Any proposal that fails to conform to the essential requirements of the request for proposals shall be rejected. Any proposal that does not conform to the applicable specifications shall be rejected unless the request for proposals authorized the submission of alternate proposals and the procurement item(s) offered as alternates meet the requirements specified in the solicitation. Any proposal that fails to conform to the delivery schedule or permissible alternates stated in the request for proposals shall be rejected. A proposal shall be rejected when the offeror imposes conditions or takes exceptions that would modify requirements or terms and conditions of the request for proposals or limit the offeror’s liability for the procurement, since to allow the offeror to impose such conditions or take exceptions would be prejudicial to another person. For example, proposals shall be rejected in which the offeror: 1. for commodities, protects against future changes in conditions, such as increased costs, if total possible costs to the District cannot be determined; 2. fails to state a price and indicates that price shall be the price in effect at time of delivery or states a price but qualifies it as being subject to price in effect at time of delivery; 3. when not authorized by the request for proposals, conditions or qualifies a proposal by stipulating that it is to be considered only if, before date of award, the offeror receives (or does not receive) an award under a separate solicitation; 4. requires that the District is to determine that the offeror’s product meets applicable specifications; or 5. limits rights of the District under any contract clause. Utah Admin. Rules R33-9-202 (June 21, 2017) The originals of all rejected proposals and all written findings with respect to such rejections shall be made part of the procurement file and made available for public inspection. Utah Admin. Rules R33-9-204(3) (June 21, 2017) Evaluation procedure The evaluation committee shall evaluate each responsive proposal from a responsible offeror which has not been disqualified upon initial review and determine which proposal provides the best value to the District. Each proposal shall be evaluated and scores awarded using the criteria and as provided in the request for proposals. The evaluation committee may ask questions of offerors to clarify proposals provided the questions are submitted and answered in writing. The record of questions and answer shall be maintained in the file relating to the request for proposals. Utah Code § 63G-6a-707(1) (2017) Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-501(2) (July 26, 2018) Prior to the evaluation and scoring of proposals, a District procurement officer will meet with the evaluation committee, District staff, and any other person that will have access to the proposals to: 1. explain the evaluation and scoring process; 2. discuss requirements and prohibitions regarding socialization with vendors as set forth in R33-24-104, financial conflicts of interest as set forth in R33-24-105, personal relationships, favoritism, or bias as set forth in R33-24-106, disclosing confidential information contained in proposals or the deliberations and scoring of the evaluation committee, and ethical standards for an employee involved in the procurement process as set forth in R33-24-108;
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker