16-26TH04P5 Attachment I RFP Evaluation Scoresheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- E-Rate Network Switch Upgrade
- Solicitation number
- 26TH04P5
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This document is an RFP Evaluation Scoresheet for the Jordan School District's E-Rate Network Switch Upgrade solicitation (Solicitation #26TH04P5), located in Utah. The scoresheet provides a detailed evaluation framework for assessing vendor proposals, with scoring ranges from 0 (fail) to 5 (excellent) across multiple technical criteria including switch core functionality, installation and configuration, technical requirements, support, network security, and implementation assistance. The evaluation comprises technical points (68% of total score, with a 112.5-point minimum threshold) and cost points (32% of total score), totaling 220 possible points.
The evaluation criteria cover comprehensive technical aspects such as system compatibility, technology support, credentials, local technical support, references, and value-added functionality. The scoring methodology allows for granular assessment of vendor capabilities, with specific weighted percentages assigned to each evaluation category. Notably, the solicitation requires vendors to be within 100 miles of the district office and includes an anti-Israel boycott statement as part of the mandatory requirements. The RFP is issued in accordance with the State of Utah Procurement Code and follows Utah Administrative Rules, ensuring a structured and transparent procurement process for the network switch upgrade project.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
| ATTACHMENT I | |||||||
| ERATE NETWORK SWITCH UPGRADE | |||||||
| SOLICITATION # 26TH04P5 | |||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||
| DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft and should not be returned to the Purchasing Department. Please return this document to the evaluation committee chairperson | |||||||
| This document is not subject to GRAMA pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R33-7-702(2). | |||||||
| 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 | Demonstrated Experience | 2.1 | |||||
| 2 | Existing System Compatibility | 2.1 | |||||
| 3 | Current Technology and Support | 2.1 | |||||
| 4 | Credentials | 2.1 | |||||
| 5 | Within 100 miles of District Office | 2.1 | |||||
| 6 | Anti-Israel Boycott Statement | 2.1 | |||||
| 0 | |||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (1-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Functionality | 3.2 A | |||||
| 2 | Switch Core Functionality | 3.2 B1 | 4 | 13.2% | 20.0 | 0.0 | |
| 3 | |||||||
| 4 | Technical Requirements | 3.2 C | |||||
| 5 | Installation and Configuration | 3.2 C2 | 3 | 10.0% | 15.0 | 0.0 | |
| 6 | Tools and Automated Processes for Deployment | 3.2 C3 | 1 | 3.4% | 5.0 | 0.0 | |
| 7 | Commercially Available Tools Used | 3.2 C4 | 1 | 3.4% | 5.0 | 0.0 | |
| 8 | Detecting or Confirming Faults in Equipment | 3.2 C5 | 2 | 6.6% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 9 | Software Releases/Patches Managed/Installed | 3.2 C6 | 2 | 6.7% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 10 | Support for Proposed Solution | 3.2 C7 | 2 | 6.7% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 11 | Prevent and Mitigate Network Security Breaches | 3.2 C8 | 2 | 6.7% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 12 | Monitoring and Auditing | 3.2 C9 | 2 | 6.7% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 13 | Other Requirements | 3.2 D | |||||
| 14 | Local Technical Support & Experience | 3.2 D1 | 2 | 6.6% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 15 | References | 3.2 D2 | 1 | 3.4% | 5.0 | 0.0 | |
| 16 | Financial Information | 3.2 D3 | 1 | 3.4% | 5.0 | 0.0 | |
| 17 | Value Added Functionality | 3.2 D4 | 2 | 6.6% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 18 | Implementation Assistance and Training Offered | 3.2 D5 | 3 | 10.0% | 15.0 | 0.0 | |
| 19 | Ease of Use | 3.2 D6 | 2 | 6.6% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |
| 100.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| 4.2 | 75% | 112.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| 4.2 | 32% | 70.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Cost Formula: Cost Points x (2-Proposed Price/Lowest Proposed Price) | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 68% | 150.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 32% | 70.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 220.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .