10-09. Sample Score Sheet- ATC.doc
DOC document 79 KB Posted
- Attached to
- UDOT RFP- NEMA Signal Cabinets
- Solicitation number
- UDOT260266MP
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a proposal evaluation score sheet for the Utah Department of Transportation's Request for Proposals for NEMA TS-2 Type 1 traffic signal control modular cabinet assemblies. The RFP seeks qualified manufacturers to provide signal cabinets in Size 5, Size 6, and Size 6 Stretch configurations for signalized intersections throughout Utah. The solicitation is anticipated to result in multiple contract awards. Firms must meet mandatory minimum requirements including a minimum of five years of signal cabinet manufacturing experience and verifiable deployment of at least 100 ATC signal cabinets across a minimum of five different U.S. states or major municipalities within the past five years. Proposals that fail to meet these thresholds are disqualified from further consideration.
The evaluation process consists of three stages totaling 100 points. Stage 1 is a pass/fail determination of responsiveness based on mandatory minimum requirements. Stage 2 provides 70 technical evaluation points, with 20 points allocated for demonstrated deployment across multiple states and municipalities supported by references from five different U.S. states, and 50 points for the firm's ability to meet the provisions outlined in the Scope of Work and Requirements documentation. Stage 3 allocates 30 cost proposal points, with the lowest-cost proposer receiving maximum cost points and all other proposers receiving points calculated by the ratio of the lowest proposed cost to their proposed cost. Scoring is based on a five-point scale ranging from Excellent (5 points) to Fail (0 points).
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-07. Submittal Form- Attachment A- Standard Terms and Conditions- Yes No.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-09. Sample Score Sheet- NEMA TS 2.doc | DOC document | |
| 3-06. Submittal Form- Business Confidentiality- Yes No.doc | DOC document | |
| 8-05. Submittal Form- Vendor Setup Form.pdf | ||
| 9-01. RFP General Information.doc | DOC document | |
| 6-02. Attachment B - Scope of Work- NEMA TS 2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-03. Attachment C - Scope of Work- ATC.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-04. Submittal Form- Attachment D - Cost Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5-08. Submittal Form- Certifications- Yes No.docx | DOCX document |
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
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Traffic Cabinets- ATC Proposal Evaluation Score Sheet
Firm Name:
Evaluator:
Date:
Stage 1: Determination of Responsiveness (Pass/Fail):
| Mandatory Minimum Requirements |
| Pass |
| Fail |
| Notes |
1. Minimum five years of signal cabinet manufacturing experience.
2. Verifiable deployment of at least 100 ATC signal cabinets from a minimum of five (5) different U.S. states or major municipalities over the last five years.
Responses that fail in any of the above will not proceed on to the Technical Evaluation Stage.
Stage 2: Detailed Technical Evaluation (Scored):
Technical Evaluation
| EVALUATION CRITERIA |
| Points Possible |
| Score |
(1 - 5)
| Weight |
| Points |
1. Demonstrated verifiable deployment of cabinets in various States and/or Municipalities.
| · reference from one municipality or state transportation agency from Five (5) different U.S. states. |
| 20 points |
X 4
2. Demonstrated ability to meet the provisions outlined within Attachment C Scope of Work and Requirements
| · documentation demonstrating ability to provide cabinets as requested |
| 50 points |
X 10
Total Technical Evaluation Points (70 points possible)
Stage 3: Cost Proposal Evaluation (Scored):
Cost Evaluation
| Evaluation Criteria |
| Points Possible |
| Points |
| · per Submittal Form- Attachment D Cost Proposal |
| 30 points |
| *Inserted by UDOT Procurement |
Total Cost Evaluation Points (30 points possible)
TOTAL EVALUATION POINTS (100 POINTS POSSIBLE)
Evaluation of Cost Proposals: The offeror with the lowest total cost will receive the maximum available Cost points. All other offerors will receive points as determined by the ratio* of their cost to the lowest offered cost. Final cost scores will be calculated based on the following:
*Ratio Calculation: Points assigned to each offeror’s Cost Proposal will be based on the Lowest Proposed Cost. The offeror with the Lowest Proposed Cost will receive 100% of the cost points.
All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their proposed cost is than the Lowest Proposed Cost.
The formula to compute the points is: (Lowest Proposer's Cost / Other Proposer's Cost) x 100 Scoring:
(a) Five points (Excellent): The proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP.
(b) Four points (Good): The proposal addresses all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP and, in some respects, exceeds them.
(c) Three points (Satisfactory): The proposal addresses all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner.
(d) Two points (Unsatisfactory): The proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner; or
(e) One point (Poor): The proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information; or
(f) Zero (Fail): The proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information.
Score Sheet
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .