A. If the highest score awarded by the evaluation committee, including the score for cost, is awarded to a proposal other than the lowest cost proposal, and the difference between the cost of the highest scored proposal and the lowest cost proposal exceeds the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or five percent (5%) of the lowest cost proposal, the city shall make an informal written cost-benefit analysis that:
1. Explains, in general terms, the advantage to the city of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;
2. Includes, except as provided in subsection A3 of this section, the estimated added financial value to the city of each criteria that justifies awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;
3. Includes, to the extent that assigning a financial value to a particular criteria is not practicable, a statement describing:
a. Why it is not practicable to assign a financial value to the criteria; and
b. In nonfinancial terms, the advantage to the city based on the particular criteria, of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;
4. Demonstrates that the value of the advantage to the city of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror exceeds the value of the difference between the cost of the higher cost proposal and the cost of the lower cost proposals; and
5. Includes any other information required by rule made by the city.
B. If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in subsection A of this section does not justify award of the contract to the offeror that received the highest score, the city:
1. May not award the contract to the offeror that received the highest score; and
2. May award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score, unless:
a. An informal cost-benefit analysis is required, because the difference between the cost proposed by the offeror that received the next highest score and the lowest cost proposal exceeds the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or five percent (5%) of the lowest cost proposal; and
b. The informal cost-benefit analysis does not justify award of the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score.
C. If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in subsection A of this section does not justify award of the contract to the offeror, described in subsection B of this section, who received the next highest score, the city:
1. May not award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score; and
2. Shall continue with the process described in subsection B of this section for each offeror that received the next highest score, until the city:
a. Awards the contract in accordance with the provisions of this section; or
b. Cancels the request for proposals.
D. 1. The city is not required to make the cost-benefit analysis described in this section for a contract with a construction manager/general contractor if the contract is awarded based solely on the qualifications of the construction manager/general contract and the management fee described in subsection 63G-6a-707(6), Utah code.
2. The city shall make rules that establish procedures and criteria for awarding a contract described in subsection D1 of this section to ensure that:
a. A competitive process is maintained; and
b. The contract awarded is in the best interest of the city.
E. The award of contract, cancellation or disqualification of an offeror shall be made in accordance with procedures outlined in this chapter. (Ord. 2014-08, 8-5-2014)