1. A. General

   1. (1) Competitive negotiations are governed by R.19-445.2030B, -2040, -2042, -2045, -2050B, -2085C, -2090B, -2095C, -2095J, and -2098. Regulation 19-445-2097 (Rejection of Proposals) applies to competitive negotiations except that R.19-445.2099(K)(1) is substituted for R.19-445.2097A.
   2. (2) Documentation required by this Regulation 19-445.2099 must be prepared at the time the process to be documented is conducted.

   3. (3) For each competitive negotiation the head of the using agency or his designee must appoint in writing an individual to serve as the selection executive (SE). The SE must be an individual who has sufficient rank and professional experience to effectively carry out the functions of an SE. Subject to the authority and approval of the responsible procurement officer, the SE shall-

      1. (a) Recommend an acquisition team, tailored for the particular acquisition, that includes appropriate contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise to ensure a well-developed solicitation, a comprehensive evaluation of offers, and effective negotiations;
      2. (b) Approve the acquisition plan and the solicitation before solicitation release;
      3. (c) Ensure consistency among and sufficiency of the solicitation requirements, evaluation factors and subfactors, solicitation provisions or contract clauses, and data requirements;
      4. (d) Ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in the solicitation;
      5. (e) Consider the recommendations of subject matter experts, advisory boards or panels (if any); and
      6. (f) Select the source or sources whose proposal is the best value to the State, as provided in R.19-445.2099K.
   4. (4) Consistent with Section 11-35-1535(A)(3), competitive negotiated acquisitions may be conducted only by the office of the appropriate chief procurement officer; accordingly, a chief procurement officer may not delegate to a using agency the authority to conduct a competitive negotiation.

2. B. Procedures for Competitive Negotiations.

   The Division of Procurement Services may develop and issue procedures which shall be followed when using the competitive negotiations method of acquisition.

3. C. Definitions

   Clarification means any communication in which the responsible procurement officer requests or accepts information that clarifies any information in a proposal. Clarification does not include the request or acceptance of any change to the terms of an offer.

   Competitive range means the offeror or group of offerors selected for negotiation.

   Deficiency means any term of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a solicitation. A material requirement is one that affects the price, quantity, quality, delivery, or other performance obligations of the contract.

   Negotiation means any communication, oral or written, that invites or permits an offeror to change any texts or graphics in the terms of its offer in any way. Negotiation does not include communications involving (i) information that is necessary to understand an offer, but that does not change any text or graphics in the offer, (ii) information about the offeror, or (iii) any other information that will not bind the parties upon acceptance of an offer.

   Offer means those portions of a proposal that constitute a written promise or set of promises to act or refrain from acting in a specified way, so made as to manifest a commitment to be bound by those promises upon acceptance by the State. Offer does not include mere descriptions of approaches, plans, intentions, opinions, predictions, or estimates; statements that describe the offeror’s organization or capability; or any other statements that do not make a definite and firm commitment to act or refrain from acting in a specified way.

   Proposal means the information submitted to the State in response to a request for proposals. The information in a proposal includes (i) the offer, (ii) information explaining the offer, (iii) information about the offeror, and (iv) any other information that is relevant to source selection decision making.

   Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. D. Amending the solicitation

   1. (1) When, either before or after receipt of proposals, the State changes its requirements or terms and conditions, the responsible procurement officer shall amend the solicitation.
   2. (2) When, after the receipt of proposals, the State discovers that material inadequacies of the solicitation have contributed to technical or pricing deficiencies, the responsible procurement officer shall amend the solicitation to resolve the inadequacies, preferably prior to proceeding further with the procurement process.
   3. (3) If a proposal of interest to the State involves a desirable departure from the stated requirements, the responsible procurement officer shall amend the solicitation, preferably prior to completion of proposal evaluation pursuant to F(1), provided this can be done without revealing to the other offerors the alternate solution proposed or any other information that is entitled to protection (see Regulation 19-445.2099I).
   4. (4) Amendments issued after the established time and date for receipt of proposals may not exceed the general scope of the request for proposals and must be issued to those offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition.
   5. (5) If, based on market research or otherwise, an amendment proposed for issuance after offers have been received is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated, so that additional sources likely would have submitted offers had the substance of the amendment been known to them, the responsible procurement officer shall cancel the original solicitation and issue a new one, regardless of the stage of the acquisition.

5. E. Evaluation Factors

   1. (1) The award decision is based on evaluation factors and significant subfactors that are tailored to the acquisition.

   2. (2) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors must-

      1. (a) Represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision; and
      2. (b) Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals.

   3. (3) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance are within the broad discretion of the responsible procurement officer, subject to the following requirements:

      1. (a) Price or cost to the State shall be evaluated unless the responsible procurement officer documents the reasons price or cost is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition and that decision is approved by the head of the using agency.
      2. (b) The quality of the item to be acquired shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience.
      3. (c) Past performance shall be evaluated unless the responsible procurement officer documents the reasons past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition.
   4. (4) All factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be stated clearly in the solicitation. The rating method need not be disclosed in the solicitation.
   5. (5) The request for proposals must state the relative importance of all factors to be considered in evaluating proposals but need not state a numerical weighting for each factor.
   6. (6) If price is an evaluation factor, the solicitation must state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

6. F. Evaluation Process

   1. (1) General. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. All proposals shall be evaluated and, after evaluation, their relative qualities must be assessed solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file.
   2. (2) Evaluation methods. Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings.
   3. (3) Cost or price evaluation. The responsible procurement officer shall document the cost or price evaluation. Price reasonableness shall be determined independently of cost or price evaluation.

   4. (4) Past performance evaluation.

      1. (a) Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. This comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination.
      2. (b) The solicitation shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the stated requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. When evaluating an offeror’s past performance, this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, must be considered; however, the relevance of similar past performance information is a matter of business judgment.
      3. (c) The evaluation should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

   5. (5) Technical evaluation. The source selection records shall include-

      1. (a) An assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements; and
      2. (b) A summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors.

7. G. Exchanges with offerors.

   1. (1) Control. The responsible procurement officer shall control all exchanges after opening and prior to award.
   2. (2) Fairness and Impartiality. The responsible procurement officer shall treat all offerors fairly and impartially when deciding whether and when to seek clarification or to negotiate. Similarly-situated offerors shall be given similar opportunities to clarify and, if in the competitive range, to negotiate.
   3. (3) Clarifications. The responsible procurement officer may conduct clarifications at any time prior to the award decision.

   4. (4) Competitive Range.

      1. (a) After complying with Section 11-35-1535(G) (Evaluation), and before negotiating with anyone, the responsible procurement officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of the offerors that submitted the most promising offers.
      2. (b) Ordinarily, the competitive range should not include more than three offerors. The responsible procurement officer may select only one offeror and may select more than three. The rational for establishment of, and every modification to, the competitive range shall be determined in writing.
      3. (c) Prior to conducting the minimum negotiations required by Section 11-35-1535(I)(3)(b)(i) and R.19-445.2099H(2), otherwise promising offerors should not be excluded from the competitive range due solely to deficiencies that are reasonably susceptible of correction.
      4. (d) After conducting the minimum negotiations required by 11-35-1535(I)(3)(b)(i) and R.19-445.2099H(2), the responsible procurement officer may eliminate an offeror from the competitive range if the offeror is no longer considered to be among the most promising.
      5. (e) Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing.

8. H. Negotiations with offerors

   1. (1) Negotiations - General.

      1. (a) The responsible procurement officer shall participate in and control all negotiations.
      2. (b) The primary objective of negotiation is to maximize the State’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.
      3. (c) The State may use any method of communication.
      4. (d) Prior to any negotiation session, the using agency must document its prenegotiation objectives with regard to each offeror in the competitive range.
      5. (e) The responsible procurement officer shall prepare a record of each negotiation session.
      6. (f) Negotiations may include bargaining. Bargaining includes persuasion, alteration of assumptions and positions, give-and-take, and may apply to price, schedule, technical requirements, type of contract, or other terms of a proposed contract.
      7. (g) The responsible procurement officer may not relax or change any material requirement of the solicitation during negotiation except by amendment in accordance with R.19-445.2099D.
      8. (h) Negotiations may include pricing. The responsible procurement officer may state a price that the State is willing to pay for what has been offered and may tell an offeror its price standing.

      9. (i) Subject to the following requirements, the scope and extent of negotiations are a matter of the responsible procurement officer’s judgment:

         1. (i) Section 11-35-30 (Obligation of Good Faith);

         2. (ii) R.19-445.2099G(2) (Fairness and Impartiality); and

            (iii) R.19-445.2099H(2) (Minimum Negotiations).

      10. (j) The State may engage in more than one session with an offeror if necessary. Subject to R.19-445.2099G(2), the conduct of multiple sessions with a particular offeror does not require the conduct of multiple sessions with other offerors.
      11. (k) Throughout the competitive negotiation process, state personnel shall not disclose the content of any offeror’s proposal to any other offeror.
      12. (l) State personnel shall not promise that the State will select an offeror for award if it makes a particular change or set of changes to its offer.

   2. (2) Negotiations—Minimum—Problem Identification

      The State shall negotiate with each offeror in the competitive range. At a minimum, the State shall identify and seek the correction of any deficiency and the elimination of any other undesirable term in an offer.

   3. (3) Negotiations—Enhancement.

      1. (a) The responsible procurement officer may negotiate with offerors in the competitive range to seek changes in their offers that the State desires and to allow them to make other improvements.
      2. (b) The responsible procurement officer may state specific terms that the State desires and seek improvements in already acceptable terms.

   4. (4) Proposal Revisions.

      1. (a) The responsible procurement officer may request or allow proposal revisions either (i) to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations, or (ii) to provide offerors an opportunity to respond to an amendment.
      2. (b) If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered.
      3. (c) Upon the completion of all negotiations, the responsible procurement officer shall request that offerors still in the competitive range submit final offers not later than a specified common cutoff date and time that allows a reasonable opportunity for submission. When submitting final offers, an offeror may revise any aspect of its offer. The responsible procurement officer shall notify offerors that failure to submit a final offer by the common cutoff date and time will result in the consideration of their last prior offer. Requests for final offers shall advise offerors that final offers shall be in writing and that the government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

9. I. Limitations on exchanges. State personnel involved in the acquisition shall not engage in conduct that-

   1. (1) Favors one offeror over another;
   2. (2) Reveals an offeror’s technical solution, including unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that would compromise an offeror’s intellectual property to another offeror;
   3. (3) Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance; or
   4. (4) Knowingly furnishes source selection information in violation of Regulation 19-445.2010.

10. J. Tradeoff Process

    1. (1) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the interest of the State to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.
    2. (2) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the State to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file.

11. K. Award

    1. (1) Unless there is a compelling reason to reject proposals, award must be made to the responsible offeror whose final proposal meets, in all material respects, the requirements announced in the solicitation, as amended, and is determined in writing to provide the best value to the State, taking into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals and, if price is an evaluation factor, any tradeoffs among price and non-price factors. Award must be based on a comparative assessment of final proposals from offerors within the competitive range against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.
    2. (2) The contract file must document the basis on which the award is made, and the documentation must explain and justify the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on in the award determination, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented, that documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.
    3. (3) The contract file must document who performed the functions required by sections F, J, and K of R.19-445.2099 and which functions they performed.

HISTORY: Added by SCSR 43-8 Doc. No. 4895, eff August 23, 2019 (interim). Amended by SCSR 44-6 Doc. No. 4894, eff June 26, 2020.