Sec. 2-671. Awards to lowest responsive bidder or most advantageous proposal (best value).
Contracts for the purchase of supplies, services, and construction shall be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder or to the most advantageous proposal as specified by project in the solicitation document for each contract except as otherwise provided in this article. Among the factors to be considered in determining the lowest responsive bidder or most advantageous proposal are the following:
(1) Determination of responsiveness. Awards shall be made in the best interests of the city as determined by a prudent value analysis, including but not limited to:
a. Capability. The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or furnish the supplies required and sufficiency of financial resources and ability of the bidder to perform the contract or furnish the supplies.
b. Timeliness. Whether the bidder can perform the contract or furnish the supplies promptly or within the time specified, without delay or interference.
c. Previous performance. The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder while performing past agreements with the City of Aurora as well as other entities if that performance can be confirmed, reasonably, by the City of Aurora.
d. Quality. The quality of supplies or performance on previous purchases or contracts, including known quality based on previous use, and the quality, availability and adaptability of the supplies or contractual services to the particular use required.
e. Legal compliance. Previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or services.
f. Conditions. The number and scope of conditions attached to the bid by the bidder or preferably whether no such conditions have been attached by the bidder unless those conditions have been preapproved for all bidders and transmitted to all bidders as scope of work or scope of services addendums to the solicitation.
g. Services. The availability, accessibility and cost of repair or replacement parts and the ability of the bidder to provide timely and effective future maintenance and service.
h. Value. The cost as determined by relevant formulae based on the efficiency, life cycle or other relevant data of the items to be purchased.
i. Inquiry into responsiveness of bid. The unreasonable failure of a bidder to promptly supply information in connection with an inquiry with respect to responsiveness may be grounds for a determination of nonresponsiveness with regard to such bidder, if a reasonable response is not received within five business days or less of the request for information being electronically transmitted.
(2) Tie bids. Tie bids shall be awarded by drawing lots in public, except that if bids received are for the same total amount or unit price and the quality and services, as described in subsection (1) of this section, are equal, the contract shall be awarded to a bidder having a place of business in the City of Aurora.
(3) Award to other than low bidder (sealed bid process). When using a competitive sealed bid process and it appears appropriate not to make the award to the lowest dollar bidder, because the lowest dollar bidder is nonresponsive to the terms of the bid or found to be nonresponsive by the City of Aurora under the factors set forth in subsection (1) of this section, a full and complete statement and documentation of the reasons shall be prepared by the purchasing manager and shall be reviewed and approved by the director of finance and the city attorney's office.
(4) Award to the most advantageous proposal (negotiated request for proposal). Each request for proposal shall define the method of evaluation to be used to select the most advantageous proposal. The factors to be considered in determining the most advantageous proposal may include but not be limited to the following:
a. Technical ability;
b. Previous experience and performance;
c. Qualifications of personnel;
d. Ability to meet schedule; and
e. Price.
(5) Most advantageous proposal or lowest bidder - abridged process. When authorized by the purchasing manager firms may be awarded a master on-call contract upon completion and positive evaluation of an open competitive solicitation for job order engineering services (JOES), master engineering service agreements (MESA), construction or other job order contracts. Firms shall be evaluated for inclusion on the preapproval list for JOES, MESA, construction and other job order contract opportunities using the criteria set forth in subsections (1) and (4) of this section. The purchasing manager shall be authorized to establish additional criteria for placement on the preapproval list, including criteria related to qualification to bid on contract awards of various values based upon prior satisfactory performance of JOES, MESA, construction, or other job order projects of lesser dollar value.
Upon award of a master on-call contract, the purchasing manager shall be authorized to award job specific task orders of various values not to exceed the contract limit of the contract value. Consideration shall be given by departments for use of an additional, but accelerated, competitive proposal solicitation to the master on-call firms for job specific task orders. Departments shall provide written justification to the purchasing manager for job specific task orders to be awarded directly to any firm with a master on-call contract. (Code 1979, § 2-187; Ord. No. 2023-64, § 3, 11-27-2023; Ord. No. 2023-08, § 1, 4-10-2023; Ord. No. 2012-30, § 4, 7-9-2012; Ord. No. 2000-138, § 2, 12-18-2000)