Yes. Since the resulting TO awards are contracts subject to the procurement code, this means that agencies have the latitude to amend the contract within their own authority up to the lesser of 20% of the contract amount or $100,000. These limits may be exceeded by processing an Unanticipated Amendment Limitation request that would need approval by the Chief Procurement Officer.

Nothing is barring Time & Materials-type projects under the new process. T&M projects are still possible; the Task Order would simply need to state this as part of the scope of work. The resulting TO contract is then subject to normal procurement code rules regarding unanticipated amendments – i.e. if the estimated number of hours needs to be increased, it can be done as long as the additional work is still within scope.

The choice of “low price” vs. “best value” is completely up to the agency.

This is a matter of “reasonable” fragmentation vs. artificial fragmentation. That is fine if it’s reasonable to split a project into multiple parts, like separate TOs for designing and building. However, this is not allowed if a project is artificially split into multiple parts to circumvent more stringent procurement rules.

In the case of project continuity, selecting a vendor based solely on this is not allowed even under the current process. However, it would be possible under the new process to indicate that higher scores will be given to those vendors who can demonstrate experience with a specific system. However, if you are intending to complete a project in phases and those phases are foreseeable and predictable, I would advise that the entire project be done under one TO or, if that would exceed the $500,000 limit, it be done as a formal procurement.

A phasing approach is still possible under the new process.
If you can foresee and predict phases to a project, this is something that should be incorporated into one agreement in any case, whether as a TO or a normal, competitive solicitation. Language can be included that isolates each phase and makes the execution of each phase at the sole discretion of the state.

The requesting agency is responsible for determining how the evaluation will be conducted. It can be performed by a single person, i.e. procurement lead, IT manager, project manager, or the department may convene an evaluation committee of at least 3 members.

IT managers would not need to become procurement experts. At the most, and this would be determined by the user agency, an IT manager may need to be familiar with evaluating proposals or facilitating an evaluation committee. The best value process that has been developed, which would replace the current Mini-RFP process, is completely forms-based, the evaluation criteria have already been defined, and the scoring system is intuitive and easy to apply. The responses will be no more than 5 pages each, with only 4 of those needing to be evaluated subjectively.

The idea behind removing the categories is that a vendor currently has the opportunity to go out and secure resources if they do not have any available or on-staff for a particular skill. Now all vendors will have the opportunity to compete for all work, supplementing staff as required/necessary.

This is not legal under normal procurement rules and will likewise not be tolerated under the new process.

Selecting someone for a quote that you know cannot do the work or does not want the job is not a genuine attempt at soliciting competition and is, in fact, dishonest and illegal.

Yes. To reduce the number of transactions between the agency, vendor, and Task Order Manager, and speed up the overall process, TO requests will no longer need signatures. When they come from an authorized department employee, it will be assumed that all necessary internal approvals have already been obtained. Likewise, a vendor’s response to a TO request will not need to be signed. The only signatures will occur 1) when a vendor registers for the vendor pool and 2) when a TO is ultimately awarded on a Standard Agreement Form.

Contractual details, such as an agreement to the State of Alaska’s standard terms and conditions, insurance and indemnity language, contact details, business licensing, etc., would be established once upon registration in the vendor pool under the new system.

The only unique items that would be incorporated into the resulting TO contract are the same as what goes into a current TO: scope of work, length of the term, cost, and payment arrangements.

Yes. If vendors have questions about a TO request, they should be directed in writing via e-mail to the TO Manager, citing the TO number the questions pertain to. The TO Manager will then pass the question(s) along to the agency’s Project Manager for answers. All questions and answers will be available to the Vendor Pool.

Registered TOPS vendors will be notified of a new TO requests via direct email.

Resumes are no longer required, though information taken from resumes may be used in the Experience & Qualifications field provided the information doesn’t contain identifying information.

It will be up to the Agency to verify individual resources before award.

No, though this kind of information could be requested as verification before award.

Yes. Agencies may require verification of information prior to start of work.

No. However, the TO Manager may reject responses that appear to have excessive use of subcontractors. The TOPS Registration Form requires vendors to certify that they will perform a majority of the work assigned as a result of the TOPS process.

Yes, provided all joint venture entities qualify as Alaska Bidders per AS 36.30.170(b).

Yes.

The TOPS process uses the small procurement protest procedures for all TOs, regardless of dollar amount.

The rate must include all costs associated with completing the TO as stated, including travel costs.

For instance, if Resource 1 will perform 100 hours of work at $100/hr ($10,000 extended cost), Resource 2 will perform 50 hours of work at $75/hr ($3,750 extended cost), and $1,000 in airfare and lodging costs is anticipated, the rate would be $98.33/hr (sum of extended costs and travel divided by 150 hours). The not-to-exceed amount would be $14,750 (hourly rate multiplied by the total number of hours).

This would depend on the question and what constitutes “timely” with regard to the quoting period. At this point it is not anticipated that an extension would be automatic, but that may change after TOPS is implemented.

All TO’s will have a single, all-inclusive hourly rate (see question 22 above), an estimated number of hours needed to complete the work, and an extended cost that will become the not-to-exceed amount of the resulting contract. If a “time & materials”-type of pricing is needed, the not-to-exceed amount simply becomes a ceiling, and work is billed at the hourly rate until that ceiling is hit, at which point an unanticipated amendment may be processed to add more funding to the contract.

The TOPS Request Form has been modified with a field requiring the Agency to enter a maximum number of hours for “time & material” type projects so that all vendors compete solely on their hourly rate.

Correct. If a vendor meets the conditions on the registration form, they will be allowed to register.

The same limits that currently apply to task orders remain in effect, i.e. $500,000 unless approval is given by the Chief Procurement Officer to exceed that amount.

Yes.