1-Attachment D Technical Evaluation Scoring Sheet.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted

Attached to
GJ27-18 North Summit Fire District Fire Station 23 Dorm Addition and Interior Remodel
Solicitation number
GJ27-18
Issued by
Summit County, Utah

About this file

This is a Technical Evaluation Scoring Sheet for the North Summit Fire District's Fire Station 23 Dorm Addition and Interior Remodel project located at 2000 S Hoytsville Rd., Wanship, UT 84017. The evaluation form is designed for a proposal evaluation panel to independently assess contractor proposals using a standardized scoring methodology. A mandatory pre-proposal site visit is scheduled for August 27, 2026, with questions due by September 2, 2026 at 2:00 PM Mountain Time, and proposal submissions due by September 4, 2026 at noon Mountain Time via the U3P platform. The file serves as the evaluation framework rather than the procurement announcement itself, establishing the criteria and scoring procedures for assessing competing bids.

The scoring sheet establishes six evaluation categories with a maximum total technical score of 105 points. Work Plan & Schedule comprises 30 points maximum and evaluates understanding of scope, construction sequencing, disruption minimization, schedule realism, and resource allocation. Contractor Qualifications & Experience accounts for 25 points and assesses relevant project experience, public safety facility experience, project team qualifications, and past performance. Project Management Approach contributes 20 points covering communication, quality control, safety, and risk management plans. Ability to Meet Timeline provides 15 points based on staffing capacity, contractor availability, and critical path identification. Added Value/Innovations offers 10 points for cost efficiency ideas, material innovations, and building performance enhancements. A bonus category of 5 points is available for prior successful North Summit Fire District experience, including communications, scheduling, and on-time completion. Each subfactor is scored on a 0-5 point scale with specific performance descriptors, and individual evaluator scores must be submitted for consensus determination.

View the file

Other files

Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Zwick

North Summit Fire District
Station 23 Dorm Addition
Technical Evaluation Criteria – Scoring Sheet
Project Location: 2000 S Hoytsville Rd., Wanship, UT 84017
Proposal Evaluation Panel Worksheet
Offeror Name:
Evaluator Name:
Date:
Scoring Guidance
Each category is evaluated independently. Scores must be based on the written technical proposal (no cost factors included). Provide justification comments for transparency, audit compliance, and consensus deliberations.
Scoring Scale (0–5 points per criterion subfactor):
5 – Excellent: Exceeds requirements; exceptional detail; no weaknesses.
4 – Very Good: Meets all requirements; minor weaknesses.
3 – Satisfactory: Meets basic requirements; some weaknesses.
2 – Marginal: Partially meets requirements; significant weaknesses.
1 – Poor: Does not meet requirements.
0 – Unacceptable: Missing information or non-responsive.
Raw scores will be weighted according to assigned category points.
Technical Evaluation Categories
1. Work Plan & Schedule – 30 Points Maximum
SubfactorRaw Score (0–5)WeightWeighted Score
Understanding of Scope30
Construction Sequencing30
Disruption Minimization Plan30
Realistic Schedule & Milestones20
Resource Allocation20
Category Total (Max 30)0
Evaluator Comments:
2. Contractor Qualifications & Experience – 25 Points Maximum
SubfactorRaw Score (0–5)WeightWeighted Score
Relevant Project Experience30
Experience with Public Safety Facilities30
Project Team Qualifications20
Past Performance / References20
Category Total (Max 25)0
Evaluator Comments:
3. Project Management Approach – 20 Points Maximum
SubfactorRaw Score (0–5)WeightWeighted Score
Communication Plan30
Quality Control Plan30
Safety Plan20
Risk Management Strategy20
Category Total (Max 20)0
Evaluator Comments:
4. Ability to Meet Timeline – 15 Points Maximum
SubfactorRaw Score (0–5)WeightWeighted Score
Staffing Capacity20
Contractor Availability20
Critical Path Identification10
Category Total (Max 15)0
Evaluator Comments:
5. Added Value / Innovations – 10 Points Maximum
SubfactorRaw Score (0–5)WeightWeighted Score
Cost Efficiency Ideas10
Material / Method Innovations10
Enhancement of Building Performance10
Category Total (Max 10)0
Evaluator Comments:
6. Prior Successful NSFD Experience - BONUS - 5 Poins Maximum
SubfactorRaw Score (0–5)WeightWeighted Score
Communications with District10
Scheduling and Time Management10
Project Completed on time20
Category Total (Max 5)0
Technical Evaluation Summary
CategoryMaximum PointsEvaluator Score
Work Plan & Schedule300
Contractor Qualifications250
Project Management Approach200
Ability to Meet Timeline150
Added Value / Innovations100
BONUS - Prior Succesful NSFD Experience50
Total Technical Score1000
Evaluator Signature
Signature:
Date:
This scoring sheet must be completed individually by each evaluator and submitted for consensus scoring.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .