N.J. Admin. Code § 17:12-2.7

Current through Register Vol. 56, No. 21, November 4, 2024

Section 17:12-2.7 - Evaluation of proposals for advertised procurements

(a) Except as otherwise provided in N.J.A.C. 17:12-2.9, proposals shall be evaluated in either of two ways, with a recommendation for proposed award(s) made to the Director upon conclusion of the evaluation. All recommendations, whether prepared by an evaluation committee or by a Division staff member assigned to conduct the procurement, are advisory in nature and not binding upon the Director. The evaluation methods are:

1. By an evaluation committee appointed by the Director prior to the date of the scheduled proposal opening event. The Director shall appoint the members of the evaluation committee on the basis of professional resumes supplied by the proposed members. No member of the evaluation committee shall have any personal, financial, or familial interest that would affect his or her ability to evaluate the proposals objectively and impartially. Each member of the evaluation committee shall certify in writing that no such real or apparent conflict of interest exists. Members of evaluation committees shall conduct evaluations of proposals objectively, impartially, and with propriety. The Director retains the discretion to reject proposed members, remove sitting members and add additional members to an evaluation committee; or

2. By a Division staff member assigned to conduct the procurement.

(b) For all RFPs that set forth evaluation criteria, values, or utility models to be applied by the evaluators in assessing the proposals, and that do not reveal specific, assigned weights or elements, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member shall, prior to the opening of proposals, determine, document, and date-stamp such weighted evaluation criteria, values, or utility models. For RFPs not having a negotiation component, the pre-set weighted evaluation criteria, values, or utility models shall be available to the public at the proposal opening event.

(c) Proposals shall be evaluated by the Division for compliance with the provisions of 17:12-2.2 and by the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member for responsiveness to the material requirements of the RFP. A proposal that is not compliant with the provisions of 17:12-2.2 or responsive to the material requirements of the RFP shall not be eligible for further consideration for award of contract, and the bidder offering said proposal shall receive notice of the rejection of its proposal.

(d) The Director may waive minor irregularities or omissions in a proposal.

(e) The evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member may, by written request, ask a bidder to clarify, in writing, its proposal in order to determine whether a proposal should be further considered for award. The process of clarification is not an opportunity for a bidder to supplement, change, or correct its proposal. Any response or portion of a response by a bidder to the Division's written request for clarification that attempts to supplement, change, or correct its proposal shall be given no effect.

(f) The evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member shall determine which proposals are in the competitive range. Proposals deemed not to be in the competitive range need not be further evaluated. Proposals in the competitive range, except as may be limited as specified in this section, shall be evaluated by the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member on the basis of price and the other evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Upon conclusion of the evaluation of the proposals, the committee or the assigned Division staff member shall prepare a written report with a recommendation for award based on its evaluation of the proposals, for the Director's consideration.

(g) The Director shall review the award recommendation and documentation presented by the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member, and may accept it, modify it, reject it, or refer the modified award recommendation and documentation back to the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member for additional consideration. The Director retains the discretion to issue a notice of intent to award to a responsible bidder whose conforming proposal is most advantageous to the State, price and other factors considered, or to reject all proposals when the Director determines it is in the public interest or the State's interest to do so.

(h) The Director shall issue the notice of intent to award to all participating bidders. The notice of intent to award document sent to the scheduled contract awardee(s) shall include the identification of certification(s) and/or other essential documents that were not required to be included with the proposal but are required for contract award and a designated date when the required certifications and/or documents are due. A scheduled awardee's failure to comply within the time afforded shall constitute grounds for the Director's rescission of the notice of intent to award to the non-responding scheduled awardee. If the requested materials are not timely submitted, the Director may refer the matter back to the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member for consideration as to whether the scheduled award should proceed, with reconsideration of all pertinent factors, including the issue of assessment of costs incurred by the State as a result of the scheduled awardee's delay by, or the non-award of the contract to, the named awardee.

(i) In the event that it is determined that all proposals shall be rejected or no award shall be made, the Director shall so notify all bidders.

(j) In addition to the requirements for the evaluation of proposals set forth in (a) through (i) above, the following requirements shall apply to publicly advertised procurements that contain a negotiation component:

1. The RFP shall state that the State may negotiate with bidders;

2. If it is determined by the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member that negotiations shall be conducted, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member will negotiate only with bidders whose proposals are determined by the evaluation committee or the assigned Division staff member to be in the competitive range. Further, if the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member determines that the number of proposals in the competitive range precludes timely and effective negotiations with each bidder or determines that pricing offered in any one or more of the viable proposals exceeds the amount of funding available for the procurement, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member may further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range;

3. In the event the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member decides to conduct negotiations, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member shall notify each bidder whose proposal has been deemed to be in the competitive range of the intent to negotiate. The notice may identify, in general terms, the elements or factors upon which the State intends to base its negotiations or may be tailored to each individual bidder. Alternatively, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member may opt to conduct a Best and Final Offer process with the bidder whose proposal is, or bidders whose proposals are, deemed to be in the competitive range;

4. During the course of negotiations, no bidder's technical proposal or pricing shall be revealed to any other bidder or to any person who is not a member of the evaluation committee or Division staff involved with the conduct of the negotiations;

5. With reasoned and documentable cause, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member, or a Director-assigned negotiator, may opt to conduct additional rounds of negotiations with a single bidder or with more than one bidder in the competitive range and not with others; and the basis for deciding which bidder is, or which bidders are, chosen for any additional rounds of negotiations shall be documented as part of the Division's record of negotiations;

6. As provided for in negotiations under paragraph (j)3 above, the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member may request all bidders in the competitive range to submit a Best and Final Offer. If the evaluation committee or assigned Division staff member elects to do so, written notice shall be provided to all bidders in the competitive range of the time and place for submission of a Best and Final Offer. If deemed in the best interests of the State, additional Best and Final Offers may be requested. Although bidders' Best and Final Offers must be in writing, the Division's requests for them may initially be made orally to expedite the evaluation process but must be promptly confirmed in writing;

7. If a bidder does not respond to the request for a Best and Final Offer or asserts that its last price is firm, that bidder's most recent prior offer will be considered to be its Best and Final Offer; and

8. All discussions conducted during a negotiated procurement shall be documented as part of the record of the procurement.

N.J. Admin. Code § 17:12-2.7

Amended by 51 N.J.R. 141(a), effective 1/22/2019