Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DocuSign Envelope ID: B49FB256 -4ADF- 4759- AF63- 134AD44FC239 <br />11 SCHOOL <br />objective prequalification policy applicable <br />to all construction or repair work. It must <br />also adopt the assessment tool and criteria <br />to be used in prequalifying bidders for that <br />specific project. The assessment tool must <br />include the scoring values and minimum <br />required score for prequalification on that <br />project. <br />For further discussion of the new <br />prequalification requirements, see "New <br />Construction Contractor Prequalification <br />Requirements," Coates' Canons blog post <br />(712912014) <br />Mini - Brooks Act Changes <br />Included in the legislation establishing new <br />prequalification requirements discussed <br />immediately above (S.L. 2014 -42 (1-11043) <br />are changes to the Mini - Brooks Act which <br />establishes the qualifications -based <br />selection method for hiring architects, <br />engineers, and surveyors, and contracting <br />for alternative construction delivery <br />methods (G.S. 143 - 64.31). Expanding the <br />existing prohibition against soliciting costs <br />other than unit price in response to a RFQ, <br />the legislation now also prohibits soliciting, <br />submitting, or considering work product or <br />designs as part of the selection process. <br />This prohibition prevents local governments <br />from asking respondents to prepare work <br />product on the project for which they are <br />competing as part of the solicitation <br />process. However, examples of prior <br />completed work may be solicited, <br />submitted, and considered when <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 />be solicited, submitted, or considered as <br />part of the selection process. This change is <br />effective October 1, 2014, and applies to all <br />contracts awarded on or after that date. <br />Alternative Construction Delivery Methods <br />Use Analysis <br />The prequalification legislation discussed <br />immediately above (S.L. 2014 -42 (H1043) <br />also made changes to the analysis local <br />governments must conduct prior to using <br />an alternative construction delivery method <br />— construction management at risk (G.S. <br />143 - 128.1), design -build (G.S. 143- 128.1A), <br />and design -build bridging (G.S. 143 - 128.16). <br />Previously, the local government was <br />required to compare the "costs and <br />benefits" of using one of these alternative <br />construction delivery methods in lieu of a <br />traditional bidding method (single - prime, <br />separate - prime, or dual bidding). Now, <br />instead of comparing the "costs and <br />benefits," the local government must <br />compare the "advantages and <br />disadvantages" of using an alternative <br />method over a traditional one. This change <br />clarifies confusion about the phrase "costs <br />and benefits," which has been <br />misinterpreted to require a detailed <br />financial cost - benefit analysis. As a result, <br />local governments may properly consider <br />both financial and non - financial <br />considerations when comparing the use of <br />an alternative method to that of a <br />traditional method. This change is effective <br />October 1, 2014, and applies to all contracts <br />awarded on or after that date. <br />2014 Legislative Summary — Public Purchasing and Contracting Page 2 <br />UNC School of Government <br />