1-GN27-3 - Scoresheet (CP - AG).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- GN27-3
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for legal services to assist the Utah Office of the Attorney General with an OpenAI investigation and litigation matter under Solicitation #GN27-3. The procurement seeks a qualified law firm or litigation team to provide comprehensive legal representation in this complex matter. The scoresheet establishes a two-stage evaluation process, with Stage 2 requiring proposers to meet five mandatory requirements including certification of litigation team experience, conflict of interest verification, proof of legal malpractice insurance coverage of at least $5,000,000 per incident, commitment to background checks, and certification of non-debarment status. Qualified proposers advance to Stage 3 (interviews) and Stage 4 (final technical evaluation) based on meeting a minimum average score threshold of 4.0 in the initial technical criteria phase.
The evaluation framework allocates 700 points to technical criteria and 300 points to cost evaluation for a total of 1,000 possible points. Technical scoring is weighted as follows: qualifications and skills of lead counsel and senior attorneys (40%), quality and capabilities of the firm and litigation team (40%), vision and strategy for pursuing the OpenAI investigation and litigation (40%), and financial capability to pursue complex litigation (20%). Cost proposals are evaluated using a contingency fee structure, with the baseline contingency fee percentage established as either the lowest maximum contingent fee among qualified proposals or 75% of the median average maximum contingent fee percentage, and the cost formula calculating scoring up to a maximum of 300 points. Proposers must achieve a minimum of 500 technical points to be considered qualified for cost evaluation, which comprises 30% of the total scoring while technical evaluation comprises 70%.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-GN27-3 - OpenAI RFP v2.pdf.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
Score Sheet
| Legal Services to assist with Open AI investigation and litigation | |||
| SOLICITATION #GN27-3 | |||
| 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 OpenAI Investigation and Litigation. | 5.00 | |
| D | Financial capability to pursue and complete large, complex litigation. | 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. | 40 | 200.00 | 0.00 | |
| C | Vision and strategy in pursuing the OpenAI Investigation and Litigation. | 40 | 200.00 | 0.00 | |
| D | Financial capability to pursue and complete large, complex litigation. | 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 .