In addition to the debate over unsolicited proposals, there are other important aspects of the procurement process that must be established with clarity to encourage private-sector interest in a highway PPP project. For example, many states (including Florida and Virginia) have laws, regulations, or internal guidelines that specify the evaluation criteria used to evaluate PPP proposals received under a given procurement approach. These criteria often include technical quality, innovation, and price. Moreover, it is important to specify the structure of the review and evaluation process and the identity of the participants in that process. For example, some jurisdictions will establish review committees that include representatives from a cross section of interested stakeholders within the sponsoring public agency.
The fairness and transparency of the procurement process is one of the elements most critical to the success of a highway PPP. Any perceived unfairness, lack of transparency, or uncertainty in the procurement process will undermine general public support for a PPP transaction and will make it difficult for private-sector bidders to have confidence in the process. There also should be sufficient flexibility in the procurement process to allow innovative project delivery and financing approaches to be submitted and evaluated by the project sponsor. Certain procurement techniques, such as competitive RFQs and RFPs, qualifications review followed by an evaluation of "best value," or some combination of those techniques, are more appropriate for different types of project structures. To eliminate confusion, any legislation authorizing procurement methodologies specific to PPP transactions should make it clear which sections of the general procurement code may still be applicable. The USDOT Model Legislation ad-dresses this issue by explicitly providing that a state's general procurement code does not apply to any proposals received under the PPP legislation.196 Several states (including Colorado,197 Delaware,198 Oregon,199 and Vir-ginia200) provide explicit exemptions from the application of the state's general procurement laws.
_________________________________________________________________________
196 USDOT Model Legislation at § 1-102(a), 1-103(a), available at http://www.apta.com/about/committees/public_private/documen ts/legis_model.pdf.
197 Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1-1201-1209, 43-4-801-812, 43-3-201-43-3-416.
198 Del. Code Ann. tit. 2 § 2003.
199 Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 383.005 et seq.
200 Va. Code. Ann. §§ 2.2-4303, 2.2-4306, 33.1-12.