(a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, the city may lease or rent real property or improvements thereon, or both, by competitive sealed proposals when:
(1) Such property or improvements, or both, will be used for cultural, arts, nature, sports, recreational, historical, or other similar activities open to the public;
(2) The council approves of the use of such process by ordinance or resolution in advance of the issuance of the request for proposals; and
(3) The director determines in writing that the use of competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the city.
Factors to be considered in determining whether competitive sealed bidding is not practicable or not advantageous include:
(4) Whether the award determination involves the consideration of factors in addition to financial return to the city;
(5) Whether oral or written discussions may need to be conducted with offerors concerning technical and financial aspects of their proposals;
(6) Whether offerors may need to be afforded the opportunity to revise their proposals, including revision of the financial return to the city; and
(7) Whether an award may need to be based upon a comparative evaluation as stated in the request for proposals of differing financial return, quality, and contractual factors, to determine the most advantageous offering to the city. Quality factors may include technical and performance capability and the content of the technical proposal.
(b) Proposals shall be solicited through a request for proposals.
(c) Public notice of the request for proposals shall be given in the same form and manner for advertisements for bids.
(d) Proposals shall be opened so as to avoid disclosure of contents to competing offerors during discussion. A register of proposals shall be prepared and shall be open for public inspection after the contract award.
(e) The request for proposals shall state the relative importance of:
(1) Financial return to the city; and
(2) Other evaluation factors.
(f) Discussions may be conducted with responsible offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of, and responsiveness to, the solicitation requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals, and revisions may be permitted after submissions and before award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors.
(g) Award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the city, taking into consideration the financial return to the city and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. The contract file shall contain the basis on which the award is made.
(1990 Code, Ch. 28, Art. 2, § 28-2.15) (Added by Ord. 02-64)