(a)

1. (1) For most D-B projects, the short-list proposers will be required to submit a proposal which is comprised of a technical proposal and price proposal.
2. (2) These documents should be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Transportation in separate sealed packages.
3. (3) The technical proposal for each short-list proposer should be evaluated first while the price proposal is held unopened in a secure location.
4. (4) At the completion of the technical proposal evaluation for all short-list proposers and when all technical scores are compiled, only then should the price proposals be opened.
5. (5) After the price proposals are all opened, the fixed maximum price (FMP) for each proposal is recorded and the SOV reviewed and evaluated.
6. (6) The technical proposal and the price proposal for each proposal will then be combined and the DPT will calculate the adjusted price.
7. (7) A comparison of each short-list proposer’s adjusted price will determine the apparent best value for the project and the preferred short-list proposer, the design-builder.

(b)

1. (1) During the proposal evaluation, the Arkansas Department of Transportation may wish to obtain additional information concerning a specific portion of a proposal.
2. (2) In such case, the Arkansas Department of Transportation, through the DPT, may issue a formal department request for clarification (DRFC) to the respective short-list proposer to allow a proposal clarification to address a specific area or portion of the proposal that is unclear to the PET.
3. (3) The DRFC should be focused on a specific area in the proposal and not a general question or reflect a comprehensive issue within the proposal which impacts major or multiple sections.
4. (4) The responses should be brief and considered an addendum to the original proposal and the Arkansas Department of Transportation should not allow the resubmission of major sections of the proposal to address the issue.
5. (5) The Arkansas Department of Transportation is not obligated to request the additional information and while the implementation of this process should be minimized to avoid any potential protests, it may be considered in an effort to fairly evaluate the proposals and, in particular, to avoid classifying the respective proposal as nonresponsive and rejecting the submittal.