2023 Hawaii Revised Statutes › Title 9. Public Property, Purchasing and Contracting › 103D. Hawaii Public Procurement Code › 103D-303 Competitive sealed proposals.

§103D-303 Competitive sealed proposals.
(a) Competitive sealed proposals may be used to procure goods, services, or construction that are either not practicable or not advantageous to the State to procure by competitive sealed bidding.
(b) Proposals shall be solicited through a request for proposals.
(c) Notice of the request for proposals shall be given in the same manner as provided in section 103D-302(c).
(d) Proposals shall be opened so as to avoid disclosure of contents to competing offerors during the process of evaluation. A register of proposals shall be prepared and shall be open for public inspection after contract award.
(e) The request for proposals shall include as an evaluation factor, past performance on projects of similar scope for public agencies or private industry, and shall state the relative importance of price, past performance, and other evaluation factors.
(f) Discussions may be conducted with responsible offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably likely to be selected for a contract award for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of, and responsiveness to, the solicitation requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals, and revisions may be permitted after submissions and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors.
(g) Award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. The contract file shall contain the basis on which the award is made.
(h) In cases of awards made under this section, non-selected offerors may submit a written request for debriefing to the procurement officer within three working days after the posting of the award of the contract. Thereafter, the procurement officer shall provide the non-selected offeror a prompt debriefing. Any protest by the non-selected offeror pursuant to section 103D-701 following debriefing shall be filed in writing with the procurement officer within five working days after the date upon which the debriefing is completed.
(i) In addition to any other provisions of this section, construction projects may be solicited through a request for proposals to use the design-build method; provided that:
(1) A request for proposals is issued to prequalify offerors to select a short list of no more than three responsible offerors, prior to the submittal of proposals; provided that the number of offerors to be selected for the short list shall be stated in the request for proposals and prompt notice is given to all offerors as to which offerors have been short-listed;
(2) A conceptual design fee may be paid to non-selected offerors that submit a technically responsive proposal; provided that the cost of the entire project is greater than $1,000,000;
(3) The criteria for pre-qualification of offerors, design requirements, development documents, proposal evaluation criteria, terms of the payment of a conceptual design fee, or any other pertinent information shall be stated in the request for proposals; and
(4) Past performance on projects of similar scope for public agencies or private industries shall be an evaluation factor for the prequalification of offerors. [L Sp 1993, c 8, pt of §2; am L 1995, c 178, § §8, 9; am L 1997, c 352, §23; am L 2003, c 52, §4; am L 2011, c 211, §3; am L 2021, c 188, §5]
Case Notes
Defendant city satisfied its duty to conduct €œmeaningful discussions € under this section where it issued four addenda specifically addressing questions about the indemnification provisions and confirming that no changes would be made and plaintiff revised its proposal language after these amendments and before it submitted its best and final offers. 128 H. 413 (App.), 289 P.3d 1049 (2012).