(1) When the chief procurement officer submits the determination that the use of competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the state to the Public Procurement Review Board for its approval, he or she shall include in that submission the evaluation factors that will be used in reviewing the submitted proposals or qualifications. The evaluation factors shall be approved by the Public Procurement Review Board in the same way that the decision to solicit procurements through a request for proposals or request for qualifications must be approved.

(2)

(a) The request for proposals or request for qualifications shall state all of the approved evaluation factors, including price, and their relative importance. When the chief procurement officer is determining the weights and importance of each evaluation factor, price as an evaluation factor shall be given the highest criteria weighting and at least thirty-five percent (35%) out of the one hundred percent (100%) total weight of all the other evaluation factors. The evaluation shall be based on the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals or request for qualifications. The evaluation factors used and the weights given to each shall be decided and agreed to by the evaluation committee before the opening of any proposal or qualification. Numerical rating systems shall be used when determining the weight and importance of each evaluation factor. Factors not specified in the request for proposals or request for qualifications shall not be considered. Upon completion of the evaluation, the evaluation score sheets used to review the submitted proposals or qualifications shall be made part of the report required under Section 31-7-423(1).

(b) The following, as appropriate to individual circumstances, shall be used as criteria for evaluating requests for proposals or requests for qualifications under the request for proposals or request for qualifications process described in Sections 31-7-401 through 31-7-423. These factors are not intended to be limiting or all-inclusive, and they may be adapted or supplemented in order to meet a soliciting agency’s individual needs as the competitive procurement process requires.

(i) Technical factors (Proposed methodology):

a. Does the offerer’s proposal or qualification demonstrate a clear understanding of the scope of work and related objectives?

b. Is the offerer’s proposal or qualification complete and responsive to the specific request for proposals or request for qualifications requirements?

c. Has the past performance of the offerer’s proposed methodology been documented?

d. Does the offerer’s proposal or qualification use innovative technology and techniques?

(ii) Management factors (Factors that will require the identity of the offerer to be revealed must be submitted separately from other factors):

1. Project management:

a. How well does the proposed scheduling timeline meet the needs of the soliciting agency?

b. Is there a project management plan?

2. History and experience in performing the work:

a. Does the offerer document a record of reliability of timely delivery and on-time and on-budget implementation?

b. Does the offerer demonstrate a track record of service as evidenced by on-time, on-budget, and contract compliance performance?

c. Does the offerer document industry or program experience?

d. Does the offerer have a record of poor business ethics?

3. Availability of personnel, facilities, equipment and other resources:

a. To what extent does the offerer rely on in-house resources vs. contracted resources?

b. Are the availability of in-house and contract resources documented?

4. Qualification and experience of personnel:

a. Documentation of experience in performing similar work by employees and when appropriate, sub-contractors?

b. Does the offerer demonstrate cultural sensitivity in hiring and training staff?

(iii) Cost factors (Factors must be submitted separately from other factors unless specifically approved by the Public Procurement Review Board):

1. Cost of goods to be provided or services to be performed:

a. Relative cost: How does the cost compare to other similarly scored proposals or qualifications?

b. Full explanation: Is the price and its component charges, fees, etc. adequately explained or documented?

2. Assurances of performance:

a. If required, are suitable bonds, warranties or guarantees provided?

b. Does the proposal or qualification include quality control and assurance programs?

3. Offerer’s financial stability and strength: Does the offerer have sufficient financial resources to meet its obligations?