The District’s role as a non-voting member of the evaluation committee will be to facilitate the evaluation process within the guidelines of the Utah procurement code and administrative rule. Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(11) (July 26, 2018) The Board of Education may remove a member of an evaluation committee for (1) having a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with a person responding to a request for proposals, (2) having an unlawful bias or the appearance of an unlawful bias against a person responding to a request for proposals, (3) having a pattern of arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous scores that are unexplainable or unjustifiable (4) having inappropriate contact or communication with a person responding to the request for proposals, (5) socializing inappropriately with a person responding to the request for proposals, (6) engaging in any other action or having any other association that causes the Board to conclude that the individual cannot fairly evaluate a response to the request for proposals, or (7) any other violation of law, rule, or policy. The District may reconstitute the committee in any way it deems appropriate to cure any such impropriety. If the impropriety cannot be cured by replacing a member, then a new committee may be appointed or the procurement cancelled and the request for proposals reissued. Utah Admin. Rules R33-7-703(12) (July 26, 2018) Scoring of proposals The scoring of evaluation criteria, other than cost, for proposals meeting the mandatory minimum requirements in a request for proposals shall be based on the scoring system set forth in the RFP. Scoring systems other than the standard methodology set forth below may be used so long as they are set forth in the RFP, allow for competition, and are reasonable. Points shall be awarded to each applicable evaluation category as set forth in the request for proposals, which may include but are not limited to: 1. Technical specifications; 2. Qualifications and experience; 3. Programming; 4. Design; 5. Time, manner, or schedule of delivery; 6. Quality or suitability for a particular purpose; 7. Financial solvency; 8. Management and methodological plan; 9. Performance ratings or references; and Standard Scoring Methodology: 1. Five points (Excellent): The proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the request for proposals; 2. Four points (Good): The proposal addresses all of the requirements or criteria described in the request for proposals and, in some respects, exceeds them; 3. Three points (Satisfactory): The proposal addresses all of the requirements or criteria described in the request for proposals in a minimum satisfactory manner;
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker