Bill Text: NJ S1887 | 2010-2011 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Establishes certain standards for awarding of State contracts.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2010-05-10 - Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee [S1887 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2010-S1887-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Senator THOMAS GOODWIN
District 14 (Mercer and Middlesex)
SYNOPSIS
Establishes certain standards for awarding of State contracts.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning standards for the awarding of State contracts and supplementing Title 52 of the Revised Statutes.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. The Director of the Division of Purchase and Property in the State Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the State Comptroller, shall promulgate rules and regulations concerning best practices for all purchases, contracts or agreements the cost or contract price whereof is to be paid, in whole or in part, with or out of State funds, to include, but not be limited to, the following provisions ensuring that:
the pool of vendors solicited for competitive quotations is as expansive as possible;
the eligibility requirements for a vendor seeking to compete for a contract are limited only by concerns related to the vendor's responsibility;
requests for proposals contain a clear and detailed statement of work to be undertaken, and include a clear, complete, and specific statement of work in the final executed contract with the vendor, which emphasizes the result to be achieved, rather than detailing the process for accomplishing that goal;
proposals are judged on the basis of predetermined, merit-based evaluative criteria, which are made known to vendors before proposals are submitted, and disclosed to prospective vendors as early as possible in the procurement process, such as in the request for proposals or other solicitation document;
weighing of evaluative criteria is used if some criteria are determined to be more important than others with the weight assigned to each criterion generally should be disclosed in the request for proposals;
the evaluative criteria are judged by a qualified evaluation committee, which is established before proposals are received, and which is sufficiently qualified to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals submitted, provided that potential evaluation committee members should be screened meticulously for conflicts of interest;
the evaluation process should be explainable to evaluators and competing vendors, and capable of withstanding scrutiny under a protest challenge, and ensuring that the meaning of each criterion and the reason each criterion is part of the evaluative analysis is explained to evaluators before judging;
each member of the qualified evaluation committee scores each proposal and provides comments that explain the score assigned to each criterion, and that the scoring process and award recommendations should be well-documented and retained;
every step in the evaluative process should be documented through scoring sheets, a written record of what transpired during any permitted negotiations between vendors and procurement officials, a written comparative analysis of competing proposals, and a written award recommendation;
the written award recommendation explains the factors that led to the award decision, offers qualitative discussion of the leading competing proposals, and describes the specific characteristics of the winning vendor's proposal that resulted in its selection over the others; and
the period of time for the preservation of procurement materials should be set by the contracting unit.
The Director of the Division of Purchase and Property in the State Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the State Comptroller, shall review these rules and regulations at least once every two years after their initial promulgation, and make any revisions necessary to ensure that current best practices in the procurement of goods or services are followed by all contracting units.
2. This act shall take effect immediately.
STATEMENT
This bill is based upon the recommendations contained in a report of the State Comptroller, "Best Practices For Awarding Service Contracts", issued on March 4, 2010. The bill requires the Director of the Division of Purchase and Property in the State Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the State Comptroller, to promulgate rules and regulations concerning best practices in all forms of contracting for the procurement of goods and services by the State, to include, but not be limited to, the following provisions ensuring that:
the pool of vendors solicited for competitive quotations is as expansive as possible;
the eligibility requirements for a vendor seeking to compete for a contract are limited only by concerns related to the vendor's responsibility;
requests for proposals contain a clear and detailed statement of work to be undertaken, and include a clear, complete, and specific statement of work in the final executed contract with the vendor, which emphasizes the result to be achieved, rather than detailing the process for accomplishing that goal;
proposals are judged on the basis of predetermined, merit-based evaluative criteria, which are made known to vendors before proposals are submitted, and disclosed to prospective vendors as early as possible in the procurement process, such as in the request for proposals or other solicitation document;
weighing of evaluative criteria is used if some criteria are determined to be more important than others with the weight assigned to each criterion generally should be disclosed in the request for proposals;
the evaluative criteria are judged by a qualified evaluation committee, which is established before proposals are received, and which is sufficiently qualified to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals submitted, provided that potential evaluation committee members should be screened meticulously for conflicts of interest;
the evaluation process should be explainable to evaluators and competing vendors, and capable of withstanding scrutiny under a protest challenge, and ensuring that the meaning of each criterion and the reason each criterion is part of the evaluative analysis is explained to evaluators before judging;
each member of the qualified evaluation committee scores each proposal and provides comments that explain the score assigned to each criterion, and that the scoring process and award recommendations should be well-documented and retained;
every step in the evaluative process should be documented through scoring sheets, a written record of what transpired during any permitted negotiations between vendors and procurement officials, a written comparative analysis of competing proposals, and a written award recommendation;
the written award recommendation explains the factors that led to the award decision, offers qualitative discussion of the leading competing proposals, and describes the specific characteristics of the winning vendor's proposal that resulted in its selection over the others; and
the period of time for the preservation of procurement materials should be set by the contracting unit.
The bill requires the State Treasurer, in consultation with the State Comptroller, to review these rules and regulations at least once every two years after their initial promulgation, and make any revisions necessary to ensure that current best practices in the procurement of goods or services are followed by the State.
