2-Attachment 4 - Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 293 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Salt Lake City Request for Proposals SLCI27038 Development Services Process Optimization
- Solicitation number
- SLCI27038
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for Salt Lake City Request for Proposals SLCI27038, issued by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Development Services Division. The RFP seeks qualified consultants to conduct an audit of the Division's current permitting, review, and closeout processes with the goal of modernizing and streamlining operations to ensure timely, predictable, consistent, objective, and customer-focused service delivery. The project focuses on interdepartmental coordination, code interpretation clarity, permit processing timeliness, updated procedures, effective customer communication, and removal of unnecessary development review barriers. The contract has a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000.00. No specific response dates, due dates, site visits, bidders' meetings, or award dates are indicated in this scoresheet document.
The evaluation process consists of four stages: Stage 1 assesses minimum mandatory requirements including City ethics compliance, five years of relevant experience, conflict-of-interest statements, and GenAI technology considerations; Stage 2 evaluates technical criteria weighted across qualifications (25%), key personnel (25%), responsiveness (25%), project approach (15%), and project schedule (10%), with policy criteria for sustainability, disadvantaged business enterprise, apprenticeships, and local small business each worth 1.25%; Stage 3 includes interviews weighted at 65.4 points with an 80% minimum threshold; and Stage 4 evaluates cost proposals at 10% of total points using a lowest-price formula. The total possible evaluation points are 947.0, with the technical evaluation comprising 55% (525 points), interviews 35% (327 points), and cost 10% (95 points), requiring an 85% minimum threshold for technical evaluation to advance.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 6-SLCI27038.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Confidential and Proprietary Info Declaration Form - September 2026.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment 3 - Cost Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 3-Attachment 1 - Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment 2 - Scope of Work.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
Score Sheet
| Salt Lake City RFP No. SLCI27038 for Development Services Process Optimization | |||||||
| Attachment 4 - Score Sheet | |||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||
| 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 du 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. | ||||||
| Stage 1: Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||
| 1 | City Ethics Requirement | SLCI27038 | |||||
| 2 | Offeror certifies that Offeror's proposed team has five (5) years experience or similar experience to the work described in Attachment 2: Scope of Work. | SLCI27038 | |||||
| 3 | Include a statement that identifies any conflicts or potential conflict of interest that might arise during the Agreement. If no conflicts are identified or expected, respond with “None”. | SLCI27039 | |||||
| 4 | GenAI Technology | SLCI27038 | |||||
| 0 | |||||||
| Stage 2: Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Qualifications | SLCI27038 | 0 | 25 | 25.0% | 125.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | Key Personnel | SLCI27038 | 0 | 25 | 25.0% | 125.0 | 0.0 |
| 3 | Responsiveness | SLCI27038 | 0 | 25 | 25.0% | 125.0 | 0.0 |
| 4 | Project Approach | SLCI27038 | 0 | 15 | 15.0% | 75.0 | 0.0 |
| 5 | Project Schedule | SLCI27038 | 0 | 10 | 10.0% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| Scorable Technical Criteria Total | 100.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Policy Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Available Points | Possible Points | Points Earned | ||
| 1 | Sustainability | SLCI27038 | 0 | 1.25% | 6.25 | 0.00 | |
| 2 | Disadvantaged business enterprise | SLCI27038 | 0 | 1.25% | 6.25 | 0.00 | |
| 3 | Apprenticeships | SLCI27038 | 0 | 1.25% | 6.25 | 0.00 | |
| 4 | Local Small Business | SLCI27038 | 0 | 1.25% | 6.25 | 0.00 | |
| Policy Criteria Total | 5.00% | 25.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Possible Points | Points Earned | ||||||
| Total Technical Points | 100.00% | 525.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| SLCI27038 | 85% | 446.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Stage 3: Interviews | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||
| Interviews | SLCI27038 | 0 | 65.4 | 327.0 | 0.00 | ||
| Required Interview Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | |||
| SLCI27038 | 80% | 261.6 | 0.0 | ||||
| Stage 4: Cost Proposal Evalution | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| SLCI27038 | $0.00 | $0.00 | 10% | 95.0 | 0.0 | ||
| * Purchasing will use the following cost formula: The points assigned to each offerors cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. The Offeror with the lowest Proposed Price will receive 100% of the price points. All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their Proposed Price is than the Lowest Proposed Price. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 55% | 525.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 35% | 327.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 10% | 95.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 947.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .