2-SLCI27027 Attachment 4 - Score Sheet.pdf
PDF 265 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SLCI27027
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This document is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Salt Lake City Corporation's solicitation SLCI27027 for Time Fill CNG Site Maintenance services. The scoresheet is designed to evaluate competitive sealed proposals from qualified offerors to service and maintain the city's compressed natural gas (CNG) time-fill vehicle fueling system and provide 24/7 remote system monitoring. The evaluation framework accommodates multiple offerors (A through T) and utilizes a standardized scoring methodology with pass/fail mandatory requirements followed by technical and cost evaluation phases.
The evaluation criteria consist of four mandatory pass/fail requirements addressing the city's ethics requirements, relevant experience, required certifications, and generative AI policy compliance. Technical scoring is structured across three primary criteria: Qualifications (weighted at 20% of technical points, 100 points possible), Technical Approach and Methodology (50%, 250 points), and Risk and Safety (30%, 150 points), totaling 500 scoreable technical points. Two policy criteria—Sustainability and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Certification—comprise an additional 12.5 points (5% of total evaluation). Offerors must achieve a minimum score of 307.5 points (60% of 512.5 total technical points) to remain eligible for award consideration. Cost evaluation accounts for 30% of the total scoring, with 219.6 points available, and is calculated using a lowest-price formula where the lowest bidder receives 100% of cost points and other offerors receive proportional points based on their cost relative to the lowest proposal. The total possible evaluation score is 732.1 points, and scoring uses a 0-5 scale where 0 indicates failure to address requirements, 1 indicates poor addressing of requirements, 2 indicates unsatisfactory, 3 indicates satisfactory, 4 indicates good, and 5 indicates excellent addressing of or exceeding all requirements.
View the file
Other files
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 will be assigned as follows:
0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or ca 1 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the 2 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP 3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP in 4 = Good, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP and in so 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria describ
RFP Section Evaluation (Pass/Fail)
1 VII. A. 1.
2 VII. A. 2.
3 VII. A. 3.
4 VII. A. 4.
RFP Section Evaluator
Score (0-5) Criteria Weight
% of Tech Criteria
Points Possible Points Earned
Minimum Required
1 VII. B. 1. 20 20.0% 100.0 0.0
2 VII. B. 2. 50 50.0% 250.0 0.0
3 VII. B. 3. 30 30.0% 150.0 0.0
100.0% 500.0 0.0 0.0
RFP Section Evaluator
Score (0-5) Available
Points Possible Points Points Earned
1 VII. C. 1. 0 1.25% 6.25 0.00
2 VII. C. 2. 0 1.25% 6.25 0.00
5.00% 12.50 0.00
Possible Points Points Earned
100.00% 512.50 0.00
RFP Section Min Percent Min Points Required
Points Earned
Percent Earned Evaluation
60% 307.5 0.0 0.0%
RFP Section Low Cost Option
Offered Cost
Percent of Total Points Possible Points Earned
$0.00 $0.00 30% 219.6 #DIV/0!
Percent of Total Points
Possible Points Earned
70% 512.5 0.0
30% 219.6 #DIV/0!
100% 732.1 #DIV/0!
TIME FILL CNG SITE MAINTENANCE
RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Firm Name:
Evaluator:
Date:
SOLICITATION #SLCI27027
City's Ethics Requirement Experience Certifications Gen AI Statement
Minimum Mandatory Requirements
Required Technical Point Threshold
Cost
Qualifications
Risk and Safety
Policy Criteria Total
Scoreable Technical Criteria
Technical Approach and Methodology
Total Technical Points
Sustainability Disadvantaged business enterprise
Scorable Technical Criteria Total
Policy Criteria
Total Evaluation Points Total Cost Evaluation Points Total Technical Evaluation Points
Total Evaluation Points
* 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).
Instructions:
Signatures: Date:
Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3
Minimum Mandatory Requirements Offeror A 1 City's Ethics Requirements 2 Experience 3 Cerrtificsations 4 Gen AI Policy
Weight Technical Scores Offeror A Criteria #1 Qualifications Evaluator 1 5.0 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Total Average Score 5.0
20.0 Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) 100.0 Criteria #2 Approach and Methodology Evaluator 1
Mandatory Minimum Requirements: Evaluate each offer and enter pa
Ensure that the number of evaluator lines matches the number of eva
Offers not meeting the Minimum Mandatory Requirements will not be
Ensure that the Total Average Score formula includes all of the evalu
Technical Scores: Enter each evaluator score for each offer.
Enter the Total Possible Points for each Criterion, Cost Points, and S section.
Enter the solicitation number and name.
Enter each Offeror name.
Enter the Criteria name for each category.
Enter the Weight in column B that corresponds to the Criteria Weight Sheet tab column J for each criterion.
Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Total Average Score 0.0
50.0 Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 250) 0.0 Criteria #3 Risk and Safety Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Total Average Score 0.0
30.0 Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 150) 0.0 Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 500) 100.0 Policy Criteria Offeror A
Weight Technical Scores Policy Criteria #1: Sustainability Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Total Average Score 0.0
1.250 Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 6.25) 0.00 Policy Criteria #2: Business Certification Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Total Average Score 0.0
1.250 Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 6.25) 0.00 Policy Criteria - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 12.5) 0.0 Total Technical Criteria Points (Total Technical Criteria Possible Points = 512.5) Minimum Threshold = 307.5 100.0 Cost Scores Offeror A
Cost
219.6 Cost Points 0.0
Score Summary Offeror A Total Technical Points (Total Possible = 512.5) 100.0 Total Cost Points (Total Possible = 219.6) 0.0 Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 732.1) 100.0
Total Cost
Points
Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D Offeror E Offeror F Offeror G
Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D Offeror E Offeror F Offeror G
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ass or fail aluators.
evaluated ator line items.
TITLE OF PROJECT (to be inserted by the Division of Purchasing) SOLICITATION # (to be inserted by the Division of Purchasing )
RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET SUMMARY
core Summary on the Score
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D Offeror E Offeror F Offeror G
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #REF!
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #REF!
Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D Offeror E Offeror F Offeror G
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D Offeror E Offeror F Offeror G
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #REF!
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #REF!
Offeror H Offeror I Offeror J Offeror K Offeror L Offeror M
Offeror H Offeror I Offeror J Offeror K Offeror L Offeror M
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
Offeror H Offeror I Offeror J Offeror K Offeror L Offeror M
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
Offeror H Offeror I Offeror J Offeror K Offeror L Offeror M
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offeror H Offeror I Offeror J Offeror K Offeror L Offeror M
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
Offeror N Offeror O Offeror P Offeror Q Offeror R Offeror S
Offeror N Offeror O Offeror P Offeror Q Offeror R Offeror S
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
Offeror N Offeror O Offeror P Offeror Q Offeror R Offeror S
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
Offeror N Offeror O Offeror P Offeror Q Offeror R Offeror S
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offeror N Offeror O Offeror P Offeror Q Offeror R Offeror S
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
Offeror T
Offeror T
0.0
0.0
0.0
#REF!
Offeror T
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
#REF!
#REF!
Offeror T
0.0
Offeror T
#REF!
#REF!
| Scoresheet Summary |
| Score Sheet |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .