13-D - RFP Evaluation Plan.docx

Request for Proposals for Sports Video Technology Issued by the State of Utah and Alpine School District Solicitation Number: [#######]

Request for Proposals for

Sports Video Technology

Issued by the State of Utah and Alpine School District

Solicitation Number DL27-100

Attachment D

RFP EVALUATION PLAN

Stage 1: Initial Responsiveness Evaluation. Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and initial responsiveness. Proposals omitting required documents or responses may be rejected in accordance with Attachment B, RFP Terms and Conditions.

Stage 2: Mandatory Minimum Requirements Evaluation. Complete and responsive proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Mandatory Minimum Requirements. Proposals failing to meet or exceed all Mandatory Minimum Requirements may be rejected in accordance with Attachment B, RFP Terms and Conditions.

1. Proposal submitted through Bonfire by the RFP Close Date in the required format.

2. Offeror has provided solutions of the type described in Attachment C to K-12 schools or districts, colleges or universities, or organized sports leagues, clubs or associations for at least three (3) years preceding the RFP Close Date.

3. Offeror has answered all the mandatory questions in Bonfire, including certification of the award thresholds.

Stage 3: Technical Evaluation (700 pts). Proposals meeting or exceeding the Mandatory Minimum Requirements will be evaluated against the following Criteria:

Technical Scoring Methodology Each evaluation committee member will independently review each proposal and assign one whole-number rating from 0 (low) to 5 (high) to each of the three technical sections. The questions within a section are not scored individually.

A section's score is the average of all committee members' ratings for that section. The Offeror earns that average as a percentage of the section's available points:

Section Points Earned = (Average Rating ÷ 5) × Points Possible for the Section Example: Four evaluators rate Section 1 as 3, 4, 4, and 4. The average rating is 3.75, which is 75% of the 350 points available, or 262.5 points. Section scores will be calculated to two decimal places and will not be rounded before comparison to the 455-point threshold.

The Offeror's technical score is the sum of its three section scores, out of 700 possible points. An Offeror must earn at least 455 technical points to advance to the Cost Evaluation.

After independent scoring, the committee will meet to resolve factual disagreements. Evaluators may revise their ratings based on a corrected understanding of the facts. Evaluators will score only the information contained in the proposal.

Stage 4: Cost Evaluation (300 pts). Proposals meeting or exceeding the minimum 455 points total for their Technical Evaluation score will be evaluated against the following Criteria:

For each scenario, points are assigned based on the lowest proposed price for that scenario among Offerors that advanced to Stage 4. The Offeror with the lowest proposed price for a scenario will receive 100% of that scenario's points (150 points).

All other Offerors will receive a proportional share of that scenario's points based on the ratio of the lowest proposed price to the Offeror's proposed price. The formula to compute the points for each scenario is: 150 × (Lowest Proposed Price / Offeror's Proposed Price). An Offeror's total cost score is the sum of its Section 4a and Section 4b scores.

The Lead Entity reserves the right to modify this formula or assign a nominal value to any zero or non-conforming price entry if application of the formula results in an error, negative numbers, or an unreasonably skewed distribution of points. Cost Proposals may also be subject to an independent review for reasonableness and best value by the Lead Entity. Costs determined not to be reasonable or best-value by the Lead Entity may result in all or part of the Offeror's proposal being rejected, notwithstanding the results of the Cost Proposal evaluation.

SECTIONS 4c and 4d ARE NOT SCORED AS PART OF THE SOLICITATION. However, Offeror must provide a full catalog of offerings proposed under the resulting contract, with pricing. Submit a complete, itemized catalog of every product and service you intend to offer under the Master Agreement, including not-to-exceed (NTE) pricing, and/or discount percentages off list price. Submit as the Product Catalog and Price List Tab of Attachment K, Offeror Cost Response and Proposal Worksheet or separate file. Products available on contract will be limited to the offerings and pricing included in the catalog.

Final: Evaluation (1000 pts). Proposals meeting or exceeding the minimum 650 points total for their combined Technical Evaluation and Cost Evaluation score will be eligible for Award.

OFFEROR INSTRUCTIONS:

1. There are two (2) .xlsx proposal worksheets associated with this RFP.

a. Attachment J – Offeror Technical Response and Proposal Worksheet; and

b. Attachment K – Offeror Cost Response and Proposal Worksheet.

Offerors are expected to complete both worksheets as part of their proposal.

2. Attachment J – Offeror Technical Response and Proposal Worksheet:

a. Offerors must provide clear and concise responses to the questions. Offerors should use the .xlsx Worksheet format provided and save it with their company name in the title of the file (e.g. “ABC Company – DL27-100 - Attachment J Technical”). Do not attach supporting documents unless a question specifically requests them. Information outside this Worksheet will not be evaluated.

b. Information such as promotional material, executive summaries, etc. should not be included unless specifically asked for. Unsolicited information will not be considered nor evaluated. Internet links will also not be accepted unless they are specifically asked for.

c. Do not include any pricing information in any response to these questions.

d. Offerors who had or have a State of Utah contract should not assume any preferential treatment. All proposals will be evaluated equally.

3. Attachment K – Offeror Cost Response and Proposal Worksheet:

a. Offerors must provide clear and concise responses to the questions. Offerors should use the .xlsx Worksheet format provided and save it with their company name in the title of the file (e.g. “ABC Company – DL27-100 - Attachment K Cost”); deviation from the format or structure of this Worksheet may result in Offeror’s proposal being deemed non-responsive, as provided in Attachment B, Section 4.D.1.

b. Information such as promotional material, executive summaries, etc. should not be included unless specifically asked for. Unsolicited information will not be considered nor evaluated. Internet links will also not be accepted unless they are specifically asked for.

c. Include all pricing information in the Worksheet, the cost breakdown, and the Product Catalog only.

d. Offerors who had or have a State of Utah contract should not assume any preferential treatment. All proposals will be evaluated equally.

4. Following approval of RFxPremier and any other approvals required by the Lead Entity, a public notice of intent to award will be issued and RFxPremier and Lead Entity will proceed with Master Agreement negotiations.

Page 2 of 9 – Attachment [X], RFP EVALUATION PLAN

ATTACHMENT D, RFP EVALUATION PLAN

image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.png