1-GN27-106 - Scoresheet (CP - AG).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- GN27-106
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation #GN27-106 issued by the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, seeking legal services to assist with Predictive Markets and Gambling Enforcement Matters. The solicitation employs a multi-stage evaluation process, with Stage 2 requiring offerors to meet five mandatory certification requirements, including experience qualifications of the litigation team, conflict-of-interest certifications, legal malpractice insurance coverage of not less than $5,000,000 per incident, completion of background checks, and certification of non-debarment status. Qualified proposals must achieve a minimum average score of 4.0 to advance to Stage 3 interviews and subsequently to Stage 4 for final technical evaluation.
The evaluation framework allocates 70 percent of total points (700 points possible) to technical criteria and 30 percent (300 points possible) to cost evaluation, for a combined total of 1,000 possible points. Technical scoring encompasses four criteria: qualifications and skills of lead counsel and senior attorneys (40 percent weight, 200 points), quality and capabilities of the firm and litigation team (20 percent weight, 100 points), and vision and strategy in pursuing the predictive markets and gambling enforcement matters (60 percent weight combined across two identical criteria, totaling 400 points). The cost proposal utilizes a contingent fee structure with a baseline contingent fee percentage calculated as the greater of either the lowest maximum contingent fee percentage among qualified proposals or 75 percent of the median average maximum contingent fee percentage among all qualified proposals. Cost scoring is determined by dividing the baseline contingent fee percentage by the qualified proposal's maximum contingent fee percentage and multiplying by 300 points, with a minimum required technical score threshold of 500 points for advancement.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-GN27-106 - Preditive Markets Gambling RFP.pdf |
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
Scoresheet Template Legal Services to Assist the Office of The Attorney General with Predictive Markets and Gambling Enforcement Matters
| SOLICITATION #GN27-106 | |||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||
| Score will be assigned as follows: | |||
| 0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information | |||
| Firm Name: | 1 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information | ||
| 2 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner | |||
| Evaluator: | 3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner | ||
| 4 = Good, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP and in some respects exceeds them | |||
| Date: | 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | ||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | Offeror must certify it meets the experience and requirements of the Litigation Team. | ||
| 2 | Offeror must certify that no members of the Litigation Team to whom a matter is assigned or the law firm that employs them have, or appear to have, any conflict of interest in providing the assigned Legal Services. | ||
| 3 | Offeror must certify they have or will commit to acquiring legal malpractice insurance coverage in an amount not less than $5,000,000 per incident, which covers all attorneys and paralegals from that firm who are part of the Litigation Team. | ||
| 4 | Offeror must certify it will complete a background check. | ||
| 5 | Offeror must certify that they are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment or ineligible for contracting by a governmental entity. |
| Scoreable Technical Criteria - Stage 2 | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Possible Score | |
| A | Qualifications and skills of Lead Counsel and Senior Attorneys. | 5.00 | |
| B | Quality and capabilities of the firm(s) and larger Litigation Team. | 5.00 | |
| C | Vision and strategy in pursuing the Predictive Markets and Gambling Enforcement Matters. | 5.00 | |
| D | Vision and strategy in pursuing the Predictive Markets and Gambling Enforcement Matters. | 5.00 | |
| 5.00 |
| Required Technical Score Threshold to Advance to Stage 3 - Interviews | Min Average Score | Average Score | Evaluation |
| 4.0 | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ERROR:#DIV/0! |
Stage 4: Final Technical Proposal evaluation Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned
| A | Qualifications and skills of Lead Counsel and Senior Attorneys. | 40 | 200.00 | 0.00 | |
| B | Quality and capabilities of the firm(s) and larger Litigation Team. | 20 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| C | Vision and strategy in pursuing the Predictive Markets and Gambling Enforcement Matters. | 60 | 300.00 | 0.00 | |
| D | Vision and strategy in pursuing the Predictive Markets and Gambling Enforcement Matters. | 20 | 100.00 | 0.00 | |
| 0.0% | 700.00 | 0.00 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| 500.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Cost | Baseline Contingent Fee % | Proposed Contingent Fee % | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| 30% | 300.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| The Attorney General's Office will use the following cost formula for the Gambling Cases: The Cost Proposal Score is the ratio of the Baseline Contingent Fee Percentage to the Qualified Proposal’s Maximum Contingent Fee Percentage, multiplied by 300 (up to a max of 300 points). The Baseline Contingent Fee Percentage is the greater of (1) the lowest maximum contingent fee percentage among all Qualified Proposals or (2) 75% of the median average maximum contingent fee percentage among all Qualified Proposal | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70% | 700.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 30% | 300.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .