Utah Code § 63G-6a-707(7), (9) (2017) Utah Admin. Rules R33-13-205(3) (June 21, 2017)
Justification Statement and Cost-Benefit Analysis In determining which proposal provides the best value to the District, the evaluation committee and the District shall prepare a written justification statement that (a) explains the score assigned to each evaluation category, (b) explains how the proposal with the highest total combined score provides the best value to the District compared to the other proposals, and (c) if applicable, includes the cost-benefit analysis described below and how that analysis relates to the best value to the District. (The explanation of evaluation category scores is not required to address each criterion within each category.) This cost-benefit analysis shall be based on the entire term of the contract, excluding any renewal periods. The determinations made in the justification and informal cost-benefit analysis are final and conclusive unless they are arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous. If the highest score awarded by the evaluation committee, including the score for cost, is awarded to a proposal other than the lowest cost proposal, and the difference between the cost of the highest scored proposal and the lowest cost proposal exceeds the greater of $10,000 or 5% of the lowest cost proposal, the committee and the District shall make an informal written cost-benefit analysis that: 1. explains, in general terms, the advantage to the District of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror; 2. includes, except as provided in the next sentence, the estimated added financial value to the District of each criterion that justifies awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror; 3. includes, if assigning a financial value to a particular procurement item or evaluation criterion is not practicable, a written determination to that effect explaining (a) why it is not practicable to assign a financial value and (b) in nonfinancial terms, why awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror provides the best value to the District; 4. demonstrates that the value of the advantage to the District of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror exceeds the value of the difference between the cost of the higher cost proposal and the cost of the lower cost proposals. If this informal cost-benefit analysis does not justify award of the contract to the offeror that received the highest score, the District may not award the contract to the offeror that received the highest score and may award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score except when that offeror’s proposal also meets the threshold for the informal cost-benefit analysis. In that case, the acceptability of the next highest proposal depends on the cost-benefit analysis justifying acceptance. If the cost-benefit analysis of the second highest proposal does not justify acceptance, then the District may not accept that proposal and must proceed to the third highest proposal, following the same process until the District awards the contract in accordance with this section or cancels the request for proposals. The District is not required to make the cost-benefit analysis for a contract with a construction manager/general contractor if the contract is awarded based solely on the qualifications of the construction manager/general contractor and the management fee if the following requirements are satisfied: 1. a competitive process is maintained by the issuance of a request for proposals that requires the offeror to provide, at a minimum: a. a management plan;
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker