When the commission in its sole discretion deems it appropriate to do so given the nature of the proposal, the commission may specify requirements for proposal content, and for criteria and procedures under which the proposals will be evaluated and selected, that are in addition to or in lieu of those provided for in WAC 468-600-240 through 468-600-370. Any alternative process or processes so specified must comply with the requirements of RCW 47.29.010 through 47.29.290. Examples of possible alternative processes include:

(1) Selecting a proposal for development into a final agreement based on a unitary proposal instead of a two-step conceptual/detailed proposal process; and

(2) Proposers are ranked and selected based on the qualifications of the major partners, major subcontractors and key persons, which would result in a predevelopment agreement being entered into that authorizes the proposer to fully develop a detailed proposal that would be evaluated pursuant to WAC 468-600-350.

(3) Nothing in this section, nor in these WAC rules, shall be construed to allow proposer conduct or participation in a project that would be prohibited under the Federal Highway Administration's Conflict of Interest Guidelines.

These examples are offered for illustrative purposes only, and should not be construed to limit the scope of the state's discretion or authority to develop proposal and evaluation criteria and processes for any project as long as those criteria and processes comply with the requirements of RCW 47.29.010 et seq.