Habitat Study RFP Selection Process

Home Browse Search

? , . • The Proposal Selection Team remained concerned lbout your suggested lpproach to birci telemetry as well as your proposed metliodology for slmpling plover forage. • The level of lield effoi•t and stafFing proposed by your teaui over the course oF two field seasons clid not appear to be adequlte For the scope of fhe roraging habits study. In response lo your specific concerns regarding the selection process, the Proposal Selection Team met lo cliscuss those concerns and offers the following responses: 1) As you noted, the $120,000 budget figure included in the RFP is listed as anCicipaled fiindin.g. During fihe July 8, 2008 pre-proposll meeting in Kearney, Chacl Sinith stated that this was an esti- mateci budget figure and potential contractors were free to submit proposals with buclgets higher or lower than this Iigure. No change was made to the anticipated fiuiding available for this study; rather, the budget figure was used as 1n estimate and guidepost far submitted proposals but all po- tential contractors thcit participated in the pre-proposal meeting were clearly informed this number WflS IlOt 1blldget "ceiling". This blsic process and plu•asing is the same as that used in a11 of otr tecluiical procurements. 2) Fotu proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. Each submitted proposal inclucled an esti- mated budget for the two-year study higher thau the anticzpated fundirrg of $120,000, including the proposal submitted by your te1m. Donated services not auticipated to be charged to the Program are still considered as part of the overall budget, meaning yaur proposal ultimately e.cceeded the $120,000 figure in our view. Two potential contractors confiacted Chacl Smith by phone prior to the proposal submission deadline to conFirm their ability to submit proposals estimating budgets higher than $120,000. This direct ability to ask questions of the Program and clarify issues such as budget options is always readily available to all potential coiltractors for all Program RF'Ps, and soine potential contrlctors took advantage of this opportunity. The clear statement 1t the pre- proposal meeting that the anticipated fiulding figure of $120,000 was not 1 budget ceiling, the fact th.at some potential contractors c111ed Chad Smith directly to discuss this issue, and the fact that the four submitted proposals all includeci estimateci budgets higher than $120,000 were a11 indicltions to the Proposal Selection Team that the Program's Procurement Policy was being followed in its entirety and all contractors had iizll and complete information about budget availability for the for- aging habits study. Thus, there was no need to issue a new or revised R1iP. 3) The Program is under no requirement to only select proposals that fit within a budget limit de- scribed 1s crnticipaled fiincliiig especially when potential contraclors are informed that the budget rigtire is not a ceiling. The Program's goal is to select the right contc•actor for projects based on the scope of work, C1111l1F1C1t1011S, and the ability of the contractor to fiilfill Progiain needs within a rea- sonaUle budget and schedule. Platlc River Recoveiy Implementation I'rogram Office of the Executive Director