State of Oregon
Department of Administrative Services
State Procurement Office
1225 Ferry St SE
Salem, OR 97310-1530
State of Oregon
Request for Proposals
Design and Engineering Consultant
State Public Safety Wireless Communications System
Issue Date: 09/02/2005 Due Date: 10/04/2005
Contact: Timothy E. Walker,
State Procurement Analyst
Phone #: (503) 378-4091
1 of 36
The State of Oregon (State), acting by and through its Department of
Administrative Services (DAS), State Procurement Office, (SPO), on behalf of the
State’s Office of Emergency Management, (OEM), hereby requests proposals
(“Proposal” or “Proposals”) to establish a Contract for Public Safety Wireless
Communications System Design and Engineering Services. The purpose of this
solicitation (“RFP”) is to receive solutions-based Proposals from qualified entities
(“Proposer” or “Proposers”). It is anticipated that the project will require two (2)
In general, Phase I will involve conceptual design and engineering services for a
statewide digital microwave system, a trunked statewide digital radio system, and
the facilities/towers required to support and house that infrastructure across
Oregon. Phase I must be completed by November 1, 2006. Since each of the
three (3) subject areas depends upon the others, the Proposer is to consider the
design of each major area in concert with the needs of the other two.
Phase II is an optional phase for consulting and quality assurance oversight
services related to the new system detailed design that will be activated, if at all,
at the State’s discretion. At some reasonable point before or after completion of
Phase I, DAS, in conjunction with OEM, will determine whether or not to engage
in Phase II consulting and quality assurance oversight services with the successful
Proposer. However, the State may ultimately determine to go out with an RFP
for the Phase II consulting and quality assurance oversight services. The Phase II
detailed design services, the construction of the statewide digital microwave
system and the trunked digital radio system (including the facilities/towers to
support and house the system), and the quality assurance on the construction of
the statewide digital microwave and radio system are not within the scope of this
Public safety of all Oregonians is essential. The State must ensure that law
enforcement, first responders, forest managers, transportation officials, local
communities and the State’s military components have the tools necessary to
prevent crime, plan for and respond to natural and man-made emergencies, and
otherwise provide for the security of all Oregonians.
Public safety communication systems allow public safety professionals to readily
communicate with one another, and help ensure timely and coordinated
emergency response. The essential role these mission critical communications
systems play in protecting the lives and property of citizens and the public safety
professionals that serve them cannot be overstated.
2 of 36
Current Situation – State Public Safety Communications
The State of Oregon’s public safety communications infrastructure is owned,
operated, and maintained independently; and was not, for the most part,
designed to support interoperable communications within or across jurisdictions.
The State, itself, owns four (4) independent wireless/radio systems: i.e.,
Department of Corrections (DOC), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF),
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Oregon State Police (OSP).
The predominant portion of that infrastructure, owned and operated by OSP and
ODOT, is: rapidly aging, out of production, outdated, not compliant with FCC
narrowbanding mandates, and at risk of failing.
Depleted staffing levels for State Agency wireless/radio programs within those
agencies put the entire State public safety communications’ system (State, local,
federal) at risk. At the State Agency level, every dollar spent maintaining current
systems are a sunk cost never to be recovered as the “system” is well past the “end
of life.” Further, spare parts are increasingly hard to find or not in existence.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
The FCC has ordered a nationwide change in the use of the radio spectrum
allocated for public safety radio operations. That mandate means that licensed
radio systems now operated by DOC, ODF, ODOT, and OSP, all must move to
narrowband technology by 2013. In fact, by January 1, 2008, FCC rules prevent
the manufacture or purchase of the only kind of equipment that will operate on
our existing systems. These FCC adopted policies and standards will affect
Oregon’s public safety communications systems and the State’s ability to use FCC
licensed frequencies if action is not taken. Deadlines for compliance are quickly
There is an urgent need to replace and modernize the current statewide
infrastructure to meet known FCC deadlines and to avoid probable system failure
and the loss of essential FCC public safety radio spectrum licenses. Statewide
improvement in the ability of public safety professionals to exchange voice and
/or data communications with one another on demand, in real time, and when
needed is imperative to achieve what is known as interoperability.
ODOT presently has approximately eighty (80) hops of analog microwave, and
OSP has approximately thirty (30) hops of digital microwave. OSP and ODOT
have developed a concept of a consolidated microwave system that is needed to
support a statewide digital radio system that could result in as many as 150
individual microwave sites or nodes. This information will be supplied to the
successful Proposer of the RFP.
3 of 36
The State has determined, and the legislature has confirmed, that Oregon should
replace its disparate radio systems with a statewide, trunked, digital radio system
and a statewide microwave system for the use by all State Agencies. OSP
currently uses 103 sites, ODOT, uses approximately 90, and ODF uses about 60.
Many of these sites are used by all three (3) agencies. In total, these agencies
have approximately 170 different radio sites. Other than for the OSP system,
most of those sites are not currently connected to dispatch centers by microwave.
The state expects that a trunked radio system will require more sites to have
microwave connectivity to centralized control equipment.
The State is also a primary supporter of the Oregon State Interoperability
Executive Council (SIEC). The SIEC is charged with providing policy level
direction for matters related to planning, designing, and implementing
guidelines, best practices, and standard approaches to address Oregon’s public
safety communications interoperability issues. Recent SIEC policy action and
legislative direction, from the 2005 State Legislative Assembly via House Bill
2101, has expanded the charter of the SIEC to include the identification and
recommendation of a solution for public safety wireless communications
interoperability in concert with the Office of Emergency Management. The
State’s microwave system and its series of communications buildings and towers
is thought to be the infrastructure that is needed to support a secure, dedicated
Internet Protocol network for statewide support of public safety’s interoperability
Integrated Wireless Network (IWN)
Planners for the Federal IWN project have approached the Oregon Departments
of State Police (OSP) and Transportation (ODOT). IWN is a first of its kind
shared communications resource within the Federal Government. It will replace
at least three (3) separate federal law enforcement radio systems with a single,
shared use and nationwide radio system. IWN opted to build a modern, digital,
trunked two-way radio system starting along Interstate 5 in the State of
Washington. IWN planners are working to continue that system development
along Interstate 5 in Oregon. IWN’s initial discussions with Oregon involve their
need for radio connectivity in the Oregon I-5 corridor and the Oregon coastal
IWN planners have identified several specific sites owned by ODOT and OSP that
they would like to use to integrate their network. Given the age and condition of
State-owned infrastructure and equipment, IWN is willing to give the State
federal funding for the State to rebuild several of these sites. In addition to
providing funding for the State to purchase some digital microwave equipment,
this can include some building modernization, tower and electrical upgrades, and
fencing around the facilities. Also, IWN is willing to fund State costs in
maintaining the systems that IWN needs (e.g. costs for training, test equipment,
continued operations and maintenance costs, and funding for a suitable number
of FTE’s of trained maintenance personnel.
4 of 36
An upgrade and expansion of the ODOT and OSP microwave networks will
accommodate the statewide interconnection of sites and dispatch centers to meet
the FCC mandated narrowband technology Oregon must use in the future.
II.1 Goals of Public Safety Wireless Communication System Project
The goals of this public safety wireless communications system - design and
engineering consultant services - RFP are to:
II.1.1 Understand with a high degree of certainty the design and construction
requirements, costs, and implementation schedule for the consolidated
statewide public safety wireless communications system;
II.1.2 Acquire the information needed to develop and deliver a State public
safety wireless communications interoperability plan to the Oregon
Legislature by January 2007;
II.1.3 Acquire technical consulting and quality assurance services related to
future State procurements for the construction and build out of:
II.1.3.1 a digital microwave system connecting major Oregon
communications facilities into a coordinated system of dispatch and radio
transmitter and receiver locations;
II.1.3.2 a consolidated, State Agency public safety wireless
communications system, meeting FCC mandates, State agency operational
requirements, and State interoperability requirements, by 2013.
II.1.3.3 a series of reliable communications facilities to meet the
operational capacity and coverage needs of State Agencies and the
collocation needs of other government public safety and emergency
II.2.1 The scope of this RFP includes the following:
II.2.1.1 The Contractor shall conduct an analysis of the “Current State” of
the State’s existing public safety wireless communications infrastructure
(DOC, ODF, ODOT, and OSP). In accomplishing this, the Contractor shall
work with State staff to review and understand State operational and
interoperability requirements and the FCC 2013 mandates for public
safety frequency use and systems interoperability mandates. This work
will define the “Future State” of the State’s public safety wireless
communications infrastructure. After clearly identifying the gap between
the current and future states of State systems, the Contractor will complete
5 of 36
a comprehensive conceptual design of the Future Public Safety wireless
communications infrastructure and will clearly document the microwave
system, trunked radio system, and facility/tower design and engineering
II.2.1.2 This work will culminate in the development of a business case
document that identifies and compares alternative approaches to
constructing and building out the State’s public safety wireless
communications infrastructure over time. Further, the Contractor will
create and present a high-level implementation plan for the recommended
construction and build out alternative.
II.2.1.3 Upon State approval, the contractor will develop a proposed
statement of work and develop the mandatory and desired requirements
for RFPs leading to the detailed design, construction and build out of the
State’s public safety wireless communications radio system, microwave
system, and system of buildings and towers.
II.2.2 OEM anticipates other contracts will be solicited through separate
RFPs. The following are not included within the scope of this RFP:
II.2.2.1 Construction of microwave radio towers
II.2.2.2 Construction of facilities/mountain top radio sites.
II.2.2.3 Purchase, installation, or deployment of digital trunked radio
II.2.2.4 FCC public safety radio spectrum licensing applications or
ongoing statewide frequency management and coordination
II.2.2.5 Quality assurance of construction and build out of microwave,
radio, and building/tower contract performance.
II.2.2.6 Project management of implementation of the microwave, radio,
and building/tower contracts.
II.3 Phased Approach and Deliverables
The contractor shall use a phased approach to accomplish the work.
Anticipated task stages are set forth below. The State of Oregon may
choose not to proceed with all or part of Phase II independent of Phase I
work. The State of Oregon may proceed with Phase II using the same or
other suppliers at its sole discretion. The maximum not to exceed contract
amount for Phase I is $1,000,000.00.
II.3.1 Conceptual Design and Engineering Study - Phase I
6 of 36
A proposed list of task areas is reflected below, and further reflected with
anticipated related deliverables and an estimated time table for
submission of completed deliverables in RFP Attachment A. This list is
illustrative, not exhaustive, and is negotiable as to the specifics of task and
sub-task areas, nature of related deliverables, when particular deliverables
are due, the sequence in which deliverables are due, and the content of the
deliverables. The list is the State’s best estimation of the tasks and related
deliverables necessary to accomplish the Scope of Work outlined in
Section II.2. After negotiations are complete, the parties will reflect their
agreement in a Statement of Work (SOW) that will comprise Exhibit A to
II.3.1.1 During Phase I, contractor shall:
II.3.1.2 Conduct an inventory review and validate all latitude,
longitude, and elevation data on existing State-owned microwave
tower and repeater locations across Oregon. In addition, at each
and every site, the contractor shall document:
II.220.127.116.11 Tower antenna inventory.
II.18.104.22.168 Emergency power rated capacity
II.22.214.171.124 HVAC rated capacity
II.126.96.36.199 Building electrical system rated capacity
II.188.8.131.52 Variance from R56 grounding, security, and electrical
II.184.108.40.206 Height and general location of nearby obstructions that
could affect microwave paths expected from that site.
II.220.127.116.11 Inventory of all microwave and radio equipment in
II.3.1.3 Conduct a frequency assessment for all FCC licensed public
safety radio spectrum currently in use by State radio owning
agencies, the State Use 700 MHz band, and other frequencies that
are identified by the State. Once the contractor has developed a
conceptual design for the replacement radio system and can
determine core sites, the contractor is to develop and present
statewide composite comparison coverage estimates using the VHF
(150-160 MHz) band and the State Use 700 MHz band.
7 of 36
II.3.1.4 The Contractor is also to produce a county-by-county
coverage estimate of each of the ODF, ODOT, and OSP radio
systems to serve as an estimated baseline for statewide coverage
comparisons. Coverage requirements will be identified by the State
in the contractor’s contract.
II.3.1.5 The contractor is to make a comparison of potential State
systems in each band (VHF and 700 MHz), and the contractor is to
make a recommendation on frequency selection to the State.
II.3.1.6 Complete a conceptual design and document the design and
engineering requirements for a future State public safety wireless
communications infrastructure in Oregon. The contractor is to
complete an assessment that details coverage, capacity, reliability,
and a risk assessment for the proposed-conceptual consolidated
II.3.1.7 Considering the State’s present radio systems and the
conceptual design, the contractor is then to complete a GAP
analysis for each of the four major radio user departments
considering those same elements.
II.3.1.8 Develop a business case that identifies and compares
alternative approaches to constructing and building out the State’s
public safety wireless communications infrastructure over time.
The contractor is to analyze and recommend digital and
digital/analog radio technologies for State Agency use. At a
minimum, the radio system must be Project 25 compatible for law
enforcement and homeland security purposes. Compatibility in this
instance means compliant with the Project 25 Common Air
Interface, the Project 25 trunking documents, and the Project 25
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption. Because of the
need for encryption and statewide voice and data, the State believes
that migration to a digital platform is imperative.
One question is whether other state agencies can operate in a
consolidated trunking system on an analog basis or whether all
units in the consolidated system must operate in a digital mode.
The conceptual design is to recognize the need for some ODOT and
ODF personnel in tactical situations to operate in conventional,
analog modes. System design must also consider statewide tactical
use of VHF frequencies in a conventional mode.
II.3.1.9 Create and present a high-level implementation plan for the
recommended construction and build out alternative. The State
favors a three-phase implementation approach with the first phase
east of the Cascade Mountains, the second phase in southwest
8 of 36
Oregon, and the final phase in northwest Oregon, but it is up to the
Proposer to recommend the best approach. Each phase should
include the microwave system, buildings and towers, and the radio
system so that each area becomes completely operable at the end of
the phase. As each phase of infrastructure is constructed and made
operable, loading of subscribers should begin. The contractor
should estimate how this can be accomplished along with major
II.3.1.10 For each phase, the contractor’s recommended implementation
plan at a minimum should include timing for:
II.18.104.22.168 Opening contract discussions
II.22.214.171.124 Completing contract discussions
II.126.96.36.199 Equipment procurement
II.188.8.131.52 System staging
II.184.108.40.206 Start of installation
II.220.127.116.11 Completion of installation
II.18.104.22.168 Testing and Preliminary acceptance
II.22.214.171.124 Testing and full system acceptance
II.126.96.36.199 Subscriber loading
II.3.1.11 Upon State approval, the contractor will develop a proposed
statement of work and develop the mandatory and desired
requirements for RFPs leading to the detailed design, construction and
build out of the three (3) major areas (microwave, radio,
buildings/towers) of the State’s public safety wireless communications
infrastructure. Within the radio system, it is the intent to let the
manufacturer of the radio system have the freedom to choose sites and
equipment needed to meet capacity and coverage requirements. With
that freedom comes the explicit contractor responsibility to implement
a system that meets those capacity and coverage requirements. The
purpose of the conceptual design is for the State to better understand
the scope, scale, and estimated cost for construction. The contractor
will develop a capacity model based upon the projected year one use of
the radio system by all State departments and, expecting growth of 8%
per year in traffic, ensure that system capacity will be adequate to serve
state agencies to 2015.
9 of 36
II.3.2 Consulting and Quality Assurance Oversight for Detailed
Design of the System – Optional Phase II
II.3.2.1 OEM in its sole and absolute discretion, may choose to proceed
with Phase II consulting and quality assurance services on the detailed
design of the digital microwave and radio system. In the event OEM
desires to proceed with the Phase I Contractor for the Phase II services,
the parties will attempt to negotiate mutually agreeable amendment(s)
to the contract for the performance of such work.
II.3.2.2 Prior to commencing the Phase II services, the parties must
negotiate a not to exceed fee for each deliverable contained within the
statement of work.
II.3.2.3 In the event the OEM does not negotiate a satisfactory contract
amendment(s) with the Phase I contractor for the Phase II services
(which OEM desires to initiate by January 2007) OEM reserves the
right to re-solicit with other potential suppliers for all or part of the
Phase II services.
II.3.2.4 Progress payments - The terms of the contract payments in
Phase II will be negotiated with the contractor.
III.1 Sole Point of Contact (SPC):
Timothy E. Walker,
State Procurement Analyst
DAS – State Procurement Office
1225 Ferry St., SE, U-140
Salem, OR 97301
All Proposer communications concerning this solicitation must be directed only
to the SPC listed above unless otherwise identified in this RFP. Any unauthorized
contact regarding this RFP with other State employees or officials may result in
Proposal rejection. Any oral communications will be considered unofficial and
non-binding. Proposers should rely only on written statements issued by the
SPC. Responses to Proposer’s verbal requests for information or clarification are
not binding unless provided in writing by SPC.
III.2 Schedule of Events:
Release of RFP: September 02, 2005
Mandatory Pre-proposal Conference: September 16, 2005
10 of 36
Protest of RFP Requirements and Terms and
Conditions Due: 4:00 pm PDT on Friday, September 23, 2005
Closing Date: 4:00 pm PDT on Friday, October 07, 2005
Intent to Award Announcement: TBD
Protest of Intent to Award Due: TBD
(Aside from the date for Release, all dates are subject to change)
III.3 Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference
A Pre-Proposal Conference is scheduled for the Oregon Department of Veterans’
Affairs Auditorium located at 700 Summer Street NE in Salem, OR 97301, on
Friday, September 16, 2005 from 9:00 AM PDT to 12:00 PM PDT. The purpose
of the conference is to explain the proposal requirements and to answer any
questions Proposers may have. Personal attendance at the Pre-Proposal
Conference is mandatory. Prospective Proposers who plan to attend the
conference must RSVP via email to the SPC by Tuesday, September 13, 2005.
The prospective Proposer’s RSVP must identify by name and contact information
each representative who will attend the conference on its behalf. Proposals will
not be accepted from Proposers who fail to attend. Regardless of statements
made at the conference, Proposers are cautioned that proposal requirements will
change only if confirmed by a written addendum to the RFP issued by OEM.
III.4 Reservation of Rights
DAS reserves all rights regarding this RFP, including, without limitation, the
III.4.1 Amend or cancel this RFP without liability, if amendment or
cancellation would be in the public interest;
III.4.2 Reject any and all Proposals received by reason of this request
without liability, if such rejection would be in the public interest. DAS is
not responsible for any costs incurred by Proposers while submitting their
Proposals, and all Proposers who respond do so solely at their own
III.4.3 Waive any minor irregularity, informality, or non-conformance with
the provisions or procedures of this RFP, and to seek clarification of each
Proposal, if required;
III.4.4 Reject any Proposal that fails to substantially comply with all
prescribed solicitation procedures and requirements;
III.4.5 Negotiate a statement of work and to negotiate separately in any
manner necessary to serve the best interest of the public;
11 of 36
III.4.6 Amend any contracts that are a result of this RFP within the scope of
services described in this RFP;
III.4.7 Engage Contractors by selection or procurement independent of this
RFP process and/or any contracts under it;
III.4.8 Extend any contracts that are a result of this RFP without an
additional solicitation process for the period(s), if any, described in this
III.4.9 Enter into direct negotiations with a Proposer to negotiate the
statement of work within the scope of work described in this RFP, in the
event there is only one response to this RFP and that response is judged a
qualified respondent. In the event that the sole respondent is not judged a
qualified respondent, DAS reserves the right to solicit other Proposers;
III.4.10 Make the determination, in its sole discretion and judgment, and in
accordance with the evaluation process and criteria set forth in this RFP,
whether a Proposer who receives the highest cost proposal score will be
awarded a contract under this RFP. Although price is a consideration
when engaging a Proposer, the intent is to provide DAS with a Proposer
who has a given level of specialized skill, knowledge and resources.
Qualifications, performance history, expertise, knowledge and the ability
to exercise sound professional judgment are primary considerations in the
selection process. Due to the highly technical nature of some of these
tasks, the Proposer with the lowest price or rate will not necessarily be
awarded the contract.
III.5 Solicitation Addenda
The terms of this RFP shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented or
amended in any manner whatsoever except by written addendum issued by DAS.
If addendums are necessary to expand or alter the statement of work, or
otherwise change the terms and conditions of this RFP, then DAS will issue the
addendum in the same manner that it advertised the original RFP.
III.6 Data Confidentiality
III.6.1 As used in this context, "Data" means the terms and conditions of
any contract(s) resulting from this RFP and all information, whether
written or verbal, including tracings, drawings, plans, models,
photographs, schedules, estimates, studies, investigations, surveys, audits,
specifications, analyses, samples, reports, designees, calculations, memos
of telephone conversations, internal memos, meeting minutes, data, field
12 of 36
notes, work product, proposals, and any other similar documents or
information prepared by or obtained from the State by the contractor in
the performance of this contract.
III.6.2 The parties agree that all Data, including originals and
reproductions, prepared by, obtained by, or transmitted by the State to the
contractor in connection with the contractor’s performance of this contract
is confidential and proprietary information of the State.
III.6.3 The Proposer shall not divulge Data to any third party without the
prior written consent of the State. The Proposer shall not use the Data for
any purpose except to perform the Services required under this contract.
These prohibitions shall not apply to Data that:
III.6.3.1 Was known to Proposer prior to its performance under this
contract unless such Data was acquired in connection with work
performed for the State;
III.6.3.2 Is acquired by the contractor in its performance under this
contract that is disclosed to the Proposer by a third party or from a
non-State information source, who to the best of the contractor’s
knowledge and belief, has the legal right to make such disclosure
and the contractor is not required to hold such Data in confidence;
III.6.3.3 I required to be disclosed by virtue of law, regulation, or
court order to which the Proposer is subject.
III.6.3.4 In the event the Proposer is required or requested to
disclose Data to a third party, the Proposer shall first notify the
State so that the State can be given an opportunity to first take such
action that the State may deem appropriate to protect such Data.
III.6.4 Upon request of the State, either before or after completion of the
services, the Proposer shall promptly deliver all Data to the State.
Proposer may retain a copy of any final report for its records that shall
be subject to the confidentiality requirements of the contract that
results from this RFP process.
III.6.5 The Proposer assumes all liability for maintaining the
confidentiality of the Data in its possession and agrees to compensate
the State if the Proposer, its employees, agents or subcontractors
violate any of the provisions of this section. Solely for the purposes of
seeking injunctive relief, it is agreed that a breach of this Section shall
be deemed to cause irreparable harm that justifies injunctive relief in
13 of 36
III.6.6 The obligations of Proposer under this section shall survive the
termination of this contract.
III.7 Self Dealings
Proposer shall not be eligible to provide equipment or services, either
directly or indirectly, for any equipment purchased under the contracts for
construction that result from this RFP process.
The Proposer shall also ensure that no financial relationship exists, either
directly or indirectly, between the Proposer and the equipment provider(s)
for the microwave system contract, for the trunked radio contract, and/or
for the buildings/towers contracts that are entered into as a result of the
Proposer’s request for proposal.
III.8 Modification or Withdrawal of a Proposal
III.8.1 A Proposal may be not modified, withdrawn or canceled by a
Proposer for ninety (90) days following the required submittal date, or
for such longer period of time as the State may direct in writing, and
each Proposer so agrees in submitting the Proposal.
III.8.2 Proposals may be withdrawn, altered, or resubmitted at any time
prior to the required submittal date.
III.8.3. Notice of pre-proposal withdrawal shall be in writing over the
signature of the Proposer or may be by telegram, telex, or fax. If by
telegram, telex, or fax, written confirmation over the signature of
Proposer shall have been mailed and postmarked on or before the
III.8.4. Withdrawn Proposals may be resubmitted up to the required
submittal date and time, provided that they are then fully in
conformance with these general terms and conditions.
III.9 Proposer’s Responsibilities
III.9.1 The Proposer shall assign only competent personnel to the
project. In the event that the State, in its sole discretion, desires
removal of any person or persons from the project for wrongful or
incompetent acts, the State will notify the Proposer in writing. Upon
receiving such notification, the Proposer shall immediately remove the
person or persons listed in the notification, and take the necessary
action to replace or reassign tasks in a manner that does not negatively
impact the project or the project schedule.
14 of 36
III.9.2 In the event that the Proposer wants to add or replace personnel
to the project, the Proposer shall submit relevant data concerning the
personnel to the State. The State, in its sole discretion, shall have the
option of accepting or rejecting personnel to work on this project.
III.9.4 The Proposer contracted under this RFP shall not be eligible to
bid or provide equipment or services, either directly or indirectly, for
any equipment purchased under the trunked radio contract that the
Proposer is responsible for developing.
III.9.5 The Proposer shall ensure that no financial relationship exists,
either directly or indirectly, between the Proposer and the vendor(s)
for the elements of systems within this contract.
IV.1 Minimum Proposal Requirements
IV.1.1 At a minimum, responses to the RFP shall include:
IV.1.1.1 One (1) original signed hard copy of your Proposal with pricing
information removed. This hard copy must be signed, in ink, by the
Proposer’s authorized representative. The hard copy must be
submitted in sealed package(s) or envelope(s) clearly marked with the
IV.1.1.2 One (1) cover letter summarizing the Proposer’s interest in the
RFP, signed by the Proposer’s authorized representative in ink.
IV.1.1.3 One (1) original hard copy of the pricing information, IN A
SEPARATELY SEALED ENVELOPE CLEARLY MARKED “Cost
Proposal to Request for Proposals #102-7013-5.”
IV.1.1.4 Five (5) CDROM’s, of your Proposal EXCLUDING PRICING
INFORMATION in Word, WordPerfect, or similar document format.
IV.1.1.5 Cover Letter Contents. The cover letter shall include the
IV.188.8.131.52 A Statement that no attempt has been made or will be made
by the Proposer to induce any other person or firm to submit or not
submit a Proposal;
IV.184.108.40.206 A statement that any submitted response and costs shall
remain valid for a minimum of ninety (90) days after the Proposal
due date or until a Contract is executed, whichever comes first;
IV.220.127.116.11 A statement that Proposer agrees to be bound by all
contract terms and conditions stated in this RFP, including those
15 of 36
stated in the sample contract attached to this RFP, as they may be
revised by addenda issued before the closing date, or permissibly
negotiated as set forth elsewhere in this RFP.
IV.1.2 The person signing the RFP shall initial alterations or erasures in ink.
IV.1.3 Hardcopy proposals, pricing information, and CDROM’s must be
received concurrently by the deadline set forth in the schedule of events
and date time-stamped by SPO, at the address on the cover of this RFP.
Soft copies submitted by e-mail as well as oral, telegraphic, telephone or
facsimile proposals will not qualify to meet the deadline as only hard,
original copies, in quantities specified, printed in ink can satisfy the
V.1 Proposer shall submit the following:
V.1.1 The Proposer shall provide a brief description of its organization,
including history. In addition, the Proposer shall submit a copy of its
most recent audited, or reviewed, financial statements with the name,
address, and telephone number of a contact in the company’s financing
or banking organization.
V.1.1.1 If the Proposer is not a publicly held corporation, it may
comply with this requirement by describing the proposing
organization, including size, longevity, client base, areas of
specialization and expertise, and any other pertinent information in
such a manner that the proposal evaluation team may reasonably
formulate an opinion about the stability and financial strength of
the organization. Proposer shall also provide a banking reference
or credit rating and name the rating service.
V.1.2 Disclose any and all judgments, pending or expected litigation, or
other real or potential financial reversals that might materially affect
the viability or stability of the proposing organization, or warrant that
no such condition is known to exist. If the Proposer is a national firm,
it shall disclose the above information for its region and all material
judgments and pending or expected litigation on a nationwide basis.
V.1.3 If the Proposer has had a contract terminated for default during the
past five (5) years, all such incidents shall be described. Termination
for default is defined as a notice to stop performance due to the
Proposer’s nonperformance or poor performance, and the issue was
either (a) not litigated or (b) litigated and such litigation determined
the Proposer to be in default.
16 of 36
V.1.3.1 Submit full details of all terminations for default experienced
by the Proposer during the past five (5) years, including the other
party’s name, address, and telephone number. Present the
Proposer’s position on the matter. The State will evaluate the facts
and may, at its sole discretion, reject the Proposer’s proposal if the
facts discovered indicate that completion of a contract resulting
from this RFP may be jeopardized by selection of the Proposer, i.e.,
a determination that the Proposer is not responsible within the
meaning of ORS 279B.110 and OAR 125-247-0500.
V.1.3.2 Moreover, Proposer shall disclose material contractual
disputes based upon its alleged nonperformance or poor
performance that did not result in termination for default.
Proposer shall submit full details of all such incidents experienced
by the Proposer during the past five (5) years, including the other
party’s name, mailing and email addresses, and telephone number.
Proposer shall also present its position on the matter(s). The State
will evaluate the facts and may, at its sole discretion, reject the
Proposer’s Proposal if the facts discovered indicate that completion
of a contract resulting from this RFP may be jeopardized by
selection of the Proposer, i.e., a determination that the Proposer is
not responsible within the meaning of ORS 279B.110 and OAR
V.1.3.3 If no such terminations for default or contract performance
disputes have occurred, so indicate.
V.1.4 Description of management experience with similar engagements
for organizations of similar size and scope. Proposer shall submit
examples of product generated in previous engagements of a similar
size and scope.
V.1.5 Resumes for key staff resources that will be assigned to this project.
V.1.6 Five (5) References to include the following information:
V.1.6.1 Client Name.
V.1.6.2 Objectives and/or deliverables.
V.1.6.3 Start and end dates.
V.1.6.4 Approximate number of Proposer staff hours expended.
V.1.6.5 Any additional information that will help the agency
understand the scope and complexity of the engagement, such as
dollar value of the project.
17 of 36
V.1.6.6 Contact Name
V.1.6.7 Contact Telephone Number
V.1.6.8 Contact e-mail Address
V.1.7 Sample work product(s) your firm has provided that most closely
represent the type of deliverables anticipated by State in planned Phase
V.1.8 Comprehensive list of clients (private and governmental) for which
you have provided services at least comparable in scope and complexity
to the planned Phase I and optional Phase II services.
V.1.9 Description of your firm’s availability to start work immediately,
dedicate staff until completion of the project, attend meetings, and
complete Phase I prior to 11/01/2006. Indicate whether your firm has
other contracts/commitments that may interfere with dedication to the
V.1.10 Timeline for delivery of Phase I. The earliest delivery/completion
is preferred, but must be completed prior to 11/01/2006.
VI EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA
The State may select one Proposer who is professionally recognized in the
services requested in this RFP and who has demonstrated the ability to
perform the required services in an acceptable manner, price
notwithstanding. Evaluation will result in a single award to provide all
services. There are a total of 550 points available.
The Proposal shall be evaluated according to the following criteria:
VI.1 Company Profile (75 pts.)
VI.1.1 Company longevity
VI.1.2 Company financial stability
VI.1.3 Previous similar projects completed
VI.1.4 Breadth of digital microwave and standards based digital
trunked radio technology experience.
18 of 36
Include specific experience in conducting communications design
and engineering projects of similar size and scope, involving
government and/or private sector entities, and Proposer’s financial
capacity and experience. Specifically address experience in
conducting design and engineering studies with governmental
entities and specific experience in conducting communication
systems design and engineering management involving private and
government entities. Proposers should demonstrate basic
knowledge of governmental public safety communications systems
and the legal constraints that apply.
VI.2 Client Reference List (50 pts.)
VI.2.1 Similarity to State project
VI.2.2 Quality of project performance and timely completion of
VI.2.3 Delivery of project within its originally approved budget
VI.2.4 Results consistent with clients’ stated requirements.
A member of the evaluation committee, or other designated
individual, will make three (3) attempts to contact the specified
individual within a one (1) week period. No additional attempts will
be made and failure to reach the designated contact will result in a
zero point allocation to Proposer on the evaluation factors. Points
for all five references will be totaled and divided by five (5) to get an
average score for all references.
VI.3 Staffing and Facilities (75 pts.)
VI.3.1 Proposed staffing for this project.
The proposed key personnel's specific experience on projects of
similar nature, size, complexity and scope as the project described
in this RFP; length of their employment with your firm, their
planned responsibilities on this project, and their primary office
location; and time commitments of personnel assigned for this
project. List all key employees and subcontractors, their experience
and qualifications, and the portions of the project they will work on.
Also list the location of Oregon facilities, or proposed facilities, and
location of backup facilities.
VI.3.2 Backup staffing
VI.3.3 Proposed Oregon facilities
19 of 36
VI.3.4 Backup company facilities
VI.4 Project Approach (175 pts.)
VI.4.1 Microwave system – describe the specific methodologies
used in the system design and engineering of the microwave portion
of the system.
VI.4.2 Radio system – describe the specific methodologies used in
the system design and engineering of the radio portion of the
VI.4.2 Physical Plant - describe the specific methodologies used in
the system design and engineering of the facilities portion of the
VI.5 Project schedule (75 pts.)
VI.5.1 Provide a proposed project work plan and schedule of
VI.6 Cost (100 pts.)
VI.6.1 Not to Exceed (NTE) cost for Phase I. This cost proposal shall
include all costs. The State will not reimburse separately for any travel
or support costs. The Proposer’s cost proposal shall include a
breakdown of anticipated travel and support costs. These costs shall be
included in the NTE cost for Phase I. The Proposer submitting the
lowest proposed cost will receive the maximum available points related
to cost. The final price score for each Proposer submitting a higher
proposed cost will be a portion of the total amount of points designated
for the NTE indicated in this Section V.6.1 according to the following
(L/X)*Y = A, where:
X = Proposed NTE being scored
L = Lowest proposed NTE scored
Y = Maximum possible points (100)
A = Awarded points
EXAMPLE: The lowest proposed NTE is $100,000.00 and the next
lowest proposed NTE is $150,000.00. The maximum possible
points (100) are awarded to the lowest proposed NTE. Calculating
the equation of ($100,000 / $150,000 = .6666666) * 100 =
20 of 36
66.6666 results in the award of 66.7 Pricing/Cost points to the
higher proposed NTE.
VI.6.2 A proposed deliverable payment schedule that maps to the
proposed project work plan and schedule. It is acceptable to
structure the deliverable payment to reflect a monthly amount for a
group of deliverables, as opposed to a price per deliverable.
VI.6.3 The State intends to negotiate a mutually agreeable monthly
retainage that would be paid upon final acceptance of the Phase I
VI.7 Sufficient supporting documentation must be provided to assist the
State in evaluating each response. Unsupported statements (e.g. "Will
Comply") are unacceptable and the Proposer may be found non-
responsive and their Proposal rejected. "Understood" is an acceptable
response to paragraphs that provide information only.
VII PROPOSAL FORMAT
The Proposal shall include the completed certifications sheets, if any,
attached to this RFP.
VII.2 Statement of Proposer's Qualifications
The statement of Proposer's qualifications shall include at least the
information called for in this RFP and any additional pertinent
information the Proposer may view necessary to support its
VII.3 Project Personnel
The Proposal shall state the name(s) and phone numbers of proposed
project personnel along with a copy of appropriate resume(s) and the
percent of time to be spent on each task by such person.
The Proposal shall identify all subcontractors that the Proposer shall
use in the performance of any services required by this Proposal and
specifically identify the services that such subcontractor will provide.
With respect to any such subcontractor, the Proposal shall submit the
same information for the subcontractor as that required of the
Proposer under this Proposal Format.
VII.5 Strategy / Project Approach
The Proposal shall include a point by point response for accomplishing
the project tasks reflected in this RFP, including without limitation
those reflected at Attachment A.
21 of 36
The Proposal shall include documentation to demonstrate the
Proposer's capability to prepare accurate, clear, comprehensive, and
unbiased design and engineering specifications for 1) a statewide,
digital microwave system, 2) an digital trunked radio system, and 3)
communications buildings and towers, and to prepare an
implementation plan for moving from current to future systems..
VII.7 Conformance to Requirements
The Proposal shall include a statement of agreement to conform to
terms and conditions and scope of work.
VII.8 Statement of Availability
The Proposal shall include a statement of availability and a projected
timeline for the Proposer to perform the project tasks listed under
Sections C of scope of work.
VII.9 Disclosure Statement
The Proposer shall specifically identify any civil or criminal proceeding
or other action or adverse findings against the Proposer or any of its
subcontractors for violations of any regulations as identified in this
VIII.1 Proposal submissions in response to this RFP must be in the form of a
Proposal package containing the Proposal and all required supporting
information and documents, and must be addressed to the SPC and clearly
referenced as “Proposal to Request for Proposals #102-7013-5.”
Proposals must address all submission requirements set forth in this RFP,
and must describe how the services will be provided. Proposals which
merely offer to provide services as stated in this RFP will be considered
non-responsive to this RFP and will not be considered further. Proposals
will be evaluated on criteria set forth in this RFP and responsiveness to the
purpose and specifications of this RFP. Only those Proposals that include
complete information, as required by this RFP will be considered for
VIII.2 The cost Proposal in response to this RFP shall be separate from the
technical Proposal and must be addressed to the SPC as shown in Section
I.1 herein and clearly referenced as “Cost Proposal to Request for
VIII.3 Trade Secrets
22 of 36
Any information Offeror submits in response to the RFP that Offeror
considers a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) or confidential proprietary
information, and that Offeror wishes to protect from public disclosure,
must be identified with particularity and clearly labeled with the following:
"This information constitutes a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2) or
confidential proprietary information, and is not to be disclosed except in
accordance with the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS Chapter 192."
Offerors are cautioned that price information submitted in response to an
RFP is generally not considered a trade secret under the Oregon Public
Records Law. Further, information submitted by Offeror that is already in
the public domain is not protected. The State shall not be liable for
disclosure or release of any information when authorized or required by
law or court order to do so. The State shall also be immune from liability
for disclosure or release of information under the circumstances set out in
VIII.4.1 The Proposer may submit a written protest or request for change
of particular provisions, specifications, or Contract terms and
conditions that must be received by the OEM no later than the date
specified in the schedule of events. The protest shall state the reasons
for the protest and any proposed changes to the RFP provisions,
specifications or contract terms and conditions. Protests or requests for
change must be submitted in writing in an envelope marked “Protest of
RFP Requirements and Terms and Conditions” and must be delivered
via U.S. Mail or courier or hand-delivered to the address set forth in
Section I.1. Late, faxed or electronically transmitted protests will not
VIII.4.2 Contract Protest and Negotiations
In general, the negotiations of this contract will consist of Proposers’
protest of the sample contract provisions followed by negotiation of
Phase I Contract terms and conditions identified as negotiable.
Following the Protest process, including negotiation of payment
provisions, if the successful Proposer is also selected to perform Phase
II work, the negotiations will consist of negotiation of the Phase II
statement of work, together with payment provisions and contract
terms and conditions specifically applicable to the Phase II work.
The sample contract (Attachment B) contains the terms and conditions
that will govern this contract between OEM and the successful
Proposer. A Proposer who believes any of the terms and conditions
contained in the State's sample contract are unnecessarily restrictive or
limit competition, or a Proposer who would like to request that specific
terms and conditions contained in the sample contract be considered
for negotiation, shall submit a written request for negotiation to the
23 of 36
SPC identified. The request shall identify the specific provision that
Proposer would like to negotiate, shall include an explanation of why
the Proposer believes the provision should be a negotiable provision,
and the suggested revised language. Requests which are not submitted
in this format may not be considered. Requests which state that
the entire sample contract be negotiated will not be
The OEM will also consider for negotiation, contract provisions
specifically related to the performance of Phase II statement of work at
the time of contracting with Proposer to initiate Phase II work.
THIS IS THE PROPOSER'S ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO
PROTEST THE RFP PROVISIONS AND TERMS AND
CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE SAMPLE CONTRACT
AND TO REQUEST THE NEGOTIATION OF PROVISIONS
CONTAINED IN THE SAMPLE CONTRACT. FOLLOWING
THE SOLICITATION PROTEST PERIOD, ANY SUBMITTED
PROPOSAL THAT TAKES EXCEPTION TO THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE SAMPLE CONTRACT (AS CHANGED
BY ADDENDUM) OR REQUIRES NEGOTIATION OF
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BE
DEEMED NON-RESPONSIVE AND THE PROPOSAL SHALL
At the conclusion of this protest period, no further protests of the terms
and conditions contained in the sample contract or requests for
additional language designated as “Negotiable Item” will be considered
except as may be specifically related to the implementation of Phase II
IX. Evaluation Process. Pursuant to OAR 125-247-0261 (1) through (4) and
(6), DAS and OEM may acquire the desired services through the use of a
multistep competitive sealed proposal solicitation process (“Multistep
Solicitation”). This Multistep Solicitation will allow DAS and OEM to exercise
their discretion in using a Competitive Range evaluation process for discussions,
revisions and negotiations, and a Best and Final Offer evaluation process as
described below. For all rights reserved under the Multistep Solicitation rule,
DAS and OEM will exercise one, some or all such rights, if any, in the sole
exercise of their discretion. For the convenience of the Proposers, the relevant
excerpts from OAR 125-247-0261 are attached to the RFP at Attachment C.
(Please note that any inconsistency between the text of this attachment and the
text of the official rule filing with the Office of the Secretary of State for the State
of Oregon shall be resolved in favor of the text in the official rule filing.
Proposers may access the official rule filing online at:
24 of 36
IX.1 All proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by an Evaluation
Committee. “Best Value” concepts will be used for the evaluation and
award. “Best Value,” means the overall combination of quality, price, and
various elements of required services that in total are optimal relative to a
public body’s needs. The evaluation committee will recommend to OEM
the proposal(s) that most closely fit the evaluation goals and criteria set
forth in this RFP.
IX.2 The RFP’s will be evaluated according to how the vendors proposal
solution fits with the goals of the project and evaluation criteria described
in this RFP.
IX.3 The RFP’s will be evaluated by the members of the evaluation
committee. Each proposal will be independently and separately scored by
each member of the evaluation committee. They will reconvene to discuss
the scores and rescore where appropriate. A final score, comprised of an
average of all scores, will be tabulated for each Proposer. At that point,
OEM reserves the right to:
IX.3.1 Issue a notice of intent to award to the highest ranked apparent
successful Proposer. Proposer who claims to have been adversely
affected or aggrieved by the selection of a competing Proposer shall
have seven (7) calendar days after receiving the notice of intent to
award to deliver, via U.S. Mail or courier, or by hand-delivery a written,
signed protest to the SPC. To be adversely affected or aggrieved, a
Proposer must demonstrate that all higher ranked Proposals were
ineligible for selection. OEM shall not consider a protest submitted
after the deadline. Protests shall be resolved according to Oregon
Administrative Rules. Late, faxed or electronically transmitted protests
will not be accepted.; OR
IX.3.2 Determine a competitive range, enter into discussions and receive
best and final offers.
IX.3.2.1 Step One - Determining the Competitive Range
The evaluation committee will establish a competitive range after
evaluating all responsive Proposals in accordance with the criteria
set forth in this RFP. The competitive range will be the 3 highest
ranked Proposals. However, the evaluation committee may
increase the number of Proposers in the competitive range if there
is a natural break in the scores of the Proposers indicating that a
number of Proposers greater than the initial competitive range are
25 of 36
closely competitive, or have a reasonable chance of being
determined the most advantageous Proposer. But, the evaluation
committee may decrease the number of Proposers in the initial
competitive range only if the excluded Proposers have no
reasonable chance to be the most advantageous Proposer.
IX.3.2.2 Step Two – Protesting Competitive Range
An adversely affected or aggrieved Proposer may submit a written
protest of SPO's decision to exclude the Proposer from the
competitive range per OAR 125-247-0720. If you are an aggrieved
Proposer, Proposer must submit a written protest within five (5)
business days after issuance of the notice of the competitive range
to the SPC. SPO will not consider a protest of exclusion from the
competitive range submitted after 5:00 PM PT on the date specified
for protests in the notice of competitive range. SPO will consider all
protests received, if any, and:
IX.18.104.22.168 Reject any and all protests and proceed with final
evaluation and possible discussions with those Proposers in the
competitive range; OR
IX.22.214.171.124 Sustain a meritorious protest and issue a new notice of
competitive range, and allow any new adversely effected
Proposers the opportunity to protest; OR
IX.126.96.36.199 Reject all Proposals and cancel the procurement.
IX.3.2.3 Step Three – Intent to Award or Discuss/Negotiate
After determination of the competitive range and after the protest
period provided in Section IX.3.2.2 expires, OEM may:
IX.188.8.131.52 Provide all Proposers with a notice of intent to award to
the highest-ranked Proposer in the competitive range. Proposer
who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved by the
selection of a competing Proposer shall have seven (7) calendar
days after receiving the notice of intent to award to deliver, via U.S.
Mail or courier, or by hand-delivery a written, signed protest to the
SPC. To be adversely affected or aggrieved, a Proposer must
demonstrate that all higher ranked Proposals were ineligible for
selection. OEM shall not consider a protest submitted after the
deadline. Protests shall be resolved according to Oregon
Administrative Rules. Late, faxed or electronically transmitted
protests will not be accepted; OR
26 of 36
IX.184.108.40.206 Engage in discussions with Proposers in the
competitive range. SPO will notify all Proposers in the competitive
range that discussions will take place.
IX.3.2.4 Step Four - Discussions with Proposers in
IX.220.127.116.11 If discussions are held, they will be conducted in
person in Salem, Oregon. OEM will treat all Proposers in the
competitive range to the extent feasible equally and fairly so that
the process does not provide a competitive advantage to any
Proposer. The content of the discussions may include, but may not
be limited to:
IX.18.104.22.168 Clarifications of materials provided in the Proposer's
original Proposal that will assist OEM in making a more precise
evaluation of Proposer's Proposal;
IX.22.214.171.124 Proposers alternatives not addressed in the RFP or
Proposer's initial Proposal.
IX.126.96.36.199 OEM may also conduct discussions on any other
aspects of Proposer's Proposal that are related to the scoring
criteria, and revision of which may effect evaluation of the Proposal.
IX.188.8.131.52 Termination Of Discussions: OEM may terminate
discussions with a Proposer in the competitive range at any time.
OEM may also: (i)
continue discussions with a particular Proposer; or (ii) t
erminate discussions with a particular Proposer and continue
discussions with other Proposers in the competitive range; or (iii)
conclude discussions with all remaining Proposers in the competitive
range. However, OEM will offer any eligible Proposer the same
opportunity to discuss their Proposal with OEM before OEM
notifies eligible Proposer of the date and time that best and final
Proposals will be due.
IX.3.2.5 Step Five - Submission of Revised Proposals
IX.184.108.40.206 OEM will notify all Proposers in the competitive
range of the conclusion of discussions, and may direct them to submit
revised Proposals by a time and date established in the notice,
but which shall be no earlier than five business days from the date of
the Notice. If a revised Proposal is submitted, it shall
incorporate, to the extent Proposer desires, the substance of its
discussions with OEM. OEM will not consider revised Proposals
27 of 36
submitted after the date specified in such notice. If this event occurs,
OEM will use the original Proposal scoring for completion of the
evaluation of the Proposal.
IX.220.127.116.11 Format Of Revised Proposals:
Proposers who have chosen not to submit a revised Proposal must,
at a minimum, submit a written notice, on company letterhead,
signed by an authorized representative of Proposer stating that the
Proposer has chosen to stand on their original Proposal.
If Proposer is submitting a revised Proposal, the revised
Proposal must clearly identify those areas that have been modified,
including ALL deletions, additions, or other modifications.
Proposers are not to submit an entirely new Proposal unless the
entire Proposal is changed and is so noted on the face of the revised
Revised Proposals shall identify and state the specific
mandatory, desirable, or pricing item that has been revised. Proposer
shall restate their original response followed by Proposer's revised
Revised Proposals, including revised Pricing Proposal, must be
received and time-stamped by the Department of
Administrative Services, State Procurement Office (See Section I.6
for correct address) prior to the date and time identified in the
notice to submit best and final offers. Cost of the delivery of the
revised Proposal shall be the responsibility of the Proposer. OEM
shall not accept revised Proposals that require payment by the
No oral, e-mailed, telephone or facsimile revised Proposals will
Revised Proposals and revised pricing Proposals shall be typed
or printed in ink, and shall be signed in ink by an authorized
representative of the company. The Proposer shall submit one
original and nine (9) paper copies and one(1) electronic copy of
the revised Proposal and revised pricing Proposal. The revised
technical Proposal and the revised pricing Proposal shall be in
separate, sealed envelopes. Each envelope shall be correctly
identified as "ORIGINAL REVISED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL"
and "ORIGINAL REVISED PRICING PROPOSAL". If the Proposer
does not provide the required number of copies, the State will
charge the Proposer an administrative fee for all copies made in
order to meet this requirement. The Proposal will not be
evaluated until the administrative fee is paid.
28 of 36
IX.3.2.6 Step Six - Best and Final Offer Evaluation
IX.18.104.22.168 OEM will establish a common date and time by
which Proposers will submit their best and final offer. Best and final
offers will only be submitted once, unless OEM makes a written
determination that it is in OEM’s best interest to conduct
additional discussions or changed OEM’s requirements and require
another submission of best and final offers. Otherwise, no further
discussions between Proposer and OEM nor change of the best
and final offers will be allowed prior to award. If Proposers do not
submit a notice of withdrawal or another best and final offer,
their immediately previous offer will be construed as their best and
IX.22.214.171.124 Revised Proposals will be evaluated and scored by
the evaluation committee. The evaluation and scoring will be based
upon the value of the revised Proposal to the stated
requirements of this RFP. Each member of the evaluation
committee will evaluate each revised Proposal separately. The
evaluation points given by each evaluator will be summed and divided
by the number of evaluators to compute an average score for each
revised Proposal to this point.
IX.3.2.7 Step Seven - Final Evaluation
IX.126.96.36.199 At the conclusion of the evaluation and scoring of
Proposals, OEM will notify Proposers of the score assigned to
each Proposal to this point of the evaluation process. The highest
ranked apparent successful Proposer will be issued a notice of
intent to award.
IX.188.8.131.52 The scores will be ranked and the highest ranked
apparent successful Proposer will be notified via the notice of intent
IX.184.108.40.206 Every Proposer shall be notified of its selection status .
A Proposer who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved
by the selection of a competing Proposer shall have seven (7)
calendar days after receiving the notice of intent to award to deliver,
via U.S. Mail or courier, or by hand-delivery a written, signed
protest to the SPC. To be adversely affected or aggrieved, a Proposer
must demonstrate that all higher ranked Proposals were ineligible
29 of 36
for selection. OEM shall not consider a protest submitted after the
deadline. Protests shall be resolved according to Oregon
Administrative Rules. Late, faxed or electronically transmitted
protests will not be accepted.
X. Sample Contract and Scope of Amendments
Contractor shall enter into a contract with DAS, substantially in the form
of Attachment B to this RFP, sample contract, which reflects the contract
terms and conditions under which the Services must be provided. The
Contract may be amended during its term in accordance with Article XVIII
of the Contract.
X.1 ANTICIPATED CONTRACT TERM
The initial term of the contract is two (2) years or the acceptance of
the final deliverables for Phase I, whichever occurs first. DAS will
have the option to renew the contract for additional phases, as
contemplated by the RFP, up to a total contract term of ten (10)
The State anticipates the future need to modify the contract for the
Phase II consulting and quality assurances services as reflected in
the “amendment” provision, Section 19.15 of the Sample Contract.
Upon conclusion of the evaluation process, DAS may commence
any remaining permissible negotiations with the highest ranked
Proposer in the competitive range for purposes of establishing the
final terms and conditions of the Contract. DAS will only negotiate
those terms and conditions identified as negotiable in this Section
X.3. At any time during negotiations, DAS may terminate
negotiations with the highest ranked Proposer or the Proposer with
whom it is currently negotiating, if DAS believes that: (a) the
Proposer is not negotiating in good faith; or (b) further negotiations
will not result in the parties’ agreement to terms and conditions of a
final contract in a timely manner. DAS may then commence
negotiations with the next highest scoring Proposer in the
competitive range and continue the negotiation process described
in this Section X.2 until DAS determines to award the contract, if
any. Alternatively, DAS may elect to concurrently engage all
competitive range Proposers in permissible negotiations.
X.3 The following provisions are negotiable:
X.3.1. A statement of work;
30 of 36
X.3.2. Price as it is affected by negotiating a statement of work;
X.3.3. The following provisions of the sample contract, Attachment
X.3.3.1 Section 4, Payment;
X.3.3.2 Section 8, Intellectual Property Rights
X.3.3.3 Section 10.4, Limitation of Liability;
X.3.3.4 Section 19.15, Amendments; and
X.3.3.5 Any other terms and conditions identified as negotiable
in Addenda issued during the solicitation process.
DAS will not negotiate any contract provisions other than those
identified as negotiable in this Section X.3. DAS will reject
Proposals that require DAS’s acceptance of alternate contract
provisions that DAS has not identified as negotiable
(CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW ON THE NEXT PAGE)
31 of 36
CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE PAGES
EACH PROPOSER MUST READ AND COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING
SECTIONS. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN PROPOSAL REJECTION.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH NON-DISCRIMINATION LAWS
By my signature in this RFP, I hereby attest or affirm under penalty of perjury:
That I am authorized to act on behalf of Proposer in this matter and, to the best of my
knowledge, Proposer has not discriminated against minority, women or emerging small
business enterprises in obtaining any required subcontracts, and that Proposer is not in
violation of any non-discrimination laws.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH TAX LAWS
By my signature in this RFP, I hereby attest or affirm under penalty of perjury:
That I am authorized to act on behalf of Proposer in this matter, and that I have authority
and knowledge regarding the payment of taxes, and that Proposer is, to the best of my
knowledge, not in violation of any Oregon Tax Laws.
For purposes of this certification, “Oregon Tax Laws” means those tax laws listed in
ORS 305.380(4), namely ORS Chapters 118, 314, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321 and 323 and
Sections 10 to 20, Chapter 533, Oregon Laws 1981, as amended by Chapter 16, Oregon
Laws 1982 (first special session); the elderly rental assistance program under ORS
310.630 to 310.706; and any local taxes administered by the Oregon Department of
Revenue under ORS 305.620
The State will investigate and evaluate, at any time prior to award and execution of the
Contract, if any, the apparent successful Proposer’s responsibility to perform the
Contract. Submission of a signed Proposal, as evidenced by the signature in this section
of this RFP, shall constitute approval for the State to obtain any information the State
deems necessary to conduct the investigation and evaluation.
Before awarding a Contract, a contracting Agency must determine that the Proposer
submitting the most advantageous Proposal is Responsible. The State must use the
standards set forth in ORS 279B.110 and OAR 125-247-0640(1)(c)(F) to determine if a
Proposer is Responsible. In the event the contracting Agency determines a Proposer is
not Responsible, it must prepare a Written determination of non-Responsibility as
required by ORS 279B.110 and must reject the Offer.
The State may postpone the award of the Contract after announcement of the apparent
successful Proposer in order to complete its investigation and evaluation.
32 of 36
Contractors shall use recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible in
the performance of the Contract work set forth in this document.
State contracting agencies shall use, or require persons with whom the contracting agency
contracts to use in the performance of the contract work, to the maximum extent
economically feasible, recycled paper and recycled PETE products as well as other
recycled plastic resin products. (ORS 279B.270 (1) (e)).
“Recycled paper” means a paper product with not less than fifty percent of its fiber
weight consisting of secondary waste materials; or twenty-five percent of its fiber weight
consisting of post-consumer waste. (ORS 279A.010 (1) (ee)).
ORS 279A.010 (1) (gg) states: "'Recycled product' means all materials, goods and
supplies, not less than 50 percent of the total weight of which consists of secondary and
post-consumer waste with not less than 10 percent of total weight consisting of post-
consumer waste. 'Recycled product' also includes any product that could have been
disposed of as a solid waste, having completed its life cycle as a consumer item, but
otherwise is refurbished for reuse without substantial alteration of the product's form."
ORS 279A.010 (1) (s) states: "'Post-consumer waste' means a finished material which
would normally be disposed of as solid waste, having completed its life cycle as a
consumer item. 'Post-consumer waste' does not include manufacturing waste."
ORS 279A.010 (1) (hh) states: "'Secondary waste materials' means fragments of products
or finished products of a manufacturing process which has converted a virgin resource
into a commodity of real economic value, and includes post-consumer waste, but does
not include excess virgin resources of the manufacturing process. For paper, 'secondary
waste materials' does not include fibrous waste generated during the manufacturing
process such as fibers recovered from waste water or trimmings of paper machine rolls,
mill broke, wood slabs, chips, sawdust, or other wood residue from a manufacturing
ORS 279A.010 (1) (ff) states: "'Recycled PETE product' means a product containing
post-consumer polyethylene terephthalate material."
I, the undersigned duly authorized representative of the Proposer (Proposer), hereby
certify that the products, if any, offered in this bid/proposal contain the following
a) ____ % (recycled product as defined in ORS 279A.010 (1)(gg)
b) ____ % (post-consumer waste as defined in ORS 279A.010 (1)(s)
c) ____ % (secondary waste materials as defined in ORS 279A.010 (1)(hh)
d) ____ % (recycled PETE product as defined in ORS 279A.010 (1)(ff)
33 of 36
It is the Proposer's responsibility to provide additional signed copies of the Certification
of Compliance for each item which contains a different percentage of recycled materials
than listed above.
SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER’S DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
THIS PROPOSAL MUST BE SIGNED IN INK BY AN AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPOSER; ANY ALTERNATIONS OR ERASURES
TO THE PROPOSAL MUST BE INITIALED IN INK BY THE UNDERSIGNED
The undersigned acknowledges, attests and certifies individually and on behalf of the
a) He/she is a duly authorized representative of the Proposer, has been authorized
by Proposer to make all representations, attestations, and certifications contained
in this Proposal and all addenda, if any, issued, and to execute this Proposal on
behalf of Proposer;
b) Proposer, acting through its authorized representatives, has read and
understands all RFP instructions, specifications, and terms and conditions and all
provisions contained in this Proposal (including all listed attachments and
addenda, if any, issued);
c) Proposer certifies that this Proposal has been arrived at independently and has
been submitted without any collusion designed to limit independent bidding or
d) Proposer is bound by and will comply with all requirements, specifications, and
terms and conditions contained in the RFP and Proposal (including all listed
attachments and addenda, if any, issued);
e) Proposer will provide the system and furnish the designated Services in
accordance with specifications and requirements, and will comply in all respects
with the terms of the resulting Contract upon award.
(Signatures begin on next page)
34 of 36
PROPOSER WILL PROVIDE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (FEIN) OR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
(SSN) WITH PROPOSAL SUBMISSION.
Authorized Signature and Date
Typed or Printed Name and Title of Signatory
FEIN ID# or SSN# (required)
Typed or Printed Name of Contact Person
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE(S) FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
The State of Oregon hereby awards a contract to the above Proposer for the services
designated in this RFP.
Authorized Signature and Date
Typed or Printed Name and Title of Signatory
Term of Contract: ______________________________________
Contract Number: _______________________________________
Additional Signature and Date (if required)
Typed or Printed Name and Title of Signatory
35 of 36
Additional Signature and Date (if required)
Typed or Printed Name and Title of Signatory
36 of 36