(1) Competitive sealed bidding is the preferred method of procurement; however, if it is not practicable and advantageous, a request for proposals or request for qualifications may be used. The terms “practicable” and “advantageous” are to be given ordinary dictionary meanings. The term “practicable” denotes what may be accomplished or put into practical application. “Advantageous” denotes a judgmental assessment of what is in the state’s best interest.

(2) The following factors shall be considered when determining advantageousness:

(a) The need for flexibility;

(b) The type of evaluations that will be needed after offers are received;

(c) Whether the evaluation factors involve the relative abilities of offerers to perform, including degrees of technical or professional experience or expertise;

(d) Whether the type of need to be satisfied involves weighing artistic and aesthetic values to the extent that price is a secondary consideration;

(e) Whether the types of supplies, services or construction may require the use of comparative judgmental evaluations to evaluate them adequately; and

(f) Whether prior procurements indicate that a request for proposals may result in more beneficial contracts for the state.

(3) The following factors shall be considered when determining practicability:

(a) Whether the contract needs to be a contract other than a fixed-price type contract;

(b) Whether oral or written discussions may need to be conducted with offerers concerning technical and price aspects of their proposals;

(c) Whether offerers may need to be afforded the opportunity to revise their proposals, including price;

(d) Whether the award may need to be based upon a comparative evaluation of differing price and contractual factors as well as quality factors that include technical and performance capability and the content of the technical proposal; and

(e) Whether the primary consideration in determining award may not be price.

(4) On or before January 1 of each year, and every time a chief procurement officer is hired, each state agency shall provide to the state purchasing agent the name of the state agency’s chief procurement officer and information identifying the state agency’s central purchasing office, if applicable. If the chief procurement officer of an agency or his or her designee determines, in writing, that the use of competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the state, he or she shall submit a detailed explanation of the reasons for that determination to the Public Procurement Review Board. If the Public Procurement Review Board determines that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the state, then a contract may be entered into for the procurement of commodities, supplies, equipment, construction, technology, personal and professional services, state agency purchased employee benefits or state agency supplemental insurance and cafeteria plans, by a request for proposals or request for qualifications. However, these procurements contracted for through a request for proposals or request for qualifications may not be combined or included in a contract with other procurements that are required to be procured through competitive sealed bidding so as to avoid the statutory obligation for procurement through competitive sealed bidding. The board may modify or revoke its determination at any time, and the determination should be reviewed for current applicability from time to time.

In addition to determining whether a request for proposals or request for qualifications would be practicable and advantageous to the state, when making the decision to use a request for proposals or request for qualifications, the chief procurement officer shall consider the following factors:

(a) Whether quality, availability or capability is overriding in relation to price in procurements for research and development, technical supplies or services;

(b) Whether the initial installation needs to be evaluated together with later maintenance and service capabilities and what priority should be given to these requirements in the best interests of the state; and

(c) Whether the marketplace will respond better to a solicitation permitting not only a range of alternative proposals but evaluation and discussion of them before making the award.