18-Attach L - Scoring Sheet Mech.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- TB2636-WM
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is a scoring sheet for the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD) in conjunction with McKinstry for HVAC retrofit work at Whittier Elementary School, located at 1600 S 300 E, Salt Lake City, Utah. The project, identified as Solicitation #TB2636-WM, encompasses mechanical HVAC electrification retrofit work inside the building and installation of a ground loop bore field outside the building. Subcontractors are required to provide all necessary trades including mechanical (air and water-side), insulation, controls, Test and Balance, and structural work, with line-voltage electrical work and ground loop drilling to be addressed through separate RFPs. The scoring sheet establishes evaluation criteria using a 0-10 scale, with 0 representing failure and 10 representing excellence. Mandatory requirements include submission of a completed McKinstry prequalification application with supporting documentation such as business and contractor licenses, workers compensation insurance letters, OSHA logs and citations, current liability insurance certificates, and bonding capacity letters. Vendors must also acknowledge receipt of all attachments (A-L) in the solicitation package.
The evaluation process comprises five scoreable technical criteria, each weighted differently, with a minimum required threshold of 57 percent or 40 points from a possible 70 points. Technical criteria include vendor qualifications and relevant company experience (weight: 1, 10 points), project team qualifications (weight: 1, 10 points), past performance and references with minimum three and maximum five references from projects completed within the last five years (weight: 1, 10 points), management plan demonstrating working relationships with the School District and McKinstry (weight: 0.5, 5 points), and scope narrative demonstrating understanding of the Scope of Work and project drawings with inclusions and exclusions stated (weight: 3.5, 35 points). An additional evaluation criterion assesses alignment between the scope narrative and cost proposal (10 points), ensuring consistency between stated inclusions, equipment, alternates, value engineering suggestions, project team composition, and pricing with limited and explicit assumptions or exclusions.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
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 L - Score Sheet |
| Whittier Elementary HVAC Electrification, Mechanical |
| SOLICITATION # TB2636-WM |
| Score will be assigned as follows: | |
| 0 = Fail, the SOQ does not answer or address the requirement | |
| Firm Name: | 1-4 = Unsatisfactory, the SOQ has major gaps in addressing some or all of the requirements of the RFSQ or has serious deficiencies in support or detail for multiple requirements. |
| 5-6 = Substandard, the proposal does not address all of the requirements or criteria in the RFSQ or does not provide sufficient support or detail to address all of them. | |
| Evaluator: | 7 = Pass, the proposal addresses all requirements with sufficient support and detail for each requirement. |
| 8 = Good, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with ample support and detail for each requirement. | |
| Date: | 9 = Great, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with abundant support and detail for each requirement. |
| 10 = Excellent, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with exceptional support and detail for each requirement. |
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | A completed McKinstry prequalificaton application is provided, which includes: | |
| a | Business License and Contractor's License | |
| b | Letter from Workers Compensation insurance provider of EMR rating of past 3 years | |
| c | Copies of OSHA 300-A logs for the past 3 years | |
| d | Copies of any OSHA citations for the past 3 years | |
| e | Copy of current liability insurance certificate | |
| f | Certificate of Insurance with evidence of workers compensation coverage | |
| g | Letter from bonding company / surety (statement of bonding capacity) | |
| 2 | All attachments (A-L) have been read and acknowledged |
Scoreable Technical Criteria Evaluator Score (1-10) Criteria Weight Points Possible Points Earned 1 Vendor Qualifications and Relevant Company Experience: Provide a brief description of your company’s historical background, the scope and nature of construction routinely provided by your company on projects of the size and scope identified in the RFP, especially as it relates to schools and other education facilities.
| Evaluation criteria: Strength of experience of the company as a whole when selected to execute similar projects for similar clients. | 1 | 10 | 0 | ||
| 2 | Project Team : This area of evaluation will consider the individual qualifications and working experience of the individual project team members. This category includes the technical qualifications and work experience of the key personnel assigned to the project and experience of the team working on previous projects to achieve the project objectives. |
| Evaluation criteria: Experience of individual project team members and lower tier subcontractors to execute the scope of work and drawings provided. | 1 | 10 | 0 | ||
| 3 | Past Performance and References: Vendors shall provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references for projects of comparable scope, magnitude, and clientele. References should demonstrate the vendor’s capacity to perform successfully on similar projects for projects which have been completed within the last 5 years. |
| Evaluation criteria: Similarity and strength of portfolio compared to SLCSD and overall comments and other information obtained from provided references. | 1 | 10 | 0 | ||
| 4 | Management Plan: This area of evaluation will consider the working relationship the Vendor will maintain with the School District, McKinstry, and drillers or other subcontractors. Please describe your approach to maintaining clear and updated communications between these entities. A special emphasis shall be placed on the working relationship between the vendor, drilling professional, and the McKinstry superintendent during all construction operations. |
| Evaluation Criteria: Project team's familiarity working with energy service companies providing guaranteed energy savings performance contracting, strength of accountability structure, and success in navigating relationships between District and contracted drilling professionals. | 0.5 | 5 | 0 | ||
| 5 | Scope Narrative: A scope narrative that clearly indicates contractor's understanding of the Scope of Work and project drawings and states inclusions and exclusions. No pricing shall be included in the scope narrative. |
| Evaluation Criteria: The scope narrative demonstrates familiarity with the project requirements, Scope of Work and project drawings, equipment to be provided by the Vendor, and states reasonable assumptions, inclusions, and exclusions pertaining to the vendor's bid. Excessive exclusions are to be minimized. No pricing is provided in the scope narrative. | 3.5 | 35 | 0 | ||
| 70 | 0.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| 57% | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
6 Alignment between Scope Narrative and Cost presented (10 points)
Evaluation Criteria: The costs provided in the bid shall be evaluated against the scope narrative provided in the Tier 1 scoring to verify alignment between the Vendor’s price and their stated inclusions, equipment, alternates, VE suggestions, project team, and general conditions. Assumptions or exclusions are limited, explicit, and consistent with the Scope Narrative. 1 10 0
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .