DAR File No. 38976

Administrative Services, Purchasing and General Services

Rule R33-7

Request for Proposals

Notice of Proposed Rule

(Amendment)

DAR File No.: 38976
Filed: 11/24/2014 03:23:48 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of this amendment is to continue the update of this rule.

Summary of the rule or change:

The changes add criteria for a the evaluation of proposals.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Title 63G, Chapter 6a

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

There is no anticipated affect. This is simply adding to criteria of how an evaluation team is to evaluate a proposal.

local governments:

There is no anticipated affect. This is simply adding to criteria of how an evaluation team is to evaluate a proposal.

small businesses:

There is no anticipated affect. This is simply adding to criteria of how an evaluation team is to evaluate a proposal.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

There is no anticipated affect. This is simply adding to criteria of how an evaluation team is to evaluate a proposal.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There are no compliance costs. This is simply adding to criteria of how an evaluation team is to evaluate a proposal.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

This rule addition does not have a fiscal impact on businesses.

Kimberly Hood, Executive Director

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Administrative Services
Purchasing and General Services
Room 3150 STATE OFFICE BLDG
450 N STATE ST
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-1201

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Alan Bachman at the above address, by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by Internet E-mail at [email protected]

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

01/14/2015

This rule may become effective on:

01/21/2015

Authorized by:

Kent Beers, Director

R33. Administrative Services, Purchasing and General Services.

R33-7. Request for Proposals.

R33-7-501. Evaluation of Proposals.

(1) The evaluation of proposals shall be conducted in accordance with Part 7 of the Utah Procurement Code.

(2) An evaluation committee may ask questions of offerors to clarify proposals provided the questions are submitted and answered in writing. The record of questions and answers shall be maintained in the file.

(3)(a) The evaluation of cost in an RFP shall be based on the entire term of the contract, excluding renewal periods.

(b) Unless an exception is authorized in writing by the chief procurement officer or head of a procurement unit with independent procurement authority, cost should not be divided or evaluated on any other basis than the entire term of the contract, excluding renewal periods.

(c) Whenever practicable, the evaluation of cost should include maintenance and service agreements, system upgrades, apparatuses, and other components associated with the procurement item.

 

R33-7-501a. Minimum Score Thresholds.

(1) An executive branch conducting procurement unit shall establish minimum score thresholds to advance proposals from one stage in the RFP process to the next, including contract award.

(2) Minimum score thresholds must be set forth in the RFP and clearly describe the minimum score threshold that proposals must achieve in order to advance to the next stage in the RFP process or to be awarded a contract.

(3)(a) Thresholds may be based on:

(i) Minimum scores for each evaluation category;

(ii) The total of each minimum score in each evaluation category based on the total points available; or

(iii) A combination of (i) and (ii).

(b) Thresholds may not be based on:

(i) A natural break in scores that was not defined and set forth in the RFP; or

(ii) A predetermined number of offerors.

 

R33-7-701a. Cost-Benefit Analysis.

(1) A cost-benefit analysis conducted under Utah Code 63G-6a-708 shall be based on the entire term of the contract, excluding any renewal periods.

 

R33-7-703. Evaluation Committee Procedures for Scoring Criteria Other Than Cost.

(1)(a) In accordance with Utah Code 63G-6a-704, the conducting procurement unit shall conduct an initial review of any applicable pass/fail minimum requirements set forth in the RFP to determine whether proposals are responsive and responsible or in violation of the Utah Procurement Code prior to submitting proposals to the evaluation committee. Examples of pass/fail minimum requirements include:

(i) Timeliness of receipt of proposals

(ii) Qualifications;

(iii) Certifications;

(iv) Licensing;

(v) Experience;

(vi) Compliance with State or Federal regulations;

(vii) Services provided;

(viii) Product availability;

(ix) Equipment;

(x) Other pass/fail minimum requirements set forth in the RFP.

(b) The evaluation committee may not evaluate proposals deemed non-responsive, nonresponsible or disqualified for violations of the Utah Procurement Code under (1)(a).

(c) In accordance with Utah Code 63G-6a-704, an evaluation committee may, after the initial pass/fail review by the conducting procurement unit or at any time during the RFP process, reject a proposal if it is determined that the person submitting the proposal is not responsible or the proposal is not responsive.

(2) In accordance with Utah Code 63G-6a-707, the evaluation committee shall evaluate each responsive and responsible proposal that has not been disqualified from consideration under the provisions of this chapter, using the criteria described in the request for proposals using the following procedures:

(a) Prior to the scoring of proposals, a procurement officer from the issuing procurement unit will meet with the evaluation committee and any staff that will have access to the proposals to:

(i) discuss the evaluation and scoring process to ensure that each committee member has a clear understanding of the scoring process and how points will be assigned;

(ii) discuss requirements regarding conflicts of interests, the appearance of impropriety, and the importance of confidentiality;

(iv) discuss the scoring sheet and evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP; and

(v) provide a copy of Administrative Rule R33-7-703 to the evaluation committee and any staff that will have access to the proposals.

(b) Once the proposals have been received and it is clear which offerors are involved in the RFP process, all members of the evaluation committee must sign a written statement certifying that they do not have a conflict of interest as set forth in Utah Code 63G-6a-707 and administrative rule R33-24-107

(3) Unless an exception is authorized by the head of the issuing procurement unit, in order to avoid cost influencing the evaluation committee's scoring of non-price criteria, in accordance with Utah Code 63G-6a-707, costs may not be revealed to the evaluation committee until after the committee has finalized its scoring on all other technical non-price criteria in the RFP.

(4) After receipt of proposals, each committee member shall independently, as described in R33-7-705, read and score each proposal based on the technical non-price criteria set forth in the RFP to assess the completeness, quality, and desirability of each proposal.

(a) proposals must be evaluated solely on the stated criteria listed in the RFP.

(i) past performance ratings and references may be considered if listed as evaluation criteria in the RFP;

(ii) personal bias based on prior experience with a procurement item or the offeror cannot be considered in scoring proposals, except as provided in the RFP;

(iii) personal favoritism for a vendor or bias against a vendor cannot be considered in scoring proposals; and

(iv) subsections (ii) and (iii) shall not be construed to prevent a committee member from having a bias based on their review of a proposal in regard to the criteria in the solicitation. Evaluators are encouraged to request technical support from the conducting procurement unit or the issuing procurement unit when conducting their independent assessments and scoring.

(a) any request for technical support shall be submitted in writing to the conducting procurement unit or the issuing procurement unit.

(b) After the proposals have been evaluated and scored by individual committee members, the entire committee shall meet to discuss the proposals, if applicable conduct interviews, resolve any factual disagreements, and arrive at the final scoring. All committee members must be present to take any official action.

(i) If a committee member does not attend an evaluation committee meeting, the member shall be removed from the evaluation committee and the remainder of the committee may proceed with the evaluation, provided there are at least three evaluation committee members remaining.

(c) During committee discussions, each member may change their initial scoring. If additional information or clarification is needed from an offeror, the committee may, with approval by the issuing procurement unit, request information or clarification from an offeror. Such request will only be approved if it can be done in a manner that is fair to all offerors.

(d) At any time during the evaluation process, the evaluation committee may, with the approval of the issuing procurement unit, request best and final offers from responsible and responsive offerors and evaluate those offers in accordance with Utah Code 63G-6a-708 and Administrative Rule R33-7-601.

(e) Each evaluation committee member shall turn in a completed scoring sheet, signed and dated by the evaluation committee member.

(5) The evaluation committee may tally the final scores for criteria other than cost to arrive at a consensus score by the following methods:

(a) total of all of the points given by individual committee members; or

(b) an average of the individual scores.

(6) The evaluation shall submit its final recommended scores for all criteria other than cost to the issuing procurement unit.

(7) The issuing procurement unit shall follow the procedures set forth in Utah Code 63G-6a-707(5) pertaining to the following:

(a) reviewing the evaluation committee's final recommended scores for each proposal for all criteria other than cost;

(b) scoring cost based on the applicable scoring formula; and

(c) calculating the total combined score for each responsive and responsible proposal.

(8) The evaluation committee and the conducting procurement unit shall prepare the cost justification statement and any applicable cost-benefit analysis in accordance with Utah Code 63G-6a-708.

(9) The issuing procurement unit's role as a non-voting member of the evaluation committee will be to facilitate the evaluation process within the guidelines of the Utah procurement code and administrative rule.

(10) The issuing procurement unit may replace any member on the committee or reconstitute the committee in any way the issuing procurement unit deems appropriate to cure any impropriety. If the impropriety cannot be cured by replacing a member, then a new committee may be appointed or the procurement cancelled.

 

R33-7-704. Scoring of Evaluation Criteria, Other Than Cost, for Proposals Meeting Mandatory Minimum Requirements.

(1) The scoring of evaluation criteria, other than cost, for proposals meeting the mandatory minimum requirements in an RFP shall be based on a one through five point scoring system.

(2) Points shall be awarded to each applicable evaluation category as set forth in the RFP, including but not limited to:

(a) Technical specifications;

(b) Qualifications and experience;

(c) Programming;

(d) Design;

(e) Time, manner, or schedule of delivery;

(f) Quality or suitability for a particular purpose;

(g) Financial solvency;

(h) Management and methodological plan; and

(i) Other requirements specified in the RFP.

(3) Scoring Methodology:

(a) Five points (Excellent): The proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements described in the RFP;

(b) Four points (Very Good): The proposal addresses all of the requirements described in the RFP and, in some respects, exceeds them;

(c) Three points (Good): The proposal addresses all of the requirements described in the RFP in a satisfactory manner;

(d) Two points (Fair): The proposal addresses the requirements described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner; or

(e) One point (Poor): The proposal fails to addresses the requirements described in the RFP or it addresses the requirements inaccurately or poorly.

 

R33-7-705. Evaluation Committee Members Required to Exercise Independent Judgment.

(1)(a) Evaluators are required to exercise independent judgment in a manner that is not dependent on anyone else's opinions or wishes.

(b) Evaluators must not allow their scoring to be inappropriately influenced by another person's wishes that additional or fewer points be awarded to a particular offeror.

(c) Evaluators may seek to increase their knowledge before scoring by asking questions and seeking appropriate information from the conducting procurement unit or issuing procurement unit. Otherwise, evaluators should not discuss proposals or the scoring of proposals with other persons not on the evaluation committee.

(2)(a) The exercise of independent judgment applies not only to possible inappropriate influences from outside the evaluation committee, but also to inappropriate influences from within the committee. It is acceptable for there to be discussion and debate within the committee regarding how well a proposal meets the evaluation criteria. However, open discussion and debate may not lead to coercion or intimidation on the part of one committee member to influence the scoring of another committee member.

(b) Evaluators may not act on their own or in concert with another evaluation committee member to inappropriately steer an award to a favored vendor or to disfavor a particular vendor.

(c) Evaluators are required to report any attempts by others to improperly influence their scoring to favor or disfavor a particular offeror.

(d) If an evaluator feels that the evaluator's independence has been compromised, the evaluator must recuse himself or herself from the evaluation process.

 

KEY: government purchasing, request for proposals, standard procurement process

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [October 8, 2014]2015

Notice of Continuation: July 8, 2014

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 63G-6a