Vol. 2010, No. 11 (06/01/2010) PDF - Administrative Rules - Utah.gov

DAR File No. 33650
NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULES
(ii) the mistake is not clearly evident on the face of the
proposal, but the offeror submits proof of evidentiary value which
clearly and convincingly demonstrates both the existence of a
mistake and the correct offer and the correction would not be
contrary to the fair and equal treatment of other offerors.
(d) Withdrawal of Proposals. If discussions are not held,
or if the best and final offers upon which award will be made have
been received, the offeror may be permitted to withdraw the
proposal if:
(i) the mistake is clearly evident on the face of the
proposal and the correct offer is not; or
(ii) the offeror submits proof of evidentiary value which
clearly and convincingly demonstrates that a mistake was made but
does not demonstrate the correct offer or, if the correct offer is also
demonstrated, to allow correction on the basis that the proof would
be contrary to the fair and equal treatment of other offerors.
(4) Mistakes Discovered After Award. Mistakes shall not
be corrected after award of the contract.
3-214 Award.
(1) Award Documentation. A brief written justification
statement shall be made showing the basis on which the award was
found to be most advantageous to the state taking into consideration
price and the other evaluation factors set forth in the Request for
Proposals.
(2) One Proposal Received. If only one proposal is
received in response to a Request for Proposals, the procurement
officer may, as the officer deems appropriate, either make an award
or, if time permits, resolicit for the purpose of obtaining additional
competitive sealed proposals.
3-215 Publicizing Awards.
(1) After the selection of the successful offeror(s), notice
of award shall be available in the purchasing agency's office and
may be available on the internet.
(2) The following shall be disclosed to the public after
notice of the selection of the successful offeror(s) and after receipt
of a GRAMA request and payment of any lawfully enacted and
applicable fees:
(a) the contract(s) entered into as a result of the selection
and the successful proposal(s), except for those portions that are to
be non-disclosed under R33-3-204;
(b) the unsuccessful proposals, except for those portions
that are to be non-disclosed under R33-3-204;
(c) the rankings of the proposals;
(d) the names of the members of any selection committee
(reviewing authority);
(e) the final scores used by the selection committee to
make the selection, except that the names of the individual scorers
shall not be associated with their individual scores or rankings.
(f) the written justification statement supporting the
selection, except for those portions that are to be non-disclosed
under R33-3-204.
(3) After due consideration and public input, the
following has been determined by the Procurement Policy Board to
impair governmental procurement proceedings or give an unfair
advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contract or
agreement with a governmental entity, and will not be disclosed by
the governmental entity at any time to the public including under
any GRAMA request:
(a) the names of individual scorers in relation to their
individual scores or rankings;
(b) non-public financial statements; and
(c) past performance and reference information, which is
not provided by the offeror and which is obtained as a result of the
efforts of the governmental entity. To the extent such past
performance or reference information is included in the written
justification statement, it is subject to public disclosure.
3-216 Exceptions to Competitive Sealed Proposal
Process.
(1) As authorized by Section 63G-6-408(1) the Chief
Procurement Officer or designee may determine that for a given
request it is either not practicable or not advantageous for the state
to procure a commodity or service referenced in section 3-201
above by soliciting competitive sealed proposals. When making
this determination, the Chief Procurement Officer may take into
consideration whether the potential cost of preparing, soliciting and
evaluating competitive sealed proposals is expected to exceed the
benefits normally associated with such solicitations. In the event of
that it is so determined, the Chief Procurement Officer, head of a
purchasing agency or designee may elect to utilize an alternative,
more cost effective procurement method, which may include direct
negotiations with a qualified vendor or contractor.
(2) Documentation of the alternative procurement method
selected shall state the reasons for selection and shall be made a part
of the contract file.
3-217 Multiple Award Contracts for Human Service
Provider Services.
The Chief Procurement Officer, head of a purchasing
agency or designee may elect to award multiple contracts for
Human Service Provider Services through a competitive sealed
proposal process by first determining the appropriate fee to be paid
to providers and then contracting with all providers meeting the
criteria established in the RFP. However this specialized system of
contracting for human service provider services may only be used
when:
(1) The agency has performed an appropriate analysis to
determine appropriate rates to be paid;
(2) The agency files contain adequate documentation of
the reasons the contractor was awarded the contract and the reasons
for selecting a particular contractor to provide the service to each
client; and
(3) The agency has a formal written complaint and appeal
process, notice of which is provided to the contractors, and an
internal audit function to insure that selection of the contractor from
the list of awarded contractors was fair, equitable and appropriate.
. . . . . . .
R33-3-7. Types of Contracts.
3-701 Policy Regarding Selection of Contract Types.
(1) General. The selection of an appropriate contract type
depends on factors such as the nature of the supplies, services, or
construction to be procured, the uncertainties which may be
involved in contract performance, and the extent to which the
purchasing agency or the contractor is to assume the risk of the cost
of performance of the contract. Contract types differ in the degree
of responsibility assumed by the contractor for the costs of
UTAH STATE BULLETIN, June 01, 2010, Vol. 2010, No. 11 31