||Authorization for all agencies for projects using state funds
||Alaska Stat. §36.30.200
||Competitive sealed proposals if appropriate findings are made; otherwise, competitive sealed bids
||Authorization for: State Transportation Board; pilot projects by DOT
||Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§28-7361, 7363, 7364 and 7365
||2 phase process: pre-qualification then proposal; award is to lowest score when price is divided by technical score; time valued adjustments may be made to score
||Authorization for transit agencies, certain cities and counties
||Cal. Pub. Cont. Code §§20209.5 and 20133
||Authorization for DOT
||Colo. Rev. Stat. §§43-1-1401 et seq.
||2 phase process: pre-qualification then proposal; any appropriate basis for award if basis is described in RFP;; award is to proposal providing best value to department
||Public-private initiative authorization allowing authorization for Secretary to solicit design-build proposals
||Del. code Ann. tit. 2, §2003
||Proposals solicited through RFP; Department authorized to assess non-refundable proposal review fee not to exceed $50,000; each proposal weighed on its own merits and ranked according to selection criteria; only highest ranking proposal shall be selected.
||Authorization for DOT for buildings, major bridges and rail corridor projects
||Fla. Stat. Ann. §337.11(7)
||Governed by rules adopted by Department (specifically allows short listing, request for proposals and award based on technical criteria)
||Authorization for all governmental bodies to use competitive sealed proposal procurement process
||Haw. Rev. Stat. §103D-303
||Allows discussions with offerers within competitive range, award to most advantageous offer
||Legislation stating that State agencies are not prohibited from using design-build
||Idaho Code §67-2309
||Specific authorization for Regional Transportation Authorities
||70 Ill. Comp. Stat. 3615/4.06(b)(2)
||Authorization for turnpike authority Attorney General has opined that design-build may be possible for other agencies as well
||Kan. Stat. Ann. §§68-2001 et seq.
Op. Kan. Att'y Gen. 62 (1978)
||Authorization for DOT to implement a design-build pilot program for the development of transportation facilities
||La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48:250.2 et seq.
||Two phase selection process. Short-listing based upon Qualification Submittals Contract award based on a formula using the sum of proposer's price bid plus schedule value divided by its technical score.
||Authorization for DOT
||Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, §753-A
||Low-bid award or best-value award. Best value award should be submitted to the department in two components - technical and sealed price proposal
||Authorization for capital projects Has been used for light rail
||Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc. §3-602(g)(1)
||Authorization for Department of Highways to enter into Development Agreement for Route 3 North Authorization for Mass Bay Transportation Authority
||1999 Mass. Acts 53, 56
2000 Mass. Acts 125
|Pre-qualification, request for proposals, possibly oral presentation; award to developer who best meets the selection criteria for the benefit of the Commonwealth; selection of other than lowest-overall-cost is allowed if a written explanation of the reasons is given
||Authorization for streets, highways, bicycle paths, bicycle trails and pedestrian facilities, light rail transit facilities and DOT projects
||Minn. Stat. Ann. §473.3993
Minn. Stat. Ann. §160.262
Minn. Stat. Ann. §161.3410
|DOT authorized to procure design-build contracts using either a two-step, best-value selection process or a low-bid process, not to exceed 10 percent of DOT contracts each year; light rail contracts may be awarded on the basis of the RFQ or RFP without bids
||Authorization for DOT to use alternative procurement process
||Mont. Code Ann. §60-2-112
||Award by means other than competitive bidding is allowed if special circumstances so require and are specified in writing
||Authorization for public bodies and DOT for projects that exceed $30,000,000 may also be used for projects over $5,000,000.00 that meet certain criteria.
||Nev. Rev. Stat. §§338.1711-338.1727 and 408.3875-408.3887 (effective until Sept.30, 2003)
||Request for preliminary proposals followed by issuance of request for final proposals to "finalists"; award based on most cost effective and responsive proposal using criteria and weight assigned to each factor. Preference for local contractors if not federally funded
||Projects authorized to use design-build by the State capital budget
||N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §228:4(I)(f)
||Selection to be based on objective standard, measurable criteria for evaluation
||Authorization for Highway Department pilot program
||1999 N.M. Laws ch. 97, §1; N.M. Stat. Ann. §§13-1-111 and 13-1-119.1
||Two-phase process: shortlisting followed by evaluation of technical cost proposals schedule. Phase Two: proposals evaluated on technical concepts or solutions, costs and scheduling; awarded to highest ranking firm.
||Authorization for DOT to enter into design-build-warrant contract for "CARAT" traffic management system Authorization for DOT pilot projects (1998, 3 projects per year; law changed in 2002 - 10 projects allowed in 2003, 25 projects annually from 2004 through 2009) Authorization for Turnpike Authority to use alternative procurement process
||N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-28.1(j); 1997 N.C. Sess. Laws 443, §32.11 H.B. 644, 2001 Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2001)
||Authorization for DOT pilot program
||Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5517.011
||Allows value based selection process combining technical qualifications and competitive bidding elements; two phase process, pre-qualification then separate technical and price proposals; scored tech proposal weighed at 25% or less of value based criteria; technical scores used to adjust price, award to finalist with lowest adjusted price
||Authorization for DOT tollway projects
||Or. Rev. Stat. §383.005
||Department may award any (tollway) contract under a competitive process or by private negotiation or any combination of competition and negotiation; factors considered are: cost, design quality, structural integrity/maintenance, aesthetics, traffic, safety, small business participation, financial stability & experience
||Authorization for Department of General Services
||62 PA. Cons. Stat. §§103 and 322(2)
||General authorization for public corporations
||S.D. Codified Laws §5-18-26
||Performance criteria on a project by project basis (assuming the DOT is a "public corporation")
||Authorization for state agencies and authorities--specifically excludes DOT contracts
||Tenn. Code Ann. §§4-15-102 and 12-10-124
||Development agreement authorization for Texas Turnpike Authority (a division of TxDOT)
||Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §361.302
||Authorization for transportation agencies including the DOT
||Utah Code Ann. §63-56-36.1; Utah Admin. Code R916-3
||2 phase process, pre-qualification then proposals; after considering price and other identified factors, award is to proposal which is most advantageous to the state
||General authorization for state agencies, specific authorization for VDOT
||Va. Code Ann. §§11-41 et seq. and 33.1-12
||Award based on objective criteria adopted by Commonwealth Transportation Board
||Authorization for DOT for projects over $10m; authorization for other public bodies for projects over $12m
||Wash. Rev. Code §§39.10.051 (effective until July 1, 2007) and 47.20.780
||DOT to "develop a process for awarding competitively bid highway construction projects."
||Special legislation is required for the use of D/B. 2 Bridge projects have been allowed to date since 2000.
||Wis. Stat. Ann. §§84.11(5n) et seq.
||2 phase competitive selection process; pre-qualification then proposals; evaluation criteria must include qualifications, quality, completion time and cost.