§ 2-633. Competitive negotiation.

(a)

Use when competitive sealed bidding is impracticable. A contract may be awarded by competitive negotiation in accordance with this article, and regulations promulgated hereunder when it is determined by the procurement director that the use of competitive sealed bidding is not practicable. In such cases, requests for proposals shall be used, except as provided in section 2-634 and section 2-636.

(b)

Public notice. The request for proposals shall be given adequate public notice in the same manner as provided in section 2-632.

(c)

Evaluation factors. When an award is not to be made solely on the basis of the lowest evaluated price, the request for proposals shall indicate the relative importance of price and other significant evaluation factors.

(d)

Award. Award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be more advantageous, to the county, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.

(e)

Discussion with all responsible offerors. Written or oral discussions shall be conducted with all responsible offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably eligible for the award. Discussions shall not disclose any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. Discussions need not be conducted:

(1)

With respect to prices, where such prices are fixed by law or regulation, except that consideration shall be given to competitive terms and conditions;

(2)

Where time of delivery or performance will not permit discussions; or

(3)

Where it can be clearly demonstrated and documented to the procurement director from the existence of adequate competition or accurate prior cost experience with the procured items that acceptance of an initial offer without discussion would result in fair and reasonable prices, and the request for proposals notifies all offerors of the possibility that award may be made on the basis of the initial offers.

(f)

Consideration of information. The county reserves the right to use all pertinent information (also learned from sources other than disclosed in the RFP process) that might affect the county's judgment as to the appropriateness of an award to the best-evaluated proposer. This information may be appended to the proposal evaluation process results. Information on a service provider from reliable sources, and not within the service provider's proposal, may also be noted and made a part of the evaluation file. The county shall have sole responsibility for determining a reliable source. The county reserves the right to conduct written and/or oral discussions/interviews after the proposal opening. The purpose of such discussions/interviews is to provide clarification and/or additional information to make an award, which is in the best interest of the county.

(Ord. No. O-08-5-101, § 2(Exh. A), 6-23-08; Ord. No. O-10-11-101, § 1, 12-17-10; Ord. No. O-16-3-101 , § 1, 4-25-16)