Competitive Sealed Proposals

Section 1 Section 1.2015  Competitive Sealed Proposals a)         Competitive Sealed Proposals may be used whenever permitted by the Code and as described in this Part. b)         Competitive Sealed Proposals may be used on a case-by-case basis when it is determined by the SPO that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or advantageous. The Competitive Sealed Proposal method differs from competitive sealed bidding in two ways:  it permits discussions with competing offerors and changes in their proposals, including price and it allows comparative judgmental evaluations to be made when selecting among acceptable proposals for award of the contract.  Factors to be considered in determining whether competitive sealed bidding is either not practical or advantageous include: 1)         when evaluation factors involve the relative abilities of offerors to perform, including degrees of experience or expertise, when the types of supplies or services may require the use of comparative, judgmental evaluations to evaluate them adequately, or when the type of need to be satisfied involves weighing aesthetic values to the extent that price is a secondary consideration; 2)         whether oral or written discussions may need to be conducted with offerors concerning technical and price aspects of their proposals; 3)         whether offerors may need to be afforded the opportunity to revise their proposals, including price; 4)         whether award may need to be based upon a comparative evaluation, as stated in the Request for Proposals, of differing price, quality, and contractual factors in order to determine the most advantageous offering to the State. Quality factors include technical and performance capability and the content of the technical proposal; 5)         whether the primary consideration in determining award may not be price; and 6)         if prior procurements indicate that competitive sealed proposals may result in more beneficial contracts for the State. c)         Content of the Request for Proposals The RFP shall be prepared in accordance with Section 1.2010 (Competitive Sealed Bidding), including but not limited to: 1)         all of the evaluation factors, including price, and their relative importance; 2)         a statement that discussions may be conducted with offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award; 3)         a statement that revisions may be requested after discussions and best and final offers may be requested; and 4)         a statement of when and how price should be submitted. d)         Subfactors and Scoring Tools 1)         Establishment of subfactors, if any, and their relative importance must be finalized before publication of the RFP and made available for inspection and copying upon opening. 2)         Numerical rating systems shall be used unless another scoring tool is authorized by the SPO.  Any scoring tool shall reflect the evaluation criteria and ranking set forth in the RFP and any subfactors available at the opening. 3)         The scoring tool used by the Evaluation Team must be finalized and approved by the SPO before the publication of the RFP and made available for inspection and copying upon opening. e)         Proposals shall be submitted in three parts: the first, covering price; the second, covering commitment to diversity; and the third, covering all other items.  Price must be submitted separately in the proposal package and shall not be mentioned elsewhere in the proposal package.  Each part of all proposals shall be evaluated and ranked independently of the other parts of all proposals.  The results of the evaluation of all 3 parts shall be used in the ranking of proposals. f)         Receipt and Registration of Proposals 1)         Proposals and modifications shall be opened publicly at the time, date and place designated in the RFP.  Opening shall be witnessed by a State employee or by any other person present, but the person opening proposals shall not serve as witness.  A record shall be prepared that shall include the name of each offeror, the number of modifications received, if any, a description sufficient to identify the supply or service item offered, and a notation that the package contains a price proposal.  The record of proposals shall be open to public inspection after award of the contract. 2)         Proposals and modifications shall be opened in a manner to avoid disclosing contents to other offerors. A)        Only State personnel and contractual agents authorized by the SPO may review the proposals prior to award. Other than information that was recorded, read and made publicly available at the opening of the proposals, the State agency conducting the procurement shall not disclose any information contained in the offer outside of persons authorized by the SPO, identified State agency personnel, or others specifically authorized by the CPO-GS or SPO, until after the award of the proposed contract has been posted to the Bulletin.  This does not restrict the disclosure of information to, or receipt by, State agency personnel identified by the State agency head or the chief executive officer of a board or commission to receive the information.  The SPO may require confidentiality and conflict statements from those persons identified by the agency head or the chief executive officer to receive the information. B)        The agency head or chief executive officer may identify: i)          State employees who have primary responsibility for the procurement; ii)         State employees who exercise experience or expertise in the subject matter of the particular procurement in the normal course of business and as part of official responsibilities; iii)        State employees who exercise oversight, supervisory or management authority over the procurement in the normal course of business and as part of official responsibilities. g)         Evaluation of Proposals 1)         Prior to evaluation, an evaluation team kick-off meeting must be held.  The purpose of that meeting is to provide the evaluation team with information regarding the evaluation process, including but not limited to conducting the evaluation with fairness and integrity, maintaining confidentiality, and discussing any possible conflicts of interest of evaluation team members.  The SPO and all evaluation team members must attend the meeting.  Attendance may be in person, by conference call, or by videoconference call. 2)         Evaluation.  The evaluation shall be based solely on the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, except as communicated in advance to each proposer with opportunity to make necessary adjustments to the proposal. 3)         The first part shall be evaluated and ranked independent of the second part of all proposals.  Each member of the evaluation team must evaluate the first part individually. 4)         After completion of the individual evaluations, the SPO shall determine whether the evaluation team should meet to confirm the individual scores. Factors the SPO should consider in determining whether the evaluation team should meet include whether there is a significant or substantial variance of scores, divergent scoring comments, or other information that suggests the need for further discussion.  Notes regarding the meeting are required only if there are changes to individual scores. 5)         SPO has the right to attend all evaluation team meetings. 6)         The price proposal shall be opened in the presence of a State witness and may be distributed to the appropriate evaluators. 7)         Commitment to Diversity. Factors to be considered in the award of these commitment to diversity points may include, but are not limited to: A)        Whether or how well the offeror, on the solicitation being evaluated, met the goal of contracting or subcontracting with businesses owned by women, minorities, or persons with disabilities; B)        Whether the offeror, on the solicitation being evaluated, assisted businesses owned by women, minorities, or persons with disabilities in obtaining lines of credit, insurance, necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services; C)        The percentage of prior year revenues of the offeror that involves businesses owned by women, minorities, or person with disabilities; D)        Whether the offeror has a written supplier diversity program, including, but not limited to, the use of diverse vendors in the supply chain and a training or mentoring program with businesses owned by women, minorities, or persons with disabilities; and E)        The percentage of members of the offeror's governing board, senior executives, and managers who are women, minorities, or persons with disabilities. h)         Proposal Discussions and Best and Final Offers with Responsive and Responsible Individual Offerors 1)         Discussions may be held with responsible offerors whose offers are reasonably susceptible of being selected for award.  All responsible offerors are reasonably susceptible of being selected for award unless a point threshold is established in the RFP, in which event, only responsible offerors who meet the set point threshold are reasonably susceptible to being selected for award.  The purpose of discussions is to: A)        clarify an offer to ensure responsiveness to the State's requirements; and B)        facilitate arriving at a contract that will be most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the other evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. 2)         Conduct of Discussions.  Offerors reasonably susceptible to being selected for award shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussions and clarifications of proposals. Discussions may be conducted by the State agency, in consultation with the SPO, with vendors reasonably susceptible of being awarded a contract based on qualifications and price.  If during discussions it is determined there is a need for substantial revision of, or change to, the RFP, the RFP shall be cancelled and may be resolicited to incorporate the clarification or change.  Auction techniques (revealing one offeror's price to another) and disclosure of any information from competing proposals are prohibited.  Any substantial oral clarification of a proposal shall be reduced to writing by the offeror. 3)         Best and Final Offers.  The State agency, with the approval of the SPO, may request best and final offers from those offerors deemed reasonably susceptible of being selected for award.  Best and final offers shall be submitted by a specified date and time.  The State agency, with the approval of the SPO, may conduct additional discussions or require another submission of best and final offers.  The scope of the best and final offer shall be defined by the State agency with the approval of the SPO.  The primary objective of best and final offers is to maximize the State's ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.  If an offeror does not submit either a notice of withdrawal or another best and final offer, the offeror's immediately previous offer will be construed as its best and final offer. i)          Award 1)         After completion of the evaluation, if board, commission, or authority approval of a contract award is necessary, the State agency may have separate discussions with individual board, commission, or authority members to obtain each individual board, commission or authority member's approval of the award prior to publishing the award in the Bulletin. 2)         An award shall be made by the SPO pursuant to a written determination showing the basis on which the award was found to be most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.  An award made to the highest scoring vendor is presumed to be most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, including price.  The contract file shall contain the basis on which the award is made.