2. An alleged violation of Utah Administrative Rules Title 33 or other applicable rule; 3. A provision of the solicitation allegedly not being followed; 4. A provision of the solicitation which is alleged to be ambiguous, confusing, contradictory, unduly restrictive, erroneous, anticompetitive, or unlawful; 5. An alleged error made by the evaluation committee or the District; 6. An allegation of bias by the evaluation committee or an individual committee member; or 7. A scoring criterion allegedly not being correctly applied or calculated. Utah Admin. Rules R33-16-101a(2)(a) (June 21, 2017) Utah Code § 63G-6a-1602(4)(a) (2017) The “facts” alleged must be specific enough to enable the protest officer to determine, if such facts are proven to be true, whether a legitimate basis for the protest exists. Utah Admin. Rules R33-16-101a(2)(b) (June 21, 2017) None of the following qualify as a concise statement of the grounds for a protest: 1. claims made after the opening of bids or closing date of proposals that the specifications, terms and conditions, or other elements of a solicitation are ambiguous, confusing, contradictory, unduly restrictive, erroneous, or anticompetitive; 2. vague or unsubstantiated allegations that do not reference specific facts including, but not limited to, vague or unsubstantiated allegations such as that: a. the protestor should have received a higher score or another vendor should have received a lower score; b. a service or product provided by a protestor is better than another vendor’s service or product; c. another vendor cannot provide the procurement item for the price bid or perform the services described in the solicitation; d. the electronic procurement system used by the District was slow, not operating properly, was difficult to understand, could not be accessed or did not allow documents to be downloaded, or did not allow a response to be submitted after the submittal deadline expired; e. the protestor did not receive individual notice of a solicitation or was unaware of the solicitation (where the District has complied with the public notice requirements); or f. District officials, or the evaluation committee, or any committee member acted in a biased or discriminatory manner against the protestor; or 3. a request for: a. a detailed explanation of the thinking and scoring of evaluation committee members, beyond the official justification statement; b. protected information beyond what is provided under the disclosure provisions of the Utah Procurement Code; or
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker