2023 South Carolina Code of Laws › Title 11 - Public Finance › Chapter 35 - South Carolina Consolidated Procurement Code › Section 11-35-1528. Competitive best value bidding.

(1) Conditions for Use. When the procurement officer determines in writing that the use of competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the State, a contract may be entered into by competitive best value bidding subject to the provisions of Section 11-35-1520 and the ensuing regulations, unless otherwise provided for in this section.
(2) Best Value Bidding. The purpose of best value bidding is to allow factors other than price to be considered in the determination of award for specific supplies, services, or information technology based on pre-determined criteria identified by the State.
(3) Public Notice. Adequate public notice of the request for the solicitation shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section 11-35-1520(3).
(4) Bid Opening. At bid opening, the only information that will be released is the names of the participating bidders. Price information will be provided after the ranking of bidders and the issuance of award.
(5) Evaluation Factors. The best value bid must state the factors to be used in determination of award and the numerical weighting for each factor. Price must be a factor in determination of award and cannot be weighted at less than sixty percent. Best value bid evaluation factors may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(a) operational costs the State would incur if the bid is accepted;
(b) quality of the product or service or its technical competency;
(c) reliability of delivery and implementation schedules;
(d) maximum facilitation of data exchange and systems integration;
(e) warranties, guarantees, and return policy;
(f) vendor financial stability;
(g) consistency of the proposed solution with the state's planning documents and announced strategic program direction;
(h) quality and effectiveness of business solution and approach;
(i) industry and program experience;
(j) prior record of vendor performance;
(k) vendor expertise with engagement of similar scope and complexity;
(l) extent and quality of the proposed participation and acceptance by all user groups;
(m) proven development methodologies and tools; and
(n) innovative use of current technologies and quality results.
(6) Clarification of Responsive Bid. The procurement officer may ask a responsive bidder to clarify an ambiguity in its bid; however, no material modification of the bid is allowed.
(7) Selection and Ranking. Bids shall be evaluated by using only the criteria and weightings stated in the invitation for best value bids. All evaluation factors, other than price, will be considered independent of and prior to determining the effect of price on the score for each participating bidder. Once the evaluation is complete, all responsive bidders must be ranked from most advantageous to least advantageous to the State, considering only the evaluation factors stated in the invitation for best value bids.
(8) Award. Award must be made to the responsive and responsible bidder whose bid is determined, in writing, to be most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration all evaluation factors set forth in the best value bid. The contract file shall contain the basis on which the award is made and must be sufficient to satisfy external audit.
HISTORY: 1997 Act No. 153, Section 1; 2006 Act No. 376, Section 27; 2019 Act No. 41 (S.530), Section 20, eff May 13, 2019.
Editor's Note
2019 Act No. 41, Section 80, provides as follows:
"SECTION 80. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor and applies to solicitations issued after that date."
Effect of Amendment
2019 Act No. 41, Section 20, in (1), in the second sentence, substituted "When the procurement officer" for "When a purchasing agency"; in (4), in the third sentence, substituted "Price" for "Cost"; in (5), in the third sentence, substituted "Price" for "Cost", and in the fourth sentence, deleted "as determined by the procurement officer in its sole discretion and not subject to protest" from the end; rewrote (6); and in (7), in the second sentence, substituted "and weightings stated in the invitation for best value bids" for "stated in the best value bid and by adhering to the weighting as assigned", in the third sentence, substituted "price" for "cost" in two places and inserted "independent of and", and in the fourth sentence, substituted "must" for "shall" and "invitation for best value bids" for "best value bid".