Competitive Sealed Proposals

Section 2600.310  Competitive Sealed Proposals a)         Competitive Sealed Proposals, as opposed to Competitive Sealed Bidding, may be used whenever permitted by the Code and as described in this Part. b)         The Competitive Sealed Proposal method of source selection may be used to procure the following categories (note that the following services, if they are professional and artistic, must be procured pursuant to Section 2600.330): 1)         electronic data processing equipment, software, and services; 2)         telecommunications equipment, software, and services; 3)         consulting services; and 4)         employee benefits and management of those benefits. c)         Competitive Sealed Proposals may be used on a case-by-case basis when it is determined by the Procurement Officer that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous. 1)         If competitive sealed bidding is not practicable or is not advantageous, competitive sealed proposals should be used. 2)         "Practicable" Distinguished from  "Advantageous".  As used in Section 20-15 (Competitive Sealed Proposals) of the Illinois Procurement Code and in this Section, "practicable" denotes what may be accomplished or put into practicable application, and "advantageous" connotes a judgmental assessment of what is in the State's best interest.  Competitive sealed bidding may be practicable, that is, reasonably possible, but not necessarily advantageous, that is, in the State's best interest.  Before procurement may be conducted by competitive sealed proposals, the Procurement Officer shall determine in writing that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the State. 3)         The key element in determining whether use of a proposal is advantageous is the need for flexibility.  The competitive sealed proposal method differs from competitive sealed bidding in two important ways: A)        it permits discussions with competing offerors and changes in their proposals, including price; and B)        it allows comparative judgmental evaluations to be made when selecting among acceptable proposals for award of the contract. 4)         When evaluation factors involve the relative abilities of offerors to perform, including degrees of experience or expertise, where the types of supplies or services may require the use of comparative, judgmental evaluations to evaluate them adequately, or where the type of need to be satisfied involves weighing aesthetic values to the extent that price is a secondary consideration, use of competitive sealed proposals is the appropriate procurement method. 5)         Competitive sealed bidding is not practicable unless the nature of the procurement permits award to a low bidder who agrees by its bid to perform without condition or reservation in accordance with the purchase description, delivery or performance schedule, and all other terms and conditions of the Invitation for Bids. Factors to be considered in determining whether competitive sealed bidding is not practicable include: A)        whether the contract needs to be other than a fixed-price type; B)        whether oral or written discussions may need to be conducted with offerors concerning technical and price aspects of their proposals; C)        whether offerors may need to be afforded the opportunity to revise their proposals, including price; D)        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; and E)        whether the primary consideration in determining award may not be price. 6)         Competitive sealed proposals may be used if it is determined that it is not advantageous to the State, even though practicable, to use competitive sealed bidding.  Factors to be considered in determining whether competitive sealed bidding is not advantageous include: A)        if prior procurements indicate that competitive sealed proposals may result in more beneficial contracts for the State; and B)        whether the factors listed in subsection (c)(3) of this Section are desirable, in conducting a procurement, rather than necessary; if they are, then such factors may be used to support a determination that competitive sealed bidding is not advantageous. d)         The Request for Proposals must be prepared in accordance with Section 2600.305 and must include a statement that discussions may be conducted with offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award, but that proposals may be accepted without such discussions and a statement of when and how price should be submitted.  Proposals must include the name and place of business of the offeror, a plan for carrying out the requested services together with a showing of qualifications to carry out the plan, and a list of any relevant experience the offeror has had with similar plans. e)         Proposals and modifications shall be opened as designated in the Request for Proposals.  Opening shall be witnessed by at least two SBE employees.  A record shall be prepared that shall include the name of each offeror, the number of modifications received, if any, and a description sufficient to identify the supply or service item offered.  The record of proposals shall be open to public inspection after award of the contract.  Proposals and modifications shall be opened in a manner to avoid disclosing contents to competitors.  Only State personnel and contractual agents may review the proposals prior to award. f)         Criteria and evaluation of proposals in this Section shall be performed in accordance with Section 2600.305. g)         Proposal Discussions with Individual Offerors 1)         Discussions may be held to promote understanding of the State's requirements and the offerors' proposals or 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 Request for Proposals. 2)         Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussions and revisions of proposals. If during discussions there is a need for any substantial clarification of, or change to, the Request for Proposals, the Request shall be amended to incorporate the clarification or change.  Any disclosure of information to offerors from competing proposals is prohibited.  Any clarification of a proposal shall be reduced to writing by the offeror. 3)         Best and Final Offers.  The Procurement Officer may request Best and Final offers, when in the best interest of the State, for reasons including, but not limited to, reducing scope to accommodate budget, obtain lower cost at no or insignificant change from original proposal, accepting new technology at no or insignificant change in cost, or having vendors adjust proposals to focus on one or several alternatives originally requested or proposed.  Best and Final offers may be requested from all offerors or from only those in the zone of contention after preliminary evaluation as determined by the Procurement Officer.  The request for Best and Final offers may pertain to any aspect of the solicitation, including but not limited to qualifications, specifications, scope of work or price.  The Best and Final request shall clearly identify the matters that the offerors must address, and the matters may vary from vendor to vendor if necessary.  Best and Final offers shall be submitted by a specified date and time.  The Procurement Officer may conduct additional discussions or change the State's requirements and require another submission of Best and Final offers.  If an offeror does not submit a Best and Final offer, that offeror's immediately previous offer will be construed as its Best and Final offer. h)         An award shall be made by the Procurement Officer pursuant to a written determination showing the basis on which the award was found to be most advantageous to the State, based on the factors set forth in the Request for Proposals. i)          The successful offeror shall be notified of award.  Notification may be in the form of a letter, purchase order or other clear communication. When the award exceeds the small purchase limit set in Section 2600.315 of this Part, notice of award shall be published in the Bulletin.