1-Attachment D Technical Evaluation Scoring Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- 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
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Attachment C Cost Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 9-20250120 111534.jpg | JPG image | |
| 4-Attachment E.pdf | ||
| 12-Award Justification.pdf | ||
| 8-25042 - Wanship Fire Station 23 - ADD3.pdf | ||
| 6-Attachment A Standard Terms and Conditions GOODS AND SERVICES.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment B2 - Westnet plans.pdf | ||
| 2-Staiton 23 RFP.pdf | ||
| 10-Pre-proposal Mtg Attendance Log ADA (1).docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Attachmetn B - Fire Station 23 Rev. 08.19.26.pdf | ||
| 11-000 U3P Courtesy Posting Closed.pdf |
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 | |||
| Subfactor | Raw Score (0–5) | Weight | Weighted Score |
| Understanding of Scope | 3 | 0 | |
| Construction Sequencing | 3 | 0 | |
| Disruption Minimization Plan | 3 | 0 | |
| Realistic Schedule & Milestones | 2 | 0 | |
| Resource Allocation | 2 | 0 | |
| Category Total (Max 30) | 0 | ||
| Evaluator Comments: |
| 2. Contractor Qualifications & Experience – 25 Points Maximum | |||
| Subfactor | Raw Score (0–5) | Weight | Weighted Score |
| Relevant Project Experience | 3 | 0 | |
| Experience with Public Safety Facilities | 3 | 0 | |
| Project Team Qualifications | 2 | 0 | |
| Past Performance / References | 2 | 0 | |
| Category Total (Max 25) | 0 | ||
| Evaluator Comments: |
| 3. Project Management Approach – 20 Points Maximum | |||
| Subfactor | Raw Score (0–5) | Weight | Weighted Score |
| Communication Plan | 3 | 0 | |
| Quality Control Plan | 3 | 0 | |
| Safety Plan | 2 | 0 | |
| Risk Management Strategy | 2 | 0 | |
| Category Total (Max 20) | 0 | ||
| Evaluator Comments: |
| 4. Ability to Meet Timeline – 15 Points Maximum | |||
| Subfactor | Raw Score (0–5) | Weight | Weighted Score |
| Staffing Capacity | 2 | 0 | |
| Contractor Availability | 2 | 0 | |
| Critical Path Identification | 1 | 0 | |
| Category Total (Max 15) | 0 | ||
| Evaluator Comments: |
| 5. Added Value / Innovations – 10 Points Maximum | |||
| Subfactor | Raw Score (0–5) | Weight | Weighted Score |
| Cost Efficiency Ideas | 1 | 0 | |
| Material / Method Innovations | 1 | 0 | |
| Enhancement of Building Performance | 1 | 0 | |
| Category Total (Max 10) | 0 | ||
| Evaluator Comments: |
| 6. Prior Successful NSFD Experience - BONUS - 5 Poins Maximum | |||
| Subfactor | Raw Score (0–5) | Weight | Weighted Score |
| Communications with District | 1 | 0 | |
| Scheduling and Time Management | 1 | 0 | |
| Project Completed on time | 2 | 0 | |
| Category Total (Max 5) | 0 |
| Technical Evaluation Summary | ||
| Category | Maximum Points | Evaluator Score |
| Work Plan & Schedule | 30 | 0 |
| Contractor Qualifications | 25 | 0 |
| Project Management Approach | 20 | 0 |
| Ability to Meet Timeline | 15 | 0 |
| Added Value / Innovations | 10 | 0 |
| BONUS - Prior Succesful NSFD Experience | 5 | 0 |
| Total Technical Score | 100 | 0 |
| 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 .