Current through Register Vol. 48, No. 38, September 20, 2024
a) Competitive
Sealed Proposals may be used whenever permitted by the Code and as described in
this Part.
b) The Competitive
Sealed Proposal method of source selection may be used to procure the following
categories. Note that the following services, if they are professional and
artistic, must be procured in accordance with Section
4.2035.
1) electronic data processing equipment,
software and services;
2)
telecommunications equipment, software and services;
3) consulting services;
4) employee benefits and management of those
benefits; and
5) insurance and
banking services.
c)
Competitive Sealed Proposals may be used on a case-by-case basis to procure
other needs when it is determined in writing by the SPO that competitive sealed
bidding is either not practicable or advantageous.
d) The Competitive Sealed Proposal method
differs from competitive sealed bidding in two ways: it permits discussions
with competing offerors and changes in their proposals, including price and it
allows comparative judgmental evaluations to be made when selecting among
acceptable proposals for award of the contract. Factors to be considered in
determining whether competitive sealed bidding is either not practical or
advantageous include:
1) When evaluation
factors involve the relative abilities of offerors to perform, including
degrees of experience or expertise, when the types of supplies or services may
require the use of comparative, judgmental evaluations to evaluate them
adequately, or when the type of need to be satisfied involves weighing
aesthetic values to the extent that price is a secondary
consideration;
2) whether oral or
written discussions may need to be conducted with offerors concerning technical
and price aspects of their proposals;
3) whether offerors may need to be afforded
the opportunity to revise their proposals, including price;
4) whether award may need to be based upon a
comparative evaluation, as stated in the Request for Proposals, of differing
price, quality and contractual factors in order to determine the most
advantageous offering to the State. Quality factors include technical and
performance capability and the content of the technical proposal;
5) whether the primary consideration in
determining award may not be price; and
6) if prior procurements indicate that
competitive sealed proposals may result in more beneficial contracts for the
State.
e) Content of the
Request for Proposals
The RFP shall be prepared in accordance with Section
4.2010
(Competitive Sealed Bidding), provided that it shall also include:
1) a statement that discussions may be
conducted with offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably
susceptible of being selected for award;
2) a statement of when and how price should
be submitted.
A) The RFP shall identify in the
solicitation what parts or features of the work are essential and what options
may be included in the project. An option is a right to purchase additional
supplies or services identified in the solicitation and directly relates to
additional features or services of the underlying supply or service. All
options must be clearly identified in the solicitation as optional
work.
B) The solicitation shall
identify how the university will evaluate offers to determine the most
advantageous proposal for award purposes by identifying whether options will or
will not be included in the evaluation.
C) The State expects prices for the required
and optional supplies and services to be the lowest competitive market prices
available for a customer of like type and of like circumstance. If the
university solicits required and optional supplies or services, but awards
based on the required supplies and services, the university may reject any
response to the solicitation if the required or optional prices are materially
unbalanced in relation to each other. For example, if a vendor submits an
artificially low price for the required supplies and services but has submitted
an artificially high price for the options, the prices are presumed to be
unbalanced. Unbalanced prices are not conducive to competitive comparison and
may not be in the best interests of the State.
D) Evaluation of options does not obligate
the university to exercise those options. If the university adds options not
accepted at the time of contract award, a change order shall be executed based
on the price provided in the contract. Notice of the exercise of the options
shall be published to the Bulletin 14 days in advance of exercise of the
options.
E) Pricing for any renewal
terms identified in the solicitation shall be applied in determining the price.
A renewal term is not an option; and
3) a statement that revisions may be
requested, after discussions, for the purpose of obtaining best and final
offers.
f) Receipt and
Registration of Proposals
1) Proposals and
modifications shall be opened publicly at the time, date and place designated
in the RFP in the presence of a State witness, or through an electronic
procurement system approved by the CPO-HE.
2) The person opening the proposals shall not
serve as a witness. The name of the person opening the proposals, the name of
the person serving as the State witness, the name of each offeror, the number
of modifications received (if any), a description sufficient to identify the
supply or service item offered, a notation that the package contains a price
proposal, and such other information as determined by the CPO-HE or SPO shall
be recorded on a form prescribed by the CPO-HE, read aloud, and otherwise made
available through an electronic procurement system approved by the
CPO-HE.
g) Evaluation of
Proposals
1) Evaluation Factors in the RFP.
The RFP shall state all of the evaluation factors, including price, and their
relative importance. Evaluation subfactors, if any, and their relative
importance must be finalized prior to the opening and made available for
inspection and copying upon opening. However, all price subfactors and their
relative ranking must be shown in the RFP.
A)
Demonstrations or presentations may be part of the evaluation criteria if
provided for in the solicitation. The results of a demonstration or
presentation may be included in scoring the proposal or to confirm the validity
of the written proposal.
B) The
criteria for demonstrations or presentations shall relate to the performance
and intended use of the supply or service.
C) The RFP shall state the criteria for being
invited to provide a demonstration or presentation.
D) Demonstrations or presentations shall be
conducted in a manner that provides fair and equitable treatment to
offerors.
2) Evaluation.
The evaluation shall be based solely on the evaluation factors set forth in the
RFP and no other factors shall be considered, except as communicated in advance
to each proposer with opportunity to make necessary adjustments to the
proposal.
A) Numerical rating systems shall be
used unless another scoring tool is authorized by the SPO. Any scoring tool
shall reflect the evaluation criteria and ranking set forth in the RFP and any
subfactors identified at the opening.
B) Proposals shall be submitted in three
parts: the first, covering the price; the second, covering commitment to
diversity; and third, covering all other items. Each part shall be evaluated
and ranked independent of all other parts of all proposals. Each member of the
evaluation committee must read and evaluate the third part individually and
independently of all other members. All fields of the individual scoring sheet
must be completed by each member of the evaluation committee.
i) The second part must include a Commitment
to Diversity. (See Sec. 20-15 of the Code.) The evaluators shall consider the
information provided in the response and the quality of that information when
evaluating responses. Offerors must show a demonstrated commitment to diversity
and require the allotment of points for Commitment to Diversity. Commitment to
Diversity must account for 20% of the total points assigned to the third
part.
ii) Factors to be considered
in the award of points for the Commitment to Diversity component include, but
are not limited to:
* whether or how well the offeror, on the
solicitation being evaluated, met the goal of contracting or subcontracting
with businesses owned by women, minorities, or persons with
disabilities;
* whether the offeror, on the solicitation being
evaluated, assisted businesses owned by women, minorities, or persons with
disabilities in obtaining lines of credit, insurance, necessary equipment,
supplies, materials, or related assistance or services;
* the percentage of prior year revenues of the
offeror that involve businesses owned by women, minorities, or persons with
disabilities;
* whether the offeror has a written supplier
diversity program, including, but not limited to, use of diverse vendors in the
supply chain and a training or mentoring program with businesses owned by
women, minorities, or persons with disabilities; and
* the percentage of members of the offeror's
governing board, senior executives, and managers who are women, minorities, or
persons with disabilities. [30 ILCS
500/20-15 (e-5)]
C) After completion of the individual
evaluations, the evaluation committee may meet to discuss the proposals to
ensure full understanding of the proposals. The evaluation committee shall meet
if significant or substantial variance of scores, divergent scoring comments,
or other information suggests the need for further discussion.
D) No committee member shall attempt to
unduly influence another member's scores by virtue of the member's individual
or organizational rank within the university. After consideration of comments,
individual evaluators may, for good cause, adjust their scores on their
individual scoring sheets.
E)
Evaluation of the parts may be conducted simultaneously, provided different
evaluators are used to evaluate each part and no information is exchanged
between the evaluators prior to completion of the evaluation. The price
proposal shall be opened in the presence of a State witness and distributed to
the appropriate evaluators.
h) Proposal Discussions with Individual
Offerors
1) Purposes of Discussions.
Discussions are held to:
A) promote
understanding of the University's requirements and the offerors' proposals
(e.g., determine in greater detail milestones, deliverables and timelines for
completion of work); and
B)
facilitate arriving at a contract that will be most advantageous to the State,
taking into consideration price and the other evaluation factors set forth in
the RFP.
2) Conduct of
Discussions. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect
to any opportunity for discussions and clarifications of proposals. Discussion
may be conducted by the university, in consultation with the SPO, with vendors
reasonably susceptible of being awarded a contract based on qualifications and
price. If during the discussions it is determined there is a need for any
substantial revision of, or change to, the RFP, the RFP shall be canceled and
may be resolicited to incorporate the clarification or change. Auction
techniques (revealing one offeror's price to another) and disclosure of any
information from competing proposals are prohibited. Any substantial oral
clarification of a proposal shall be reduced to writing by the
offeror.
3) Best and Final Offers.
The SPO may request best and final offers from those offerors deemed acceptable
after completion of any discussions. Best and final offers shall be submitted
by a specified date and time. The SPO may conduct additional discussions or
require another submission of best and final offers. The scope of the best and
final offer and the number of vendors allowed to participate shall be defined
by the SPO. The primary objective of best and final offers is to maximize the
university's ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and the
evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. If an offeror does not submit
either a notice of withdrawal or another best and final offer, the offeror's
immediately previous offer will be construed as its best and final
offer.
i) Award
An award shall be made by the SPO pursuant to a written
determination showing the basis on which the award was found to be most
advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and evaluation
factors set forth in the RFP. The contract file shall contain the basis on
which the award is made. Any changes negotiated after award, other than
reduction in price, must be submitted to the SPO for approval prior to contract
execution.
