Loading...
A Contract Review Committee may be established. (1994 L.M.C., ch. 30, § 1.)
Editor’s note—See County Attorney Opinion dated 7/8/02 describing the extent to which quasi-judicial officials may engage in political activities. See County Attorney Opinion dated 4/13/99 (4/15/99 on cover memo) analyzing the Chief Administrative Officer’s authority to make a sole-source contract in excess of $25,000 without obtaining consent of the director of procurement or the contract review committee.
Regulations may be adopted by the County Executive to:
(a) implement this Chapter;
(b) promote the efficient and orderly operation of the procurement system; and
(c) impose fees for services or products related to procurement. (1994 L.M.C., ch. 30, § 1.)
Editor’s note—See County Attorney Opinion dated 4/13/99 (4/15/99 on cover memo) analyzing the Chief Administrative Officer’s authority to make a sole-source contract in excess of $25,000 without obtaining consent of the director of procurement or the contract review committee.
(a) Conditions for use. Contracts must be awarded by competitive sealed bidding except as otherwise authorized in this Chapter or regulations. Competitive sealed bidding is initiated by issuing an invitation for bids.
(b) Invitation for bids. An invitation for bids must include specifications, evaluation criteria including the procedure for resolving tie bids, and all contractual provisions applicable to the procurement.
(c) Public notice. The Director must give public notice of an invitation for bids a reasonable time before the date set for the opening of bids.
(d) Bid opening. Bids must be opened publicly in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the invitation for bids. The amount of each bid, and other relevant information as may be specified by regulation, together with the name of each bidder, must be recorded. The record and each bid is open to public inspection.
(e) Bid acceptance and bid evaluation.
(1) Bids must be unconditionally accepted without alteration or correction, except as authorized by regulation.
(2) Bids must be evaluated based on the requirements set forth in the invitation for bids.
(A) An invitation for bids may include criteria to determine the acceptability of a bid such as inspection, testing, quality, workmanship, delivery, and suitability for a particular purpose. A bid that is not acceptable must not be considered for contract award.
(B) All criteria in the invitation for bids that affect the evaluation of the bid price must be objectively measurable, such as discounts, transportation costs, and total or life cycle costs.
(f) Correction or withdrawal of bids; cancellation of awards.
(1) Correction or withdrawal of inadvertently erroneous bids before or after award, or cancellation of awards or contracts based on bid mistakes, may be permitted under regulations. A decision to permit the correction or withdrawal of a bid, or to cancel a contract award based on a bid mistake, must be supported by a written determination made under regulations.
(2) After bid opening changes in bid prices or other provisions of bids prejudicial to the interest of the County or fair competition must not be permitted.
(g) Award. The contract may be awarded to the responsible and responsive bidder who submits the lowest bid which meets the requirements and criteria set forth in the invitation for bids. In determining whether a bid is responsive, the Director may waive a minor informality if the Director determines that a waiver is in the best interests of the County. A minor informality means a requirement in a bid which is merely a matter of form or is an immaterial provision in the solicitation. The Director may determine the defect in the bid to be immaterial when the significance of the defect as to price, quantity, quality, or delivery is trivial or negligible when contrasted with the total cost or scope of the procurement. The decision of the Director with respect to whether a requirement is a minor informality is final and may not be challenged by a bidder.
(h) Multiple awards. Multiple awards may be made under a single invitation for bids if the invitation for bids provides for multiple awards.
(i) Tie Bids. If the Director makes an award, the Director must award a contract to the County-based bidder when there is a tie bid between a County-based bidder and a non County-based bidder.
(j) Reciprocal preference for County-based bidder.
(1) In making an award under this Section, the Director must give a preference to a responsible and responsive County-based bidder if:
(A) a non County-based bidder is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder;
(B) the non County-based bidder has its principal place of business in a state or political subdivision that gives a preference to its residents; and
(C) a preference does not conflict with a federal law or a grant affecting the purchase or contract.
(2) A preference given under this subsection must be identical to the preference that the other state or political subdivision gives to its residents.
(3) A preference must not be given under this subsection if it would result in an award to a County-based bidder when:
(A) a non County-based bidder has submitted a lower responsible and responsive bid than any County-based bidder before the application of any reciprocal preference; and
(B) the non-County-based bidder has its principal place of business in a state or political subdivision that does not give a preference to its resident. (1994 L.M.C., ch. 30, § 1; 2014 L.M.C., ch. 5, § 1; 2015 L.M.C., ch. 21, § 1.)
Editor’s note—See County Attorney Opinion dated 9/7/07 discussing methods of acquiring the construction of infrastructure for development districts. See County Attorney Opinion dated 3/22/04 indicating that a bridge contract under County law requires adequate competition and that a contract resulting from a federal GSA schedule usually does not satisfy the requirements. See County Attorney Opinion dated 4/13/99 (4/15/99 on cover memo) analyzing the Chief Administrative Officer’s authority to make a sole-source contract in excess of $25,000 without obtaining consent of the director of procurement or the contract review committee.
(a) Conditions for use. Generally a contract for professional services should be awarded by competitive sealed proposals. Professional services include services of attorneys, physicians, architects, and engineers. If the Director determines that the use of competitive sealed bidding is not practical or advantageous to the County, a contract may be awarded by competitive sealed proposals.
(b) Request for proposals. Competitive sealed proposals must be initiated through a request for proposals.
(c) Public notice. The Director must give public notice of a request for proposals a reasonable time before the date set for submission of proposals.
(d) Evaluation and method of award.
(1) A request for proposals must contain evaluation factors and an explanation of how the rank of an offeror will be determined, including the procedure for resolving ties in ranking. Evaluation factors must include factors related to the technical quality of the proposal or the ability of the offeror, or both. Evaluation factors may include price. The evaluation process may involve one or more steps.
(2) If the Director determines that a sufficiently detailed scope of services has been developed to allow for selection of a contractor on the basis of price, the evaluation process may provide for the selection of a proposed contractor by requiring all offerors who meet pre-established levels of competency as reflected in scores awarded by the qualification and selection committee to compete for the contract award on the basis of price alone. Price submissions must be submitted in a sealed offer. If required in the Request for Proposal, the price proposal must be binding on the offeror. The price proposal may be submitted at any point during the evaluation process as stated in the Request for Proposals. If the Director decides to award a contract on price alone, the Director must award a contract to the County-based offeror when a qualified County-based offeror and a qualified non County-based offeror have submitted equally ranked price proposals.
(e) Qualification and selection committee. A qualification and selection committee must review and evaluate the proposals and recommend in order of preference the most qualified offerors.
(f)
Approval of contract awards.
The Director must approve the proposed ranking of offerors. If a County-based offeror and a non County-based offeror each receive an identical ranking score, the Director must consider the County-based offeror to be the higher ranked offeror.
(g)
Negotiation with responsible offerors.
Unless a binding offer has been required under the request for proposal, the Director may negotiate a contract with the approved top-ranked offeror. If a contract cannot be successfully negotiated with the top-ranked offeror, the Director may authorize that negotiations be undertaken with the next highest ranked offeror. If the Director approves, negotiations may be undertaken simultaneously with two or more of the top ranked offerors. If a binding offer has been required under the Request for Proposals, the Director may enter into a contract with the top-ranked offeror without negotiation.
(h)
Multiple awards.
Multiple awards may be made under a single request for proposals if the request for proposals provides for multiple awards. (1994 L.M.C., ch. 30, § 1; 2014 L.M.C., ch. 5, § 1.)
Loading...