30:10-1-8. Selection of
Architectural/Engineering/Landscape Architecture Firms
General:
This
procedure shall be administered by the administration of Oklahoma State
University through Physical Plant Services (OSUPPS) in accordance with
Attachment A — Guidelines for the Selection of
Architectural/Engineering/Landscape Architecture Firms as approved by the
Board and Attachment B — Fee Guidelines for the Selection of
Architectural/Engineering/Landscape Architecture Firms.
A. Approval to Proceed:
At
such time as an institution under the governance of the Board of Regents for
the Oklahoma Agricultural and
B. Solicitation of Qualified Firms:
Based
upon the approval by the Board to proceed with planning and designing a
specific project, a list will be obtained of all discipline specific firms on
file with the Oklahoma Department of Central Services (DCS). Each firm
listed, along with other selected
C. Screening, Selecting, and
Recommendation of Firms:
The
applicable institution’s President, or designee, is responsible for screening
firms requesting consideration, selecting from firms requesting consideration,
selection of sub-consultants and special consultants, and recommending to the
Board those firms found acceptable for the project using Attachment A — Guidelines
for the Selection of Architectural/Engineering/Landscape Architecture Firms
as approved by the Board and Attachment B — Fee Guidelines for the Selection
of Architectural/Engineering/Landscape Architecture Firms.
(Amended
01-27-06)
Attachment A – Guidelines for the Selection of
Architectural/Engineering/Landscape Architecture Firms
General:
These guidelines shall be administered by
A. Approval to Proceed:
1. At such time as an institution under the governance of the Board of
Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and
a. A description and scope of the project(s), to include preliminary site
information and the project’s correlation to the institution’s Campus Master
Plan and Capital Master Plan.
b. An estimated project budget and time schedule.
c. A recommendation of the institution’s desire to use a(n):
i. Construction Manager,
ii. Construction Manager at Risk,
iii.
General Contractor, or,
iv.
Other.
d. A recommendation of not-to-exceed consultant fee(s) for the
project(s).
e. A recommendation for weighting the following general screening
criteria:
i. Priority for type of work (%).
ii. Professional or specialized staff (%).
iii.
Specialized experience (%).
iv.
v.
Feedback from the construction managers, construction managers at risk,
construction contractors, and owners previously associated with the firms
requesting consideration as pertains to their overall satisfaction as a team
member with the firm requesting consideration (%).
f. Selection committee composition.
2. OSUPPS will coordinate with the appropriate institution’s President,
or designee, to include the request to select in the institution’s Board Agenda
for a regularly scheduled Board meeting.
B. Solicitation of Qualified Firms:
1. Based upon the approval by the Board to proceed with planning and
designing a specific project, OSUPPS will obtain a list of all discipline
specific firms on file with the Oklahoma Department of Central Services
(DCS). Each firm listed, along with other selected
a. A description and scope of the project(s).
b. An estimated project budget and time schedule.
c. Errors and omissions insurance requirements.
d. A date for a project seminar to be conducted by OSUPPS for the purpose
of explaining the design program and to answer specific questions pertaining to
the project and the selection process.
e. Instructions for providing certain specific optional supplemental
information regarding the firm’s qualifications and any other material which
the firm believes to be relevant.
f. The deadline for submitting a letter of interest on the part of
the firm. Response times will be determined from the date of the “Project
Notification.” Due dates for the letters of interest will be scheduled,
taking into consideration holidays and/or special firm commitments within
reason and critical time requirements.
g. Notification that DCS CAP Forms 254 (Consultant Registration
Questionnaire) and 255 (Consultant Services for a Specific Project) must be
submitted with the letter of interest and a list of sub-consultants that the
firm proposes to use on the project.
h. Notification that the firm’s response must include a list of
construction managers, construction managers at risk, construction contractors,
and owners associated with the firm over the past five years by the firm.
It is the University’s intent to solicit feedback from the consultant’s prior
projects’ construction managers, construction managers at risk, construction
contractors, and their subcontractors. This is for the purpose of
determining the degree of overall satisfaction among team members. This
information will be used as a factor in the selection process.
i. Notification of the institution’s desire to use a(n):
i. Construction Manager,
ii. Construction Manager at Risk,
iii.
General Contractor, or,
iv.
Other.
j.
Notification of the institution’s not-to-exceed fee(s) allowable for the
project(s).
k.
Other information as required by the Board.
C. Screening of Firms:
1.
Establishing the Committee:
A
committee shall be established for each project for the purpose of providing
both the initial and final screening of all firms requesting
consideration. The committee shall consist of a minimum of six
members. For projects on the
Engineering
Services, Physical Plant Maintenance and Operations Department, and the School
of Architecture (Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture for
Landscape Architects), one 3rd or 4th year School of Architecture student, as
recommended by the Department Head, School of Architecture, if available, two
representatives from the department that will use the facility, and an alumnus
with appropriate design or construction industry experience. For non-Stillwater
projects, the committee makeup shall be at the discretion of the non-Stillwater
institution’s President, with the provision that composition reflect the same
general composition as a
2. Committee Charges:
The
institution’s President, or designee, is responsible for providing a charge to
the committee to ensure the institution’s best interests, including all
components of the extended institution (including, but not limited to the
School of Architecture, OSUPPS, Construction Management Department, applicable
institution’s Foundation, applicable institution’s Alumni Association,
students, faculty and staff) are component parts of the selection process.
a.
The committee will be charged that it is the Board’s intent that frequency of
work on A&M Campuses must be a consideration in the selection
process. It is the Board’s intent to involve as many qualified firms as
possible in campus projects and the selection process should be the vehicle in
achieving that goal.
b. The committee will be charged to pursue a process that guarantees the
institution’s best interests, and such interests may not, in all cases, be high
departmental priorities. The institution’s best interests shall include
all components of the extended institution, including but not limited to the
School of Architecture, PPS, Construction Management Department, institution’s
foundation, institution’s alumni association, students, faculty and staff.
3. Initial screening:
a. Initial screening begins upon receipt of the letters of interest from
the consulting firms. It is essential that reviewers be aware of the
firms and their principals and employees, to evaluate the firm in light of
previous activity within the OSU System, if any.
b. The general screening criteria, weighted as determined for each
separate project (with such weighting scheme to be presented at the time Board
of Regents approval (BA) is obtained to proceed with planning a specific
project), to be used by the committee are set out below.
c. Priority for type of work (BA%): Each firm’s CAP Form 254
includes an experience profile code which indicates the type of projects in
which the firm has been involved over the past five years. This
information, in addition to other sections of the CAP Forms 254 and 255, should
be used to determine the priority the firm places on the type of work
anticipated for the contemplated project. The OSUPPS’ staff will update
the committee on past experiences the OSU/A&M System has had with each
firm, if any.
d. Professional or specialized staff (BA%): Each committee member
shall make a judgment as to the suitable firm size for the project. Size
is determined by the number of professionals listed, including registered
consultants either on staff or indicated on the CAP Form 255 as
consultants. Firms will be graded based upon the appropriate number of
personnel available to do the contemplated project. The OSUPPS’ staff
will update the committee on past experiences the OSU/A&M System has had
with each firm’s professional or specialized staff, if any.
e. Specialized experience (BA%): Each firm’s Forms 254 and 255 list
projects completed over the past five years. Each firm is graded on its
demonstrated experience (type and budget) on projects similar to the
contemplated project. Firms demonstrating considerable experience on
projects similar to the contemplated project receive the higher grade based on
the degree of this experience. The OSUPPS’ staff will update the
committee on past experiences the OSU/A&M System has had with each firm’s
specialized experiences, if any.
f. OSU, A&M Colleges and Universities, and State of Oklahoma
Presence (BA%): Each firm will be evaluated on the percentage of
employees that are based in Oklahoma vs. those based outside the state, as well
as their ability to manage the project from an Oklahoma-established base of
operations. The number and/or percentage of institutional graduates
within the firm will be considered.
g. Feedback (BA%): Each firm will be evaluated pertaining to the
feedback from the construction managers, construction managers at risk,
construction contractors, and owners previously associated with the firm,
pertaining to their overall satisfaction as a team member with the firm.
h. Each evaluator reviews the material and rates the firms, based upon
each criterion using the scales approved by the Board. The individual
scores for each firm are totaled for all evaluators, and an average score for
each firm is computed. The firms are then ranked based upon the highest
average score, and the top firms are identified. The top firms shall
number no less than five or more than eight.
i. Prior to invitation for interview, a list of top firms will be
forwarded to the institution’s President, or designee, to be reviewed in the
context of the extended institution. The institution’s President, or
designee, will solicit input from applicable institutional constituents.
Such input will be collated and input, as applicable, applied to the top
firms. A list of three to five will be finalized by the President, or
designee, to be invited for interview.
4. Final
screening:
a. Each of the top firms will attend an interview session. Each
should bring key personnel, including but not limited to, the principal(s) and
project manager(s) who would be assigned to the project. Interviews will
be scheduled, taking into consideration holidays and/or special firm
commitments within reason and critical time requirements. It is not
intended for the firms to have made final selection of major sub-consultants
and/or special consultants, if required. Firms will present the names of
their preferred sub-consultants for review and discussion by the
committee. The emphasis should be on the firm’s qualifications, not
necessarily the number of similar projects completed. Selection of
consultants and/or special consultants will be a joint effort between the firm
and OSUPPS following selection of a finalist.
b. The interview covers the following criteria, with weighting factors,
Not to Exceed (NTE) 100%, as indicated:
c. Quality of Presentation (NTE 10%): The committee should not be
unduly swayed by elaborate presentations. Focus should remain on
qualifications of the firm, not the firm’s marketing department.
d. Applicability of Prior Designs (NTE 50%):
i. Depth of Experience.
ii. Relevance.
iii.
Design Efficiency.
iv.
Innovation.
v.
Context to Surroundings.
e.
Project Management (NTE 50%):
i. Staffing and Management.
ii. Previous Experience.
iii. Design Approach.
iv. Quality Control.
v. Client Interaction Methodology.
vi. Experience as a Team.
vii. Feedback from Previous Construction Partners and Owners.
f.
Adherence to cost limits and time limits, volume of change orders, and
judgments paid by consultant or on their behalf for liability caused by
professional errors and/or omissions in the past five years (NTE 20%).
g.
Conceptual drawings may be requested. If so, Board approval must be
obtained in the Approval to Proceed for a reasonable fee to be provided to
those firms selected as finalists but not receiving the award.
h.
Firms will be given an opportunity to elaborate on any submitted material and
to address the evaluation criteria.
5.
Selection of Finalists:
a. Each member of the committee evaluates each firm based upon interview
criteria on the scales determined for the specific project.
b. The scores for the interviews are then multiplied and added. In
evaluation of the best firms, minority inclusion plans, involvement of
qualified firms, and feedback from construction partners and owners are to be
considered in addition to numerical scores. Also to be considered is the
information provided by the President, or designee, concerning input provided
from the extended institutional community.
c. A list of interviewed firms, results of the initial screening and
interview stages, and any supporting information will be forwarded to the
institution’s President, or designee, to select three to five finalists to be
presented to the Board.
6. Selection of sub-consultants and special consultants:
a. After discussions with the committee, finalist firms will be asked to
confirm their sub-consultants and special consultants to participate with them
on the project. Sub-consultants and special consultants must be
subordinate to the finalist firms.
b. Finalist firms will present their recommendations to the selection
committee for evaluation and comment.
c. The finalist teams will be established following discussions with the
selection committee. Selection of sub-consultants and/or special
consultants unacceptable to the committee may be grounds for elimination of
consideration of a selected finalist firm.
7. Presentation of recommendation to the Board:
a. The institution’s President, or designee, will present the acceptable
firms to the Board in the order of receipt of their letters of interest and
will include in the presentation, at a minimum:
i. An evaluation of the CAP Form 254
for each of the acceptable firms.
ii. A list of any projects the acceptable
firms are currently working on or have worked within the past five years at OSU
or at any of the other institutions under the governance of the Board.
iii. A brief overview of responses received from
construction managers, construction managers at risk, and/or general
contractors, and owners who have worked with the firms being presented.
iv. A brief overview of responses received from
references associated with the firms last three to five project.
v. A brief overview of the firm’s
representations concerning inclusion of minority consultants.
vi. A brief overview of input received from the
extended campus community concerning the firm.
Attachment B – Fee Guidelines for the Selection of
Architectural/Engineering/Landscape Architecture Firms
|
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR CONSULTING FEES |
||
|
Construction Cost |
|
Fee |
|
$0 - $300,000 |
|
In-House or As-Needed Architect |
|
$300,000 - $400,000 |
|
$26,000 plus 6.5% over $300,000 |
|
$400,000 - $500,000 |
|
$32,500 plus 6.0% over $400,000 |
|
$500,000 - $600,000 |
|
$38,500 plus 5.5% over $500,000 |
|
$600,000 - $700,000 |
|
$44,000 plus 5.4% over $600,000 |
|
$700,000 - $800,000 |
|
$49,400 plus 5.3% over $700,000 |
|
$800,000 - $900,000 |
|
$54,700 plus 5.2% over $800,000 |
|
$900,000 - $1,000,000 |
|
$59,900 plus 5.1% over $900,000 |
|
Above $1,000,000 |
|
$65,000 plus 5.0% over $1,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
The
above fees apply to basic architecture and engineering services for a project
involving new construction of average complexity. Multipliers (which may
be additive or deductive) may be applied to adjust for the nature of the work
and the user’s knowledge of the specific project. Such modifiers may be
necessary for factors including, but not limited to, complexity of the project,
the degree of renovation of existing structures, and the need for special
consultants. Fees do not include Additional Services or Reimbursables as
defined in the standard OSU Owner/Architect Contract.
[1]
Institutions desiring to include additional information should do so under the
applicable category, or provide as continuation.