16-27TH01P5 Attachment H RFP Evaluation Scoresheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 66 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP Classroom & Computer Lab Management Software
- Solicitation number
- 27TH01P5
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Utah
About this file
This is an RFP Evaluation Scoresheet for Classroom & Computer Lab Management Software (Solicitation #27TH01P5) issued by Jordan School District in Utah. The scoresheet establishes the evaluation framework and scoring methodology for vendor proposals submitted in response to this multiple award solicitation. The district seeks qualified offerors to provide classroom and computer lab management software solutions, with separate categories for Classroom Management Software (Category A) and Computer Lab Management Software (Category B). Vendors offering operating system-level solutions may qualify for both categories and must submit complete documentation for each category to be considered for award. The previous contracts from RFP 26TH01P5 will lapse after Year 1 or June 30, 2026, as the district determined those solutions did not provide viable computer lab capabilities and requested a new RFP process with modified requirements.
The evaluation scoresheet allocates points across three primary categories: Technical Evaluation (58.33% of total points, 840 possible points), Presentations (13.88% of total points, 200 possible points), and Cost (27.78% of total points, 400 possible points), for a combined total of 1,440 evaluation points. Technical criteria are scored on a 0-5 scale across 20 scoreable items covering software requirements, training and technical support, and data protection capabilities. Mandatory requirements include experience and references, existing program capability, page limitations, public contract boycott compliance, FERPA compliance and Data Privacy Agreement signature, and no reseller preference. Proposals must achieve a minimum threshold of 75 percent of technical points (630 points) to proceed to presentation and cost evaluation. Cost evaluation uses a formula-based approach where cost points are calculated by multiplying the cost evaluation score by the ratio of the lowest proposed price to the vendor's proposed price.
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 H | ||||||||
| Classroom & Computer Lab Management Software | ||||||||
| SOLICITATION # 27TH01P5 | ||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||
| DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft. 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) | ||||||
| A | Experience and References | 2.1 | ||||||
| B | Existing Program Capability | 2.1 | ||||||
| C | Page Limitation | 2.1 | ||||||
| D | Compliance with Public Contract Boycott Restrictions | 2.1 | ||||||
| E | Compliance with FERPA / Sign JSD's DPA | 2.1 | ||||||
| F | No Reseller Preference | 2.1 | ||||||
| 0 | ||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| Software Requirements | ||||||||
| A1/B1 | Web-based or OS Level software, work on all devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A2/B2 | All supported methods of rostering students | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A3/B3 | How teachers and students will authenticate w/system | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A4/B4 | Teachers have whole class control | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A5/B5 | Teachers able to blacklist/whitelist websites | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A6/B6 | Teachers communicate w/students via text messages | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A7/B7 | Create ability-level groups and black/whitelist websites | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A8/B8 | Allows tab limits | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A9/B9 | Pushes specific URLs from teachers to student devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A10/B10 | Create screenshots of student devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A11/B11 | Individual student usage reports/timelines use history | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A12/B12 | Track all tabs and windows on student devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A13/B13 | Leveled admin access, district and building | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A14/B14 | Allows teachers to close student tabs remotely | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A15/B15 | Create individual classrooms for monitoring | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Training and Technical Support | ||||||||
| C1 | In person/online training materials | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| C2 | Ongoing professional development during contract | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| C3 | Technical support for software | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| C4 | How student & teacher data will be protected | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| C5 | Process to upload student information | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| C6 | Cybersecurity initiatives/process for data breach | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 100.0% | 840.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||
| 5.1 | 75% | 630.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||
| Presentations | RFP Section | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 5.1 | 13.88% | 200.0 | ||||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||
| 5.1 | 27.78% | 400.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Cost Formula: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price) | ||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 58.33% | 840.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Presentation Points | 13.88% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 27.78% | 400.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,440.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Without presentations | 1,240.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .