Date:   November 15, 2005

Time:   3:00 P.M.

Location:   Wis. Department of Administration Building
  101 East Wilson Street
  First Floor, St. Croix Conference Room
  Madison, Wisconsin

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are also urged to submit facts, opinions and arguments in writing as well. Written comments from persons unable to attend the public hearing, or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing, should be directed to: Donna Sorenson, Department of Administration, P.O. Box 7864, Madison, WI 53707-7864. Written comments must be received by November 29, 2005, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Statutes interpreted: ss. 16.85, 16.855 and 16.87, Stats.

Statutory authority: ss. 16.004 (1) and 16.855 (15), Stats.

Pursuant to s. 16.85, Stats., the Wisconsin Department of Administration is responsible for the supervision of all engineering, architectural services or construction work performed by, or for, the state in the construction and acquisition of new buildings or improvements and additions to existing buildings.

None applicable.

The department proposes amending Chs. Adm 20 and 21, regarding the department's requirements for architect/engineer services solicitation and construction contracting.

Proposed revisions to ch. Adm 20 raise dollar threshold minimums for the architect/engineer selection committee for large projects and allow an additional owner agency voting member on the committee.

Section Adm 20.02 and 21.02, definitions are rewritten and reordered for clarification and consistency with administrative rule writing procedures.

Proposed revisions to Adm 20.03, 20.08 and 20.09 allow new or additional delegation and signature authority as a process improvement.

Sections Adm 20.05, 20.06 and 20.08 are revised to recognize current business practices with regard to department project advertising and solicitation via the department's official website, again as a method of process improvement as well as industry standard.

Proposed Adm 20.04 has raised a threshold dollar level for selection committee interviews to $5,000,000 reflecting the increases in construction costs over the last two decades and to more accurately reflect the typical size and complexity of projects requiring architect/engineer interviewing. Raising the threshold also provides more opportunity for Wisconsin architects/engineers to increase their experience portfolio of larger projects.

The proposed rule in s. Adm 21.02 further allows for the department to determine that a bidder is unqualified based on noncompliance with other agency requirements and also requires responsible bidders to have an established safety program.

The proposed rule amends s. Adm 21.09 to permit greater department latitude in negotiating deductive changes with the lowest construction bidder(s) for better project budget management.

Other sections provide for non-substantive changes reflecting architect, engineer or project information submittal requirements necessary for department processing of projects.

Several other sections reflect administrative rule revisions required for consistency with statutes and recent statutory changes regarding dollar thresholds for project approvals and required signatures in project approvals.

The State of Wisconsin utilizes Qualifications-Based Selection for architectural and engineering services for State projects. The federal government in 1972 passed The Brooks Act requiring federal government agencies to utilize Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) for federal projects. This act requires the following for federal projects: 1) Statements of qualifications from architect/engineer firms; 2) Evaluation of statements by evaluation boards; 3) Interviews with firms after short-listing top firms; and 4) Ranking and subsequent negotiation with the top ranked firm.

Since the passage of the Brooks Act, 45 other states have passed similar Qualifications-Based Selection criteria for architectural and engineering services and have applied these types of requirements for public works and in some cases private commercial projects.

The State of Wisconsin administrative code chapter Adm 20, Selecting and Contracting Architect/Engineer Services is consistent with The Brooks Act and has been in place since last revision in 1979. This administrative rule change seeks to update rules for current business practices as well as more consistent dollar threshold values.

A review of neighboring states indicates Minnesota and Michigan utilize website project solicitation with differing thresholds. Minnesota threshold for selection is $2,000,000, Michigan threshold is $1,000,000, Illinois threshold is $250,000 also with a qualifications-based architect/engineer selection process. Minor differences in the rules from state to state exist in committee makeup and other threshold values. All utilize and recognize website project posting.

The current rule has been in existence since 1979 with little or no updating. The inflation index and increasing costs of services has created a condition in which the 1979 threshold level is approximately 50% of where it should be. This has created a condition requiring excessive oversight of smaller dollar value projects.

Business practices since 1979 have also radically changed. This proposed rule change reflects current practices such as electronic and web based advertisement, electronic document exchange and acceptance and electronic notifications. This will enhance the construction of state projects and speed up the processing of construction documents. Most other states as well as the Federal government utilize electronic advertising of projects as well as electronic document exchange.

$408,000 est. annual savings.

Waiving 3 of the 4 requirements of s. 20.02 (4) will provide more flexibility and opportunities for small, Wisconsin-based architect/engineering firms to submit their qualifications and provide services and establish a performance evaluation for smaller projects. Waiver is permissive in that making a selection of those projects with greater risk can still be evaluated using all of the requirements.

Approximately $17,000 per interview per firm multiplied by approximately 6 interviews per year is the estimated savings by increasing the threshold to $5 million in the interview process. Typically, four firms are invited to interview. Likewise, Wisconsin architects/engineers can more easily qualify for $5 million projects by making it easier to be selected for projects of 50% of the size ($5 million). Currently, if a firm cannot meet the experience requirement of 50% of the size, the firms will partner with an out-of-state firm to meet the qualification.

Moving toward more electronic notifications requires firms to have computers with internet access or access those locations which provide public internet service for free or a nominal charge. Costs incurred for this are offset by eliminating manual paper processing of documents and creating more efficiency and timeliness for consultants to learn about projects and show interest in those projects they are most qualified for. Also, web advertising is visible to a greater number of potentially qualified design candidates and allows for confidential letters of interest to be read only by those staff most involved with the project allowing opportunity for dialogue.

The department does not foresee any negative impact on small businesses. As indicated in item number 10, given the less restrictive requirements, added access to the department via other media and changes in dollar thresholds, the department foresees a positive impact.

Donna Sorenson

Department of Administration

(608) 266-2887

Donna.sorenson@.doa.state.wi.us

SECTION 1. Adm 20.02 is repealed and recreated to read:

Adm 20.02 Definitions. In this chapter:

(1) “Approval" means the written or electronic procedure for evaluation and acceptance.

(2) “Architect/engineer" means a member of the design profession, registered under ch. 443, Stats. and is meant to refer to either an architect or an engineer, whichever is appropriate. The term shall apply to an individual or firm which provides architectural or engineering services, or both, and is not intended to impose the requirement of both registrations on an individual or individuals within a design firm.

(3) “Architect/engineer data record form" means a form upon which architects/engineers shall provide specific data requested by the department which will facilitate evaluation of architect/engineer eligibility, performance capabilities, experience, personnel and staff and statistics on past and present projects.

(4) “Architect/engineer proposal" means those documents submitted by an architect/engineer, indicating interest in providing professional services to the state for a specific project. The documents may include a fully executed architect/engineer data record form, a tentative schedule to include the method and staff that would be employed to meet the requirements of the proposed projects and such other materials as requested by the selection committee in the advertisement for architect/engineer proposals.

(5) “Department" means the department of administration. This also includes any organizational entity of the department of administration, which is assigned the responsibility for providing and supervising the architectural and engineering services performed by, or for, the state, as provided for in s. 16.85, Stats.

(6) “Eligible architect/engineer" means an architect/ engineer who meets or exceeds the following criteria in order to be considered by the selection committee for a project:

(a) Has more than one architect/engineer as a responsible member of the firm.

(b) Has been in business for a period of not less than 3 years.

(c) Has a permanent office within Wisconsin, where responsible direction of all services will be based. Out-of-state firms will be considered when the selection committee determines there are no Wisconsin firms qualified or available to provide the services required.

(d) Has been responsible for the design and substantial completion of a similar project with a total construction cost or size of at least 50% as large as the construction cost or size of the project under consideration.

(e) For projects less than $1,000,000 or when it becomes apparent to the selection committee that a project is of such a size or has such unique characteristics that special architect/engineer project responsibility is warranted, the selection committee, by vote, may set appropriate standards of acceptability different from pars. (a), (b) and (d).