:[email protected]


those Proposers establish a protocol to ensure that the subcontractor will not act as a conduit of information and (ii) this prohibition does not apply to public discussions or RTC-sponsored informational meetings.

B. Limitation on RTC and NDOT Staff Contacts. During the period beginning

on the date of issuance of the RFQ through the issuance of the RFP, and ending on the date of approval of the top-ranked firm by the RTC Board of Commissioners, no person or firm submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, nor any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant representing such a person or firm, shall contact through any means or engage in any discussion with any RTC or NDOT staff, employees, or agents regarding this RFP, a proposal submitted in response to this RFP, or the scope of services described within the RFP. The only exceptions shall be for 1) requests for clarifications or other communications with the RTC Designated Representative; 2) communications/ discussions with RTC staff and/or evaluators during the course of any interviews (if applicable); 3) scheduled One-on-One meetings to discuss and receive comments on the draft RFP; and 4) scheduled one-on-one meetings to discuss confidential alternative technical concepts, and preliminary pavement design reports. Any contact in contravention of this prohibition shall be grounds for the disqualification of the Respondent.

C. Other than as specifically permitted in this ITP, each Proposer shall correspond with the RTC regarding this RFP only through the RTC Designated Representative and such Proposer’s Authorized Representatives. All correspondence shall only be as specifically designated in this ITP.

D. Prohibition on Commissioner Contacts. During the period beginning on the date of issuance of the formal RFP and ending on the date of the posting of the agenda indicating the determination of the top-ranked firm, and approval of the top-ranked firm by the RTC Board of Commissioners, no person or firm submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, nor any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant representing such a person or firm, shall contact through any means or engage in any discussion with any member of the RTC Board of Commissioners, or his or her personal staff, regarding this RFP, a proposal submitted in response to this RFP, or the scope of services described within the RFP. Any contact in contravention of this prohibition shall be grounds for the disqualification of the Respondent

E. The RTC intends to conduct One-on-One meetings with each Proposer on the dates set forth in the ITP Section 1.5, and on such other dates designated by the RTC in writing to the Proposers. One-on-one meetings will be undertaken pursuant to the protocols issued with the RFP. If a one-



on-one meeting is conducted for one Proposer, such meetings shall be offered to all Proposers.

F. Any communications determined to be improper, at the sole discretion of the RTC, may result in disqualification.

G. Proposers shall not disclose any aspect of their Proposals to anyone outside of their team until the earliest of (i) the execution of the Contract by the RTC, (ii) rejection of all Proposals by the RTC or (iii) cancellation of this procurement.

H. The RTC intends to be the sole source of all public information (press releases, public notices, etc.) concerning the Project during the procurement process.

I. Any official information regarding the Project, the procurement, and the RFP Documents will be either by email from by the RTC’s Designated Representative, or posted on the Website.

J. The RTC will not be responsible for any oral exchange or any other information or exchange that occurs outside the official process specified herein.

2.3 QUESTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING THE RFP

2.3.1 Submission of Questions, Requests for Interpretations

Each Proposer shall be responsible for reviewing the RFP and any Addenda issued by the RTC prior to the Proposal Due Date (ITP Section 1.5) and for submitting written questions requesting interpretation of any perceived discrepancy, deficiency, ambiguity, error or omission contained therein, or of any provision which the Proposer fails to understand. Failure of a Proposer to so examine and inform itself shall be at its sole risk, and no relief for error or omission will be provided by the RTC.

Proposers may submit questions regarding the Project, the RFP or communications provided by the RTC, including requests for additional information, for interpretation or to correct errors, via email to the RTC Designated Representative as specified in ITP Section 2.2. The questions and comments should be submitted in Microsoft Word® and may be submitted any time prior to the applicable last date specified in ITP Section 1.5.

Questions and comments, including requests for interpretation, shall: (i) be sequentially numbered; (ii) specifically reference the relevant RFP document, section and page number, unless such request is of general application (in which case the request shall so note; (iii) not identify the Proposer’s identity in the body of the question or contain proprietary or confidential information.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ Proposers are responsible for ensuring that any written communications clearly indicate on the first page or in the subject line, as applicable, that the material relates to the I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build Project. Questions may be submitted only by the Proposer’s Authorized Representative identified as detailed in ITP Section 2.2.2 and must include the requestor’s name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and the Proposer he/she represents.

Only questions received by 5:00 pm, local time, on the applicable due date (ITP Section 1.5) will be addressed.

2.3.2 RTC Responses to Questions and Clarifications

Except for duplicative questions or other questions determined by the RTC to be immaterial, each Proposer’s questions and the RTC’s responses will be posted without attribution in a cumulative matrix on the Website, and notifications will be sent to all Proposers when changes or updates are posted. The RTC may rephrase questions as it deems appropriate and may consolidate similar questions. The RTC contemplates issuing multiple sets of responses at different times during the procurement process.

To the extent responses are provided, they will not be considered part of the Contract nor will they be relevant in interpreting the Contract unless they result in a change to the Contract Documents. The RTC may elect not to respond directly to specific requests, but may instead incorporate relevant responses into the RFP documents through Addenda. Additionally, the submissions of Alternative Technical Concepts are handled separately as described in Section 3.0.

Except for responses to questions relating to Addenda, the last set of responses will be issued no later than the date specified in ITP Section 1.5.

The RTC reserves the right to not consider questions or requests which do meet the requirements in this ITP section 2.3. No questions or requests addressed to any person other than the RTC’s Designated Representative will be considered. No telephone or oral requests will be considered. The RTC’s responses will be entered into a cumulative matrix which will remain on the Website and will be available to all Proposers throughout this procurement.

2.4 ADDENDA, CORRESPONDENCE

2.4.1 Addenda

The RTC reserves the right to issue Addenda at any time during the period of this procurement. Any such Addenda will be bound into and included as part of the Contract only if expressly stated in the Addenda. The RTC is responsible for providing Addenda only to the Short-List Proposers. The Proposal shall include written acknowledgement of receipt of all Addenda.



2.4.2 Correspondence and Information

Except as specified in ITP Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, no correspondence or information from the RTC or anyone representing the RTC regarding the RFP, or the procurement process generally, shall have any effect and shall not be relied upon by Proposers.

2.4.3 Date For Issuance of Final Addendum and Responses to Questions

The RTC does not anticipate issuing any Addenda and/or responses to questions later than the RTC Final Answers to Questions, Last Day to Issue Final Addendum, as set forth in ITP Section 1.5.

2.5 RESPONSIVE PROPOSAL

Each Proposer who submits a Proposal shall provide all of the information required by this ITP. Each Proposal must be submitted in the official format specified in ITP Exhibit A and ITP Exhibit B. Each Proposer shall submit the Proposal Letter submitted to the RTC, as required under ITP Section 5.5.

The RTC, in its sole discretion, may determine that any Proposal is non-responsive and disqualify it from further consideration for any of the following reasons:

A. The Proposal does not comply with the instructions and rules contained in this ITP or its Appendices.

B. The Proposer includes any qualifications, conditions, exceptions to or deviations from the requirements of the RFP, except as contained in pre-approved ATCs (including conditionally pre-approved ATCs that have been revised to satisfy any conditions to approval.)

C. The Proposal is not properly signed; or any part of the Proposal Forms (see ITP Exhibits C - F) are altered or deleted except as contemplated hereby.

D. The Proposal is illegible or contains any omission, erasure, alteration, or item not called for in the RFP, or contains any unauthorized addition, conditional or alternate Proposal provision, or other irregularities of any kind; or the RTC determines that such irregularities make the Proposal incomplete, indefinite, or ambiguous as to its meaning.

E. The Proposer adds any conditions, limitations or provisions reserving the right to accept or reject the Award, or to enter into the Contract following the Award.



F. The Proposer attempts to limit or modify the Forms of Proposal, Labor and Material, or Performance Bonds (see ITP Exhibit F); the Proposal Bond (see ITP Exhibit E) is not provided; and/or requested information deemed material by the RTC is not provided.

G. Any other reason the RTC, in its sole discretion, determines the Proposal to be non-responsive.

The RTC reserves the right to request Clarifications to address ambiguities, inconsistencies, omissions, minor errors or mistakes, and clerical errors in the Proposal.

2.6 CONFIDENTIALITY

The RTC is a public agency as defined by state law, and as such, it is subject to the Nevada Public Records Law (Chapter 239 of the Nevada Revised Statutes). Under that law, all of the RTC's records are public records (unless otherwise declared by law to be confidential) and are subject to inspection and copying by any person. However, in accordance with NRS 332.061(2), a proposal that requires negotiation or evaluation by the RTC may not be disclosed until the proposal is recommended for award of a contract. Proposers are advised that at that point, a proposal’s contents will become a public record and nothing contained in the proposal will be deemed to be confidential, except proprietary information. Proposers shall not include any information in their Proposal that is proprietary in nature or that they would not want to be released to the public, except in accordance with the procedures specified below. Proposals must contain sufficient information to be evaluated without reference to any proprietary information.

If a Proposer believes that it cannot submit its Proposal without including proprietary information, it must adhere to the following procedure or its Proposal may be deemed non-responsive and not subject to further evaluation and review by the RTC.

1) Proposers must submit any alleged proprietary information in a separate, sealed envelope labeled "Proprietary Information" with the RFP number. The “Proprietary Information” must be submitted on a separate Compact Disk from the non-proprietary portion of the submittal.

2) The envelope shall contain a letter from the Proposer’s legal counsel describing the documents in the envelope, representing in good faith that the information in each document meets the narrow definitions of proprietary information set forth in NRS 332.025, 332.061 and NRS Chapter 600A, and briefly stating the reasons why each document meets such definitions.

3) Upon receipt of a Proposal accompanied by such a separate, sealed envelope, the RTC will open the envelope to determine whether the procedure described above has been followed. If the procedure has not been followed, the RTC will not consider the information submitted as confidential or proprietary.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ Any information submitted pursuant to the above procedure will be used by the RTC only for the purposes of evaluating Proposals, and might never be used at all.

If a lawsuit or other court action is initiated to obtain proprietary information, a Proposer who submits the proprietary information according to the above procedure must have legal counsel intervene in the court action and defend the proprietary status of the information, at its own cost. Failure to do so shall be deemed to be the Proposer’s consent to the disclosure of the information by the RTC, Proposer’s waiver of claims for wrongful disclosure by the RTC, and Proposer’s covenant not to sue the RTC for such a disclosure. The Proposer also agrees to fully indemnify and hold harmless the RTC if the RTC is assessed any fine, judgment, court cost, or attorney’s fees as a result of a challenge to the designation of information as proprietary.

2.7 PROPOSAL STIPEND

The RTC will offer a stipend in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100 United States Dollars ($350,000.00) for each unsuccessful Proposer that has submitted a Proposal that is responsive to all elements of the RFP, in the sole discretion of the RTC, that has submitted a signed Stipend Election Form And Certification Of Agreement To Stipend Terms And Conditions (ITP Exhibit D, Form E) and that has achieved a rating of “Pass” on all Pass/Fail evaluation factors. By submitting such each Proposer acknowledges that the RTC owns the ideas and information contained in the Proposal and reserves the right to use any such ideas or information in connection with any contract awarded for the Project, or in connection with any subsequent procurement.

No Proposer will be required by the RTC to accept a stipend. Each Proposer shall indicate in the Stipend Election in Form E whether it accepts or declines the Stipend. A Proposer that declines the stipend shall be deemed to have unconditionally and irrevocably waived its right to a stipend payment and deliver such waiver with its Proposal. A Proposer that accepts a stipend shall, by execution of the Stipend Election Form And Certification Of Agreement To Stipend Terms And Conditions in Form E grant the RTC the right to use any and all ideas provided in such Proposal and agree to the other terms of the Stipend Election Form And Certification Of Agreement To Stipend Terms And Conditions . In the event that this procurement is cancelled after the Proposal Due Date, the stipend will be paid to all unsuccessful Proposers that submitted responsive Proposals without the written stipend waiver described above.

2.8 PRE-PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS

“Pre-Proposal Submittals” are required as provided in ITP Section 1.11 if there are any requested changes in a Proposer’s organization including Principal Participant(s), Key Personnel, Designer or any other Specialty Subcontractor) and ITP Section 3.2 Pavement Design. In addition, any Proposer that wishes to submit an ATC pursuant to ITP Section 3.1 must make a Pre-Proposal Submittal as described therein.



2.9 PRE-PROPOSAL MEETINGS

2.9.1 Informational Meetings The RTC may hold joint informational meetings with all Proposers at any time prior to the Proposal Due Date. Informational meetings may be held either in person or by telephonic or electronic means. If held telephonically or electronically, the meeting will permit interactive communication between all Proposers and the RTC. Written notice of any informational meetings will be sent to all Proposers. If the meeting is conducted by telephonic or electronic means, the notice will inform Proposers of the manner of the meeting. If any informational meeting is held, each Proposer shall attend with appropriate members of its proposed key management personnel, and if required by the RTC, senior representatives of proposed team members identified by the RTC.

2.9.2 One-on-One Meetings The RTC intends to conduct “One-on-One Meetings” with each Proposer on the dates set forth in Section 1.5 and on such other dates designated by the RTC in writing to the Proposers. These One-on-One Meetings will be held to discuss matters regarding the RFP and Proposer’s ATCs. The RTC reserves the right to disclose to all Proposers any issues raised during the One on-One Meetings, except to the extent that the RTC determines, in its sole discretion, such disclosure would impair the confidentiality of an ATC or would reveal a Proposer’s confidential business strategies. Participation at such meetings by the Proposers shall be mandatory. Any change to the Contract Documents arising from the One-on-One meetings will be provided to all Proposers. The One-on-One meetings are subject to the following:

• The meetings are intended to provide Proposers with a better understanding of the RFP Documents;

• The RTC will not discuss with any Proposer any ATC other than its own; • Proposers shall not seek to obtain commitments from the RTC in the meetings or

otherwise seek to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over any other Proposer; and

• No aspect of these meetings is intended to provide any Proposer with access to information that is not similarly available to other Proposers, and no part of the evaluation of Proposals will be based on the conduct or discussions that occur during these meetings.



2.9.3 Questions and Responses During One-on-One Meetings

During One-on-One Meetings, Proposers may ask questions and the RTC may provide responses. However, any responses provided by RTC during One-on-One Meetings may not be relied upon unless questions were submitted in writing and RTC provided written responses in accordance with Section 2.3. The questions and RTC’s responses will be provided in writing to all Proposers, except to the extent such questions are deemed by RTC to contain confidential or proprietary information relating to a particular Proposer’s Proposal or ATCs.

2.9.4 Statements at Meetings Nothing stated at any pre-proposal meeting, including the One-on-One meetings, or included in a written record or summary of a meeting will modify the ITP or any other part of the RFP unless it is incorporated in an Addendum issued pursuant to Section 2.4.3.

2.10 EXAMINATION OF RFP Each Proposer shall be solely responsible for examining, with appropriate care and diligence, the RFP, including Reference Documents and any Addenda, and material posted on the Website, and for informing itself with respect to any and all conditions which may in any way affect the amount or nature of its Proposal, or the performance of Design-Builder’s obligations under the Contract Documents. Each Proposer also is responsible for monitoring the Website for information concerning the RFP and the procurement. The Proposal Letter (Form A) includes an acknowledgment that Proposer has received and reviewed all materials posted thereon. Failure of Proposer to so examine and inform itself shall be at its sole risk, and the RTC will provide no relief for any error or omission. Each Proposer is responsible for conducting such investigations as it deems appropriate in connection with its Proposal, regarding the condition of existing facilities and Site conditions, including hazardous materials, and permanent and temporary utility appurtenances, keeping in mind the provisions in the Design-Build Contract regarding assumption of liability by Proposer. Proposer’s receipt of RTC-furnished information does not relieve Proposer of such responsibility. The submission of a Proposal shall be considered prima facie evidence that Proposer has made the above-described examination and is satisfied as to the conditions to be encountered in performing the Work and as to the requirements of the Contract Documents.



2.10.1 Core Samples Core samples obtained by the RTC during the RTC’s geotechnical data collection program for this Project will be made available for the Proposer’s inspection and use. Proposers may examine the core samples and may analyze the samples, performing destructive and non-destructive testing. The right to examine and use the core samples is granted to all Proposers equally and shall be coordinated with the RTC to assure equal access.

2.10.2 Site Access Access to all areas of the Project right-of-way shall be available to Proposers under the terms of third party easement agreements with the City of Boulder City, the Western Area Power Administration and the National Park Service. Proposers may perform such additional investigations as the Proposer deems necessary to identify and characterize site conditions.

ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND PAVEMENT 3.0DESIGN SUBMISSIONS

3.1 ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS (ATC)

3.1.1 ATC Pre-Proposal Submittals

This ITP Section 3.1 sets forth a process for review of Alternative Technical Concepts which propose to alter the Technical Provisions for design and construction of the Project, or otherwise requiring a modification of the Contract Documents. This process is intended to allow Proposers to incorporate innovation and creativity into their Proposals, in turn allowing the RTC to (i) consider Proposer ATCs in making the selection decision, (ii) avoid delays and potential conflicts in the design associated with deferring reviews of ATCs to the post-award period, and, ultimately, (iii) to obtain the best value for the public.

ATCs eligible for consideration hereunder shall be limited to those deviations from the requirements of the as-issued Contract Documents that result in performance and quality of the end product that is equal to or better than the performance and quality of the end product absent the deviation, as determined by the RTC in its sole discretion. A concept is not an ATC if, in the RTC’s sole judgment, it merely results in reduced quantities, performance or reliability or merely seeks a relaxation of the RTC’s requirements.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ A concept is not eligible for consideration as an ATC if, in the RTC’s sole judgment, it is premised upon or would require (a) a reduction in Project scope, performance or reliability; or (b) an increase in the Price. ATCs that, if implemented, would require further environmental evaluation of the Project, may be allowed, provided that Design-Builder will bear the schedule and cost risk associated with such additional environmental evaluation. If Design Builder is not able to obtain the approvals necessary to implement the ATC, the Design Builder will be obligated to develop the Project in accordance with existing approvals without additional cost or extension of time.

Any ATC that has been pre-approved may be included in the Proposal, subject to the conditions set forth herein.

If a Proposer is unsure whether a concept is consistent with the requirements of the RFP or would be considered an ATC by the RTC, the RTC recommends that the Proposer submit such concept for review as an ATC.

3.1.2 Submittal and Review of ATCs

The Proposer may submit ATCs for review to the RTC. The schedule in ITP Section 1.5 shows two rounds of ATCs and the corresponding submission deadlines. The Proposers are encouraged to submit ATCs as early as possible in the process to allow sufficient review and clarification time. All ATCs shall be submitted in writing to the RTC’s Designated Representative at the address identified in ITP Section 2.2, with a cover letter clearly identifying the submittal as a request for review of an ATC under this procurement. If the Proposer does not clearly designate its submittal as an ATC, the submission may not be treated as an ATC by the RTC.

The RTC will review each ATC submitted. If the RTC needs more information to determine whether or not the ATC will be approved or not approved, the RTC will submit written questions to the Proposer and/or discuss the ATC at a One-on-One Meeting or a specific ATC meeting if required. The RTC may conditionally approve an ATC based on required revisions to a portion or portions of the ATC.

If an ATC is not approved or conditionally approved and the Proposer feels that the non-approval or the conditions for approval were due to an incorrect conclusion on the part of the RTC, it may re-submit the ATC for one additional review until the final date identified in ITP Section 1.5. If a re-submittal is made, it shall be accompanied by a cover letter clearly (i) identifying such submission as an ATC submitted for an additional review and (ii) summarizing the specific additional information provided that is intended to assist the RTC in its re-evaluation of the ATC.



3.1.3 Contents of the ATC Submittal

Each ATC submittal shall include ten copies and shall include each of the following:

A. Identification: A sequential ATC number identifying the Proposer and the ATC number (multi-part or multi-option ATCs shall be submitted as separate individual ATCs with unique sequential numbers).

B. Description: A detailed description and schematic drawings of the configuration of the ATC or other appropriate descriptive information including, if appropriate, product details (e.g., specifications, construction tolerances, special provisions, etc.).

C. Usage: A description of where and how the ATC would be used on the Project.

D. Schedule: Any change (increase or decrease) in the time period necessary to design and construct the Project resulting from implementing the ATC, including, as appropriate, a description of method and commitments (it being understood by the Proposers that the number of Calendar Days from NTP to Substantial Completion included in Tab 7 (Calendar Days to Complete) the Proposal shall take into account implementation of such ATC if approved and if the Proposer elects to include such approved ATC in its Proposal).

E. Cost Savings or Value: An estimate of the savings or monetary value that would be realized by the RTC as part of the Proposal should the ATC be approved.

F. Deviations: References to any requirements of the Technical Provisions or to any elements of the Contract Documents that are inconsistent with the proposed ATC, an explanation of the nature of the proposed deviation, and a request for approval of such deviations or a determination that the ATC is consistent with the requirements of the RFP Documents.

G. Analysis: An analysis justifying the ATC and why the deviations from the requirements of the Contract Documents should be allowed; a description of how the ATC is equal or better in quality and performance than the requirements of the Contract Documents.

H. Impacts: Discussion of potential impacts on vehicular traffic, community impact, and safety.

I. Right-of-Way: If and what additional right-of-way will be required to implement the ATC (and Proposers are advised that they shall (i) be solely responsible for the acquisition of any such right-of-way, including the cost thereof; (ii) not be entitled to any additional time or money as a result of Site conditions (i.e., Hazardous Materials, differing site conditions, geotechnical issues, Utilities, etc.) on such additional right-of-way; and (iii) not be entitled to any additional time or money as a result of any delay, inability or cost associated with the acquisition of such right of way). As specified in


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ ITP Section 3.1, ATCs that require acquisition of right-of-way from a non-governmental entity will not be considered.

J. History: A detailed description of other projects where the ATC has been used under comparable circumstances, the success of such usage, and names and telephone numbers of project owners that can confirm such statements.

K. Risks: A description of added risks to the RTC and other Persons associated with implementing the ATC.

L. Lifecycle Costs: An estimate of the ATC lifecycle impacts including life-cycle (repair and maintenance) costs for the Project.

N. Environmental Review. A detailed description of any additional review, analysis, approvals, permits or findings that may be required in order to develop and implement the ATC. Proposers are advised that they shall (i) be solely responsible for the cost and schedule impact of such review, analysis, approvals, permits and findings; (ii) be solely responsible for the risk that any approvals, permits or findings are not granted, issued, approved or obtained; and (iii) not be entitled to any additional time or money as a result of any delay, inability or cost associated with the environmental review, analysis, approvals, permits or findings related to such ATC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that additional review, analysis, approvals, permits or findings are required in order to implement the ATC, issuance of the NTP shall not occur less than thirty (30) days following award of the Contract, provided that all requirements for NTP issuance in the Design Build Contract have been met.

3.1.4 Determinations by the RTC

The RTC will make one of the following determinations with respect to each properly submitted ATC:

A. The ATC is approved.

B. The ATC is not approved.

C. The ATC is conditionally approved, i.e., the ATC is not approved in its present form, but is approved subject to satisfaction, in the RTC’s sole judgment, of specified conditions.

D. The submittal does not qualify as an ATC but may be included in the Proposal without an ATC (i.e., the concept complies with the RFP requirements).

E. The submittal does not qualify as an ATC and may not be included in the Proposal.

Each Proposer, by submittal of its Proposal, acknowledges that the opportunity to submit ATCs was offered to all Proposers and waives any right to object to or protest


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ the RTC’s determinations regarding acceptability of ATCs. The RTC’s rejection or conditional approval of an ATC will not entitle Proposer to an extension of the Proposal Due Date or the date that the ATCs are due; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not limit the RTC’s absolute and sole right to modify the Proposal Due Date or any other date in connection with this procurement

Approval of an ATC will constitute a change in the specific requirements of the Contract Documents associated with the approved ATC for that specific Proposer. Should the Design-Builder be unable to obtain required approvals for any ATC incorporated into the Contract Documents or satisfy any of the conditions set by the RTC with respect to the use or approval of an ATC, or if the concept otherwise proves to be infeasible, the Design-Builder will be required to conform to the original requirements in the Contract Documents and the RTC shall be entitled to (i) a reduction in the Contract Price in an amount equal to the estimated impact of the ATC on the Proposal Price and (ii) a reduction in the time allowed to achieve Substantial Completion in an amount equal to the estimated schedule savings as a result of the ATC not being implemented.

3.1.5 Incorporating Into Proposal

A Proposer may incorporate one or more pre-approved and/or conditionally approved ATCs into its Proposal. For conditionally approved ATCs, the Proposer may not incorporate such ATC into the Proposal unless all conditions have first been met (see ITP Section 3.1.3). Copies of the RTC’s ATC approval letters for each incorporated ATC shall be included in the Proposal. Proposals with or without ATCs will be evaluated against the same technical evaluation factors. Proposals incorporating an ATC(s), including an ATC that provides technical enhancements, may or may not receive a higher technical rating.

The Proposal Price shall reflect any incorporated ATCs. Except for incorporating approved ATCs, the Proposal may not otherwise contain exceptions to or deviations from the requirements of the RFP Documents.

Prior to execution of the Contract, ATCs from unsuccessful Proposers may, in the RTC’s sole discretion, be presented to the selected Proposer for possible incorporation in the Contract Documents, during negotiation of the final terms of the Contract.

3.1.6 ATC Confidentiality

ATCs properly submitted by a Proposer and all subsequent communications regarding its ATCs will be considered confidential until the Contract is awarded or the procurement is canceled as specified herein; provided, however, that, if the RTC, in its sole discretion, determines, based on a proposed ATC or otherwise, that the RFP contains an error, inconsistency, ambiguity or mistake, the RTC reserves the right to modify the RFP to correct the error, inconsistency, ambiguity or mistake, regardless of any impact on a proposed ATC.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ If a Proposer wishes to make any announcement or disclosure to third parties concerning any ATC, it shall first notify the RTC in writing of its intent to take such action, including details as to date and participants, and obtain the RTC’s prior approval to do so.

3.2 PRE-PROPOSAL PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

3.2.1 Pavement Design Submission

Each Proposer shall submit a Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report for review and written approval or comment by the RTC, in its sole discretion. The Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report shall be delivered to the address set forth in ITP Section 2.2.1 no later than the date specified in ITP Section 1.5. The purpose of this report is to allow the RTC to provide comments as to whether a Proposer’s pavement design is responsive to the requirements specified in the RFP prior to submittal of a Proposal.

The Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report shall meet all requirements for the Pavement Design Report specified in Attachment 2 Performance Specification – Section 14 Pavement Performance Specification. This report shall address all proposed pavements for the Project. This report should show the proposed structural pavement section and include all calculations and design parameters justifying its selection.

No later than the date specified in ITP Section 1.5 for the “RTC Response to Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Submission”, the RTC will review each Proposer’s Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report for responsiveness to the ITP requirements and notify each Proposer whether the RTC considers its pavement design to be responsive or provide comments indicating deficiencies. If deficiencies are stated, Proposers are to revise their Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report in their Pavement Design Report to correct non-compliant items, address deficiencies and resubmit to the RTC no later than the date for the “Second ATC Submittals Due and any Resubmissions of Pre-Proposal Design Submission”. After RTC determines the pavement design to be responsive, Proposers may revise their pavement design and resubmit until the last day for questions in ITP Section 1.5 and the RTC will respond by the final day for ATC submissions. If an ATC is submitted that would alter an already submitted Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report then the ATC must include a revised Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report that addresses any impacts due to the ATC. If the ATC is approved and that ATC is included in the Proposal, then the Pavement Design Report must reflect that revised pavement design.

The Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report will not be considered during Proposal evaluations by the RTC. Each Proposer remains responsible for submitting a responsive Pavement Design Report as part of its Proposal and shall not rely upon the RTC’s review as an indication that a pavement design submitted as part of the Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report meets all requirements of the ITP. Each Proposer must submit all Proposal Information to be included in its Technical Proposal as


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ provided in ITP Exhibit A, including a separate Pavement Design Report as specified in ITP Exhibit A, Appendix C, Section A11.3.3, whether or not it’s Pre-Proposal Pavement Design Report was deemed responsive by the RTC.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS 4.0

4.1 SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSAL

A. Each Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with this ITP and shall include the following requirements:

(1) The Technical Proposal shall include all the information described in ITP Exhibit A and, shall be in a sealed container that is clearly marked as “Technical Proposal – I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build”.

(2) The Price Proposal shall include the information described in ITP Exhibit B and shall be sealed within a separate container that is clearly marked as “Price Proposal – I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build” .

The Proposal, consisting of the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal shall be delivered in accordance with ITP Section 1.5.1 by the Proposal Due Date no later than 3:00 pm Pacific Time to:

Debra Coleman, C.P.M. Purchasing and Contracts Analyst,

RFP 14-011 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 600 Grand Central Parkway, Suite 350 Las Vegas, NV 89106

The cover of the containers shall clearly indicate the following: RTC RFP 14-011, and the fact that this is a Proposal for the I-11 Boulder City Bypass Design-Build Project The name and address of the Proposer shall be clearly marked on the outside of the containers.

B. When sent by United States Mail or private carrier (e.g., Federal Express, United Postal Service, etc.), the sealed containers shall be sent, in accordance with this ITP, to the RTC at the address and in care of the official specified in ITP Section 4.1, in whose office the containers are to be received, and shall be received by such official no later than the time specified in ITP Section 1.5.



C. Where certified copies are required, each Proposer shall stamp the document or cover with the words “Certified True Copy”, and have the stamp over signed by the Proposer’s Authorized Representative.

4.2 MODIFICATIONS TO A PROPOSAL

A Proposer may modify its Proposal in writing prior to the specified time on the Proposal Due Date. The modification shall conform in all respects to the requirements for submission of a Proposal. Modifications shall be clearly delineated as such on the face of the document to prevent confusion with the original Proposal and shall specifically state that the modification supersedes the previous Proposal and all previous modifications, if any.

If multiple modifications are submitted, they shall be sequentially numbered so the RTC can accurately identify the revised Proposal. Any modification must contain complete Proposal sections, complete pages or complete forms as described in ITP Appendices A and B. Line-item changes will not be accepted. No telegraphic, facsimile, or other electronically transmitted modifications will be permitted.

4.2.1 Withdrawal of a Proposal

A Proposer may withdraw its Proposal only by a written and signed request that is received by the RTC prior to the Proposal Due Date and time. Following the withdrawal of its Proposal, the Proposer may submit a new Proposal, provided that it is received prior to the designated time on the Proposal Due Date. The Proposer agrees that its Proposal will remain valid for 180 days following the Proposal Due Date. In the event a Proposer withdraws all or any part of its Proposal within 180 days following the Proposal Due Date without written consent of the RTC, the Proposer shall forfeit its Proposal Bond and shall not be entitled to payment of a stipend.

4.2.2 Public Opening of Proposals There will be no public opening of Proposals. All Proposals will be opened in the presence of two or more RTC-designated individuals. Late Proposals

The RTC will not consider any late Proposals. Proposals received after the time set forth in ITP Section 1.5 will be returned to the Proposer unopened.

4.3 DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS NRS 338.141 (the "Subcontracting Act") requires persons bidding on public works contracts to identify certain Subcontractors as part of their bids. The RTC has determined that it is appropriate to adopt procedures allowing the policies underlying the Subcontracting Act to be addressed in the context of a Design-Build project. The RTC


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ recognizes that certain Subcontractors can only be selected by the Design-Builder after a certain amount of the design work is completed. As a result, the Design-Builder's obligation to identify Subcontractors in its Proposal shall be limited to identifying all design Subcontractors (of all tiers) and all other known Subcontractors (which must include all Subcontractors that are Principal Participants or Affiliates of Principal Participants). Other Subcontractors shall be selected in accordance with the requirements of the Design Build Contract, Article 8. All contracts with Subcontractors will incorporate in full all appropriate conditions and terms as set forth in the Contract. Requirements for the Proposer and his Subcontractors are found in Design-Build Contract, Sections 8.1 and 8.3.

4.4 LEGAL AUTHORITY Each Proposer shall be licensed as required by applicable federal and State laws, rules, and regulations. Evidence of licensing required by State law shall be submitted as required in ITP Exhibit A, Section A11.7.4. Such licensing includes a current Nevada business license, a City of Boulder City business license, a Certificate of Registration issued by the Nevada Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, and a Contractor’s License issued by the Nevada State Contractors Board.

4.5 CURRENCY

The Pricing Proposal shall be priced in US Dollars currency only.

4.6 PROPOSAL BOND

4.6.1 Bonding Requirements

Each Proposer must provide a Proposal Bond with its Proposal in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of its Proposal Price. The Proposal Bond must be presented in the form of a surety bond. The Proposal Bond shall be issued in the form of ITP Appendix C, Proposal Bond by a surety meeting the financial requirements stated in ITP Exhibit B, Section B2.2 and approved by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Nevada.

4.6.2 Return of Proposal Bond

The retained Proposal Bond of the Proposers who are not awarded the Contract will be returned within ten (10) days following the execution of the Contract. The retained Proposal Bond of the selected Proposer will be returned after the Contract has been fully executed, all conditions to award have been satisfied, and the selected Proposer has delivered any payment and performance bonds required by the Contract Documents.



4.7 PROPRIETARY BID DOCUMENTS

4.7.1 Delivery of Proprietary Bid Documents

Within 24 hours after Contract Award, each Proposer shall assemble and deliver its escrowed Proposal documents containing information regarding Proposer's assumptions made in calculating the Price Proposal, including assumptions regarding the Scope of the Work, and meeting all requirements in Design-Build Contract Section 17.3 (referred to therein as “Proprietary Bid Documents”).

Each Proposer shall also deliver with its Proprietary Bid Documents, two executed originals of the escrow agreement (ITP Exhibit F, Form EPD), to

4.7.2 Review of Proprietary Bid Documents

Representatives of the RTC (and/or its consultants) and the successful Proposer shall review the Proprietary Bid Documents prior to Contract execution to determine whether they are complete. Further details related to this review process are detailed in Design-Build Contract Section 17.3.

4.8 SIGNATURES REQUIRED

The Proposal Letter (ITP Exhibit A - Appendix A Proposal Letter) and the Schedule of Prices (ITP Exhibit E, Form SP ) shall be signed by all parties making up the Proposer (e.g., all joint venture members or general partners, if the Proposer is a joint venture or partnership). If any signatures are provided pursuant to a power of attorney, the original or a certified copy of the power of attorney shall be provided, together with evidence of authorization.

4.9 DOCUMENT SUBMISSIONS

4.9.1 Executive Summary

One original plus ten (10) copies of the Executive Summary shall be provided.

4.9.2 Technical Proposal

One original plus ten (10) certified copies of the Technical Proposal (see ITP Exhibit A) shall be provided.



4.9.3 Price Proposal

One original plus six (6) copies of the Price Proposal (see ITP Exhibit B) shall be provided.

4.10 COST OF PREPARING PROPOSAL

The cost of assessing and investigating the Project, participating in this procurement and preparing the Proposal, and any costs incurred at any time before or during this procurement, including costs incurred for any interviews, shall be borne solely by the Proposer, except for the stipend in the amount of $350,000 which will be paid only in accordance with ITP Section 2.7, if not declined by the Proposer.

4.11 OBLIGATION TO AWARD

The RTC shall be under no obligation to award the Contract to the Proposer submitting the Price Proposal with the lowest Proposal Price, or to any other Proposer, or to award the Contract at all.

PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS 5.0

The RTC’s goal is to create a fair and uniform basis to evaluate each Proposal in compliance with all applicable legal requirements governing this procurement. The Evaluation Committee will conduct separate evaluations of each Proposer’s Technical Proposal and Price Proposal. In addition to the Evaluation Committee, the RTC may use one or more subcommittees to assist the Evaluation Committee in connection with the evaluation of Proposals.

5.1 BEST-VALUE DETERMINATION

The determination of apparent best value shall be based on a 60-40 point scale. The “Price Score” (as defined below) will represent up to 60 points of the total score, the “Technical Score” (as defined below) will represent up to 40 points of the total score. The determination of apparent best value shall be based on the highest “Total Proposal Score” (as defined below) computed based on the following formula:

• Total Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points) = Price Score (maximum of 60 points) + Technical Score (maximum of 40 points)

• The Price Score will be based on the following formula:

• Price Score = (Lowest Proposal Price/Proposal Price)* (60)



• The lowest Proposal Price submitted by a Proposer becomes the Lowest Proposal Price as further described in ITP Section 6.5.

• The Technical Score will be calculated based on the Evaluation Committee score for the Technical Proposal (maximum of 100 points) as described in ITP Section 6.4 The Technical Score will be calculated using the following formula:

• Technical Score = (Evaluation Committee score for Technical Proposal) * (40%)

5.2 INITIAL RESPONSIVENESS AND PASS-FAIL EVALUATION

The Evaluation Committee will conduct an initial review of all elements of each Proposal to determine if the Proposal is responsive to the requirements in the RFP, and will also review, on a Pass-Fail basis, the administrative, legal, and financial information submitted in Appendix F of the Proposal and the certifications and forms submitted in Appendices G and H.

If the Evaluation Committee, in its sole discretion, finds that a Proposal is not responsive to the RFP or fails the Pass-Fail review, or finds that the Proposer submitting that Proposal is non-responsible, then that Proposal will be excluded from further consideration and the Proposer will be so advised.

Minor informalities, irregularities, and apparent clerical mistakes or minor omissions in a Proposal will not, in the discretion of the RTC, be the basis for finding a Proposal to be non-responsive or to fail the Pass-Fail review, if corrected promptly by the Proposer upon receipt of notification by the RTC.

If the Evaluation Committee requires additional information to clarify any minor informalities, irregularities, and apparent clerical mistakes or minor omissions that may be necessary for the Evaluation Committee to determine a Proposal’s overall pass/fail status, then the RTC may request such information through the Proposal Clarifications process set forth in ITP Section 6.6.

5.2.1 Administrative/Legal “Pass/Fail”

The administrative and legal pass/fail subfactors are:

A. The Proposer has submitted a properly executed Proposal Letter including all of the required information (ITP Exhibit A, Section A11.6.1.1 – Form A).

B. All of the Proposal Forms and other information, certifications, signed statements, forms, and documents submitted pursuant to this ITP



C. The Proposer (i) has not changed the Principal Participants, Key Personnel or Designer listed in its Statement of Qualifications; or (ii) if the Principal Participants, Key Personnel or Designer have changed, the Proposer has previously advised the RTC of the change, and has received the RTC’s written approval for the change and included such in Appendix E of the Proposal.

D. The Proposer has all the required licenses to carry out the Project, as required in Exhibit A, Section A11.8.3.

5.2.2 Financial “Pass/Fail”

The financial pass/fail subfactors are:

A. Proposer’s financial condition and capabilities have not materially adversely changed from its financial condition and capabilities as evidenced by the financial data submitted in the SOQ, such that the Proposer continues to have the financial capacity to design and construct a project of the nature and scope of the Project. This will be evidenced by the certification submitted as part of ITP Exhibit A, Section A11.6.3.

B. The Proposer has submitted evidence that proves its capability to secure a Labor and Material Bond and a Performance Bond to cover the specific terms of the Contract that meets the requirements in ITP Exhibit A, Section A11.6.3.2.

C. The Proposer has submitted the required documents as specified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A11.6.3.3 related to Insurance Capability.

D. As required by the RTC, the Proposer has submitted the required Guaranty documents as specified in ITP Exhibit A, Section 11.6.3.4.

E. As part of the Price Proposal, the Proposer has submitted a Proposal Bond in the amount required in ITP Section 3.3.1 and in the form of ITP Exhibit E, Form B, Proposal Bond.

5.3 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Evaluation Committee will conduct a substantive evaluation of each Technical Proposal against the quality factors and subfactors set forth in this ITP Section 6.3. The Evaluation Committee will evaluate each quality factor and subfactor using the adjectival rating method set forth in ITP Section 6.4.2.



5.3.1 Quality Factors and Evaluation Weighting

The Evaluation Committee will base its substantive evaluation of the Technical Proposal on the following quality factors.

5.3.1.1 Tab 1 - Executive Summary (P/F)

The Executive Summary will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Evaluation will determine whether the Proposer has submitted the information described ITP Exhibit A, Section A2.0.

5.3.1.2 Tab 2 – Management Approach (15 points):

The Management Approach information to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A3.0

Management Approach will be evaluated for the following:

A. Applicability of the qualifications and experience of Key Personnel;

B. Effectiveness of the organization and roles and responsibilities for Key Personnel for delivering design for the Project;

C. Effectiveness of the interfaces among design, quality management and construction;

D. Effectiveness of the approach to managing subconsultants and off-site design work;

E. Effectiveness of the organization and roles and responsibilities for Key Personnel for delivering construction for the Project;

F. Effectiveness of the proposed project document control, cost control and schedule management approach;

G. Effectiveness of the approach to managing the interface between the Design-Builder, Subcontractors, and Suppliers;

H. Effectiveness of the proposed approach to interfacing with third parties and stakeholders; and

I. Effectiveness of the approach to incorporating constructability, durability, maintainability and environmental compliance into the delivery of the Project.



5.3.1.3 Tab 3 – Quality Management (15 points)

The Quality Management information to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A4.0 including the Proposal Stage Quality Management Plan (submitted as Appendix B)

Quality Management will be evaluated for the following

A. Applicability of the qualifications and experience of Key Personnel;

B. Effectiveness of the organization and roles and responsibilities for Key Personnel for providing quality management for the Project;

C. Level of understanding of the Design-Builder’s role in Quality Management;

D. Degree of authority provided to the quality management staff;

E. Degree to which the Proposal Stage Quality Management Plan (submitted as Appendix B) provides: effective management of the design quality processes, effective document control procedures, effective quality control of design documents, effective quality assurance of processes and products, effective processes to identify and resolve non-conforming work, effective processes to continually improve the quality program;

F. Degree to which the Proposal Stage Quality Management Plan(submitted as Appendix B) provides: effective management of the construction quality processes, effective document control procedures, effective quality control of construction, effective quality assurance of processes and products, effective processes to identify and resolve non-conforming work, effective processes to continually improve the quality program; and

G. Effectiveness of the methodology that will be used to determine quality personnel staffing levels during each major phase of construction.

5.3.1.4 TAB 4: Design Narrative (15 Points)

Proposed design information to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A5.0 including the Concept Design Drawings, Pavement Design Report, Supplemental



Geotechnical Investigation Plan, , Preliminary Geotechnical Cut Slope Design and Construction Plan and Preliminary Soil Preservation Plan For The LMNRA submitted in Appendix C.

A. Understanding and application of design standards;

B. Use of design features that reduce maintenance or improve inspection access or maintenance activities;

C. Quality and effectiveness of proposed approaches to:

1. Highway Design and Traffic Operations including geometrics, cross-sections, slope stability, etc.

2. Interchange Design

3. Pavement Section Design

4. Drainage Design

5. Signing and Lighting

6. ITS;

D. Effectiveness of the approach to design management and staffing throughout the project;

E. Strategy for Design Review Plan;

F. Effectiveness of the approach to managing the interface between design disciplines;

G. Effectiveness of approach for Geotechnical investigations; and

H. Identification and discussion of other technical issues associated with the Project.



5.3.1.5 TAB 5: Landscape and Aesthetics Narrative (5 Points)

The Landscape and Aesthetics Narrative to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A6.0.

Landscape and Aesthetics will be evaluated on:

1. Quality and effectiveness of the proposed approaches to Landscape and Aesthetics including the Scenic View Parking Area; and

2. Incorporation of unique or innovative aspects.

5.3.1.6 TAB 6: Construction Narrative (25 Points)

The Construction Narrative to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A7.0.

Construction will be evaluated for the following:

A. Effectiveness of the proposed construction staging plan, maintenance of traffic and construction sequencing;

B. Effectiveness of accommodations for public traffic and access including unusual traffic events;

C. Effectiveness of the approach to dust control and use of construction water;

D. The proposed workforce planning and the degree to which work will be performed by personnel or Subcontractors with expertise in critical and/or significant work categories;

E. Effectiveness of the proposed safety approach;

F. Effectiveness of proposed coordination with third parties during construction and degree to which coordination has been considered in the construction schedule;

G. Effectiveness of the approach to managing materials and the degree to which material supply has been considered in the construction schedule; and

H. Approach to earthwork including rock excavation, processing and placement.



5.3.1.7 TAB 7: Schedule and Time Information (5 Points)

Each Technical Proposal shall contain the Schedule and Time Information requested in ITP Exhibit A, Section A8.0. The Evaluation Committee will conduct a review and evaluation of the Schedule and Time Information submitted by each Proposer to determine whether it demonstrates a logical sequence, is complete, and is reasonable overall.

5.3.1.8 TAB 8: DBE, On-the-Job Training and Subcontracting (10 Points)

The DBE, On-the-Job Training and Subcontracting information to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A9.0 and will be evaluated for the following.

A. Effectiveness of the proposed DBE and Equal Employment Opportunity plan;

B. Effectiveness of the proposed OJT program; and

C. Effectiveness of the proposed Subcontracting plan.

5.3.1.9 TAB 9: Community Relations (10 Points)

The Community Relations information to be submitted with each Technical Proposal is identified in ITP Exhibit A, Section A10.0. Community Relations will be evaluated for the following:

A. Effectiveness of the proposed approach to maintaining positive relationships with the public and those affected by the Project; and

B. Degree to which the Proposer provides innovative communications approaches that enhance communications

5.3.1.10 Appendices (P/F or Evaluated within TABs above)

Appendices A, B, C, D, and E will be used in evaluation of other elements of the Proposal as indicated in the descriptions for the relevant Tabs.



Appendix F – Administrative, Legal and Financial Submittal as well as Appendix G and Appendix H will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis as discussed in ITP Section 6.3

5.3.2 Use of Adjectival Ratings for Technical Proposal Evaluation

The Evaluation Committee will use an adjectival rating system to evaluate each Technical Proposal against the quality factors and subfactors set forth in ITP Section 6.4.1 (not the Pass/-Fail factors and subfactors set forth in ITP Section 6.3). Specifically, the Evaluation Committee will use a detailed set of adjectives to describe each Technical Proposal’s conformance to the Project’s goals and requirements in with respect to each quality factor and subfactor set forth in ITP Section 6.4.1. After the Evaluation Committee completes its evaluation of the Technical Proposal, the RTC will convert the adjectival rating to a weighted numerical score.

The Evaluation Committee will use the following adjectival ratings to evaluate the Technical Proposal:

• EXCEPTIONAL (86-100). The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial (providing advantages, benefits, or added value) to the RTC. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that the Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the Contract Documents. There are essentially no Deficiencies.

• GOOD. (61-85) The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little or moderate risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the Contract Documents. Deficiencies, if any, are very minor.

• ACCEPTABLE 46-60). The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria and requirements of the Contract Documents. This rating indicates an acceptable level of quality. The Proposal demonstrates a reasonable probability of success. Deficiencies are moderate and can be readily corrected.

• UNACCEPTABLE. (1-45) The Proposer has demonstrated an approach that indicates significant Deficiencies, unacceptable quality or noncompliance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Proposal fails to meet the stated criteria and/or lacks essential information and is conflicting and/or unproductive. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; Deficiencies are so major and/or extensive that a major revision to the Proposal would be necessary.



5.3.3 Technical Score

During the evaluation, the sum of the score of each of the evaluation factors will then be calculated to arrive at the overall Evaluation Committee score for the Technical Proposal, with 100 maximum possible points. The Technical Score will be calculated using the following formula:

Technical Score = Evaluation Committee score for Technical Proposal (maximum 100) * 0.40

5.4 PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Each “Price Proposal “shall contain the information requested in ITP Exhibit B. The “Proposal Price” shown in Form SP shall be the Contract Price if the Contract is awarded. The lowest Proposal Price submitted shall receive 60 points. The calculation of the available points for all Proposal Prices will use the lowest Proposal Price as the numerator and that Proposer’s Proposal Price as the denominator. The resulting percentage will be multiplied by 60 points and become the Price Score. The Price Score is weighted as 60% of the Total Proposal Score.

5.4.1 The RTC’s Right to Reject Price Proposals

The RTC reserves the right to reject any Price Proposal if the RTC determines, in its sole discretion, that the Price Proposal contains any of the following:

A. Any price that is materially unbalanced and, thereby, poses a potential detriment to the RTC. A materially unbalanced price is any item that, in the RTC’s sole discretion, does not reflect reasonable and actual costs, plus a reasonably proportionate share of the Proposer’s anticipated profit, overhead costs, and other indirect costs, which are anticipated for the performance of the Work item(s) in question.

B. Any information that does not conform with all the requirements set forth in the ITP.

5.5 PROPOSAL CLARIFICATIONS

Proposal Clarifications may be required as part of the Proposal evaluation and selection process. The purpose of Proposal Clarifications is generally to address ambiguities, inconsistencies, omissions, minor errors or mistakes and clerical errors in a Proposal.

During the process of evaluations, there may be instances where meaningful evaluation cannot take place or proceed, or where an erroneous evaluation might occur, without seeking a Clarification. In such cases, the RTC, in its sole discretion, may submit a request for Proposal Clarifications in writing to the Proposer, stating the information


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ needed and a date and time by which the information must be received. The Proposer shall provide the requested information in writing by the date and time indicated. If Proposal Clarifications are not timely received, the Proposer’s ratings may be adversely affected, and/or the Proposal may be declared non-responsive.

Upon receipt of requested Clarifications and additional information as described above, if any, the Proposals may be re-evaluated to factor in the Clarifications and additional information.

5.6 INTERVIEWS/PRESENTATIONS

The RTC may meet with and receive presentations from and conduct interviews with Proposers prior to determining the selected Proposer.

5.7 BEST AND FINAL OFFERS

Following the evaluation process described above, the RTC may, at its discretion, establish a competitive range. The RTC may also, in its discretion, issue a Request for Best and Final Offers (“BAFOs”) to those Proposers in the competitive range, or if no competitive range has been established, to all Proposers who met the Pass/Fail criteria specified in ITP Section 6.3. The Request for BAFOs will specify the requirements of the BAFO submission. It is expected that any Request for BAFOs will be limited to adjustments in the Price Proposal. However the RTC may in its discretion request modifications to the Technical Proposal. Any other requested modifications will be indicated in the Request for BAFOs. If the Request for BAFOs requests only a modification to the Price Proposal, the Technical Scores will not be modified from the original scoring. If any modifications are requested to the Technical Proposals, a re-evaluation of the Technical Scores will be undertaken only as to the new information requested and provided.

In connection with development of, or after issuance of, a request for BAFOs, the RTC may, at its sole discretion, conduct written and/or oral Discussions with any of the Proposers regarding the contents of their Proposal and/or their response to the request for BAFO, if any.



5.7.1 Purpose of Discussions

If the RTC determines that Discussions are required, they will be conducted only for the purpose of:

A. Reviewing requested changes in the Technical Proposals;

B. Attempting to resolve any uncertainties or ambiguities or obtaining any significant additional understanding concerning the Proposal; and

C. Resolving any suspected mistakes by calling them to the attention of the Proposers as specifically as possible without disclosing information concerning other competing Proposals or the evaluation process.

5.7.2 Discussions Procedures

The following specific Discussion procedures will apply:

A. Discussions may be written and/or oral; and

B. No indication will be made to any Proposer of the evaluation status of any other Proposer or Proposal.

During Discussions, RTC personnel involved in this procurement shall not engage in conduct that:

1. Reveals a Proposer’s technical solution to another Proposer, including unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that would compromise a Proposer’s intellectual property to another Proposer;

2. Reveals a Proposer’s price without that Proposer’s permission. However, the RTC may inform a Proposer that its price is considered by the RTC to be too high, or too low, and reveal the results of the analysis supporting that conclusion;

3. Reveals the price of another Proposer;

4. Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about a Proposer’s past performance; or

5. Knowingly furnishes selection information in violation of the RTC’s procurement policies or federal and state law.


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ 5.8 SELECTION

The authority of the RTC for the procurement of the Work to be performed under the Design-Build Contract is authorized by and will be in accordance with 23 CFR 636 and Nevada Revised Statutes 338.1721 through 338.1727, and SB 506 (Nevada Legislature 2011) and ITP Section 61 using “best value” as the basis of selection.

CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 6.0

6.1 RECOMMENDATION OF SELECTED PROPOSER

At the completion of the evaluation process, the Evaluation Committee will make its recommendation for the selected Proposer and will submit that recommendation, together with the Proposal rankings, to the RTC General Manager. The selected Proposer will be the Proposer that the Evaluation Committee determines has submitted a responsive Proposal offering the best value to the RTC, based on the evaluation criteria herein.

The recommendation of the selected Proposer will be included in the agenda posted for the next meeting of the RTC Governing Body.

The selected Proposer is required to register as a vendor with the Nevada State Controller’s Office. The registration Substitute IRS form W-9 can be assessed at http://controller.nv.gov/Vendor Services.html .

6.2 NOTICE OF INTEND TO AWARD

Promptly following approval of the selected Proposer and award of the Contract by the RTC Governing Body, the RTC will issue a Notice of Intent to Award. The selected Proposer will be required to deliver to the RTC the Proprietary Bid Documents and the evidence of insurance, Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, and other required submittals, all as directed and in the time specified in Section 3.1 of the Design Build Contract. The selected Proposer shall not make any additions to, deletions from, or changes in the Contract.

Failure to comply with the above may result in cancellation of the Notice of Intent to Award and forfeiture of the Proposal Bond.


http://controller.nv.gov/Vendor%20Services.html


6.3 FINALIZATION OF THE CONTRACT AND EXECUTION

Upon issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award, the RTC will proceed to finalize the Design-Build Contract with the selected Proposer.

By submitting its Proposal, each Proposer commits to execute the Design-Build Contract in Attachment 1, without negotiation or variation, except for such finalization of items described in the immediately following paragraph, and to comply with all terms and conditions in the Contract and to fill in blanks and include information that the Proposal Forms indicate is required from the Proposer.

The final Design-Build Contract will be conformed to include certain material items from the selected Proposal, including the Proposal Information, ATCs, the Proposer’s plans and any other items provided in the successful Proposal and approved or required by the RTC for inclusion in the Contract. Any changes to the Design-Build Contract are expected to be limited to modifications necessary for the incorporation of the selected Proposer’s approved ATCs and any unsuccessful Proposer’s ATCs that the RTC deems appropriate, with any necessary associated price adjustments. The RTC also reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to finalize any other terms and conditions in the Contract Documents as may be necessary for Design-Build Contract conformance and/or correction, or as may otherwise be in the best interests of the RTC. This will include agreement on the Preliminary Baseline Critical Path Schedule.

The Contract will not be effective until it has been fully executed by both of the parties thereto and all conditions to award have been satisfied by the selected Proposer or waived in writing by the RTC.

If a Design-Build Contract satisfactory to the RTC cannot be finalized with the selected Proposer, the RTC reserves the right to formally terminate discussion with that Proposer and proceed to initiate negotiations and finalize a Contract with the next most highly ranked Proposer. In the event the RTC elects to terminate contract finalization with a Proposer, such Proposer will be deemed to have failed to engage in good faith negotiations with the RTC and shall forfeit its Proposal Bond if either of the following circumstances occur: (i) the Proposer fails to attend and actively participate in reasonably scheduled negotiation meetings with the RTC; or (ii) the Proposer insists upon terms or conditions that are inconsistent with the Contract Documents.

6.4 CONTRACT AWARD

After completion of the Contract finalization and execution as described in ITP Section 7.3 above, the complete set of Contract Documents will be sent to the RTC Governing Body for final approval and Contract Award.



PROTESTS 7.0

The following sections set forth this procurement’s protest-filing procedures.

7.1 GENERAL Protests of an Interested Party (as defined below) regarding the procurement actions of the RTC will be considered and determined in accordance with the following procedures. A protest which is submitted by a party that is not an Interested Party or which is not in accordance with these procedures shall not be considered by the RTC, and will be returned to the submitting party without any further action by the RTC.

7.2 DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Section: (A) The term “Days” means, unless otherwise provided, calendar days but if any day of a time period under this procedure falls on a weekend or holiday, the last day of such period shall be the next business day of the RTC. Business days of the RTC are Monday through Thursday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Pacific Time. (B) The term “Interested Party” means any person (a) who is an actual or prospective Proposer in the procurement involved, and (b) whose direct economic interest would be affected by the pending procurement action or decision of the RTC. (C) The term “Solicitation” means an invitation to submit a Request for Proposals, as applicable, or other form of document used in a procurement process to obtain services, equipment, or construction work.

7.3 GROUNDS FOR PROTESTS An Interested Party may file a protest with the RTC on the following grounds or bases for protests only: (A) The RTC has failed to comply with applicable Federal or State law; (B) The RTC has failed to comply with its procurement procedures; and (C) The RTC has failed to comply with the terms of this ITP. Protests alleging other grounds or bases will not be considered by the RTC.

7.4 TIME DEADLINES FOR FILING PROTESTS

A. Except as provided in Subsection B, Protests must be filed no later than five (5) calendar days after the posting of the RTC’s agenda for action on the recommended Proposer and notice of intent to award. B. Protests concerning a determination that a Proposer is non-responsive or has failed a Pass-Fail criteria B must be filed no later than five (5) calendar days after receipt of the notification of such determination,



C. Any protests filed after the dates specified in subsection (A) or (B) above will not be considered by the RTC.

7.5 PROTEST BOND Any party filing a protest is required by the RTC, at the time the protest is filed, to post a bond with a good and solvent surety authorized to do business in this State or submit other security, in a form approved by the RTC, to the RTC who shall hold the bond or other security until a determination is made on the protest. A bond posted or other security submitted with a protest must be in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000). The RTC will not consider any protest that is not accompanied by the required bond. If the protest is unsuccessful, the RTC will submit a claim for reimbursement of agency administrative and agent costs.

7.6 CONTENTS A protest must be filed in writing and must include: (A) The name and address of the protestor. (B) The name and number of the Solicitation. (C) A detailed statement of the grounds for the protest, including all relevant facts, and the Federal or State law, RTC procurement procedure or specific term of the solicitation alleged to have been violated. (D) The desired relief, action, or ruling.

(E) Protests should be submitted to: Purchasing and Contracts Manager Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 600 South Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 All protests must be received at the RTC offices during normal business hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Thursday.

7.7 REVIEW OF PROTESTS BY THE RTC

7.7.1 Review Process. The RTC will notify the protestor as to the timely receipt of a protest and may, where appropriate, request additional information from the protestor within a time certain to be specified in the notice by the RTC. The RTC will also give notice to other Proposers in the Solicitation involved and may, in its discretion, permit any such party to submit


RFP No. 14-011A I-11 BOULDER CITY BYPASS DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PWP No. CL-2014-149 ______________________________________________________________________ information regarding the merits of the protest. The RTC may, in its discretion, hold a conference with the protestor to review the issues raised by the protest and may allow the protestor to submit a rebuttal regarding information submitted to another party.

7.7.2 Effect on Pending Action Subject to paragraph 7.7.3 below, the RTC will defer the pending action or determination of the RTC, as posted in the agenda item that is the subject of the protest, until resolution of the protest. However, if the review of the protest has been completed, the RTC may, in its discretion, both dispose of the protest and act on the agenda item at its next meeting.

7.7.3 Ability to Proceed Notwithstanding the pendency of a protest, the RTC reserves the right to proceed with the appropriate next step or action in the procurement process, and to not defer or suspend an action, in the following circumstances: (1) Where the service to be procured is urgently required; (2) Where the RTC determines, in writing, that the protest is vexatious or frivolous; (3) Where delivery or performance will be unduly delayed or other undue harm will occur, by failure to proceed with the procurement; (4) Where the RTC determines that delay will adversely impact the overall procurement schedule for the Project; (5) Where the RTC determines that proceeding with the procurement is otherwise in the public interest.

7.8 SUMMARY DISMISSAL The RTC also reserves the right, by action of the RTC General Manager, to summarily dismiss all or any portion of a protest that raises legal or factual arguments or allegations that have been considered and adjudicated by the RTC in a previous protest in the same solicitation or procurement action.

7.9 BURDEN OF PROOF The protester shall have the burden of proving the basis of its protest. The RTC may, in its sole discretion, discuss the protest with the protester and other Proposers. No hearing will be held on the protest. The protest shall be decided on the basis of written submissions.



7.10 DECISION ON PROTEST

(A) After review of a protest submitted under this Section, the RTC General Manager shall make a recommendation to the RTC on the appropriate disposition of such protest. The recommendation shall be made on the basis of the information provided by the protestor and other parties, the results of any conferences with the protestor, and the RTC’s own investigation and analysis. The decision of the RTC shall be in writing and shall be the final and binding agency action. Except in exceptional circumstances, the decision of the RTC will be rendered as soon as possible, but no later than within thirty (30) days after the time deadline for filing the protest under Section 8.4 above, or the date all relevant information is submitted or is held the conference pursuant to Section 8.7.1 whichever last occurs.

(B) If the protest is upheld, the RTC will take appropriate action to correct the procurement process and protect the rights of the protestor, including re-solicitation, or revised evaluations. If the protest is denied, the RTC will lift any suspension imposed and proceed with the appropriate stage of the procurement process.

7.11 APPEALS A protestor adversely affected by a decision of the RTC may appeal such decision to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

7.12 PROTESTER'S PAYMENT OF COSTS

If a protest is denied, the Proposer filing the protest shall be liable for the RTC's costs reasonably incurred to defend against or resolve the protest, including attorney and consultant fees and costs, and any unavoidable damages sustained by the RTC as a consequence of the protest.

7.13 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PROPOSERS

Each Proposer, by submitting its Proposal, expressly recognizes the limitation on its rights to protest provided in this ITP Section 8.0, and expressly waives all other rights and remedies and agrees that the decision on the protest is final and conclusive. If a Proposer disregards, disputes, or does not follow the exclusive protest remedies provided in this section, it shall indemnify and hold harmless the RTC and its officers, employees, agents, and consultants from and against all liabilities, fees and costs, including attorney and consultant fees and costs, and damages incurred or suffered as a result of such Proposer’s actions. Each Proposer, by submitting a Proposal, shall be deemed to have irrevocably and unconditionally agreed to this indemnity obligation.



THE RTC’S RIGHTS AND DISCLAIMERS 8.0

8.1 THE RTC’S RIGHTS

The RTC may investigate the qualifications of any Proposer under consideration, may require confirmation of information furnished by a Proposer, and may require additional evidence of qualifications to perform the Work described in this RFP. The RTC reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to:

A. Reject any or all Proposals.

B. Issue a new RFP.

C. Cancel, modify or withdraw the entire RFP.

D. Issue addenda, supplements, and modifications to this RFP.

E. Modify this procurement process (with appropriate notice to Proposers).

F. Appoint an Evaluation Committee and evaluation teams and/or subcommittees to review Proposals, and seek the assistance of outside technical experts in Proposal evaluation.

G. Establish a competitive range of Proposers.

H. Solicit BAFOs from Proposers

I. Approve or disapprove the use of particular subcontractors and/or substitutions and/or changes in the Proposer’s team as set forth in the Statement of Qualifications.

J. Hold meetings and communications with the Proposers responding to this RFP to seek an improved understanding and obtain Clarifications to assist in the evaluation of the Proposals. If meetings are held, all Proposers shall be afforded an opportunity to participate in a meeting.

K. Waive Deficiencies, technicalities, informalities, and minor irregularities in Proposals.

L. Disqualify any Proposer that changes its organization (as represented in its Statement of Qualifications) without the RTC’s written Approval.

M. Hold the Proposals under consideration for a maximum of 180 days after the specified Proposal Due Date until the final Award is made.



N. Refuse to issue an RFP to a prospective Proposer and refuse to consider a Proposal, once submitted, or reject a Proposal if such refusal or rejection is based upon, but not limited to, the following:

1. Failure on the part of a Principal Participant to pay, satisfactorily settle, or provide security for the payment of claims for labor, equipment, material, supplies, or services legally due on previous or ongoing contracts.

2. Default on the part of a Principal Participant or Designer under previous contracts.

3. Unsatisfactory performance of previous work by the Proposer, a Principal Participant and/or Designer.

4. Issuance of a notice of debarment or suspension under RTC or federal regulations to the Proposer, a Principal Participant and/or Designer.

5. Submittal by the Proposer of more than one Proposal for the same Work under the Proposer’s own name or under a different name.

6. Evidence of collusion between a prospective Proposer (or any Principal Participant or Designer) and other Proposer(s) (or Principal Participants or Designer) in the preparation of a statement of qualifications, proposal or bid for any RTC construction project.

7. Uncompleted work or default on a contract in another jurisdiction for which the prospective Proposer or a Principal Participant is responsible, which in the judgment of the RTC might reasonably be expected to hinder or prevent the prompt completion of additional work, if awarded.

8. Evidence of improper communications by a Proposer in violation of the Communication Protocol or any terms of the RFP.

This RFP does not commit the RTC to enter into a Contract, nor does it obligate the RTC to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of Proposal(s) or in anticipation of a Contract. By submitting a Proposal, a Proposer disclaims any right to be paid for such costs, except for any costs paid in accordance with ITP Section 2.8.

8.2 THE RTC DISCLAIMERS

In issuing this RFP and undertaking the procurement process contemplated hereby, the RTC specifically disclaims the following:

A. Any liability or commitment to provide sales tax or other revenues to assist in carrying out any and all phases of the Project; and



B. Any obligation to reimburse a Proposer for any costs it incurs under this procurement, except for any costs paid in accordance with ITP Section 2.8.

In submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP, the Proposer is specifically acknowledging these disclaimers.
