Utah Admin. Code R33-7-703 - 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 request for proposal.
(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
R33-24-104;
(ii) financial conflicts of interest as set
forth in Section
R33-24-105;
(iii) personal relationships, favoritism, or
bias as set forth in Section
R33-24-106;
(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
R33-24-108.
(c) review the scoring sheet and
evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP; and
(d) 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.
(3) Before
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.
(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) Unless an exception is authorized by the
head of the 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 procurement unit as set forth in Section
63G-6a-707.
(6)
(a) In
accordance with Section 63G-6a-707, the 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
Title 63G-6a, using the criteria described in the RFP.
(b) The evaluation committee shall exercise
independent judgment 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.
(d) The evaluation committee may receive
assistance from an expert or consultant authorized by the procurement unit in
accordance with the provisions set forth in Subsection
63G-6a-707(6).
(7) 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 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.
(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.
(8)
(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.
(9) 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.
(10) 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.
(11) The
evaluation committee may, with approval from the procurement unit, request BAFO
from responsible offerors who have submitted responsive proposals that meet the
minimum qualifications, evaluation criteria, or applicable score thresholds
identified in the RFP.
(12)
(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 (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.
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.