Utah Admin. Code R33-107-703 - Evaluation Committee Procedures for Scoring Non-Priced Technical Criteria

(1)

(a) The 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 from vendors determined to be not responsible.

(2) Before the evaluation and scoring of proposals, the procurement unit will meet to:

(a) explain the evaluation and scoring process;

(b) discuss requirements and prohibitions pertaining to:

(i) socialization with vendors as set forth in Section R33-124-104;

(ii) financial conflicts of interest as set forth in Section R33-124-105;

(iii) personal relationships, favoritism, or bias as set forth in Section R33-124-106;

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

(v) ethical standards for an employee of a procurement unit involved in the procurement process as set forth in Section R33-124-108.

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

(d) provide a copy of Section R33-107-703 to the evaluation committee, employees of the procurement unit involved in the procurement, and any other person that will have access to the proposals.

(3) Before participating in any phase of the RFP process, each member of the evaluation committee must sign a written statement certifying that they do not have a conflict of interest.

(4) At each stage of the procurement process, the conducting procurement unit shall 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.

(5) In accordance with Section 63G-6a-707, the procurement unit shall appoint an evaluation committee.

(a) The evaluation committee shall:

(i) evaluate each responsive proposal submitted by a responsible offeror that has not been rejected from consideration under Title 63G, Chapter 6a, Utah Procurement Code using the criteria described in the RFP.

(ii) exercise independent judgment in the evaluation and scoring of the non-priced technical criteria in each proposal.

(b) Proposals must be evaluated solely on the criteria listed in the RFP.

(6) 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 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) To score proposals fairly, an evaluation committee member must be present at each evaluation committee meeting and must review each proposal, including any presentations, interviews, or demonstrations. 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.

(e) 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.

(7)

(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 procurement unit for review.

(8) 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 procurement unit, unless the procurement unit authorizes that a best and final offer process is to be conducted.

(9) 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;

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

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

(10)

(a) The procurement official 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 procurement official to conclude that the individual cannot fairly evaluate a solicitation response; or

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

(b) The procurement official may reconstitute an evaluation committee in any way deemed appropriate to correct an impropriety described in Subsection (10)(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.

Notes

Utah Admin. Code R33-107-703

Adopted by Utah State Bulletin Number 2024-15, effective 7/9/2024, exp. 11/6/2024 (Emergency) Adopted by Utah State Bulletin Number 2024-21, effective 10/22/2024