RFP/RFQ

Question #1: The advertisement includes the following statement: “a Consultant may be disqualified from a future procurement if the Consultant obtained material nonpublic information through its Advance Delivery Team work and gained an unfair competitive advantage as a result”. Can you confirm if PAG/RTA will publish the deliverables of this contract in their website? If that’s the case, can you provide examples of material non-public information that would disqualify the consultant from future procurements?

Answer: The intent is to make the results publicly available as needed and appropriate.  However, at this time a determination has not been made regarding what forum/format the various deliverables and information will be shared.  Also, we have not envisioned what types of information and/or analysis would be considered not suitable for public release but will work closely with the selected team and partner jurisdictions to ensure efforts and activities don’t create situations that may lead to preclusion of firms/team from future procurements.

Question #3: We are seeking clarification regarding the following statement: “Participation in the Advance Delivery Team does not disqualify a Consultant from related future RTA, Pima Association of Governments, or member-jurisdiction procurements. However, a Consultant may be disqualified from a future procurement if the Consultant obtained material nonpublic information through its Advance Delivery Team work and gained an unfair competitive advantage as a result.”  To help ensure alignment and informed participation, we respectfully request clarification on the following:

3.1. Applicability in Contract Documents

Could you please confirm whether this policy is expected to be reflected in the Advance Delivery Team contract or other procurement documents? If so, any guidance on where it will be addressed would be appreciated.

Answer: The disqualification statement is intended to provide awareness to prospective submitters and do not anticipate needing to incorporate this into the responses, proposals, or future contract documents.

3.2. Understanding “Material Nonpublic Information”

It would be helpful to better understand how RTA is generally interpreting “material nonpublic information” in this context, including any typical examples or criteria used to evaluate materiality.

3.3. Evaluation Approach

We would appreciate any additional insight into how determinations may be made regarding:

Whether such information has been obtained; and

Whether it could result in an unfair competitive advantage.

Any information on the general approach or process would be helpful for planning purposes.

3.4. Role of Public Information Sharing

If information developed through Advance Delivery Team activities is later shared broadly (for example, through published assessments or reports), could you provide guidance on how that may factor into considerations of competitive advantage?

3.5. Coordination Across Jurisdictions

Since the statement references RTA, PAG, and member jurisdictions, any information on how this approach is coordinated or applied across agencies would be appreciated.

Answer: In response to items 3.2 through 3.5: The intent is to make results and products publicly available as needed and appropriate.  However, at this time a determination has not been made regarding what forum/format the various deliverables and information will be shared.  Also, we have not envisioned what types of information and/or analysis would be considered not suitable for public release but will work closely with the selected team and partner jurisdictions to ensure efforts and activities don’t create situations that may lead to preclusion of firms/team from future procurements.