2012 Utah Code
Title 63G - General Government
Article 6a - Utah Procurement Code
Section 708 - Cost-benefit analysis.

(1) 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 $10,000 or 5% of the lowest cost proposal, the issuing procurement unit shall make an informal written cost-benefit analysis that:

(a) explains, in general terms, the advantage to the procurement unit of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;

(b) includes, except as provided in Subsection (1)(c), the estimated added financial value to the procurement unit of each criteria that justifies awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;

(c) includes, to the extent that assigning a financial value to a particular criteria is not practicable, a statement describing:

(i) why it is not practicable to assign a financial value to the criteria; and

(ii) in nonfinancial terms, the advantage to the procurement unit, based on the particular criteria, of awarding the contract to the higher cost offeror;

(d) demonstrates that the value of the advantage to the procurement unit 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

(e) includes any other information required by rule made by the applicable rulemaking authority.

(2) If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in Subsection (1) does not justify award of the contract to the offeror that received the highest score, the issuing procurement unit:

(a) may not award the contract to the offeror that received the highest score; and

(b) may award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score, unless:

(i) 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 $10,000 or 5% of the lowest cost proposal; and

(ii) the informal cost-benefit analysis does not justify award of the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score.

(3) If the informal cost-benefit analysis described in Subsection (1) does not justify award of the contract to the offeror, described in Subsection (2), that received the next highest score, the issuing procurement unit:

(a) may not award the contract to the offeror that received the next highest score; and

(b) shall continue with the process described in Subsection (2) for each offeror that received the next highest score, until the issuing procurement unit:

(i) awards the contract in accordance with the provisions of this section; or

(ii) cancels the request for proposals.

(4) (a) An issuing procurement unit 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 contractor and the management fee described in Subsection 63G-6a-706(6).

(b) The applicable rulemaking authority shall make rules that establish procedures and criteria for awarding a contract described in Subsection (4)(a) to ensure that:

(i) a competitive process is maintained; and

(ii) the contract awarded is in the best interest of the procurement unit.

Amended by Chapter 445, 2013 General Session