APEGBC InfraGuide Selecting Professional Consultant

Selecting a Professional Consultant — June 2006 1

Selecting a ProfessionalConsultant

This document is the eleventh in a series of bestpractices that transform complex and technicalmaterial into non-technical principles andguidelines for decision making. For titles of otherbest practices in this and other series, please refer to <<wwwwww..iinnffrraagguuiiddee..ccaa>>.

11

SELE

CTI

NG

A P

RO

FESS

ION

AL

CO

NSU

LTA

NT

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g an

dIn

vest

men

t Pl

anni

ng

FCMFederation of Canadian Municipalities

Fédération canadienne des municipalités

National Guide toSustainable Municipal

Infrastructure

®

DMIP 11 Selecting a Professional Consultant.qxp 6/19/2006 9:02 PM Page 1

2 Selecting a Professional Consultant — June 2006

Selecting a Professional Consultant

Version 1.0

Publication Date: June 2006

© 2006 Federation of Canadian Municipalities and National Research Council

® All Rights Reserved. InfraGuide® is a registered trademark of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, Ontario.

ISBN 1–897249–08–X

The contents of this publication are presented in good faith and are intended as general

guidance on matters of interest only. The publisher, the authors and the organizations to

which the authors belong make no representations or warranties, either expressed or

implied, as to the completeness or accuracy of the contents.

All information is presented on the condition that the persons receiving it will make their

own determinations as to the suitability of using the information for their own purposes

and on the understanding that the information is not a substitute for specific technical

or professional advice or services. In no event will the publisher, the authors or the

organizations to which the authors belong, be responsible or liable for damages of

any nature or kind whatsoever resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the contents

of this publication.


Why Canada Needs InfraGuide

Canadian municipalities spend $12 to $15 billion

annually on infrastructure but it never seems to be

enough. Existing infrastructure is ageing while demand

grows for more and better roads, and improved water

and sewer systems responding both to higher

standards of safety, health and environmental

protection as well as population growth. The solution

is to change the way we

plan, design and manage

infrastructure. Only by doing

so can municipalities meet

new demands within a

fiscally responsible and

environmentally sustainable framework, while

preserving our quality of life.

This is what the National Guide to SustainableMunicipal Infrastructure (InfraGuide) seeks to

accomplish.

In 2001, the federal government, through its

Infrastructure Canada Program (IC) and the National

Research Council (NRC), joined forces with the

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) to create

the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal

Infrastructure (InfraGuide). InfraGuide is both a new,

national network of people and a growing collection of

published best practice documents for use by decision

makers and technical personnel in the public and

private sectors. Based on Canadian experience and

research, the reports set out the best practices to

support sustainable municipal infrastructure decisions

and actions in six key areas: decision making and

investment planning, potable water, storm and

wastewater, municipal roads and sidewalks,

environmental protocols, and transit. The best

practices are available online and in hard copy.

A Knowledge Network of Excellence

InfraGuide is a national network of experts and a

growing collection of best practice publications for

core infrastructure, offering the best in Canadian

experience and knowledge of core infrastructure.

With our founders — the Federation of Canadian

Municipalities, the National Research Council and

Infrastructure Canada, and our founding member,

the Canadian Public Works

Association — we help

municipalities make

informed, smart decisions

that sustain our quality

of life.

Volunteer technical committees and working

groups—with the assistance of consultants and other

stakeholders—are responsible for the research and

publication of the best practices. This is a system of

shared knowledge, shared responsibility and shared

benefits. We urge you to become a part of the

InfraGuide Network of Excellence. Whether you are

a municipal plant operator, a planner or a municipal

councillor, your input is critical to the quality of

our work.

Please join us.

Contact InfraGuide toll-free at 1-866-330-3350 or visit

our Web site at <www.infraguide.ca> for more

information. We look forward to working with you.

Introduction

InfraGuide –

Innovations and

Best Practices


INTRODUCTION

InfraGuide® – Innovations and Best Practices



The InfraGuide Best Practices Focus

TransitUrbanization places pressure on an eroding,ageing infrastructure, and raises concerns aboutdeclining air and water quality. Transit systemscontribute to reducing traffic gridlock andimproving road safety. Transit best practicesaddress the need to improve supply, influencedemand and make operational improvementswith the least environmental impact, whilemeeting social and business needs.

Decision Making and Investment PlanningCurrent funding levels are insufficient to meet infrastructure needs. Thenet effect is that infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly. Elected officialsand senior municipal administrators need a framework for articulating thevalue of infrastructure planning and maintenance, while balancing social,environmental and economic factors. Decision-making and investmentplanning best practices transform complex and technical material intonon-technical principles and guidelines for decision making, and facilitatethe realization of adequate funding over the life cycle of theinfrastructure. Examples include protocols for determining costs andbenefits associated with desired levels of service; and strategicbenchmarks, indicators or reference points for investment policy andplanning decisions.

Potable WaterPotable water best practices address variousapproaches to enhance a municipality’s or waterutility’s ability to manage drinking water deliveryin a way that ensures public health and safety atbest value and on a sustainable basis. Issues such as water accountability, water use and loss,deterioration and inspection of distributionsystems, renewal planning and technologies forrehabilitation of potable water systems and waterquality in the distribution systems are examined.

Municipal Roads and SidewalksSound decision making and preventive maintenance are essential to managingmunicipal pavement infrastructure cost effectively. Municipal roads andsidewalks best practices address two priorities: front-end planning and decisionmaking to identify and manage pavement infrastructures as a component of theinfrastructure system; and a preventive approach to slow the deterioration ofexisting roadways. Example topics include timely preventative maintenance ofmunicipal roads; construction and rehabilitation of utility boxes; and progressiveimprovement of asphalt and concrete pavement repair practices.

Environmental Protocols Environmental protocols focus on the interactionof natural systems and their effects on humanquality of life in relation to municipalinfrastructure delivery. Environmental elementsand systems include land (including flora), water,air (including noise and light) and soil. Examplepractices include how to factor in environmentalconsiderations in establishing the desired levelof municipal infrastructure service; anddefinition of local environmental conditions,challenges and opportunities with respect tomunicipal infrastructure.

Storm and Wastewater Ageing buried infrastructure, diminishing financialresources, stricter legislation for effluents,increasing public awareness of environmentalimpacts due to wastewater and contaminatedstormwater are challenges that municipalitieshave to deal with. Storm and wastewater bestpractices deal with buried linear infrastructure aswell as end of pipe treatment and managementissues. Examples include ways to control andreduce inflow and infiltration; how to securerelevant and consistent data sets; how to inspectand assess condition and performance ofcollections systems; treatment plant optimization;and management of biosolids.


Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1.2 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1.3 How to Use This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1.3.2 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

1.3.3 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

1.3.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

1.3.5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

1.4 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

2. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.1 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

2.2 Stakeholder Surveys and Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

2.2.1 Municipal Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

2.2.2 Consultant Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

2.2.3 Stakeholder Interviews . . . . . . . . . . .18

3. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

3.2 Lifecycle Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

3.3 Selection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.3.1 Request for Qualification (RFQ) . . . .21

3.4 Search for a Best Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

3.4.1 Best Practice Principles . . . . . . . . . .22

3.5 Conclusions Regarding Process . . . . . . . . .22

3.5.1 Price-Based Methods . . . . . . . . . . . .22

3.5.2 Best practice Methods . . . . . . . . . . .24

3.5.3 Comparing Price and Qualifications Based Methods . . . . .25

4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4.1 The recommended Best Practice . . . . . . . .27

4.2 Development of Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4.2.1 Jointly Developed Scope of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4.2.2 Client-Developed Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4.2.3 Consultant-Developed Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

4.3 Best Practice Application Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

4.3.1 Roster Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

4.3.2 Standing Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

4.3.3 Extended Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . .31

4.4 Benefits of Recommended Method . . . . . .31

4.5 Evaluation of Consultant Performance . . . .31

5. Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.1 Implementing the Best Practice . . . . . . . . .33

5.1.1 InfraGuide Best Practices . . . . . . . .33

5.1.2 The Issue of “Fees” in the Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

5.1.3 The Recommended Best Practice . .33

5.2 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Appendix A: Summary of Survey Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix B: Summary of Interview Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix C: Table of Selection Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table of Contents


TABLE OF CONTENTS




The dedication of individuals who volunteered their

time and expertise in the interest of the National Guideto Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (InfraGuide®)is acknowledged and much appreciated.

Stakeholders from Canadian municipalities and

specialists from across Canada developed this best

practice based on information from a scan of

municipal practices and an extensive literature

review. The following members of the Decision-

Making and Investment Planning Committee Technical

Committee directed the development of this best

practice. They were assisted by InfraGuide

Directorate staff and by consultants John Bremner,

P.Eng. and Chuck Gale, P.Eng., who collaborated on

this project.

Pete Steblin, ChairCity of London, London, Ontario

Betty Matthews-Malone (Co-Vice Chair)Haldimand County, Ontario

Paul BarnableCity of Corner Brook Corner Brook, Newfoundland

Dave BurgessCity of Brandon, Brandon, Manitoba

Doug DreverCity of SaskatoonSaskatoon, Saskatchewan

Gary GuthrieCity of Abbotsford, AbbotsfordBritish Columbia

Ed KovacsCity of Cambridge, Cambridge, Ontario

Eric LalondeHarfan Technologies Inc. Pont Rouge, Quebec

David MainEarth Tech Canada Inc.Burnaby, British Columbia

Osama MoselhiConcordia UniversityMontréal, Quebec

Harold Murphy, Technical AdvisorNational Research Council (NRC)/InfraGuide Ottawa, Ontario

In addition, the Decision-Making and Investment

Planning Committee, technical committee would like to

thank the following individuals for their participation in

the Working Group:

Joe AugéGovernment of the Northwest Territories,Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

Francis CheungEngineering and OperationsCity of Port CoquitlamPort Coquitlam, British Columbia

Doug DreverPublic Works, City of SaskatoonSaskatoon, Saskatchewan

Jeff McConnellCouncillor, City of Virden Virden, Manitoba

Serge OuellettePurchasing, City of Montréal, Quebec

Wayne RyanOperational Services, City of Corner BrookCorner Brook, Newfoundland

Pete SteblinEnvironmental Services, City of LondonLondon, Ontario

Andrew SteevesADI Group Inc., Fredericton, New Brunswick

Chris WadeInfrastructure ServicesCity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta

The committee would also like to thank the following

individuals for their participation in Peer Reviews:

Mark LaRoche, ing., Directeur généralCity of Gatineau, Gatineau, Quebec

Bob Dolphin, P.Eng.Consultant, Langley, British Columbia

Dan Hogan, P.Eng., ConsultantDMH Engineering Ltd., Saskatchewan

Rob Howard, CouncillorCity of Richmond, Richmond, British Columbia

Dave Rudberg, P.EngGeneral Manager, Olympic Operations City of Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia

Rick Prentice, P.EngStantec Consulting, Edmonton, Alberta

Richard Hewitt, P.Eng., Deputy City ManagerCity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

George Butts Director General (Acquisitions), PWGSC

Murray Jamer, P.Eng. Director of Engineering and Public WorksCity of Fredericton, Fredericton, New Brunswick

Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



This and other best practices could not have been

developed without the leadership and guidance of the

Governing Council, the Relationship Infrastructure

Committee, and the Municipal Infrastructure

Committee, whose members are as follows:

Governing Council:Joe AugéGovernment of the Northwest TerritoriesYellowknife, Northwest Territories

Sherif BarakatNational Research Council Canada (NRC) Ottawa, Ontario

Brock CarltonFederation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)Ottawa, Ontario

Jim D’OrazioGreater Toronto Sewer and Watermain ContractorsAssociation, Toronto, Ontario

Douglas P. FloydDelcan CorporationToronto, Ontario

Derm FlynnTown of Appleton, AppletonNewfoundland and Labrador

John Hodgson City of EdmontonEdmonton, Alberta

Joan Lougheed Councillor, City of BurlingtonBurlington, Ontario

Saeed MirzaMcGill UniversityMontréal, Quebec

Umendra MitalCity of Surrey, SurreyBritish Columbia

René MorencyRégie des installations olympiquesMontréal, Quebec

Ric RobertshawPublic Works, Region of PeelBrampton, Ontario

Dave Rudberg City of VancouverVancouver, British Columbia

Van SimonsonCity of SaskatoonSaskatoon, Saskatchewan

Basil Stewart, MayorCity of Summerside, Summerside,Prince Edward Island

Serge ThériaultGovernment of New BrunswickFredericton, New Brunswick

Tony Varriano Infrastructure Canada (INFC)Ottawa, Ontario

Vaughn PaulFirst Nations (Alberta) Technical Services AdvisoryGroup, Edmonton, Alberta

Alec WatersAlberta Infrastructure DeptEdmonton, Alberta

Wally WellsThe Wells Infrastructure Group Inc.Toronto, Ontario

Municipal Infrastructure Committee:Al CepasCity of Edmonton, Edmonton, Alberta

Wayne GreenGreen Management Inc.Mississauga, Ontario

Haseen KhanGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorSt. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador

Ed S. KovacsCity of CambridgeCambridge, Ontario

Saeed MirzaMcGill University, Montréal, Quebec

Umendra MitalCity of SurreySurrey, British Columbia

Carl YatesHalifax Regional Water CommissionHalifax, Nova Scotia

Relationship Infrastructure Committee:Geoff GreenoughCity of MonctonMoncton, New Brunswick

Joan LougheedCouncillor, City of BurlingtonBurlington, Ontario

Osama MoselhiConcordia UniversityMontréal, Quebec

Anne-Marie ParentParent Latreille and AssociatesMontréal, Quebec

Konrad SiuCity of EdmontonEdmonton, Alberta

Wally WellsThe Wells Infrastructure Group Inc.Toronto, Ontario

Founding Member:Canadian Public Works Association (CPWA)

Acknowledgements

The support andparticipation of thefollowing organizations isalso gratefullyacknowledged:

AAssssoocciiaattiioonn ooff CCoonnssuullttiinnggEEnnggiinneeeerrss ooff CCaannaaddaa ((AACCEECC))— The ACEC collaboratedon this project and provided50 percent of the funding.Its commitment to fundingwas not contingent uponthe recommended bestpractice reflecting aposition held or promotedby ACEC. Development ofthis best practice would nothave been possible withoutACEC’s support. ACECPresident Claude-PaulBoivin and his staff providedvaluable assistancethroughout the project.

MMuunniicciippaall EEnnggiinneeeerrssDDiivviissiioonn ooff AAPPEEGGBBCC ((MMEEDD))— The MED publicationSelecting a ProfessionalConsultant: A Municipal EngineersDivision Best PracticeGuide (October 2005) was acatalyst in the initiation ofthis project. FrancisCheung, P.Eng., the formerChair of the MED whosteered that project,brought it forward forconsideration to InfraGuideand also participated in the Working Group.

AAssssoocciiaattiioonn ooff PPrrooffeessssiioonnaallEEnnggiinneeeerrss ooff BBCC ((AAPPEEGGBBCC))— The APEGBC generouslymade its offices availablefor Working Group meetingsand provided logisticalsupport to the project.


“It is unwise to pay too much, but it isworse to pay too little. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everythingbecause the thing you bought was inca-pable of doing the thing you bought itto do.”

John Ruskin (1819-1900)

This quotation captures the reality faced bypublic officials engaged in commissioning theservices of professional consultants. Often,cheapest price gets mistaken for best value.The need to re-introduce the concept of valueto consulting procurement was the impetus forthis document.

The best practice was written for four primaryaudiences:

DDeecciissiioonn--mmaakkeerrss — senior staff responsiblefor administrative policy and processes;

TTeecchhnniiccaall ssttaaffff — those responsible forimplementing policy and administrativeprocesses;

PPrrooccuurreemmeenntt SSttaaffff aanndd AAuuddiittoorrss — staffresponsible for conducting or monitoringprocurement processes; and

PPoolliiccyy--mmaakkeerrss — primarily elected officials.

Adaptation of this best practice will create acommon ground of understanding betweenprofessional consultants and governmentsseeking their services. The knowledge that afair and transparent process is being used, in which all proponents are given properconsideration, should contribute to reducingthe tendency for consultants to seekadvantage by lobbying senior and electedofficials.

There is a large body of knowledge onworldwide practices to select professionalconsultants. The most common methodrecommended is qualifications-basedselection (QBS). This procedure facilitatesselection of professional consultants based ontheir qualifications, experience andcompetence as it relates to a particularassignment.

The United States Brooks Act, enacted in 1972,requires all federal procurement of architecturaland engineering services to incorporate QBS.Forty-seven states and many local jurisdictionshave adopted similar legislation since.

Several US studies are also referenced thatsupport QBS over traditional price-basedmethods, including professional consultingservices.

In Canada, many professional bodiesrecommend qualifications-based methods, but the process is not widely used. Federal,provincial and local governments primarily use price-based methods.

The procurement of goods and services in the Canadian public sector is most often obtained through a public tendering process.Government purchases are guided by policiesdesigned to ensure transparency and value.The product or service is described in detail ina tender document and sealed bids are invited.The lowest bid normally receives the contract.

This approach is not appropriate forprofessional consulting services because it isfrequently not possible to provide sufficientdetail about the services required to ensurethat all firms are bidding on equal footing. Thisis because part of the undertaking may be anexploration for the most appropriate solution.

The most appropriate solution is notnecessarily the cheapest design solution.Furthermore, the consultant’s ability to devisethe most appropriate solution depends onexpertise, training and, most importantly,experience. It follows that purchasers wishingto identify the most appropriate solutionshould implement a selection process that:

■ Leads to the selection of the individual orteam that is best qualified to undertake theparticular assignment, and

■ Employs the experience of this team todevelop the scope of services to ensurethat all opportunities for adding client valueare provided for within the project.

Executive Summary

The knowledge that a fair andtransparent processis being used, in which allproponents aregiven properconsideration,should contribute to reducing the tendency for consultants toseek advantage by lobbying seniorand electedofficials.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


This approach does not preclude theconsideration of price in the process. Rather, it encourages consideration of price within amore meaningful context by bringing the feeinto the equation after the scope of work hasbeen jointly established and agreementreached with the top-ranked firm.

Understanding the relative contribution tooverall costs of 1) engineering required tosolve a problem, 2) the cost of construction,and 3) the future operation and maintenancecosts of the solution, underlines why it is soimportant to start with the “right” or “best”consultant.

“Engineering design” typically represents 1 to 2 percent of the overall lifecycle cost of a project, with construction accounting forapproximately 6 to 18 percent of the cost. Allthe rest—80 to 93 percent of the lifetime assetcost—is accounted for by operations, annualand capital maintenance anddecommissioning.

This cost relationship is apparently wellunderstood by engineers working in the publicsector, but its consequences may not beapplied during the tendering process. Theappeal of the lowest-price design solutionappears to override the value that can begained from considering lifecycle costs.

Best Practice Principles

This Best Practice incorporates principles that ensure a sound and fundamentally fairprocess and one that will achieve the goal of adding the greatest value for the client.

Recommended Best Practice

The recommended consultant selectionpractice is a competitive qualifications-basedprocess that is principle-based and meets thefollowing objectives:

■ selecting a consultant who isbest qualified for a specific project, and

■ providing a client the benefit of theconsultant’s skill, knowledge andexperience to jointly develop a scope ofservices that considers all opportunities for adding value.

The recommended method encourages clientsto view consultants as “trusted advisors” whoshare their priorities and interest in achievingthe best outcomes for their project.

The best practice diverges from price-basedselection practices in that it frees consultantsto demonstrate how they can add maximumvalue to a client’s project rather than focusingon how to minimize their fees to ‘win’ anassignment.

Executive Summary

The recommendedmethod encourages

clients to viewconsultants as

“trusted advisors”who share their

priorities andinterest in

achieving the bestoutcomes for their

project.


BBEESSTT PPRRAACCTTIICCEE PPRRIINNCCIIPPLLEESS

Qualifications

Quality

Innovation

Relationships

Fairness

Respect for Intellectual Property

Efficient and Effective

Flexibility

Non-Predatory Pricing

Sustainability


Implementation Challenges

Municipal engineers and other practitionersknowledgeable in the long-term implications ofselecting the most qualified consultant fortechnical assignments generally support therecommended best practice intellectually andphilosophically. They understand thatselection on the basis of lowest price may notachieve the best outcome. However, whenworking in government, it is much easier tojustify objectivity on the basis of quoted fees(lowest price) than on the basis of qualitativeassessment (qualifications-based selection).

Satisfaction with present price-based methodsin Canada suggests leadership to adopt thisbest practice will not generally come fromwithin municipal or other governments. Onlywhen some jurisdictions begin to use the bestpractice, and promote its benefits, will othersdo so. The first step to convincing municipal

and other governments of the benefits ofapplying the recommended method will be abroad initiative that enlists the support ofthose jurisdictions that have used andbenefited from its use, as well as industry,professional and educational leaders.

Executive Summary


Satisfaction withpresent price-based methods inCanada suggestsleadership toadopt this bestpractice will notgenerally comefrom withinmunicipal or othergovernments.Only when somejurisdictionsbegin to use thebest practice,and promote its benefits, will others do so.

RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDEEDD BBEESSTT PPRRAACCTTIICCEE

Request for Qualifications

Evaluate and Rank Consultants

Request for Proposals

Select Highest-Ranked Consultant

Define Scope

Negotiate Fee Agreement

Award Assignment




1.1 Introduction

This is one of a number of best practices beingdeveloped under the auspices of the NationalGuide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure(InfraGuide). Several of these best practicesdescribe activities that, for many municipalities,will be undertaken by professional consultants.

Planning and Defining Municipal InfrastructureNeeds (InfraGuide, 2003), for example, is abest practice that gives municipalities thebasic tools for defining municipalinfrastructure needs and for developingstrategic plans to address them. Bestpractices include such issues as:

■ Exploring new and innovative methods forcontinuous improvement, and

■ Linking capital expenditures with operationsand maintenance costs over the lifecycle ofthe asset.

Identifying those best qualified to addresssuch issues is one of the most important tasksrelated to hiring a professional consultant. The method used should:

■ Ensure the selection of the most qualifiedand competent consultant to perform thework at a fair and reasonable price.

■ Be fair, transparent, clearly understood byall parties and supportable by those usingthe method.

This best practice defines a process toachieve those objectives.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

This best practice is written for those publicsector officials responsible for selection ofprofessional consultants. It will assist them toselect the most appropriate consultant for agiven assignment.

While it is primarily an administrative tool, thisguide should also foster an appreciationamong elected officials and policy-makers ofthe long-term value of selecting the most

qualified and competent consultant, ratherthan the lowest-cost consultant.

The best practice is also intended forprofessional consultants who respond togovernment requests for proposals. It will helpthem understand the processes being used toselect a successful proponent.

Following the best practices highlighted willgradually bring uniformity to methods used byvarious levels of government. It should alsofoster uniformity within organizations, wheremultiple individuals may be responsible forselecting or recommending professionalconsultants.

1.3 How to Use This Document

This best practice should be applied with aclear understanding and appreciation that itspractices and methodologies are intended toguide the achievement of best outcomes fromthe selection of professional consultants forengineering/infrastructure projects.

1.3.1 General

This guide was written for four primaryaudiences:

DDeecciissiioonn--mmaakkeerrss — Senior staff responsiblefor administrative policy and processes toreinforce how high-quality engineeringservices add value in the form of innovation,sustainability and lifecycle analysis.

TTeecchhnniiccaall ssttaaffff — Those responsible forimplementing policy and administrativeprocesses; to assist in their selection of themost appropriate individual or firm for a givenproject.

PPrrooccuurreemmeenntt SSttaaffff aanndd AAuuddiittoorrss — Staffresponsible for conducting or monitoringprocurement processes that: ensure fiscalresponsibility and best value for taxpayers,and adherence to established procurementpolicies.


1. General 1. General

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Purpose and Scope

1.3 How to Use This

Document

Identifying thosebest qualified toaddress suchissues is one of the most importanttasks related tohiring aprofessionalconsultant.


PPoolliiccyy--mmaakkeerrss — Primarily elected politicians;to foster an appreciation of the long-termvalue a client receives when the best qualifiedand most competent consultant, not thelowest-cost consultant, wins the bid.

It will also help professional consultantsunderstand government procurementprocesses. Knowing that procurementprocesses give all proponents properconsideration will allay fears that the processis biased and belie the contention that directlobbying is the best way to win bids.Consultants engage in marketing activities toexpand their businesses similar to mostcorporate entities. They will seek opportunitiesto engage clients and potential clients to helpthem understand the role of the professionalconsultant, the areas of expertise they haveand how value can be added to a client’sproject if the most appropriate consultant isselected using a fair and transparent selectionprocess.

Occasionally, consultants who feel they arebeing unfairly managed within a selectionprocess may attempt to influence the selectionthrough direct representation to senior orelected officials. They may believe resorting to such tactics is necessary to ensure theyreceive fair consideration in the selectionprocess. Lobbying in this fashion underminesthe process and often creates resentmentbetween the parties.

It is expected that the knowledge that a fairand transparent process is being used, inwhich all proponents are given properconsideration, will remove the perception ofbias that leads consultants to seek advantagein this manner.

This document is organized into four sectionsas follows:

1.3.2 Research

The Research section describes fact-findingundertaken for the writing of the guide.Research included review of printedpublications, web reviews and searches,surveys of municipal engineers and consultingengineers, and interviews with selectedpractitioners. In addition, members of theworking group and other stakeholders,including the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, provided information onmethodologies currently in use or beingproposed.

The mmuunniicciippaall ssuurrvveeyy sought input from allgeographic regions of Canada and from across section of small, medium and largemunicipalities. The ccoonnssuullttaanntt ssuurrvveeyy targetedfirms from all geographic regions workingprimarily in the public sector. Detailedstakeholder interviews were conducted with a representative sample from each group and from several external agencies.

Summaries of findings are reported in theappendices.

1.3.3 Rationale

The Rationale section provides justification for this best practice and describes benefits to be achieved by its application.

1.3.4 Methodology

The Methodology section describes whatneeds to be done and how to use therecommended best practice. The guideprovides details of how to apply themethodology.

1.3.5 Limitations

The Limitations section describes potentiallimitations associated with the application ofthe recommended methods described in thisguide.

1. General

1.3 How to Use

This Document


It is expected thatthe knowledge that a fair and

transparent process is

being used, in which all

proponents aregiven proper

consideration, will remove the

perception of bias that leadsconsultants to

seek advantage in this manner.


1.4 Glossary

The following words and terms are used in thedocument and are defined for clarity only, notto add any judgmental component.

BBeesstt PPrraaccttiicceess — State-of the-artmethodologies and technologies for municipalinfrastructure planning, design, construction,management, assessment, maintenance andrehabilitation that consider local, economic,environmental and social factors.

BBuuddggeett MMeetthhoodd — The client supplies abudgeted figure for consultant fees to short-listed firms within the terms of reference forthe project. Consultants are expected torespond with a proposal priced at or belowthis upset. Consultant selection is based onthe best quality proposal that best meets theneeds of the client.

DDeessiiggnn CCoommppeettiittiioonn — A small group of pre-qualified consultants is invited to participate ina design competition. The consultants arerequested to submit a “concept design”,estimates of construction cost and their feeproposal to complete the overall project.Competing consultants are either paid for theirconcepts at cost or (more commonly) paid aset fee established in the competition’s termsof reference. The concept that best meets theneeds of the client is usually accepted as the“winner”. Ownership of the unsuccessfuldesign submissions should be addressed inthe competition guidelines.

CCoonnssuullttaanntt — See “PPrrooffeessssiioonnaall CCoonnssuullttaanntt”.

LLiiffeeccyyccllee — The lifecycle is the full life of aproject from planning through design,construction, operation, annual and capitalmaintenance, rehabilitation, and eventualdisposal or decommissioning.

LLiiffeeccyyccllee ccoossttiinngg — A method of expressingcost that includes the anticipated costsassociated with the construction, operation,annual and capital maintenance and possiblydecommissioning. It can be expressed as a“present worth” that represents the current

investment that would have to be made at aspecific discount (or interest) rate to pay forthe initial and future costs of the works.

OOppeerraattiioonnss aanndd MMaaiinntteennaannccee ((OO&&MM)) — Theprocess of running an infrastructure asset,including consumable resources such aslabour, equipment, energy, chemicals andother materials; and all actions necessary forretaining the asset as near as practicable to acondition that will continue to provide theservice required, but excluding rehabilitationor decommissioning.

PPrriiccee NNeeggoottiiaattiioonn — A small group of pre-qualified consultants are invited to participatein a project as defined by the owner. Designfees for the completion of a project arenegotiated with each consultantindependently. The consultant offering thelowest negotiated price is successful.

PPrrooffeessssiioonnaall CCoonnssuullttaanntt — Includesprofessional project managers, architects,engineers, construction managers,geoscientists, land surveyors, engineeringsurveyors, landscape architects, contractadministrators etc.

QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss — “Qualifications” include bothtechnical and non-technical considerationssuch as local knowledge, past performance,long-term relationships and availability ofresources that a client may consider whenqualifying a consultant for selection.

QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss--bbaasseedd SSeelleeccttiioonn — QBS is acompetitive process for the procurement ofprofessional consulting services based onprofessional qualifications. Qualifications aresubmitted to an owner, who evaluates andselects the best-qualified firm or individual(s)for the proposed project, based on technicalqualifications. The selected firm and theowner then jointly develop the final scope ofwork for the project. The consultant’s fee isthen negotiated based on the agreed-uponscope of work and the consultant’s submittedrate schedule.

1. General

1.4 Glossary



RRFFPP wwiitthh PPrriicceess — A selection methodrequiring proponents to respond to a requestfor proposals and include their proposed feeas part of their submission. The owner’sevaluation process addresses the submittedfee as one of the weighted evaluation criteria.(Also referred to as; qualifications cost-basedselection, QCBS, cost-weighted method,value-based or price-based selection).

SSccooppee ooff SSeerrvviiccee//SSccooppee ooff WWoorrkk — A detaileddescription of the work to be undertaken by aconsultant in the fulfillment of a consultingassignment.

SSoollee SSoouurrccee//DDiirreecctt AAppppooiinnttmmeenntt — An ownerselects a professional consultant based on itsknowledge of the consultant’s abilities, usuallythrough previous working relationships.

SSuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyy — Conditions that meet currentneeds without compromising the needs offuture generations. Sustainability considersenvironmental, social, and economic factorstogether. The term sustainability andsustainable development can have varyinginterpretations, depending on perceptions,values, priorities, and perspectives.

TTwwoo EEnnvveellooppee MMeetthhoodd — A selection methodin which consultants are requested to submit apriced proposal in two sealed envelopes. Thefirst envelope contains the technical proposalincluding corporate and key personnelqualifications, methodology, schedule and anyother technical requirements of the proposalcall, exclusive of price. The second containsthe proposed fee for the services. The secondenvelope containing the price is only openedfor the highest ranked firm from the technicalevaluation.

VVaalluuee — The cost savings a client will accrueover the lifetime of a project or facility,calculated by comparing the lifecycle costs ofalternative design solutions and selecting thelowest-cost solution that meets the client’sneeds.

WWhhoollee lliiffeeccyyccllee ccoossttiinngg — A costingmethodology that includes engineering costs,construction costs, operations andmaintenance costs, decommissioning costs tothe public and sustainability costs.

1. General

1.4 Glossary



2.1 Literature Review

The RReeffeerreenncceess section, at the end of thisreport, provides a synopsis of the documentsreviewed to write this best practice.

There are many Internet references to methodsof selection for professional consultants. Mostreferences support a qualifications-basedselection process, (QBS), particularly whenthe scope of services is not readily definable.In cases where the scope of work can bedefinitively established at the outset, a fee-basedrequest for proposals (RFP) or qualificationscost-based system (QCBS) is referenced.

The most notable references relate to theUnited States Brooks Act enacted in 1972. This requires all federal architectural andengineering services procurement to follow“qualifications-based selection.” Forty-sevenstates and many local jurisdictions haveadopted similar legislation.

Most professional engineering associationsthroughout Canada and the rest of the worldrecommend the qualifications-based selectionmethod.

Two of the referenced studies provideparticularly strong arguments forqualifications-based selection:

11)) TThhee AAmmeerriiccaann IInnssttiittuuttee ooff AArrcchhiitteeccttss::Selecting Architects and Engineers forPublic Building Projects: An Analysis andComparison of the Maryland and FloridaSystems (AIA, 1985).

This 1985 study compares the experience ofMaryland’s Department of General Services,which used a qualifications/price-basedselection process, with that of the FloridaDepartment of General Services and theState University System, both of whom usedqualifications-based selection processes,exclusive of price. Data were collected onprojects over $50,000 in fees awarded byboth states from 1975 to 1983. Conclusionsreported were:

❍ Maryland’s process was significantlymore expensive than Florida’s from anadministrative perspective and tookconsiderably longer to complete.

❍ Florida selected on the basis of technicalcompetence, Maryland on the basis ofboth price and technical competence butprice was becoming the dominant factor(of 40 contracts studied, 83 percent were awarded to low bidder).

❍ User agencies in both states weregenerally satisfied with their respectiveprocesses, but most architectural andengineering firms in Maryland wereresentful of the system and viewed workfor the state to be “work of last resort”.

22)) PPoollyytteecchhnniicc UUnniivveerrssiittyy:: Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) For the Procurement of ProfessionalArchitectural-Engineering (A/E) Services.

This study (undated — 2001/2002), reviewedthe arguments for and against a proposedinitiative in the City of New York to require a qualifications-based selection process in line with state policy, rather than thecurrent qualifications/price-based process.

The conclusion stated:

“…it can be concluded that QBS offerssignificant advantages over competitivebidding and it should be the preferredmethod for the procurement of A/E services.QBS not only ensures that the most qualifiedfirm is selected for each project, but it isalso cost-competitive and has the bestpotential to reduce long-term project costs.”

2.2 Stakeholder Surveys and Interviews

Two surveys were undertaken to obtain inputfrom a representative sample of municipalengineers and consulting engineers. Themunicipal survey solicited input from a broadgeographical base of small, medium and largecommunities across Canada. The consultant

2. Research

2.1 Literature Review

2.2 Stakeholder Surveys

and Interviews


2. Research

The United StatesBrooks Act, enactedin 1972, requires allfederal architecturaland engineeringservicesprocurement tofollow“qualifications-based selection.”Forty-seven statesand many localjurisdictions haveadopted similarlegislation.



2. Research

2.2 Stakeholder Surveys

and Interviews

survey was also geographically diverse andtargeted firms that were active in themunicipal infrastructure field.

Summaries of the municipal and consultantsurveys are contained in AAppppeennddiixx AA.

A summary of interview key points iscontained in AAppppeennddiixx BB.

Following is a summary of the outcomes:

2.2.1 Municipal Survey

■ The RFP with prices and the sole sourcingmethod are the most commonly used byrespondents. Price represents on average22 percent of the evaluation criteria.

■ Qualifications-based selection methods are not well understood, particularly with respect to how price is treated.

■ The value of lifecycle costing, whileunderstood, is seldom applied.

■ 92 percent of respondents expectconsultants to consider innovative andalternative design solutions. 73 percent of respondents said that their terms ofreference specifically require this. Thesestatements are “at odds” with datareceived in the consultant survey.

2.2.2 Consultant Survey

■ Qualifications-based processes, includingsole source, are considered to be two tothree times as likely to add value for theclient as price-inclusive processes.

■ QBS is well understood by consultants, as isthe value of jointly establishing the scope ofservices.

■ The value of lifecycle costing andinnovative and alternative design reviews is similarly well understood. However, 93 percent report that they are “seldom or never” required to consider lifecyclecosts when responding to RFPs.

■ 80 percent also report that terms ofreference typically do not specificallyrequire the investigation of innovativeand/or alternative solutions.

2.2.3 Stakeholder Interviews

In-depth interviews of a cross-section ofrespondents were undertaken to furtherexplore emerging issues. The results:

■ There is a need for a faster selectionmethod, with less paperwork involved.

■ The larger the municipality, the more likely it is to view consulting services as accoommmmooddiittyy.

■ Municipalities have become overlyprescriptive; a too-well-defined scope ofservice can limit innovation and creativity.

■ BBeesstt vvaalluuee for the client is achieved by aselection method focused on qualificationsand joint scope development.

■ There is an identified need for education atall levels.

■ Price-based selection methods often lead toan adversarial relationship between clientand consultant. The objective should be atteeaamm rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp.

■ The best practice should provide for thereality that some engineering/infrastructureprojects might appropriately use a price-based selection method. For example: less-complex projects, where scope can bereadily defined, and work such as materialstesting, traffic data gathering, water qualitytesting, etc.

■ Recognition that lifecycle costing providesvalue, but is seldom asked for.

■ Whole lifecycle costing goes beyondproject lifecycle costing and considers costto the public and sustainability costs.Recent emphasis on green buildings maydrive an appreciation for lifecycle costing.

■ Risk transfer to the consultant is anoutcome of joint development of the scopeof service that can directly benefit to theclient.

Lifecycle assetmanagement

achieves businessrequirements of

safety, environmentprotection, and

service delivery atminimum cost of

ownership(Kennedy, 1993).



3.1 Background

The public sector buys most commoditiesthrough a public tendering process designedto identify the vendor with the lowest price.Public tendering is cost-effective for materialsand equipment that are readily described, andfor construction contracts with clearlyspecified deliverables.

Consulting services, however, are notcommodities and their procurement cannoteffectively be obtained in this fashion. For thisreason it is commonplace to use a request forproposals (RFP) process to evaluate candidatecredentials to identify the best-suitedconsultant. Generally, the RFP process requiressubmission of a fee component for theproposed work. The fee component is oftenallocated considerable weight in the evaluation,with the result that the lowest-priced proposalis often accepted on the assumption that itrepresents best value for the client. Theliterature reviewed does not support thisassumption. In the USA, the federal and moststate governments have legislated against thismethod (Federal Brooks Act, 1972 and others).

The general wisdom is that bbeesstt vvaalluuee for aclient is most likely achieved when the focusis on finding the most effective, long-termsolution to a problem, not the cheapest design.As in most professions, expertise varies,based on an individual’s training and oftenmore importantly, their experience. Therefore,to meet the goal of identifying the mosteffective, long-term solution, a selectionprocess must result in the selection of theconsultant best qualified to undertake theassignment and consequently bring the mostaaddddeedd vvaalluuee to the project.

Selecting a consultant is aptly compared tothe task of selecting a technically trained,temporary employee for a specific assignment.The focus at the time of selection will be thetraining, experience, and skill of the individual

being considered, with the objective being toidentify the most suitable candidate, not thecheapest.

Selecting a consultant based on qualificationsddooeess nnoott preclude consideration of price. Itsimply removes it from the consultantevaluation phase and introduces it once thescope of service has been determined.

3.2 Lifecycle Costs

Best value is achieved for the client whendesign alternatives are evaluated based ontheir lifecycle costs. It is during design thatboth construction and operations/maintenancecost savings are most easily achieved.

This is a complex process and the desiredoutcomes are seldom achieved through hiringthe consultant offering the lowest fee.Emphasis on lowest lifecycle cost drives adifferent process than one designed to ensurethe cheapest design fee.

Lifecycle costing is critical because publicinfrastructure projects are long-terminvestments, paid for with public funds. Bestvalue for the taxpayer means the asset isdelivered with the least financial impact in thelong-term. Best value is not achieved bydeferring costs for later payment.

3. Rationale

3.1 Background

3.2 Lyfecycle Costs

Figure 3–1Lifecycle Costs

The generalwisdom is thatbest value for aclient is most likelyachieved when thefocus is on findingthe most effective,long-term solutionto a problem, notthe cheapestdesign.

3. Rationale

Figure 3–1: Lifecycle Costs


It follows that lifecycle costing is an integralpart of municipal sustainability analysis andessential for Integrated CommunitySustainability Plans hoping to qualify forGovernment of Canada funding underprograms that require real, measurableprogress towards sustainability.

The key to understanding and ultimatelyimplementing this best practice is making aclear distinction between cost and value. Inthe context of selecting professionalconsultants, cost refers to the cost of theconsulting services to be provided. Valuerefers to the savings the client will receiveover the life of the project; from constructionthrough the entire lifecycle of the particularasset, to it’s decommissioning. BBeesstt vvaalluuee isachieved with the design solution thatproduces the lowest lifecycle cost, measuredas the sum of consulting, construction andoperations/maintenance (O&M) costs. Themethod recommended in this best practicefocuses on achieving the lowest lifecycle costand hence the “best” value for the client.

Professional consultant services account for a small percentage of direct project cost buttheir impact on both construction costs andoperations/maintenance costs is significant.Canadian and USA studies report thatengineering/design typically represents 1 to 2 percent of project lifecycle cost.

Construction accounts for 6 to 18 percent oflifecycle cost and the remainder is taken up byoperations, maintenance, refurbishment andultimately, decommissioning costs. Actualpercentages will vary by project and disciplinebut trends are the same.

The FFiigguurree 33––11 illustrates the rationale forevaluating design alternatives with rigorousreviews. For a project with the following costs:

Engineering: $200,000Construction: $2,000,000O&M: $9,000,000

If a 5 percent reduction in the O&M costs canbe achieved through design innovation on thisproject, the municipality would save $450,000over the life of the asset.

Assume this saving is achieved for anadditional design cost of $40,000 or a 20 percent increase in project consultant fees.This increase is more than offset by thelifecycle savings—an increasing investmentfrom 1.8 to 2.1 percent of lifecycle cost,returns savings in the ratio of 11:1 (almosttwice the total engineering design fee). Not a hard business case to make!

Without a detailed review of design andconstruction alternatives it is impossible toassess the long-term advantages that might be gained for this small increase in consultingfees.

Most professionals and municipal engineersunderstand the principle of minimizinglifecycle costs through value engineering.However this principle is infrequently applied.

The potential for long-term savings achievedby placing an emphasis on selecting theconsultant with the qualifications, skill,creativity and experience to analyze all designalternatives will generally far outweighpotential savings from a low-bid selection.

“It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worseto pay too little. When you pay too little, yousometimes lose everything because the thingyou bought was incapable of doing the thingyou bought it to do.”

John Ruskin (1819-1900)


3. Rationale

3.2 Lifecycle costs

Figure 3–2Lifecycle Savings throughDesign Innovation

“It is unwise to paytoo much, but it is

worse to pay toolittle. When you

pay too little, yousometimes lose

everything becausethe thing you

bought wasincapable of doing

the thing youbought it to do.”

John Ruskin (1819-1900)Figure 3–2: Lifecycle Savings throughDesign Innovation

RReettuurrnn oonn IInnvveessttmmeenntt:: 1111::11 ((oovveerr lliiffee ooff aasssseett))



3. Rationale

3.3 Selection Methods


There are several methodologies available for selecting professional consultants. Mostevaluate and compare capabilities to rank the proponents. Selection practices and theirbenefits and shortcomings are outlined in the TTaabbllee ooff SSeelleeccttiioonn MMeetthhooddss found inAAppppeennddiixx CC. The table defines commonpractice, but many variations exist.

Selection processes are primarilydistinguished by how the scope of services iscreated and how fees are treated within theevaluation process.

RRFFPP aanndd PPrriiccee NNeeggoottiiaattiioonn — These methodsinclude fees within the initial evaluation, basedon a scope of services established by theclient.

TTwwoo EEnnvveellooppeess — This method is based on theevaluation of qualifications and experiencerelating to a client-defined scope of services,with fees considered after the technicalevaluation has been completed.

BBuuddggeett aanndd DDeessiiggnn CCoommppeettiittiioonn — Thesemethods require the consultant to write orfinalize the scope of services:

■ In the budget method, the consultantidentifies the services proposed (to beundertaken) for the budget amount.

■ In the design competition method, theconsultant provides a conceptual design for evaluation.

In both cases the client chooses the proposalthat provides the best solution for theirapplication.

QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss--BBaasseedd SSeelleeccttiioonn aanndd SSoolleeSSoouurrcciinngg — These methods determine thepreferred consultant based on qualificationsand experience. They provide the opportunityto jointly establish the scope of servicesbefore bringing the fee into consideration.

3.3.1 Request for Qualification (RFQ)

Since many consultants will have thequalifications necessary to undertake mostassignments, the owner is faced with thechallenge of deciding who is mmoosstt or bbeesstt

qualified for the assignment. If the assignmentis advertised for all interested parties torespond, evaluating request for proposals can entail a considerable (and inefficient) use of time and effort for the owner.

To prevent this waste, clients often use arequest for qualifications (RFQ) or a requestfor expression of interest (RFEI) to develop a“short list” of three consultants who will beinvited to respond to a detailed proposal call.

Municipalities can use the RFQ or RFEIprocess to:

■ identify the three firms, which will berequested to submit a detailed proposal for a particular assignment; or

■ create a list of pre-qualified firms that willbe:

❍ invited to bid on projects on a rotationalbasis; or

❍ used in the selection of a sole-sourcedconsultant.

The RFQ typically requests proponents toprovide information about the firm, the type ofbusiness entity, address, contact information,main areas of expertise, and recent projectexperience relative to the project at hand. It willalso request information on key personnel whowill be assigned to the project, if successful,their roles, qualifications, experience, andreferences for comparable projects. It shouldnot require proponents to provide details ontheir approach to project design.

For relatively large assignments or complexprojects, clients typically establish a technicalevaluation team, consisting of two or threemembers of their engineering group who are familiar with the project and possibly a representative from their purchasingdepartment. This team establishes theevaluation criteria and weighting, andevaluates the proponents. The three top-ranking firms are sent a detailed RFP for aspecific project.

In some circumstances, special considerationsapply to the pre-qualification process. Anexample is the cost of travel for projects in



small and/or remote communities where thesecosts may be an extraordinarily highpercentage of the overall fee. These additionalcosts should be factored into the RFQ process.If the impact is considerable and one or morelocal firms have the expertise and experiencenecessary to undertake the work,consideration should be given to “sole-sourcing” the project or inviting localconsultants only to respond to an RFQ.Conversely, in a “hot” economy, demand forservices may exceed local supply. In this case,sole sourcing or the RFQ process maysupplant the RFP process.

The cost (for both municipalities andconsultants) of the request for proposalprocess underlines the importance of usingpre-qualification (RFQs) to create a short list offirms and to limit the invitation to respond to aproposal call to three companies.

Several consultants reported that the cost ofwriting an RFP for a mid-sized project could be8 to 10 percent of the value of expected fees.Municipal representatives also report thatevaluation costs are considerable. Failing toacknowledge these costs results in highercosts to all clients, as consultants mustultimately recover these costs of preparingproposals.

An example taken from a recent municipalproject illustrates this point:

Strategic study; value approximately $110,000in fees. Cost incurred by successful consultantto respond to RFP approximately $10,400.

Municipality invited three firms to submitproposals, thus if each firm expended roughly thesame amount of effort preparing their responseto the RFP, their combined costs approachedone-third of the value of the assignment. Inaddition, the municipality reported that stafftime to evaluate the RFPs using a three-personteam was approximately 45 hours.

The cost to respond to an RFP underlines theimportance of using a pre-qualificationprocess to create a short list of firms andlimiting the number invited to respond to aproposal call to a maximum of three.

3.4 Search for a Best Practice

This guide seeks to identify the practice mostbeneficial to the needs of the client and worthyof the bbeesstt pprraaccttiiccee designation. Researchshows that a client’s needs are best met whenthe “best suited” consultant is selected byvirtue of its qualifications, skills and experienceto deliver a quality product. This ensures thatthe considerations most likely to add value forthe client are thoroughly investigated.

3.4.1 Best Practice Principles

A best practice should incorporate principlesthat will ensure a sound and fundamentally fairprocess and one that will achieve the goal ofadding the greatest value for a client. Theprinciples shown in TTaabbllee 33––11 are reflected inthe recommended best practice:

3.5 Conclusions Regarding Process

3.5.1 Price-Based Methods

Price-based methods usually require that feesbe included in proposal responses.Justification for this requirement often refersto the common misconception that the publicinterest is best served when price competitionis present. Some jurisdictions such as theNorthwest Territories and Quebec requireprice to be a component of a competitiveselection process. While research indicatesmunicipal engineers believe qualifications-based selection is more effective, there is areluctance to challenge the oft-stated realitythat the public is best served and receivesbest value through price competition.

A requirement to bid fees in a proposal calldoes not achieve the expected outcomes.Inevitably it forces the consultant to focus on“how to minimize fees to win the assignment”instead of “how to deliver a service that willadd the most value for the client.”

This is a serious problem, as it minimizes oreven eliminates the “value-added” servicesthat an owner should be seeking in allprofessional consulting assignments. Elementssuch as quality control and assurances, valueanalysis of design alternatives to minimize

3. Rationale


3.4 Search for a Best

Practice

3.5 Conclusions

Regarding Process

While researchindicates municipal

engineers believequalifications-

based selection ismore effective,

there is areluctance to

challenge the oft-stated reality thatthe public is best

served and receivesbest value throughprice competition.



construction costs and optimize sustainability,and lifecycle cost analysis to evaluateoperating and maintenance implications areimportant value-added services that will yieldsavings far greater than any achieved throughminimizing design fees.

Stakeholder surveys and interviewscanvassed views on these points. Followingare their comments in favour and againstprice-based competition:

Arguments for Price-Based

■ To many in the public sector, fees areexpected to be included in the selectionprocess to ensure competitiveness.

■ Purchasing/finance/internal auditor wouldnot support a process that did not includeprice in evaluation process.

■ In government, decisions tend to be madebased on short-term costs; therefore not alot of room to place emphasis on long termsuch as full lifecycle costs.

■ Public sector engineers fear they may be ata disadvantage negotiating fees with aconsultant who is a specialist.

■ Perception that consultants who arequalified to undertake the work areessentially equal in their capabilities,therefore awarding to the low bid providesbest value.

Arguments against Price-Based

■ Process is very time-consuming.

■ A great deal of input is required to developscope of work with sufficient detail toensure a sound comparison of feeproposals.

■ Even after investing a lot of time and effort,scopes can still be somewhat “fuzzy”resulting in numerous claims for extraswhen assignment undertaken.

■ “Fuzzy” scope will tend to favour consultantand lead to an adversarial relationshipbetween client and consultant.

3. Rationale

3.5 Conclusions

Regarding Process

Table 3–1

Principles of a best

practice consultant

selection process

# Principle Description

1. QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnssTraining, skill, and experience should be considered paramount in the selectionprocess.

2. QQuuaalliittyyThe delivery of a quality service that includes identification of appropriatedesign alternatives and evaluation of lifecycle cost implications, and value-added services such as peer review, value analysis and value engineering.

3. IInnnnoovvaattiioonn**An assurance that new, innovative and creative opportunities will beconsidered.

4. RReellaattiioonnsshhiippss Create an opportunity to expand internal team with external professionals

5. FFaaiirrnneessssEnsure an open, transparent process that focuses on identifying the mostcompetent professional for a particular project.

6.RReessppeecctt ffoorriinntteelllleeccttuuaall pprrooppeerrttyy

Recognition that design ideas belong to the professional proposing them andshould be respected.

7. EEffffiicciieenntt aanndd EEffffeeccttiivveeThe process should consider the input required to achieve the desiredoutcome.

8. FFlleexxiibbiilliittyy The process should be adaptable to different needs.

9. NNoonn--pprreeddaattoorryy pprriicciinngg The process should not encourage firms to under-cut competitors.

10. SSuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyyThe process should encourage identifying and incorporating practices into thedesign solution that consider issues of sustainability.

* Innovation is the process of converting knowledge and ideas into new and improved products and services that are valued by the community (i.e. construction industry) or into better ways of doing business (sustainable infrastructure). The innovation process incorporates research and development, commercialization, and technology diffusion.(Working definition of the National Round Table on Sustainable Infrastructure (NRTSI), 2005.)

Table 3–1: Principles of a best practice consultant selection process


3. Rationale

3.5 Conclusions

Regarding Process


■ The consultant’s experience is negated inthe process of developing the scope thusdepriving the client of a valuable resource.

■ Consultant tendency not to include orconsider creative or innovative solutions inproposal responses for fear of having ideas“shopped”, likely to the detriment of theclient.

■ Price-based methods will not generallyachieve the desired outcomes.

■ The research indicates that pricecompetition acts as a constraint toexploring options or innovations that maylead to reduced lifecycle costs.

3.5.2 Best Practice Methods

The research undertaken in the course ofpreparing this guide provided a clear vision ofthe elements inherent in a consultant selectionbest practice. Information from the UnitedStates, Europe, Australia and many otherjurisdictions pointed to the most effectiveselection method as one that:

■ Identifies the consultant that bestdemonstrates the training, skill andexperience necessary to undertake aproject; and

■ Ensures that opportunities to add value arenot only provided for but also encouraged.

In all cases, the method most often cited isqualifications-based selection (QBS). QBSfacilitates the selection of consultant servicesbased on qualifications, including technicalcompetence, availability, methodology, localknowledge, long-term relationship, pastperformance and other factors of relevance toa specific project; and the subsequentdetermination of a fair and reasonable price,all relative to the scope and needs of theproject.

Arguments for Qualifications-Based

■ QBS is objective, fair and transparent, andensures efficient, sustainable and cost-effective services.

■ It embodies the previously stated principlesand leads to the identification of the “bestqualified” consultant to perform the work.

■ The methodology encourages thedevelopment of a close working relationshipwith the client, which in turn ensures openexploration of project issues, needs andopportunities, all leading to themaximization of value and minimization ofthe risk of unforeseen costs for the owner.

■ Client jointly develops the scope of serviceswith the highest-ranked firm as determinedthrough the technical evaluation process.This methodology:

❍ Allows the consultant, through itsproposal, to identify opportunities that mayadd value to the client’s project, ratherthan seeking ways to minimize the fee.

❍ Affords the opportunity for the client andthe consultant to develop the scope ofservices jointly, thereby ensuring that allopportunities for adding value to theassignment are provided for and properlyaccounted for within the budget.

■ The final fee or price responds directly tothe jointly developed and agreed to scopeof services, greatly minimizing futuredisagreements or misinterpretations.

■ If the client and the top-ranked consultantare unable to finalize an acceptable scopeand associated fee, the process gives theclient latitude to negotiate with the second-ranked firm. The consultant is not selecteduntil agreement is reached on scope andfee and the contract executed.

■ The method is widely used in the UnitedStates and considerable processinformation is available regardingimplementation, benefits, etc.

■ It is well suited to work where scope ofwork has not yet been determined, such aswhen applying for grants; it supports therole of consultant as “trusted advisor.”

■ The method is commonly used by majorindustries in the form of sole-sourcing ordirect appointment.

Arguments against Qualifications-Based

This best practice takes into account theinterests of the client. The following pointsremain as concerns for some practitioners:


3. Rationale

3.5 Conclusions

Regarding Process

Table 3–2Comparing price-based andqualification-basedmethods


■ There is limited knowledge of QBS withinCanadian municipal and other governmentsectors.

■ Municipal engineers fear that they will be ata disadvantage in fee negotiations withconsultants.

■ Does not respond to the requirements ofthose who want, or are required, to includeprice in the technical evaluation. (Thismethod specifically argues against thisinclusion.)

3.5.3 Comparing Price- and Qualifications-Based Methods

The primary differences between the twomethods are how the scope of service iscreated and how fees are managed. Thescope defines the project and establishes therequirements the consultants will be expectedto address. Projects (except straightforwardprojects and those with easily describeddeliverables) can be relatively complex,making the definition of scope a difficultundertaking at best.

Table 3–2: Comparing price-based and qualification-based methods


3. Rationale

3.5 Conclusions

Regarding Process


Price-Based Method

In the pprriiccee--bbaasseedd method the client developsthe detailed scope. Consultants are required torespond to this scope. They will be evaluatedagainst a set of criteria and scored on theirresponse to the proposal and their proposedfees. Price is usually weighted at 10 to 35 percent of the overall criteria.

Although it is possible to write a performancerequirement for the physical aspects of aproject it is extremely difficult to prescribe howa consultant is to perform. Factors such as theextent of investigations, consideration andevaluation of design alternatives and theirimplications, and any number of other variablesmake this a daunting task. A great deal of timeand effort will be required of the client if thereis to be any assurance that proposalssubmitted can reasonably be compared oneagainst the other. A “fuzzy” scope willinvariably lead to numerous changes after the fact, including claims for extras.

Qualifications-Based Method

A qquuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss--bbaasseedd method takes adifferent approach. It requires the client todevelop the scope of service in general termsonly. It should provide sufficient information toguide development of consultants’ proposalsand to facilitate evaluation of those proposalson the basis of technical and managerialcapabilities of the firm and key personnel, asuggested methodology, references,availability, etc.

The client’s evaluation team evaluatesproposals, ranks proponents and works withthe highest ranked firm to jointly develop adetailed scope of services. Once the scope isfinalized, the consultant is requested to submita fee proposal based on the agreed scope.

This method draws on the consultant’sexperience to develop the scope of services.The client and consultant are free to discussmatters such as alternative design solutions,lifecycle cost analysis, and innovative andcreative design options and other issues thatcould add long-term benefits. Not only is valueadded but the guesswork and hence the risk,is removed from the equation. When the priceis subsequently submitted, the client clearlyunderstands the work the fee is based upon.

A secondary benefit of including theconsultant in the development of the scope ofservices is that the traditional risk of claims foradditional fees need only be anticipated in thecircumstance where the client chooses tomodify the agreed-upon scope.


4. Methodology

4.1 The Recommended

Best Practice

4.2 Development

of Scope


4.1 The Recommended Best Practice

The recommended consultant selectionmethod detailed in TTaabblleess 44––11 and 44––22, is aqualifications-based process that meets thebest practice principles. It both:

■ Ensures the selection of the most qualifiedand competent consultant to perform thework at a fair and reasonable price, and

■ Is a fair, transparent process, easilyunderstood by all parties and supportableby those using the method, that ensuresthat opportunities to add value are not onlyprovided for but also encouraged.

The best practice encourages clients to viewconsultants as “trusted advisors” who sharetheir objective of achieving best outcomes. It gives the client the advantage of theconsultant’s skill, knowledge and experience,with the result that the jointly developed scopeof services embraces options for adding value.

The best practice frees consultants todemonstrate how they can add maximumvalue to a client’s project rather than focusingon how to minimize their fees in order to ‘win’an assignment.

While TTaabblleess 44––11 and 44––22 set out the basicsteps in a best practice methodology, it is nota prescriptive solution. Users are encouragedto seek the latest methodologies for theapplication of each step in the process. Thisdetail is readily available through professionalorganizations, other stakeholders and theInternet. References at the end of thisdocument provide a detailed listing of suchorganizations.

4.2 Development of Scope

The primary differences between therecommended best practice and othermethods for selecting a professionalconsultant are how the scope of service isdetermined and how fees are treated.

There are three ways to develop the scope ofservices:

■ Jointly between the client and theconsultant

■ Independently by the client

■ By the consultant for client approval

Fees are established through a methodologythat depends on how the scope of service isdeveloped. Each of these differences isaddressed in the following sections.

4.2.1 Jointly Developed Scope of Service

Projects that are complex and for which thescope is not readily definable at the outset willrespond well to a process that affords theclient the opportunity to use the expertise ofthe consultant in its development. Once thescope of service is agreed upon, theconsultant is requested to submit a feeproposal reflecting the agreed scope.

A fee proposal that responds to a jointlydeveloped scope will be a much more realisticrepresentation of the work to be undertakenand will be an appropriate level of funding toensure the client’s best interests are met.Jointly developing the scope develops a“team” approach, which also contributes to asuccessful project.

The recommended best practice incorporatesthis process.

Sole source and qualifications-based methodsare based typically on jointly developed scopeof service.

4.2.2 Client-Developed Scope of Services

Where the scope of services is easily defined,clients may independently develop the scopeof services. The scope must be developed insufficient detail to form the basis forcompetitive proposals.

The best practiceencourages clientsto view consultantsas “trustedadvisors” whoshare theirobjective ofachieving bestoutcomes.

4. Methodology


4. The RecommendedBest Practice

4.1 Development

of Scope

Table 4–1Recommended BestPractice—Selecting aProfessional Consultant


BBeesstt PPrraaccttiicceeJointly Developed Scope

(4.2.1)

AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee PPrraaccttiicceeClient Developed Scope

(4.2.2)

AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee PPrraaccttiicceeConsultant Developed Scope

(4.2.2)

RReeqquueesstt ffoorr QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss RReeqquueesstt ffoorr QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss RReeqquueesstt ffoorr QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss

RReeqquueesstt ffoorr PPrrooppoossaallssBased on General Scope of Work

RFP Without Prices

RReeqquueesstt ffoorr PPrrooppoossaallssBased on Detailed Scope of Work

TTwwoo--EEnnvveellooppee PPrroocceessss

RReeqquueesstt ffoorr PPrrooppoossaallssBased on General Scope of Work

BBuuddggeett MMeetthhoodd DDeessiiggnn CCoommppeettiittiioonn

EEvvaalluuaattee // RRaannkk PPrrooppoossaallss EEvvaalluuaattee // RRaannkk PPrrooppoossaallss EEvvaalluuaattee // RRaannkk PPrrooppoossaallss

SSeelleecctt HHiigghheesstt--RRaannkkeedd CCoonnssuullttaanntt

DDeeffiinnee SSccooppee

Highest-ranked firm and client jointly define ssccooppee ooff wwoorrkk

NNeeggoottiiaattee FFeeee AAggrreeeemmeennttUUssiinngg AAggrreeeedd SSccooppee

NNeeggoottiiaattee FFeeee AAggrreeeemmeennttUUssiinngg FFeeee EEnnvveellooppee

AAwwaarrdd AAssssiiggnnmmeenntt AAwwaarrdd AAssssiiggnnmmeenntt AAwwaarrdd AAssssiiggnnmmeenntt

RReevviissiioonnssScope and fees revised as required

during assignment

AApppplliiccaattiioonn CCoonnssiiddeerraattiioonnssRoster 4.3.1

Standing Offer 4.3.2Extended Partnership 4.3.3

Table 4–1: Recommended Best Practice—Selecting a Professional Consultant



4.1 Development

of Scope

Table 4–2Recommended BestPractice—Selecting aProfessional Consultant


Table 4–2: Recommended Best Practice—Selecting a Professional Consultant

RReeqquueesstt ffoorrQQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss

PPuurrppoossee::

To set out in writing, the general scope and expectations of the client to enableconsultants to assess their interest and their suitability for the assignment. Theclient will develop a list of qualified consultants from whom proposals will berequested.

WWhhaatt ttoo ddoo::

The client describes the general scope of services for the assignment, includingany special project or client requirements. It should take the form of a brief, non-technical written statement of what the assignment will include. Adviseconsultants that there will be an RFP for the assignment.

The client prepares a list of consultants believed to have the requisitequalifications for the assignment. The size of the list should reflect the value of theassignment, (maximum of 10 to 12). Invite consultants to submit their qualificationsand availability for the assignment.

EEvvaalluuaattee aanndd RRaannkk CCoonnssuullttaannttss

Evaluate and rank consultants, perform reference checks and short-list three consultants.

Consider an aalltteerrnnaattee pprroocceessss for small or specialized assignments.

RReeqquueesstt ffoorrPPrrooppoossaallss

PPuurrppoossee::To obtain detailed information from the consultants invited to participate in theassignment, to enable a client to select the consultant bbeesstt ssuuiitteedd for theassignment.


Define the scope of services in sufficient detail to enable consultants to submitproject-specific proposals. Short-listed firms from the RFQ are requested to submitproposals to complete the assignment.

SSeelleecctt HHiigghheesstt--RRaannkkeedd CCoonnssuullttaanntt

Proposals should include methodology and options, design alternatives,assignment personnel, preliminary schedule, basis for fee negotiations andevaluation criteria. Fees are not a part of this step.

Proposals received, evaluated, and ranked by the owner.

DDeeffiinnee SSccooppee PPuurrppoossee:: The owner and the first-ranked consultant jointly finalize scope of services toensure a common understanding of the assignment.


Finalize an agreement on the scope of services upon which the consultant will be retained and remunerated. Scope the project in detail, review and assess optionsand innovations to be explored, lifecycle costs comparisons to be developed, theinvolvement of the consultant in project processes, approvals and documentation, etc.

NNeeggoottiiaattee FFeeeeAAggrreeeemmeenntt

PPuurrppoossee:: To negotiate consultant’s fees and how consultant will be paid based on theagreed ssccooppee ooff sseerrvviicceess and to create a supporting client-consultant agreement.


Fine-tune the scope of services and negotiate fee revisions with the consultantuntil agreement is reached on project scope and fees. Include in the negotiationhow the project’s design risk will transfer to the consultant. Consider setting out apayment schedule and provisions related to deliverables to minimizeadministrative needs.

If agreement cannot be achieved, client undertakes negotiations process with thesecond-ranked consultant. This process is continued until agreement is reached.

AAwwaarrddAAssssiiggnnmmeenntt PPuurrppoossee:: Finalize formal consulting contract for the agreed project scope and fee estimate.


Sign consulting contract-awarding assignment. Notify and thank unsuccessfulconsultants.



4. Methodology

4.2 Development

of Scope

4.3 Best Practice

Application

Considerations

Clients shouldrespect the

intellectual propertyof the proponents

and are not atliberty to mix

elements from theoffered solutions

without prioragreement of the

proponents.

Where the scope can be defined with areasonable level of effort, a variation on thepure QBS approach commonly applied is thetwo-envelope method for receiving proposals.Qualifications, experience, and past projectperformance should be the primarydeterminants in the evaluation process. Thesealed fee envelope should not be openeduntil the technical evaluation is complete. This avoids introducing a price-based bias to the evaluation process. Typically, the feeenvelope of the highest ranked firm is opened.Negotiations are undertaken with this firm ifclarification or changes to the scope ofservices are required.

Some jurisdictions currently use a processthat is purely price-based for projects wherethe scope of services is easily determined and where minimal exercise of professionaljudgment is required. Examples areassignments such as materials testing, surveylayout, traffic data gathering, water qualitytesting and similar type engagements.

4.2.3 Consultant-Developed Scope of Services

A consultant-developed scope of servicesoccurs when a client provides a statement ofa problem to be solved and invites consultantsto submit design solutions or proposals. Twomethods fall into this category: the budgetmethod and the design competition.

In the budget method the consultant definesthe work it proposes to undertake for a budgetset by the client. The client evaluates theproposals and selects the firm offering whatthe client considers to be the best value.

This is an effective method when the clienthas the technical capability to estimateaccurately the value of the project andassociated fees at the outset. Providing themunicipality has set aside sufficient funds toundertake the scope of services, the client has an opportunity to select the firm that bestdemonstrates the expertise and experiencenecessary to perform the work and whoseproposal will add the greatest value for theclient.

In the design competition method, firms areinvited to submit a conceptual design solutionand their estimated cost of completion. Theclient pays a set fee to each respondent for its conceptual solution. The client is free tochoose the concept solution it believes bestmeets their needs and will enter into acontract with this firm. Clients should respectthe intellectual property of the proponents andare not at liberty to mix elements from theoffered solutions without prior agreement ofthe proponents.

4.3 Best Practice Application Considerations

The following sections describe options thatcan be employed in the implementation of theselection methods. Many were identified bysurvey and interview respondents andadapted to suit the above practices. None are inconsistent with the implementation of the Recommended Best Practice.

4.3.1 Roster Method

The municipality invites interested consultantsto submit qualifications and experience. Itevaluates and places accepted firms on aroster, often by category of expertise. Asprojects come forward, consultants are eitheroffered assignments directly or invited torespond to a proposal call. The scope of workis established jointly followed by negotiationson remuneration. The rosters are usuallyestablished annually or biannually.

4.3.2 Standing Offer

Consultants are invited to submit qualificationsand charge out rates (or informed of the rateof remuneration, usually referencing publishedrate schedules), again annually or biannually.As projects come forward a consultant isselected from the list based on theirqualifications and experience relative to theproject. The scope is jointly established andthe consultant is awarded the assignment.Remuneration is as per the established rates.


4.3.3 Extended Partnership

An extended partnership is similar to astanding offer but is for a longer period oftime—up to five years, for example. Themunicipality identifies a consulting firm,usually multi-disciplined, that they can callupon for a broad array of work. This is usuallyeither done through an RFQ process or directlybased on past relationships. The client andfirm negotiate compensation rates with mostwork being completed on hourly charge-outrates. An upper fee limit would normally apply.

4.4 Benefits of Recommended Method

The recommended best practice providestangible benefits for the client.

4.4.1 Credible Outcomes

The use of a multidisciplinary evaluation teamwill minimize biases that might otherwise enterthe process. Evaluating qualifications andexperience in the absence of price will ensurefees do not influence the outcome.

4.4.2 Maximum Value for Client

Jointly developing the scope of services withthe top-ranked firm allows the client to drawon the consultant’s experience to develop ascope with the greatest likelihood of providingmaximum value for the client.

4.4.3 Focus on Quality

Joint scope development will ensure that theappropriate level of attention is given to qualityissues such as effective analysis of designalternatives including, lifecycle analysis,sustainability, innovative and creative ideas,and value-engineering analysis.

4.4.4 Fair and Cost-effective Outcomes

Establishing a fee for service that respondsdirectly to the mutually understood scope ofservices produces a fair and cost effectiveoutcome.

4.4.5 Development of Team

The process facilitates a sense of teamwhereby the consultant and the client worktogether to define and address the client’sneeds, removing the adversarial relationshipthat often develops in a price-dominatedprocess.

4.4.6 Risk Reduction

Risk, in the form of claims for extras to pay for changes to the scope (scope creep, fuzzyscope) can largely be reduced as a result ofthe certainty of scope achieved through thejoint development process. Claims for extrasneed only be anticipated in the circumstancewhere the client chooses to modify theagreed-upon scope.

4.5 Evaluation of Consultant Performance

Clients should evaluate consultantperformance and include the results of theseevaluations in the future selection process for other engagements. A consultant’s pastperformance is a good predictor of futureperformance and provides valuable insightinto how they undertake their responsibilities,their technical and managerial abilities, howwell they respond to the client’s needs, etc.

Consultant evaluation should:

■ Ensure that the services provided aremeeting high-level performance objectives,including that:

❍ The client’s expectations set out in theirperformance evaluation criteria havebeen met.

❍ Project targets for quality, budgeting,scheduling and forecasting wereachieved.

❍ Internal and external communicationsand citizen engagement processes weresatisfactorily carried out.

■ Provide for documented annual reviews.


4. Methodology

4.3 Best Practice

Application

Considerations

4.4 Benefits of

Recommended

Method

4.5 Evaluation of

Consultant

Performance

The use of amultidisciplinaryevaluation teamwill minimizebiases that mightotherwise enter the process.



4.5 Evaluation of

Consultant

Performance


■ Provide for reviewer training to ensureconsistency.

■ Provide feedback to the consultants.

■ Be implemented by a senior level managerin the organization and require “sign-off.”

■ Include an appeal mechanism.


5.1 Implementing the Best Practice

5.1.1 InfraGuide Best Practices

The national InfraGuide initiative hasembarked on a program to develop a series of best practices to assist municipalities withtheir ever-increasing infrastructure demands.This best practice (currently over 50)addresses municipal selection of professionalconsultants.

Municipalities and other governments areencouraged to support and implementInfraGuide’s recommended best practices.While not encouraged or supported,circumstances may require that municipalitiesforego the application of a particular bestpractice or implement it in an “incremental”fashion, gradually working towards its fullapplication as part of a larger continuousimprovement and learning cycle.

The reader is encouraged to make his/her owndetermination as to the sustainability ofapplying this and other practices given currentlocal conditions and realities.

5.1.2 The Issue of “Fees” in the Selection Process

Most government clients include arequirement for consultants to include fees intheir RFP responses. They are reluctant toundertake the technical evaluation portion ofthe process without the inclusion of fees.

Some recognize the inherent value of aqualifications-based process and havedeveloped a strategy of “moving towards” itsimplementation by gradually reducing theweighting granted to price in the process.While this strategy is not recommended, itsapplication does not diminish the value of therecommended best practice.

InfraGuide’s principles of sustainablemunicipal infrastructure recognize

that sustainability is a dynamic evolvingprocess that requires us to sustain a long-termvision, and to implement and measureprogress in a practical and incrementalfashion.

5.1.3 The Recommended Best Practice

The recommended method shifts decision-making from a price-based model to a modelfounded on finding ways to add the greatestvalue for the client. It encourages selection of consultants who are best qualified andtechnically competent to achieve value overthe asset’s lifetime.

Applying the best practice raises the quality of consulting services and helps municipalitiesidentify long-term, cost-effective solutions to their infrastructure needs. With a solidcommitment to use and follow the bestpractice, communities will reap the benefits of well-defined projects that take advantage of innovations and technical advice that willminimize lifecycle costs.

Implementation of the best practice bymunicipalities and other governments shouldinclude the following elements:

■ Formally documented and publishedprocesses.

■ A competitive process that is open,transparent, and fair.

■ Provision for meaningful stakeholderinvolvement in the development ofprocesses that impact them.

■ Lifecycle costing principles.

■ A relationship with selected consultantsthat exploits their expertise and experienceand places the consultant in the position of“trusted adviser” on the technical team.

■ Recognition of the value of innovation.

■ Performance reviews of consultants for usein future assignment evaluations.

Limitations

5.1 Implementing the

Best Practice

Applying the bestpractice raises the quality of consultingservices and helpsmunicipalitiesidentify long-term,cost-effectivesolutions to theirinfrastructureneeds.


5. Limitations


This recommended best practice is afoundation on which municipalities can build.It must be supported by actions that addressthe many challenges set out following.

5.2 Challenges

Many municipal and other governments staffmembers intellectually and philosophicallysupport a qualifications-based selectionprocess, but use price-based selectionmethods. Unless they are convinced thatprice-based selection methods have seriousshortcomings, they will not apply therecommended best practice.

A notable roadblock for those users who wantto shift to the Recommended Best Practice isthe influence exerted by non-technical staff on the consultant selection process. Other keymembers of the infrastructure service deliveryteam often drive the requirement for price tobe included in procurement processes,without consideration for the differencesbetween commodity purchases and theselection of professional services. Their role in protecting the public interest createsreluctance on the part of Policy-makers andDecision-makers to act contrary to theirrecommendations.

Elected officials, procurement staff, internalauditors/auditors general and others whodrive this requirement for price to be includedin the selection process, need to understandthe benefits of selecting professionals whowill create long-term value for the client asopposed to providing the cheapest designsolution.

This challenge was met decades ago in theUnited States with the enactment of lawsmandating the use of qualifications-basedselection methods. Given our quest to addressthe national infrastructure deficit, it would bebeneficial to have federal/provincial legislationthat establishes a qualifications-basedframework for selection of consultingservices. In the absence of legislation,leadership will have to come from elsewhere.

This leadership element will involve a widerange of groups including InfraGuide, electedofficials, staff responsible for engagingconsultants, the consultant industry andprofessional associations and organizations.All have a role to play in promoting andimplementing this best practice.

Limitations

5.1 Implementing the

Best Practice

5.2 Challenges\



A. Summary of Survey Outcomes


Appendix A: Summary of Survey Outcomes

IIssssuuee MMuunniicciippaall CCoonnssuullttaanntt CCoommmmeennttss

DISTRIBUTION OFRESPONSES

■ 27 of 60 responded.

■ Good distribution.

■ Weighted to WesternCanada.

■ 15 percent fromcommunities up to 25K.

■ 48 percent fromcommunities between25 and 150K.

■ 37 percent fromcommunities over 150K.

■ 15 of 60 responded.

■ Poor distribution.

■ Weighted to EasternCanada.

■ Survey not statisticallyrepresentative.Represents opinions ofthose who chose torespond.

SELECTION METHODSIN GENERAL

■ RFP and sole sourcemethods most oftenused.

■ Portion of weightedevaluation criteriaassigned to price =22%.

■ Personal preference ofengineers indicatesthat 41% favourqualification-basedselection and 54%favour price-basedselection

■ Price-inclusivemethods used about 60percent of the time.

■ Qualifications-basedmethods used about 40 percent of the time.

■ Qualifications-basedselection (sole andQBS) seen as 2 to 3times more likely to addvalue to client as price-inclusive processes.

■ 73% of respondents didnot feel municipalprocesses were fairand objective.

■ 6 of 15 respondentssaid that price resultsin the wrong focus.

■ Portion of weightedevaluation criteriaassigned to price: 20 to 25% .

■ 26 of 27 appear happywith RFP and solesource and 15 of 27with QBS.

■ 100% of those surveyedwere happy with pricebeing included in theevaluation process, one via a two-envelopemethod.

■ Municipal reps andconsultants “ranked”evaluation criteriasimilarly.

■ Familiarity with QBS-type methods variessignificantly betweenconsultants andmunicipalities.Consultants reported80% “very familiar”compared to 38% formunicipal. Could pointto a need for education.

■ Lowest engineeringfees come from price-inclusive methodswhich are used 60% of the time.





QBS SELECTIONMETHODS

■ 40% of municipalities arefamiliar with qualification-based selection.

■ Drawbacks quoted as: lackof familiarity; lack of politicalsupport; lack of control overfees; seeing no benefits.

■ 80% of consultants arefamiliar with qualifi-cation-based selection.

■ Barriers to broader useof QBS: lack of controlover fees, lack ofpolitical support,benefits not seen, lack ofprocess understanding.

■ Need for education?Benefits and value ofQBS not wellunderstood.

STRENGTHS ANDWEAKNESSES OFSELECTIONMETHODS

■ Fear of being takenadvantage of.

■ QBS method can be onerousfor smaller jobs.

■ QBS-type method enablesselection based on the bestteam and methodology.

■ Evaluators have to be moreknowledgeable to evaluatequalifications.

■ Sole sourcing small projectsis cost-effective.

■ Sole sourcing providesincentive to maintain long-term relationships.

■ Standing offer system up to afee value of $X using a rosterof pre-qualified firms.

■ Need a way to ensurefairness in awarding work toequally qualified consultants

■ Politicians do not alwaysunderstand why we do notjust accept the lowest price.

■ Appeal process forconsultants that have issuewith the process (not theevaluation).

■ Price becomes the maindifferentiator whenevaluators lack theexperience or the courage todifferentiate on subjectivecriteria.

■ Price-based selection resultswhen inadequate spread intechnical evaluation.

■ Price weighting resultsin minimized effortinstead of maximumvalue.

■ “Weights” can beskewed to favourlowest price.

■ Need to focus on best“value”.

■ Price removesincentive for innovation.

■ Difficult to put a priceon something that is notwell defined.

■ Two-envelope intentdefeated by “tie” andopening two envelopesor by asking forestimated levels ofeffort in envelope one.

■ Concern about“shopping” designconcepts that areinnovative.

■ Sole-source best forsmall projects.

■ Want to promoteclient/consultant as a“team”.

■ Sole-source is the best method of all.Consultant wants to do an outstanding job,and doesn’t gouge theclient because hewants to maintain theprivileged relationship.

■ Qualifications-basedyields a “trustedadvisor” relationship.

■ System may not beseen as broken, henceresistance to “fix it”.Issue is should we notalways be seekingbetter ways to dobusiness?

■ Quote “the bitterness of a poorly designedproject remains longafter the sweetness ofobtaining a low bid”.





PROCESSIMPROVEMENTS

■ 54% of municipalitiesreport that requestsfor qualifications areused to short-listprofessionalconsultants as part of the selectionprocess.

■ 53% of consultantsreport that requests forqualifications arecommonly used toshort-list professionalconsultants as part ofthe selection process.

■ 79% of consultantsrespond to RFPs wherethree or more firms are“invited”.

■ About 50% of municipalitiesuse the RFQ process as partof their selection method.Higher use of RFQ processmay be a processimprovement to consider.

■ Process is failing… money isbeing used on responding toRFPs that could be used ondoing the work.

LIFECYCLECOSTING

■ 61% of municipalitiesreport that they“Often” considerlifecycle costs whendefining the scope of work for a project.

■ 92% of municipalitiesexpect consultants to provide for theinvestigation ofinnovative andalternative solutions.

■ 73% of municipalitiessay their terms ofreference support this expectation byspecifically requiringconsultants to providefor the investigation of innovative andalternative solutions.

■ 93% report that theyare “Seldom or Never”called upon to considerlifecycle costs whendefining the scope ofwork for a project.

■ 53% report they areexpected to provide for the investigation of innovative andalternative solutions.

■ 80% report that termsof reference do notsupport thisexpectation byspecifically requiringconsultants to providefor the investigation of innovative andalternative solutions.

■ Responses conflict. Municipalresponse does not jibe withexperience of authors.

■ Everyone agrees that,generally, project costs can be minimized by theapplication of an objectiveanalysis of engineering design alternatives. Whilemunicipalities appear to expect reviews, there is alarge gap in understandingthis expectation beingreported.

■ Consultants report that half of clients expect an objectiveanalysis of alternatives butonly 20% of terms of reference“require” consultants toundertake an objectiveanalysis.

Life-cycle cost allocation:

MMuunniicc.. CCoonnss..O & M 50 58Construction 41 30Engineering 9 10

The question may have been

inappropriately worded, leading

to these percentages, which

deviate from the general wisdom.

LOBBYING ■ 60% of respondentsfind lobbying anecessary part of theselection process.




B.1 Process Issues

■ Want faster process with less paperworkthan experiencing with RFP processes.

■ With the budget method, establishing thebudget amount can be a challenge.

■ The larger the municipality, the morecommodity-based they become.

■ Cost of consulting is higher for governmentthan for private sector because of theprocesses used; proposals, negotiations,etc. all increase cost of service.

■ Qualifications-based methodologies notunderstood. Need to talk to ten clients to getone that understands the QB methodology.

■ Qualifications-based methodology is fullyendorsed and promoted by the consultingfraternity.

■ Selection processes can be manipulated tofavour fees or price.

B.2 Negotiation of Fees

■ Use Engineering Association fee guidelinesas a basis for negotiations and evaluatingproposals. If cannot reach agreement, moveto next ranked consultant.

■ In a qualifications-based methodology, feesare the result of a bilateral negotiation priorto any selection commitment being made. A second proponent is always in the wingsshould negotiations fail.

■ Need to educate consultants andmunicipalities that QBS includes price.

B.3 Scope of Work

■ A too-well-defined scope of work can limitinnovation and creativity. Municipalitiesmay have become too prescriptive.

■ Jointly developing scope and fees is a goodway to ensure both parties are on the samewavelength. Systems work best whenconsultant works with city staff to developscope. This is common practice inarchitecture.

■ Best way to get ‘value’ is to have processinclude qualifications and joint developmentof scope of work.

■ Poorly defined scope is impossible to costand creates wide variation in fees.Consultants cannot provide a valid feewithout clearly defining the project.

B.4 Relationship Issues

■ A lack of trust between municipalities andconsultants makes it difficult to getacceptance for a qualifications-basedmethodology.

■ Challenge to keep people on-board withprocess and keep politicians out of process.

B.5 Political Issues

■ Consultants often lobby city to take lowest-cost proposal because it is often in theirself-interest—e.g. keep the out-of-townersout of town!

■ Engineers and politicians have to stop using“tendering” language for consultantselection. It is very misleading.

■ Smaller communities should consider long-term relationship with consultants.

■ Problem with opening one envelope, as partof a two-envelope method is thatunsuccessful consultants can lobbypoliticians and claim they would have had alower price. This can be countered by usinga ‘team’ to evaluate.

■ Difficult to maintain a trust with thepoliticians. Price is easy to justify politically.

B.6 Price Issues

■ Local consultants prefer RFP with prices.They are local, their expenses are lowerand including price favours them.

■ Price should NOT play ANY part in designprocess.

B. Summary of Interview Key Points


Appendix B: Summary of Interview Key Points


■ Consultant fees are last thing you should beworrying about; they are a small part of thetotal costs. Focus on major costs. Must sellidea of “getting what you pay for.”

■ Price-based competition can lead toproblems. Low fees get you in the door.Often result in animosity and conflict. Canlead to court.

■ It is sometimes easier to justify contractawards based on “lowest price.”

■ Clients want to use price to cover thevariation of a poorly defined scope of work.

■ There are some areas that are not strictly a “professional” service. Might beappropriate to include price in the initialproposal for them. For example: materialstesting, traffic counting.

■ Federal government uses RFP/priceprocess; eliminating price will meet with alot of resistance.

■ Price is creeping up as a percentage of theevaluation criteria across the board.

■ No legislation requires price.

B.7 Lifecycle Issues

■ Now moving beyond lifecycle andconsidering “whole-life” costing approachthat includes the broader societal andenvironmental costs.

■ Lifecycle costing of design alternatives isseldom or never asked for. Standardmunicipal specifications imply that lifecyclecosting considerations have beenaddressed. This is a fallacy.

■ Federal government does not use lifecyclecosting.

■ RAIC has a one-day training program onlifecycle costing.

B.8 Best Practice Issues

■ Would like best practice to presentchoices…e.g. methods a, b, c, all meet bestpractice. Present testimonials of successfulprojects using qualifications-basedmethodologies and how price is included.

■ If risk transferred with signing of acommission, then little reason not tosupport a QBS-type of process. Risktransfer proposal has appeal to many. Risk transfer concept must be a part of the contract negotiation process.

■ BP should include a “Facts and Fallacies of QBS” section.

■ Have RFPs provide for three firms doingtechnical proposal. Then select the highestranked firm to complete the selectionprocess.

B.9 Implementation Issues

■ BP should stress need for education andnetworking with peers and participating inengineering functions. The proposed BP will be very helpful in education efforts.

B.10 Staff Issues and Training

■ Need to have purchasing department onside for any changes to the system.

■ Municipal generally need more training inthe area of defining scope.

■ Municipal staff noted they do not like“negotiating” as part of the qualifications-based methodology. The quality of staff andtheir job maturity is not high, resulting instaff feeling uncomfortable with negotiatingfees. Not equipped to handle positions andrelated responsibilities such asnegotiations. Could explain municipalreluctance to support qualifications-basedmethodologies.

■ Need to educate all related staff groups inthe various selection methodologies:engineering, finance, purchasing,administration and politicians.

■ Process-oriented staff may drive a moreprice-based selection policy in future,because they generally lack capacitynecessary to make complex technicaljudgments.

B. Summary of Interview Key Points



C. Table of Selection Methods


Appendix C: Table of Selection Methods

PPrraaccttiiccee:: RRFFPP wwiitthh PPrriicceess

DDeessccrriippttiioonn:: This method requires proponents to respond to a request for proposals with their firm’sexperience, key personnel and their specific experience and qualifications, proposedmethodology, references, any other relative information and their proposed fee for undertaking thework. The owner evaluates the proposals based on a pre-determined set of weighted evaluationcriteria. The evaluation process addresses the submitted fee as one of the weighted evaluationcriteria.

PPrrooss:: The evaluation process affords the client the opportunity to rank the firms based on the quality oftheir submission and the qualifications and expertise they will bring to the project.

CCoonnss:: The scope of work for engineering projects is often not well known at the outset and precludesthe joint development of a more rigorous scope, utilizing the experience of the consultant. Theconsultant is expected to provide a firm price for undertaking the work. In addition, including pricewill change the mindset from “what should be included in the proposal response to ensuremaximum value for the client” to “what is the cheapest proposal I can submit to ensure I win theassignment?”

PPrraaccttiiccee:: TTwwoo EEnnvveellooppee SSyysstteemm

DDeessccrriippttiioonn:: Consultants are requested to submit a priced proposal in two sealed envelopes. The first envelopecontains the technical proposal including corporate and key personnel qualifications,methodology, schedule and any other technical requirements of the proposal call, exclusive ofprice. The second contains the proposed fee.All proponents’ envelope ones are opened and evaluated against the evaluation criteria and arank order established. The highest ranked firm’s envelope two is then opened. Negotiations canbe conducted at this stage with the first ranked firm, leading to a binding contract. If agreementcannot be reached, negotiations are concluded with the first ranked proponent and the ownerproceeds to open envelope two of the second ranked firm. This process continues until agreementis reached. The fee proposal envelopes of the unsuccessful proponents are returned unopened assoon as an agreement has been reached.Compromises to the two envelope method include:■ Opening fee envelopes of all firms where the technical ranking of two or more firms is within

5%. The fee envelopes for all such firms are opened and the assignment awarded to the lowestpriced proposal.

■ Awarding the assignment to the firm with the lowest fee of the two highest ranked firms.

■ Establishing a “pass/fail” point based on the evaluation criteria. The fees of all firms achievingthe pass mark are scored using a formula that awards points to all the firms. The sum of the feescore and the technical evaluation score is used to determine the final ranking of the firms.

■ Conducting a technical evaluation based on weighted criteria; then opening all of the priceenvelopes and adding the price component to determine the final ranking.

PPrrooss:: Qualifications are evaluated on technical and other relevant criteria. Excluding price removes anybias that price might impart.

CCoonnss:: As in the RFP method, the scope of services is often not well known at the outset and precludesthe joint development of a more rigorous scope, utilizing the experience of the consultant. Yet theprofessional consultant is expected to provide a firm price for undertaking the work.

Opening more than one price envelope is an abuse of the two-envelope method, and changes the method to a price-based one. Methods that bring more than one price envelope into play open the method to compromise. For example: rating of the evaluation criteria to ensure minimaldifferences in the technical evaluation results in price becoming the determining factor.


C. Table of Selection Methods


PPrraaccttiiccee:: BBuuddggeett MMeetthhoodd

DDeessccrriippttiioonn:: The client requests proposals from short-listed firms and provides a budgeted figure forconsultant fees to within the terms of reference for the project. Consultants are expected torespond in a manner that takes the budgeted fee amount into consideration. Consultant selectionis based on the best quality proposal.

PPrrooss:: Knowing the budget allows a consultant to tailor the proposal accordingly. The client can choosethe proposal it feels will provide best value for the given amount of money.

CCoonnss:: If the funds are “limited” the client may not be achieving maximum value and may miss out oninvestigations that could provide long-term benefits.

PPrraaccttiiccee:: QQuuaalliiffiiccaattiioonnss--BBaasseedd SSeelleeccttiioonn ((QQBBSS))

DDeessccrriippttiioonn:: QBS is a competitive process for the procurement of professional consulting services that isbased on professional qualifications. Qualifications are submitted to an owner, who evaluates andranks the firm or individual(s) for the proposed project, based on their technical qualifications.The highest-ranked firm and the owner then jointly develop the final scope of work for theproject. Following agreement on the scope of work, the consultant is requested to submit a feefor the work as jointly established. “Negotiations” are undertaken if necessary to reach anacceptable fee. If agreement cannot be reached with the number one ranked firm, negotiationsare concluded with that firm and commenced with the second ranked firm.

PPrrooss:: Jointly developing the scope of work with the consultant affords the client the opportunity tomake use of the consultant’s expertise. It permits client and consultant to develop an intimateunderstanding of one another’s goals, objectives, needs, preferences, risk tolerance and similarconcerns before the proposal is priced. The selection process is not concluded until anagreement on price is achieved.

CCoonnss:: None

PPrraaccttiiccee:: SSoollee--SSoouurrccee

DDeessccrriippttiioonn:: An owner selects a professional consultant based on its knowledge of the consultant’s abilities,usually through previous working relationships. The scope of work is jointly established and theconsultant is either requested to submit a fee proposal based on the agreed scope or to submitcharge-out rates to be applied to hours charged.

PPrrooss:: Usually based on past performance, develops client/consultant trust, provides the opportunity todiscuss and develop scope of work to achieve optimum benefits for the client

CCoonnss:: Most often is used for relatively small assignments, phased projects or for highly specializedservices. Can lead to perception of bias in other circumstances.

Commonly used by private industry clients for design services.

PPrraaccttiiccee:: DDeessiiggnn CCoommppeettiittiioonn

DDeessccrriippttiioonn:: A small group of pre-qualified consultants are invited to participate in a design competition. Theconsultants are requested to submit a “concept design”, estimates of construction cost and theirfee proposal to complete the overall project. The design fees of all competing consultants fortheir concept designs may be paid for at cost, or the design fee for concept designs may bespecified by the owner as part of the competition terms of reference. The owner is expected toaward the project to one of the consultants based on their submission.

PPrrooss:: The client has the advantage of having a clear idea of the consultant’s proposed solution and itsexpected cost.

CCoonnss:: An expensive option only appropriate for large projects, often in combination with otherconsiderations such as design-build or design-build-operate scenarios.

PPrraaccttiiccee:: PPrriiccee NNeeggoottiiaattiioonn

DDeessccrriippttiioonn:: A small group of pre-qualified consultants are invited to participate in a project as defined by theowner. Design fees for the completion of a project are negotiated with each consultantindependently. The successful consultant is determined on the basis of lowest negotiated price.

PPrrooss:: Low price

CCoonnss:: Quality of product usually suffers as consultant has been forced to reduce its work to thecheapest level possible. Most reputable firms will not take part in a process that forces them toreduce their standards to absolute minimum.


The following documents were used in thepreparation of this best practice.

■ National Guide to Sustainable MunicicipalInfrastructure (InfraGuide). Decision Makingand Investment Planning Best Practice:Planning and Defining MunicipalInfrastructure Needs (InfraGuide, 2003),Ottawa, Ontario.

CANADIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATIONS

Association of Consulting Engineers ofCanada (ACEC),<www.acec.ca>.

■ Qualifications Based Selection.

■ Submission to the Parliamentary Secretary’sTask Force on Government-WideProcurement; October 26, 2006.

■ Letter to Honourable Scott Brison, Ministerof PWGSC, May 10, 2005.

■ Various articles concerning selection ofconsulting engineers.

■ When Building Canada, Choose Quality andAvoid False Economies. Norm Huggins,P.Eng., ACEC Chair.

■ High Cost of Cheap Design.

Canadian Council of ProfessionalEngineers (CCPE), <www.ccpe.ca>.

■ National position statement supporting QBSas the preferred selection method.

CANADIAN, PROVINCIAL CONSULTINGASSOCIATIONS

Consulting Engineers of British Columbia,<www.cebc.org>.

■ Guide to Selecting a Consulting Engineer.

■ Qualifications Based Selection (QBS).

Consulting Engineers of Alberta (CEA),<www.cea.ca>.

■ Qualifications-Based Selection System.

Consulting Engineers of Ontario (CEO)<www.ceo.on.ca>.

■ Quality-Based Selection: Ensuringengineering services provide quality andvalue.

■ Guidelines for the Selection of ConsultingEngineers.

Ontario Society of Professional Engineers(OSPE) <wwwwww..oossppee..oonn..ccaa>>..

■ Compendium of research articles formembers of QBS Task Force.

■ Revised Draft #7, February 3, 2006 — OSPEBest Practice — Selection of ProfessionalEngineering Services.

Consulting Engineers of Saskatchewan,(CES)

■ Supports qualifications-based selection.

Consulting Engineers of Manitoba (CEM)


Consulting Engineers of Nova Scotia(CENS)


Association of Consulting Engineers ofQuebec, (AICQ)


Consulting Engineers of New Brunswick(CENB)


OTHER CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS

Encon Insurance

■ Loss Control Bulletin, Derek Holloway, 2005.

References


References


Municipal Engineers Division of APEGBC

■ Selecting a Professional Consultant. A MEDBest Practice Guide, October 2005.

UNITED STATES (GOVERNMENT AND STATES)

United States government

■ Brooks Act, 1972.

Architects and Engineers ConferenceCommittee of California, (AECCC)<www.cspe.com>.

■ A guide (based on QBS) for the selection ofprofessional consulting services for publicowners. (Organization representsassociations in California for: engineeringgeologists, architects, landscape architects,geotechnical engineers, Society ofProfessional Engineers, American Societyof Civil Engineers, consulting engineers andland surveyors and structural engineers).

QBS Colorado, <www.acec-co.org>.

Detailed explanation of the use of QBS andvarious templates to be employed in theprocess.

State of Maine, <www.meqbs.org>.

■ Detailed explanation of the use of QBS andvarious templates to be employed in theprocess.

State of Wisconsin

■ Support qualifications-based selection.

Other States

■ Almost all states (47), have adoptedqualification-based selection.

UNITED STATES ASSOCIATIONS

American Council Engineering Companies(ACEC), <www.acec.org>.

■ Various documents — QBS resources pageon web site lists numerous documentsrelating to the use and promotion of QBS.

■ QBS Facilitator Grant Program.

American Public Works Association(APWA), <www.apwa.org>.

■ Policy statement supporting use of QBSprocurement methods for public bodies.

■ Selection and Use of Engineers, Architectsand Professional Consultants, Guidelines forPublic Agencies, 2nd edition.

■ QBS by Joyce Everhart Jungelaus, Editor,APWA Reporter.

National Society of ProfessionalEngineers NSPE, <www.nspe.org>.

■ Position statement—strongly supports theBrooks Act of 1972

American Institute of Architects, (AIA),<www.aia.org>.

■ Selecting Architects and Engineers forPublic Building Projects: an Analysis andComparison of the Maryland and FloridaSystems, 1985.

Polytechnic University

■ Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS), forthe Procurement of ProfessionalArchitectural/Engineering (A/E) Services inNew York City; Authors: SymeonChristodoulou, PhD; F.H. (Bud) Griffif, PhD,PE; Lisa Barrett; Max Okungdowa.

References



INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Association of Consulting Engineers ofAustralia (ACEA), <www.acea.com.au>.


Australian Council of Building DesignProfessionals (ACBDP), <www.bdp.asn.au>.

■ QBS for the Procurement of Engineeringand Management Services.

Conference on Railway Engineering. The Institution of Engineers, Australia.

■ An Asset Management Philosophy, Kennedy, J.R. (1993).

International Federation of ConsultingEngineers (FIDIC), <www.fidic.org>.

■ FIDIC Guidelines for the Selection ofConsultants, 1st Edition, 2003. Excellent sitewith plenty of material regarding comparisonof alternate methodologies, strong QBSsupport and implementation detail.

■ FIDIC News Items.

Union of International Architects (UIA)

■ Procurement policy: price-based selectionforces architects to reduce the servicesprovided to clients, which in turncompromises design quality. Endorses:design competition, QBS, direct negotiation.

The World Bank Group,<www.worldbank.org>.

■ Guidelines: Selection and Employment ofConsultants by World Bank Borrowers, May 2004.

Asian Development Bank, <www.adb.org>.

■ QCBS is the ADB’s preferred selectionmethod for consulting firms.

Royal Institute of Architects

■ Endorses qualifications-based selectionprocess.

CANADIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

City of Chilliwack, BC

■ Request for proposals (example project).

City of Coquitlam, BC

■ REIQ (example project).

City of Corner Brook, NL

■ Policy statement: Professional EngineeringConsultant Selection.

City of Hamilton, ON

■ Public Works Department professional and consultant roster.

City of Kamloops, BC

■ Consulting services procurement.

City of Kelowna, BC

■ Works and Utilities Department consultantselection process.

City of Kingston, ON

■ Evaluation criteria.

Township of Langley, BC

■ Consulting services proposal evaluationform.

City of London, ON

■ Consultant appointment policy.

City of Ottawa, ON

■ Sample—request for proposal forprofessional engineering services.

City of Port Coquitlam, BC

■ Procedure for use of request for proposalsand evaluation of proposals.

City of Port Moody, BC

■ Corporate policy re: procurement ofconsulting and professional services.

City of Richmond, BC

■ Request for proposal (example project).

References



City of Surrey, BC

■ Request for proposal (Sample).

City of Vancouver

■ Corporate Policy for Consultants—Hiring.

District of North Vancouver, BC

■ Administrative policy—Contracting forProfessional or Technical Services.

Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario

■ Various articles—Selection and approval of engineering consultants.

References



Notes


Notes


Notes


Notes


Documents

APEGBC InfraGuide Selecting Professional Consultant