The RFP Selection Process

The Procurement Code

The role of the evaluation committee
chair
The duties of the evaluation
committee members
Evaluation process and required
documentation
1

Procurement Code 63G6a

63G-6a-702. Contracts awarded by request for proposals.
(1) A request for proposals standard procurement process may be used instead of
bidding if the procurement officer determines, in writing, that the request for proposals
standard procurement process will provide the best value to the procurement unit.
(2) The request for proposals standard procurement process is appropriate to use for:
(a) the procurement of professional services;
(b) a design-build procurement;
(c) when cost is not the most important factor to be considered in making the
selection that is most advantageous to the procurement unit; or
(d) when factors, in addition to cost, are highly significant in making the selection
that is most advantageous to the procurement unit.

Procurement Code 63G-6a.

63G-6a-703. Request for proposals -- Notice -- Contents.
(1) The request for proposals standard procurement process begins when the division or a procurement unit with independent
procurement authority issues a request for proposals.
(2) A request for proposals shall:
(a) state the period of time during which a proposal will be accepted;
(b) describe the manner in which a proposal shall be submitted;
(c) state the place where a proposal shall be submitted;
(d) include, or incorporate by reference:
(i) a description of the procurement items sought;
(ii) a description of the subjective and objective criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposal; and
(iii) the standard contractual terms and conditions required by the authorized purchasing entity;
(e) state the relative weight that will be given to each score awarded for the criteria described in Subsection (2)(d)(ii),
including cost;
(f) state the formula that will be used to determine the score awarded for the cost of each proposal;
(g) if the request for proposals will be conducted in multiple stages, as described in Section 63G-6a-710, include a description
of the stages and the criteria and scoring that will be used to screen offerors at each stage; and
(h) state that discussions may be conducted with offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of
being selected for award, followed by an opportunity to make best and final offers, but that proposals may be accepted without
discussions
(3) The division or a procurement unit with independent procurement authority shall publish a request for proposals in accordance
with the requirements of Section 63G-6a-406.

Procurement Code 63G-6a

63G-6a-704. Opening of proposals and
acceptance.
(1) An issuing procurement unit shall ensure that proposals
are opened in a manner that avoids disclosing the contents
to competing offerors during the evaluation process.
(2) An issuing procurement unit may not accept a proposal:
(a) after the time for submission of a proposal has expired; or
(b) that is not responsive to the request for proposals.

Procurement Code 63G-6a

63G-6a-705. Discussions -- Best and final
offers.
(1) After proposals are received and opened, the issuing procurement unit may conduct discussions
with the offerors and allow the offerors to make best and final offers after the discussions.
(2) The issuing procurement unit shall:
(a) ensure that each offeror receives fair and equal treatment with respect to the other offerors;
(b) establish a schedule and procedures for conducting discussions;
(c) ensure that information in each proposal and information gathered during discussions is not
shared with other offerors until the contract is awarded;
(d) ensure that auction tactics are not used in the discussion process, including discussing and
comparing the costs and features of other proposals; and
(e) set a common date and time for the submission of best and final offers.
(3) If an offeror chooses not to participate in a discussion or does not make a timely best and final
offer, the offer submitted by the offerors before the conduct of discussions shall be treated as the
offeror's best and final offer.
5

Procurement Code 63G-6a

63G-6a-706. Correction or withdrawal of
proposal -- Cancellation of award.
(1) Correction or withdrawal of an unintentionally
erroneous proposal, or the cancellation of an award or
contract that is based on an unintentionally erroneous
proposal, may be made in accordance with the rules of
the applicable rulemaking authority.
(2) A decision to permit the correction or withdrawal
of a proposal or the cancellation of an award or a
contract under Subsection (1) shall be supported in a
written document, signed by the procurement officer.
6

Procurement Code 63G-6a.

63G-6a-707. Evaluation of proposals -- Evaluation
committee.
(1) Each proposal shall be evaluated using the criteria described in the request for
proposals, which may include:
(a) experience;
(b) performance ratings;
(c) inspection;
(d) testing;
(e) quality;
(f) workmanship;
(g) time, manner, or schedule of delivery;
(h) references;
(i) financial stability;
(j) suitability for a particular purpose;
(k) management plans;
(l) cost; or
(m) other subjective or objective criteria specified in the request for proposals.
(2) Criteria not described in the request for proposals may not be used to
evaluate a proposal.
7

Procurement Code 63G6a.

(3) The issuing procurement unit shall:
(a) appoint an evaluation committee consisting of at least three individuals; and
(b) ensure that the evaluation committee and each member of the evaluation committee:
(i) does not have a conflict of interest with any of the offerors;
(ii) can fairly evaluate each proposal;
(iii) does not contact or communicate with an offeror for any reason other than conducting
standard procurement process; and

the

(iv) conducts the evaluation in a manner that ensures a fair and competitive process and avoids
the appearance of impropriety.
(4) The evaluation committee may conduct interviews with, or participate in presentations by, the
offerors.
(5) Except as provided in Subsection (6) or (7), each member of the evaluation committee is
prohibited from knowing, or having access to, any information relating to the cost, or the scoring of
the cost, of a proposal until after the evaluation committee submits its final recommended scores on
all other criteria to the issuing procurement unit.
8

Procurement Code 63G-6a.

(6)
(a) As used in this Subsection (6), "management fee" includes only the following fees of the construction manager/general
contractor:
(i) preconstruction phase services;
(ii) monthly supervision fees for the construction phase; and
(iii) overhead and profit for the construction phase.
(b) When selecting a construction manager/general contractor for a construction project, the evaluation committee:
(i) may, at any time after the opening of the responses to the request for proposals, have access to, and consider, the management fee
proposed by the offerors; and
(ii) except as provided in Subsection (7), may not know or have access to any other information relating to the cost of construction
submitted by the offerors, until after the evaluation committee submits its final recommended scores on all other criteria to the issuing
procurement unit.
(7) An issuing procurement unit is not required to comply with Subsection (5) if, before opening the responses to the request for
proposals, the head of the issuing procurement unit or a person designated by rule made by the applicable rulemaking authority:
(a) signs a written statement:

(i) indicating that, due to the nature of the proposal or other circumstances, it is in the best interest of the procurement unit to waive
compliance with Subsection (5); and
(ii) describing the nature of the proposal and the other circumstances relied upon to waive compliance with Subsection (5); and
(b) makes the written statement available to the public, upon request.

(8) The evaluation committee shall award scores to each responsive and responsible proposal that has not been disqualified from
consideration under the provisions of this chapter.

Definition of Evaluation
The NASPO State & Local Government
Procurement Practical Guide book defines
Evaluation as:

A review process used to make a

determination. In service
contracting, a methodology used
to determine the successful
proposer/offeror which may
include subjective criteria and

10

Definition of Evaluation
Criteria
Qualitative factors that an evaluation
committee will use to evaluate/score a
proposal and select the most qualified
proposer/offeror. May include such
factors as past performance,
references, management and technical
capability, price, quality and
performance requirements.
11

The Role of the Evaluation Committee

Chairperson
A. Coordinate the development of the RFP
1.Work with the purchasing agent/customer at the front of the process to avoid any
unnecessary delays at the back-end of the process
2.Include evaluation committee in the development of the RFP
The Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a-707 (3) requires a minimum of three (3)
evaluators
employees in your department
consultants or subject matter experts
Knowledgeable employees from other departments
Others as determined appropriate

3. Require the evaluation committee members to assist in determining the evaluation

criteria including weighting of each criterion

12

Evaluation Committee Chairperson

B. Select evaluation committee
members
employees think about the types of vendors that may
respond and who in your department will not have a
potential conflict
consultants or subject matter experts (ensure they do not
have a conflict)
Others as determined appropriate
Note: The purchasing agent provides procurement guidance and
support, but generally does not serve as an evaluator.
13

Evaluation Committee
Chairperson

Be available during the period of time the RFP is

publically posted to assist with answering questions.
Ensure that any communication with offerors during the
entire RFP process is coordinated with the purchasing
agent. This applies to the entire evaluation committee.

Note: A current concern in the industry is evaluators and

vendors communicating through social media, such as
texting, facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, instagram, etc., even
during the evaluation phase.

14

Evaluation Committee Chairperson

C. Complete initial review of proposals to
determine if offeror meets all of the
submittal requirements.
Immediately notify purchasing agent in writing of the proposals
determined to be unacceptable and the reason for the determination.
Note: failure to provide a copy of requested forms such as a license, insurance
document, etc. is not necessarily a reason do deem an offeror as non-responsive.
Dont limit competition due to a minor technicality.

Provide details including a reference to the specific section(s) of the

RFP specifications in which the offeror did not meet.
This may be done with the whole evaluation committee or with a subcommittee
If a proposal doesnt meet the minimum submittal requirements, the offeror may be
disqualified and the evaluation committee will not have to read/score the proposal.

Purchasing agent will notify the offeror immediately in order to

expedite the potential for a protest.
15

Evaluation Committee Chairperson

The Government Records Access and
Management Act (GRAMA) restricts certain
information from protected status.
1. Review proposals, including footers to determine
if the entire proposal is marked protected,
proprietary or confidential. this may be
grounds for disqualification.
Purchasing agent may seek a clarification from the offeror
allowing the option to remove the restriction.
Offeror may be disqualified.
Cost is not be protected under GRAMA.

16

Evaluation Committee
Chairperson

D. Conduct an initial evaluation committee

meeting to:
1.

2.

3.

Ensure each evaluator reads and signs the Conflict of Interest

Nondisclosure form. This is completed once the purchasing
agent provides the names of offerors to the committee.
Provide instruction to the evaluators that they are not to disclose
any information about the proposals or process with anyone
other than the evaluation committee members.
Distribute technical proposals to committee. Cost will not be
included as part of this phase of the evaluation, per UCA 63G-6A707 (5)
(5) Except as provided in Subsection (6) or (7), each member of the evaluation committee is prohibited
from knowing, or having access to, any information relating to the cost, or the scoring of the cost, of a
proposal until after the evaluation committee submits its final recommended scores on all other criteria
to the authorized purchasing entity.

4.

Distribute evaluation score sheets to evaluators.

17

Evaluation Committee
Chairperson

5. Instruct evaluators that they are to limit their review to

the contents of the proposal. Information that is not
contained in the written response is not to be
considered.
6. Work with Procurement unit to schedule all evaluation
committee meetings. Serve as the facilitator for the
meetings.
7. Participate in obtaining clarifications and BAFO if
required.
8. Work with purchasing agent to evaluate cost after
technical scoring is complete.
18

Guidelines for Scoring

Proposals

Guidelines for Scoring Technical Proposals - Example

Each technical proposal will be evaluated against a set of pre-determined criteria to assess
the degree to which it meets that criterion. Compliance with requirements will be
assessed as a point score based on a scale such as:
0 = Failure, no response
1 = Poor, inadequate, fails to meet requirement
2 = Fair, only partially responsive
3 = Average, meets minimum requirement
4 = Above average, exceeds minimum requirement
5 = Superior
Reference checks - certain requirements, such as those that pertain to previous experience
in required areas of expertise, may be evaluated further though reference checks.
Designated evaluators may conduct reference checks. The results will be provided to all
evaluators. Once reference checks are completed, evaluators will review their initial
scoring of offeror responses in the context of reference responses.
The evaluation committee will meet to review the scores and to determine whether there
are significant differences among evaluators. The purpose of this is to ensure that scoring
differences are not the result of misunderstandings or an inability to locate appropriate
material in the technical proposal. If either of these is the cause of divergent scoring,
correction of scores should be made.
19

Cost Evaluation
When evaluating cost, you must
ensure that an appropriate comparison
is made. Cost/pricing details are not
sent to the agency for review until
after the technical scoring has been
completed and submitted to
Purchasing for final review. The
evaluation committee may not have to
be involved in the cost evaluation,
since costs are most often scored
objectively rather than subjectively.

20

Evaluation Committee
Member

Responsibilities and Duties:

A. Participate in developing the RFP including

determining criteria
B. Attend initial meeting to receive proposals and
discuss the evaluation process
C. Read and sign Conflict of Interest-Non Disclosure
form
D. Attend all evaluation committee member meetings
E. Attend all oral presentations by offerors
F. Read each proposal to evaluate against the
technical criteria
G. Complete an evaluation form for each offeror
H. Ensure fair and equitable treatment of all offerors
21

Procurement Code 63G-6a

63G-6a-708. Cost-benefit analysis.
(1) 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 issuing procurement unit shall make an informal written costbenefit analysis that:
(a) explains, in general terms, the advantage to the procurement unit of awarding the contract
to the higher cost offeror;
(b) includes, except as provided in Subsection (1)(c), the estimated added financial value to the
procurement unit of each criteria that justifies awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;
(c) includes, to the extent that assigning a financial value to a particular criteria is not
practicable, a statement describing:
(i) why it is not practicable to assign a financial value to the criteria; and
(ii) in nonfinancial terms, the advantage to the procurement unit, based on the particular
criteria, of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;

22

Procurement Code 63G-6a

cost benefit

analysis cont

(d) demonstrates that the value of the advantage to the procurement unit
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; and
(e) includes any other information required by rule made by the
applicable rulemaking authority.
(2) If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in Subsection (1) does not
justify award of the contract to the offeror that received the highest score, the
issuing procurement unit:
(a) may not award the contract to the offeror that received the highest
score; and
(b) may award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest
score, unless:
(i) an informal cost-benefit analysis is required, because the
difference between the cost proposed by the offeror that received the next
highest score and the lowest cost proposal exceeds the greater of $10,000
or 5% of the lowest cost proposal; and
(ii) the informal cost-benefit analysis does not justify award of the 23

Procurement Code 63G-6a

cost benefit

analysis cont

(3)
the
the

If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in Subsection (1) does not justify award of
contract to the offeror, described in Subsection (2), that received the next highest score,
issuing procurement unit:
(a) may not award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score; and
(b) shall continue with the process described in Subsection (2) for each offeror that
received the next highest score, until the issuing procurement unit:
(i) awards the contract in accordance with the provisions of this section; or
(ii) cancels the request for proposals.

(4) (a) An issuing procurement unit is not required to make the cost-benefit analysis
described in this section 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 described in Subsection 63G-6a-706(6).
(b) The applicable rulemaking authority shall make rules that establish procedures and
criteria for awarding a contract described in Subsection (4)(a) to ensure that:
(i) a competitive process is maintained; and
(ii) the contract awarded is in the best interest of the procurement unit.
24

Procurement Code 63G-6a

63G-6a-709. Award of contract -- Cancellation -- Disqualification ..
(1) After the evaluation and scoring of proposals is completed, the issuing procurement unit shall:
(a) except as provided in Section 63G-6a-708, award the contract as soon as practicable to:
(i) the responsive and responsible offeror with the highest total score; or
(ii) if, in accordance with Subsection (2), the procurement officer or the head of the issuing procurement unit disqualifies
the offeror described in Subsection (1)(a)(i), the responsive and responsible offeror with the next highest total score; or
(b) cancel the request for proposals without awarding a contract.
(2) In accordance with Subsection (3), the procurement officer or the head of the issuing procurement unit may disqualify
an offeror for:
(a) a violation of this chapter;
(b) a violation of a requirement of the request for proposals;
(c) unlawful or unethical conduct; or
(d) a change in circumstance that, had the change been known at the time the proposal was submitted, would have
caused the proposal to not have the highest score.
(3) A procurement officer or head of an issuing procurement unit who disqualifies an offeror under Subsection (2) shall:
(a) make a written finding, stating the reasons for disqualification; and
(b) provide a copy of the written finding to the disqualified offeror.
(4) If an issuing procurement unit cancels a request for proposals without awarding a contract, the issuing procurement unit
shall make available for public inspection a written justification for the cancellation.

25

Procurement Code 63G6a.

63G-6a-709.5. Publication of award and scores.

The issuing procurement unit shall, on the day on which the

award of a contract is announced, make available to each offeror and
to the public a written statement that includes:
(1) the name of the offeror to which the contract is awarded and
the total score awarded by the evaluation committee to that offeror;
(2) the total score awarded by the evaluation committee to each
offeror to which the contract is not awarded, without identifying
which offeror received which score; and
(3) any cost-benefit analysis made, under Section 63G-6a-708, in
relation to the request for proposals.

26

Procurement Code 63G-6a

63G-6a-710. Multiple stage process.
(1) The division or a procurement unit with independent
procurement authority may conduct a request for proposals in
stages, where an earlier stage is used to qualify offerors for
subsequent stages or to narrow the number of offerors that
will move on to subsequent stages.
(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the
division or a procurement unit with independent procurement
authority shall conduct a multiple stage process in accordance
with this part.

27

Multi-Stage Example
Phase 1: Initial Review Evaluation Process
In the initial phase of the evaluation process, the proposal evaluation committee will review all proposals
timely received. Unacceptable proposals (non-responsive proposals not conforming to RFP requirements
or unable to meet the minimum requirements) will be eliminated from further consideration.

Phase 2: Technical Proposal Evaluation

Acceptable proposals will be evaluated against the proposal evaluation criteria as follows:

Evaluation Criteria
Points
Demonstrated ability to meet the scope of work and requirements
30 pts.
Demonstrated technical capability (proven track record), etc.
20 pts.
Qualification and expertise of staff proposed for this project
20 pts.

Offerors that achieve 75% of the total technical score (52.5 points) will proceed to Phase 2, Cost Proposal
Evaluation. Offerors with a score of less than the minimum required technical score will be deemed
unacceptable and ineligible for further consideration.

Phase 3: Cost Proposal Evaluation

Firms successful in the technical evaluation will advance to phase 3, Cost Proposal Evaluation as follows:

Evaluation Criteria
Points
Cost 30 Points

The offeror with the lowest total cost will receive the maximum 30 points. All other offerors will receive
points as determined by the ratio of their cost to the lowest cost based on the formula provided.

28

The Procurement File

The procurement file is to contain the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Copy of RFP
Proposal Responses
Technical Evaluation Scores Compilation
Cost Evaluation
Final Compilation of all scores (published copy has unsuccessful
offeror names redacted)

6. Written finding for all disqualified firms

7. Copy of disqualification notice sent to firms
8. Cost Benefit Analysis (if required)
9. Award Recommendation and Justification Statement
10.Other correspondence specific to the procurement
29

The RFP Evaluation/Selection Process

Questions?
---------------------Thank You!
30