During the evaluation process, the evaluation committee may recommend to the District that a proposal be rejected as made by a non-responsible offeror, as being non-responsive, as not meeting the mandatory minimum requirements, or as not meeting any applicable minimum score threshold. Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(5)(b) (July 26, 2018) In order to score proposals fairly, an evaluation committee member must be present at all evaluation meetings and must review all proposals, including (if applicable) oral presentations. If a committee member does not attend an evaluation committee meeting, the meeting may be canceled and rescheduled. If a committee member fails to attend an evaluation committee meeting, leaves a meeting early, or fails for any reason to fulfill the duties and obligations of a committee member, that member shall be removed from the evaluation committee. The remainder of the committee may proceed with the evaluation, provided there are at least three evaluation committee members remaining. A committee member may attend or participate on an evaluation committee via electronic means (for example, a conference call, a webcam, an online business application, or other means). Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(5)(c), (d) (July 26, 2018) At any time during the evaluation process, the evaluation committee may, with the approval of the District and subject to the requirements set forth below, request best and final offers from responsible offerors who have submitted responsive proposals that meet the minimum qualifications, evaluation criteria, or applicable thresholds and evaluate those offers in accordance with Utah Code § 63G-6a-708, as described below. The evaluation committee shall derive its final recommended consensus score for the non-priced technical criteria by either (a) totaling all of the points given by individual committee members, or (b) averaging the scores given by individual committee members. The evaluation committee shall submit its final score sheet, signed and dated by each committee member, to the District for review. Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(6) (July 26, 2018) The evaluation committee may not change its consensus final recommended non-priced technical criteria scores for the proposals after they have been submitted to the District unless the District authorizes a best-and-final-offer process to be conducted. Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(7) (July 26, 2018) The District will review the evaluation committee’s final recommended non-priced technical criteria scores. If the District identifies errors, scoring inconsistencies, or reported noncompliance with procurement law and requirements, the District shall either correct those matters or cancel the procurement. The District shall, if applicable, assign an individual who is not a member of the evaluation committee to calculate scores for cost based on the applicable scoring formula, weighting, and other scoring procedures contained in the request for proposals. The District shall score the cost of each proposal based on the applicable scoring formula and calculate the total combined score for each proposal. Utah Code § 63G-6a-707(6)(b), (c) (2017) Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(8) (July 26, 2018) The evaluation committee and the District shall prepare the cost justification statement and any applicable cost-benefit analysis in accordance with Utah Code 63G-6a-708. Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(10) (July 26, 2018)
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker