Utah Administrative Code

The Utah Administrative Code is the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the Division of Administrative Rules (see Subsection 63G-3-102(5); see also Sections 63G-3-701 and 702).

NOTE: For a list of rules that have been made effective since February 1, 2019, please see the codification segue page.

NOTE TO RULEFILING AGENCIES: Use the RTF version for submitting rule changes.


R33. Administrative Services, Purchasing and General Services.

Rule R33-7. Request for Proposals.

As in effect on February 1, 2019

Table of Contents

R33-7-101. Conducting the Request for Proposals Standard Procurement Process.

The request for proposals standard procurement process shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in, Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a, Part 7. The request for proposal process may be used by a procurement unit to select the proposal that provides the best value or is the most advantageous to the procurement unit. All definitions in the Utah Procurement Code shall apply to this Rule unless otherwise specified in this Rule. This administrative rule provides additional requirements and procedures and must be used in conjunction with the Procurement Code.

R33-7-102. Content of the Request for Proposals.

(1) In addition to the requirements set forth under Section 63G-6a-703, the request for proposals solicitation shall include:

(a) a description of the format that offerors are to use when submitting a proposal including any required forms; and

(b) instructions for submitting price.

(2) The conducting procurement unit is responsible for all content contained in the request for proposals solicitation documents, including:

(a) reviewing all schedules, dates, and timeframes;

(b) approving content of attachments;

(c) providing the issuing procurement unit with redacted documents, as applicable;

(d) assuring that information contained in the solicitation documents is public information; and

(e) understanding the scope of work, all evaluation criteria, requirements, factors, and formulas to be used in determining the scoring of proposals; and

(f) for executive branch procurement units the requirements of Section 63G-6a-110(6).

R33-7-103. Multiple Stage RFP Process.

(1) In addition to the requirements set forth under Section 63G-6a-710, the multiple stage request for proposals solicitation shall include:

(a) a description of the stages and the criteria and scoring that will be used to evaluate proposals at each stage; and

(b) the methodology used to determine which proposals shall be disqualified from additional stages.

R33-7-103a. Multiple Stage Cost Qualification RFP Process.

In accordance with Section 63G-6a-710, a procurement unit may use a multiple stage RFP process to assist the procurement unit in selecting the proposal that provides the best value or is the most advantageous to the procurement unit. This Rule sets forth the process for issuing a multiple stage RFP process where cost is evaluated prior to the technical requirements. The concept behind this "multiple stage cost qualification RFP process" is that for certain types of procurements, a procurement unit may not want to spend time evaluating the technical responses of proposals with cost estimates that exceed the stated budget or significantly exceed the lowest cost proposal. Statute does not restrict the number of stages that may occur in a multiple stage RFP, the number or type of criteria that may be used to evaluate proposals or the sequencing of when evaluation criteria must be evaluated. However, statute does place restrictions on procedures such as separating cost, when the evaluation committee can and cannot change scores, issuing a justification statement and, if applicable, conducting a cost-benefit analysis, and so on. The instructions contained in this multiple stage cost qualification RFP process comply with all provisions set forth in Utah Code Title 63G-6a, Part 7 and associated Rule R33-7.

(1) Definitions:

(a) "Multiple stage cost qualification RFP process" means a multiple stage RFP process in which cost proposals are evaluated prior to the evaluation of technical criteria and are used to reject offerors based on established cost criteria.

(b) "Maximum cost differential percentage threshold" is a cost ceiling that is established by the conducting procurement unit that an offeror's cost proposal must not exceed or the offeror's proposal will be rejected and the offeror will not be allowed to proceed to a subsequent stage. The maximum cost differential percentage threshold may be based on the following:

(i) The lowest cost proposal submitted;

(ii) The conducting procurement's stated budget; or

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

(2) The chief procurement officer or head of procurement unit with independent procurement authority may issue a multiple stage RFP where cost is used to qualify offerors for subsequent stages or to narrow the number of offerors that will move on to subsequent stages in accordance with the requirements set forth in Utah Code 63G-6a, Part 7 and Rule R33-7.

(3) When using the multiple stage cost qualification RFP process the conducting procurement unit shall establish and include in the RFP:

(a) The minimum mandatory pass or fail requirements that proposals must meet in stage one in order to move on to stage two;

(b) The maximum cost differential percentage threshold that proposals must not exceed in stage two in order to move on to stage three;

(c) The technical criteria and a score threshold that proposals must meet in stage three in order to be eligible to move on to stage four; and

(d) If applicable, the total combined score threshold in stage four that proposals must meet to determine best value and be eligible for contract award.

(4) Except as provided in Section 63G-6a-707, the following process shall be used to evaluate proposals and award a contract under this multiple stage process:

(a) During stage one, an individual assigned by the conducting procurement unit shall evaluate each offeror's proposal in response to the minimum mandatory pass or fail requirements set forth in the RFP:

(i) Offerors with proposals that do not meet the mandatory minimum pass or fail requirements shall be rejected and are not allowed to move on to subsequent stages and are not eligible to receive a contract award;

(ii) Offerors with proposals that meet the mandatory minimum pass or fail requirements shall be deemed qualified to move on to stage two;

(b) During stage two, the issuing procurement unit shall assign an individual, who is not a member of the evaluation committee, to evaluate the cost proposals of offerors qualified in stage one in response to the cost criteria and maximum cost differential percentage threshold set forth in the RFP.

(i) The individual assigned by the issuing procurement unit to evaluate cost proposals shall do so outside the presence of the evaluation committee and shall not share the cost proposals or the results of the cost proposal evaluations with the evaluation committee until all technical scoring is completed in stage three;

(ii) Offerors with cost proposals that exceed the maximum cost differential percentage threshold shall be rejected, not allowed to move on to subsequent stages, and not eligible to receive a contract award;

(iii) Offerors with cost proposals that do not exceed the maximum cost differential percentage threshold shall be deemed qualified to move on to stage three;

(iv) Cost shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 63G-6a-707; and

(v) A cost score shall be calculated based on the cost formula set forth in the RFP for each proposal identified in Subsection (3)(b)(iii) of this Rule;

(c) During stage three, the evaluation committee shall score the proposal of each offeror qualified in stage two, in response to the technical evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, without having access to any information relating to the cost or the scoring of the cost. Technical criteria shall be scored in accordance with Section R33-7-704 or rules established by the applicable rulemaking authority;

(d) During stage four, the individual assigned by the issuing procurement unit, who is not a member of the evaluation committee, shall add the cost scores to the evaluation committee's final recommended technical scores to derive the total combined score for each proposal in accordance with the process set forth in Section 63G-6a-707;

(e) In order to determine best value to the procurement unit, the evaluation committee shall prepare a justification statement and, if applicable, a cost-benefit analysis, in accordance with Section 63G-6a-708 and 709; and

(f) A contract may be awarded to the offeror with the proposal having the highest total combined score, or multiple contracts may be awarded to offerors with proposals meeting the total combined score threshold set forth in the RFP, in accordance with Section 63G-6a-709.

(5) Maximum cost differential percentage thresholds include the following examples:

(a) Lowest Cost Proposal Example: The maximum cost differential percentage threshold is within 10% above the lowest cost proposal:

(i) Offerors with cost proposals that exceed 10% above the proposal with the lowest cost will be rejected. Offerors with cost proposals that do not exceed 10% above the proposal with the lowest cost will move on to the subsequent stage;

(b) Stated Budget Example: The maximum cost differential percentage threshold is within 5% above the conducting procurement unit's stated project budget:

(i) Offerors with cost proposals that exceed 5% above the stated budget will be rejected. Offerors with cost proposals that do not exceed 5% above the stated budget will move on to the subsequent stage; and

(a) Combination Lowest Cost Proposal and Stated Budget Example: the maximum cost differential percentage threshold is within 8% above the lowest cost proposal and within 2% above the conducting procurement unit's stated project budget:

(i) Offerors with cost proposals that exceed 8% above the proposal with the lowest cost will be rejected and offerors with cost proposals that exceed 2% above the stated budget will be rejected. Offerors with cost proposals that do not exceed 8% above the proposal with the lowest cost and do not exceed 2% above the stated budget will move on to the subsequent stage.

(6) Additional multiple stage RFP processes may be developed and used to cover the wide range of different procurements that public entities encounter, provided the processes comply with the requirements set forth in the Utah Procurement Code and Title R33.

R33-7-104. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions Published in the RFP.

(1) Offerors requesting exceptions and/or additions to the Standard Terms and Conditions published in the RFP must include the exceptions and/or additions with the proposal response.

(2) Exceptions and/or additions submitted after the date and time for receipt of proposals will not be considered unless there is only one offeror that responds to the RFP, the exceptions and/or additions have been approved by the Attorney General's Office or other applicable legal counsel, and it is determined by the head of the issuing procurement unit that it is not beneficial to the procurement unit to republish the solicitation.

(3) Offerors may not submit requests for exceptions and/or additions by reference to a vendor's website or URL

(4) A procurement unit may refuse to negotiate exceptions and/or additions:

(a) that are determined to be excessive;

(b) that are inconsistent with similar contracts of the procurement unit;

(c) to warranties, insurance, indemnification provisions that are necessary to protect the procurement unit after consultation with the Attorney General's Office or other applicable legal counsel;

(d) where the solicitation specifically prohibits exceptions and/or additions; or

(e) that are not in the best interest of the procurement unit.

(5) If negotiations are permitted, a procurement unit may negotiate exceptions and/or additions with offerors, beginning in order with the offeror submitting the fewest exceptions and/or additions to the offeror submitting the greatest number of exceptions and/or additions. Contracts may become effective as negotiations are completed.

(6) If, in the negotiations of exceptions and/or additions with a particular offeror, an agreement is not reached, after a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the procurement unit, the negotiations may be terminated and a contract not awarded to that offeror and the procurement unit may move to the next eligible offeror.

R33-7-105. Protected Records.

(1)(a) The following are protected records and may be redacted by the vendor subject to the procedures described below in accordance with the Governmental Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) Title 63G, Chapter 2 of the Utah Code. (a) Trade Secrets, as defined in Section 13-24-2 of the Utah Code.

(b) Commercial information or non-individual financial information subject to the provisions of Section 63G-2-305(2).

(c) Other Protected Records under GRAMA.

(2) Process For Requesting Non-Disclosure. Any person requesting that a record be protected shall include with the proposal or submitted document:

(a) a written indication of which provisions of the proposal or submitted document are claimed to be considered for business confidentiality or protected (including trade secrets or other reasons for non-disclosure under GRAMA); and

(b) a concise statement of the reasons supporting each claimed provision of business confidentiality or protected.

R33-7-106. Notification.

(1) A person who complies with Section R33-7-105 shall be notified by the procurement unit prior to the public release of any information for which a claim of confidentiality has been asserted.

(2) Except as provided by court order, the procurement unit to whom the request for a record is made under GRAMA, may not disclose a record claimed to be protected under Section R33-7-105 but which the procurement unit or State Records Committee determines should be disclosed until the period in which to bring an appeal expires or the end of the appeals process, including judicial appeal, is reached. Section R33-7-106 does not apply where the claimant, after notice, has waived the claim by not appealing or intervening before the State Records Committee. To the extent allowed by law, the parties to a dispute regarding the release of a record may agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process.

(3) Any allowed disclosure of public records submitted in the request for proposal process will be made only after the selection of the successful offeror(s) has been made public in compliance with Section 63G-6a-709.5.

R33-7-107. Process for Submitting Proposals with Protected Business Confidential Information.

(1) If an offeror submits a proposal that contains information claimed to be business confidential or protected information, the offeror must submit two separate proposals:

(a) One redacted version for public release, with all protected business confidential information either blacked-out or removed, clearly marked as "Redacted Version"; and

(b) One non-redacted version for evaluation purposes clearly marked as "Protected Business Confidential."

(i) Pricing may not be classified as business confidential and will be considered public information.

(ii) An entire proposal may not be designated as "PROTECTED", "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PROPRIETARY" and shall be considered non-responsive unless the offeror removes the designation.

R33-7-201. Pre-Proposal Conferences and Site Visits.

(1) Mandatory pre-proposal conferences and site visits may be held to explain the procurement requirements in accordance with the following:

(a) Except as authorized in writing by the chief procurement officer or the head of a procurement unit with independent procurement authority, pre-proposal conferences and site visits must require mandatory attendance by all offerors.

(b) Except as authorized in writing by the chief procurement officer or the head of a procurement unit with independent procurement authority, pre-proposal conferences and site visits allowing optional attendance by offerors are not permitted.

(c) A pre-proposal conference may be attended via the following:

(i) attendance in person;

(ii) teleconference participation;

(iii) webinar participation;

(iv) participation through other electronic media approved by the chief procurement officer or head of a procurement unit with independent procurement authority.

(d) Mandatory site visits must be attended in person.

(e) All pre-proposal conferences and site visits must be attended by an authorized representative of the person or vendor submitting a proposal and as may be further specified in the procurement documents.

(f) The solicitation must state that failure to attend a mandatory pre-proposal conference shall result in the disqualification of any offeror that does not have an authorized representative attend the entire duration of the mandatory pre-proposal conference.

(g) The solicitation must state that failure to attend a mandatory site visit shall result in the disqualification of any offeror that does not have an authorized representative attend the entire duration of the mandatory site visit.

(h) At the discretion of the conducting procurement unit, audio or video recordings of pre-proposal conferences and site visits may be used.

(i) Listening to or viewing audio or video recordings of a mandatory pre-proposal conference or site visit may not be substituted for attendance. If the chief procurement officer or the head of a procurement unit with independent procurement authority grants an exception to the mandatory requirement in writing, the procurement unit may require all offerors that do not have an authorize representative in attendance for the entire pre-proposal conference or site visit to review any audio or video recording made.

(2)(a) If a pre-proposal conference or site visit is held, the conducting procurement unit shall maintain:

(i) an attendance log including the name of each attendee, the entity the attendee is representing, and the attendee's contact information;

(ii) minutes of the pre-proposal conference or site visit; and

(iii) copies of any documents distributed by the conducting procurement unit to the attendees at the pre-proposal conference or site visit.

(b) The issuing procurement unit shall publish as an addendum to the solicitation:

(i) the attendance log;

(ii) minutes of the pre-proposal conference or site visit;

(iii) copies of any documents distributed to attendees at the pre-proposal conference or site visit; and

(iv) any verbal modifications made to any of the solicitation documents. All verbal modifications to the solicitation documents shall be reduced to writing.

R33-7-301. Addenda to Request for Proposals.

(1) Addenda to the Request for Proposals may be made for the purpose of:

(a) making changes to:

(i) the scope of work;

(ii) the schedule;

(iii) the qualification requirements;

(iv) the criteria;

(v) the weighting; or

(vi) other requirements of the Request for Proposal.

(b) Addenda shall be published within a reasonable time prior to the deadline that proposals are due, to allow prospective offerors to consider the addenda in preparing proposals. Publication at least 5 calendar days prior to the deadline that proposals are due shall be deemed a reasonable time. Minor addenda and urgent circumstances may require a shorter period of time.

(2) After the due date and time for submitting a response to Request for Proposals, at the discretion of the chief procurement officer or head of a procurement unit with independent procurement authority, addenda to the Request for Proposals may be limited to offerors that have submitted proposals, provided the addenda does not make a substantial change to the Request for Proposals that, in the opinion of the chief procurement officer or head of a procurement unit with independent procurement authority likely would have impacted the number of Offerors responding to the original publication of the Request for Proposals.

R33-7-402. Rejection of Late Proposals -- Delivery and Time Requirements.

(1) Except as provided in Subsection (4), an issuing procurement unit may not accept a proposal after the deadline for receipt of solicitation responses to a request for proposals has passed as set forth in Section 63G-6a-704(2).

(2) When submitting a proposal electronically, offerors must allow sufficient time to complete the online forms and upload documents. The solicitation will end at the closing time posted in the electronic system. If an offeror is in the middle of uploading a proposal when the closing time arrives, the procurement unit will stop the process and the proposal will not be accepted.

(3) When submitting a proposal by physical delivery (U.S. Mail, courier service, hand-delivery, or other physical means) offerors are solely responsible for meeting the deadline. Delays caused by a delivery service or other physical means will not be considered as an acceptable reason for a proposal being late.

(a) All proposals received by physical delivery will be date and time stamped by the procurement unit.

(4) To the extent that an error on the part of the procurement unit or an employee of a procurement unit results in a proposal not being received by the established due date and time, the proposal shall be accepted as being on time.

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.

R33-7-501.5. Minimum Score Thresholds.

(1) A procurement unit may establish minimum score thresholds to advance proposals from one stage in the RFP process to the next, including contract award.

(2) If used, 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.

R33-7-502. Voluntary Withdrawal of a Proposal.

An offeror may voluntarily withdraw a proposal at any time before a contract is awarded with respect to the RFP for which the proposal was submitted provided the offeror is not engaged in any type of bid rigging, collusion or other anticompetitive practice made unlawful under other applicable law.

R33-7-601. Best and Final Offers.

Best and Final Offers shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 63G-6a-707.5 of the Utah Procurement Code. Rule R33-7 provides additional requirements and procedures and must be used in conjunction with the Procurement Code.

(1) The best and final offers (BAFO) process is an optional step in the evaluation phase of the request for proposals process in which offerors are requested to modify their proposals.

(2) The best and final offers process may not be conducted as part of the contract negotiation process. It may only be conducted during the evaluation phase of the RFP process.

(3) A procurement unit may not use the best and final offers process to allow offerors a second opportunity to respond to the entire request for proposals.

R33-7-701. Cost-benefit Analysis Exception: CM/GC.

(1) A cost-benefit analysis is not required if the contract is awarded solely on the qualifications of the construction manager/general contractor and the management fee described in Section 63G-6a-708 provided:

(a) a competitive process is maintained by the issuance of a request for proposals that requires the offeror to provide , at a minimum:

(i) a management plan;

(ii) references;

(iii) statements of qualifications; and

(iv) a management fee.

(b) the management fee contains only the following:

(i) preconstruction phase services;

(ii) monthly supervision fees for the construction phase; and

(iii) overhead and profit for the construction phase.

(c) the evaluation committee may, as described in the solicitation, weight and score the management fee as a fixed rate or a fixed percentage of the estimated contract value.

(d) the contract awarded must be in the best interest of the procurement unit.

R33-7-701.1. 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.

R33-7-702. Only One Proposal Received.

(1) If only one proposal is received in response to a request for proposals, the evaluation committee shall score the proposal and:

(a) conduct a review to determine if:

(i) the proposal meets the minimum requirements;

(ii) pricing and terms are reasonable as set forth in R33-12-603 and R33-12-604; and

(iii) the proposal is in the best interest of the procurement unit.

(b) if the evaluation committee determines the proposal meets the minimum requirements, pricing and terms are reasonable, and the proposal is in the best interest of the procurement unit, the procurement unit shall issue a justification statement as set forth in 63G-6a-708 and may make an award.

(c) If an award is not made, the procurement unit may either cancel the procurement or resolicit for the purpose of obtaining additional proposals.

R33-7-703. Evaluation Committee Procedures for Scoring Non-Priced Technical Criteria.

Evaluation committee members, employees of procurement units, and any other person involved in an RFP evaluation process are required to review Utah Code Title 63G-6a, Parts 7 and 24; and Section R33-7-703 prior to participating in the evaluation process.

(1)(a) In accordance with Section 63G-6a-704, the conducting procurement unit may conduct a review of proposals to determine if:

(i) the person submitting the proposal is responsible;

(ii) the proposal is responsive; and

(iii) the proposal meets the mandatory minimum requirements set forth in the RFP.

(b) An evaluation committee may not evaluate proposals deemed non-responsive or not meeting the mandatory minimum requirements of the RFP, or vendors determined to be not responsible.

(2)(a) Prior to the evaluation and scoring of proposals, an employee from the issuing procurement unit will meet with the evaluation committee, staff members of the conducting procurement unit, and any other person involved in the procurement process that may have access to the proposals to:

(i) Explain the evaluation and scoring process;

(ii) Discuss requirements and prohibitions pertaining to:

(A) socialization with vendors as set forth in Section R33-24-104;

(B) financial conflicts of interest as set forth in Section R33-24-105;

(C) personal relationships, favoritism, or bias as set forth in Section R33-24-106;

(D) disclosing confidential information contained in proposals or the deliberations and scoring of the evaluation committee; and

(E) ethical standards for an employee of a procurement unit involved in the procurement process as set forth in Section R33-24-108.

(iii) review the scoring sheet and evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP; and

(iv) provide a copy of Section R33-7-703 to the evaluation committee, employees of the procurement unit involved in the procurement, and any other person that will have access to the proposals.

(b) Prior to participating in any phase of 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 Section 63G-6a-707 and Section R33-24-107.

(i) At each stage of the procurement process, the conducting procurement unit is required to ensure that evaluation committee members, employees of the procurement unit and any other person participating in the procurement process:

(A) do not have a conflict of interest with any of the offerors;

(B) do not contact or communicate with an offeror concerning the procurement outside the official procurement process; and

(C) conduct or participate in the procurement process in a manner that ensures a fair and competitive process and avoids the appearance of impropriety.

(3) Unless an exception is authorized by the head of the issuing procurement unit, the evaluation committee is prohibited from knowing, or having access to, any information relating to the cost, or the scoring of the cost, of a proposal until after the evaluation committee has finalized its scoring of non-price technical criteria for each proposal and submitted those scores to the issuing procurement unit as set forth in Section 63G-6a-707.

(4)(a) In accordance with Section 63G-6a-707, the conducting procurement unit shall appoint an evaluation committee to evaluate each responsive proposal submitted by a responsible offeror that has not been rejected from consideration under the provisions of the Utah Procurement Code, using the criteria described in the RFP.

(b) Using the provisions set forth in Section R33-7-705, the evaluation committee shall exercise independent judgement in the evaluation and scoring of the non-priced technical criteria in each proposal.

(c) Proposals must be evaluated solely on the criteria listed in the RFP. The evaluation committee shall assess each proposal's completeness, accuracy, and capability of meeting the technical criteria listed in the RFP.

(d) The evaluation committee may receive assistance from an expert or consultant authorized by the conducting procurement unit in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 63G-6a-707(4).

(e) The evaluation committee may enter into discussions, conduct interviews with, or attend presentations by responsible offerors with responsive proposals that meet the mandatory minimum requirements of the RFP for the purpose of clarifying information contained in proposals in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 63G-6a-707(5).

(5) After each proposal has been independently evaluated by each member of the evaluation committee, each committee member independently shall assign a preliminary draft score for each proposal for each of the non-priced technical criteria listed in the RFP.

(a) After completing the preliminary draft scoring of the non-priced technical criteria for each proposal, the evaluation committee shall enter into deliberations to:

(i) review each evaluation committee member's preliminary draft scores;

(ii) resolve any factual disagreements;

(iii) modify their preliminary draft scores based on their updated understanding of the facts; and

(iv) derive the committee's final recommended consensus score for the non-priced technical criteria of each proposal.

(b) During the evaluation process, the evaluation committee may make a recommendation to the conducting procurement unit that:

(i) a proposal be rejected for;

(A) being non-responsive,

(B) not meeting the mandatory minimum requirements, or

(C) not meeting any applicable minimum score threshold, or

(ii) an offeror be rejected for not being responsible.

(c) If an evaluation committee member does not attend an evaluation committee meeting, the meeting may be canceled and rescheduled.

(d) In order to score proposals fairly, an evaluation committee member must be present at all evaluation committee meetings and must review all proposals, including if applicable oral presentations. If an evaluation committee member fails to attend an evaluation committee meeting or leaves a meeting early or fails for any reason to fulfill the duties and obligations of a committee member, that committee member shall be removed from the committee. The remainder of the evaluation committee members may proceed with the evaluation, provided there are at least three evaluation committee members remaining.

(i) Attendance or participation on an evaluation committee via electronic means such as a conference call, a webcam, an online business application, or other electronic means is permissible.

(6)(a) The evaluation committee shall derive its final recommended consensus score for the non-priced technical criteria of each proposal using the following methods:

(i) the total of each individual evaluation committee member's scores for each proposal shall be the consensus score for the evaluation committee; or

(ii) an average of each individual evaluation committee member's scores for each proposal shall be the consensus score for the evaluation committee.

(b) The evaluation committee shall submit its final score sheet, signed and dated by each committee member, to the issuing procurement unit for review.

(7) The evaluation committee may not change its consensus final recommended scores of the non-priced technical criteria for each proposal after the scores have been submitted to the issuing procurement unit, unless the issuing procurement unit authorizes that a best and final offer process to be conducted under the provisions set forth in Section 63G-6a-707.5 and Section R33-7-601.

(8) In accordance with Section 63G-6a-707, the issuing procurement unit shall:

(a) review the evaluation committee's final recommended scores for each proposal's non-priced technical criteria and correct any errors, scoring inconsistencies, and reported noncompliance with this chapter or cancel the solicitation in accordance with Sections 63G-6a-106(4) or 63G-6a-303(3).

(b) score the cost of each proposal based on the applicable scoring formula; and

(c) calculate the total combined score for each proposal.

(9) The evaluation committee may, with approval from the issuing procurement unit, request best and final offers from responsible offerors who have submitted responsive proposals that meet the minimum qualifications, evaluation criteria, or applicable score thresholds identified in the RFP, under the circumstances set forth in Section 63G-6a-707.5 and Section R33-7-601.

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

(11) The issuing procurement unit's role as a non-scoring member of the evaluation committee will be to facilitate the evaluation process within the guidelines of the Utah Procurement Code and applicable Rules.

(12)(a) The head of the issuing procurement unit may remove a member of an evaluation committee for:

(i) having a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with a person responding to a solicitation;

(ii) having an unlawful bias or the appearance of unlawful bias for or against a person responding to a solicitation;

(iii) having a pattern of arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous scores that are unexplainable or unjustifiable;

(iv) having inappropriate contact or communication with a person responding to a solicitation;

(v) socializing inappropriately with a person responding to a solicitation;

(vi) engaging in any other action or having any other association that causes the head of the issuing procurement unit to conclude that the individual cannot fairly evaluate a solicitation response; or

(vii) any other violation of a law, rule, or policy.

(b) The head of the issuing procurement unit may reconstitute an evaluation committee in any way deemed appropriate to correct an impropriety described in Subsection (12)(a). If an impropriety cannot be cured by replacing a member, the head of the issuing procurement unit may appoint a new evaluation committee, cancel the procurement or cancel and reissue the procurement.

R33-7-704. Scoring of Evaluation Criteria, Other Than Cost, for Proposals in the RFP Process.

(1) Scoring shall be based upon each applicable evaluation criteria as set forth in the RFP, and may include but is 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) Performance ratings or references.

(2) The standard scoring methodology is:

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

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

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

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

(e) One point (Poor): The proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RTF or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information; or

(f) Zero (Fail): The proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information.

(3) A procurement unit may select another scoring methodology to score proposals, as long as:

(i) the scoring methodology is published in the RFP; and

(ii) the scoring methodology allows for competition and is reasonable.

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.

R33-7-802. Publicizing Awards.

(1) In addition to the requirements of Section 63G-6a-709.5, the following shall be disclosed after receipt of a GRAMA request and payment of any lawfully enacted and applicable fees:

(a) the contract(s) entered into as a result of the selection and the successful proposal(s), except for those portions that are to be non-disclosed under Section R33-7-105;

(b) the unsuccessful proposals, except for those portions that are to be non-disclosed under Section R33-7-105;

(c) the rankings of the proposals;

(d) the names of the members of any selection committee (reviewing authority);

(e) the final scores used by the selection committee to make the selection, except that the names of the individual scorers shall not be associated with their individual scores or rankings.

(f) the written justification statement supporting the selection, except for those portions that are to be non-disclosed under Section R33-7-105.

(2) After due consideration and public input, the following has been determined by the Procurement Policy Board to impair governmental procurement proceedings or give an unfair advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contract or agreement with a governmental entity, and will not be disclosed by the governmental entity at any time to the public including under any GRAMA request:

(a) the names of individual scorers/evaluators in relation to their individual scores or rankings;

(b) any individual scorer's/evaluator's notes, drafts, and working documents;

(c) non-public financial statements; and

(d) past performance and reference information, which is not provided by the offeror and which is obtained as a result of the efforts of the governmental entity. To the extent such past performance or reference information is included in the written justification statement; it is subject to public disclosure.

R33-7-900. Public-Private Partnerships.

(1) Except as provided in Section 63G-6a-802, a procurement unit shall award a contract for a public-private partnership, as defined in Section 63G-6a-103, by the request for proposals standard procurement process set forth in Section 63G-6a, Part 7.

KEY

government purchasing, request for proposals, standard procurement process

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment

July 26, 2018

Notice of Continuation

July 8, 2014

Authorizing, Implemented, or Interpreted Law

63G-6a


Additional Information

Contact

For questions regarding the content or application of rules under Title R33, please contact the promulgating agency (Administrative Services, Purchasing and General Services). A list of agencies with links to their homepages is available at http://www.utah.gov/government/agencylist.html or from http://www.rules.utah.gov/contact/agencycontacts.htm.