Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DocuSign Envelope ID:A9CF8A9E-4CDB-4BB9-A678-D4AD80CD1393 <br /> jjji <br /> 'I4 I► UN C <br /> SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT <br /> objective prequalification policy applicable be solicited, submitted, or considered as <br /> to all construction or repair work. It must part of the selection process. This change is <br /> also adopt the assessment tool and criteria effective October 1, 2014, and applies to all <br /> to be used in prequalifying bidders for that contracts awarded on or after that date. <br /> specific project. The assessment tool must <br /> include the scoring values and minimum <br /> Alternative Construction Delivery Methods <br /> required score for prequalification on that <br /> Use Analysis <br /> project. The prequalification legislation discussed <br /> For further discussion of the new <br /> immediately above (S.L. 2014-42 (H1043) <br /> prequalification requirements, see "New also made changes to the analysis local <br /> Construction Contractor Prequalification <br /> governments must conduct prior to using <br /> an alternative construction delivery method <br /> Requirements," Coates' Canons blog post — construction management at risk (G.S. <br /> (7/29/2014) 143-128.1), design-build (G.S. 143-128.1A), <br /> and design-build bridging (G.S. 143-128.1B). <br /> Mini-Brooks Act Changes Previously, the local government was <br /> Included in the legislation establishing new required to compare the "costs and <br /> prequalification requirements discussed benefits" of using one of these alternative <br /> immediately above (S.L. 2014-42 (H1043) construction delivery methods in lieu of a <br /> are changes to the Mini-Brooks Act which traditional bidding method (single-prime, <br /> establishes the qualifications-based separate-prime, or dual bidding). Now, <br /> selection method for hiring architects, instead of comparing the "costs and <br /> engineers, and surveyors, and contracting benefits," the local government must <br /> for alternative construction delivery compare the "advantages and <br /> methods (G.S. 143-64.31). Expanding the disadvantages" of using an alternative <br /> existing prohibition against soliciting costs method over a traditional one. This change <br /> other than unit price in response to a RFQ, clarifies confusion about the phrase "costs <br /> the legislation now also prohibits soliciting, and benefits," which has been <br /> submitting, or considering work product or misinterpreted to require a detailed <br /> designs as part of the selection process. financial cost-benefit analysis. As a result, <br /> This prohibition prevents local governments local governments may properly consider <br /> from asking respondents to prepare work both financial and non-financial <br /> product on the project for which they are considerations when comparing the use of <br /> competing as part of the solicitation an alternative method to that of a <br /> process. However, examples of prior traditional method. This change is effective <br /> completed work may be solicited, October 1, 2014, and applies to all contracts <br /> submitted, and considered when awarded on or after that date. <br /> determining the competence and <br /> qualifications of respondents, and the new <br /> statutory language encourages discussion of <br /> concepts or approaches to the project and <br /> impact on project schedules. The <br /> legislation also clarifies that no costs or <br /> fees, other than unit price information, may <br /> 2014 Legislative Summary—Public Purchasing and Contracting Page 2 <br /> UNC School of Government <br />