20-Att C - RFP Evaluation Plan.docx
DOCX document 367 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AS26-68
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This RFP Evaluation Plan document outlines the four-stage evaluation process for the Walk-In Building Supplies portfolio solicitation (AS26-68) issued by the State of Utah in collaboration with the NASPO ValuePoint cooperative purchasing program. The solicitation seeks vendors capable of providing building supplies through retail locations to participating entities across the nation, including states, cities, counties, and municipalities. While the RFP targets national coverage, state-by-state offerors may be considered for awards on a state-specific basis. The resulting Master Agreement(s) will have a five-year term, with vendors required to guarantee their minimum percentage discount throughout the contract period. Proposals must be submitted through the U3P Platform (Bonfire); submissions by email or traditional mail are not accepted.
The evaluation process begins with an Initial Responsiveness Evaluation verifying proposal completeness, followed by a Mandatory Minimum Requirements stage assessing compliance with certifications and required documentation uploads. Proposals meeting mandatory requirements advance to Technical Criteria Evaluation, which allocates 700 points across six categories: Customer Service and Emergency Services (110 points), Contract Management (110 points), Implementation of the NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement (90 points), Billing and Purchases (190 points), Return Policy and Warranties (100 points), and Technology & Storage of Electronic Data (100 points). Offerors must achieve a minimum score of 490 points (70 percent) to proceed to Cost Evaluation. The Cost Evaluation stage allocates 300 points based on proposed minimum discount percentage (250 points) and market basket evaluation (50 points). All offerors earning a combined minimum of 600 points from both technical and cost evaluations are eligible for Master Agreement awards. The Lead State reserves the right to adjust contract terms during negotiation and accept more favorable pricing throughout the contract term.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
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
Request for Proposals for
[PORTFOLIO NAME]
Issued by the State of [Lead State] Solicitation Number: [#######]
Request for Proposals for Walk-In Building Supplies Issued by the State of Utah Solicitation Number: AS26-68 Attachment C
RFP EVALUATION PLAN
Stage 1: Initial Responsiveness Evaluation. Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and initial responsiveness. Proposals omitting required documents or responses may be rejected in accordance with Attachment A, RFP Terms and Conditions.
Stage 2: Mandatory Minimum Requirements Evaluation. Complete and responsive proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the following Mandatory Minimum Requirements:
| Criteria |
| Evaluation |
| Result |
| Offeror certifies that Offeror can accept purchasing cards and credit cards as an acceptable form of payment without any processing or other related fees. |
| Pass/Fail |
| Offeror must upload a completed Attachment G, Offeror Information, Acknowledgements, and Certifications |
| Pass/Fail |
| Offeror must upload a completed Attachment H, Offeror Response Worksheet |
| Pass/Fail |
| Offeror must upload a completed Attachment I, Cost Proposal |
| Pass/Fail |
| Offeror must upload a completed Attachment J, Proposed Modifications to the Sample Master Agreement, if no modifications load a document with stating "NONE" |
| Pass/Fail |
| Offeror must upload a completed Attachment K, Claim of Business Confidentiality, if there are no claims then upload a document stating "NONE". |
| Pass/Fail |
Stage 2 Result:
Proposals failing to meet or exceed all Mandatory Minimum Requirements may be rejected in accordance with Attachment A, RFP Terms and Conditions.
Stage 3: Technical Criteria Evaluation. Proposals meeting or exceeding the Mandatory Minimum Requirements will be evaluated against the following Technical Criteria:
| Criteria |
| Technical Points Possible |
| Offeror’s Technical Points Earned |
| 1. Customer Service and Emergency Services |
| 110 |
| 2. Contract Management |
| 110 |
| 3. Implementation of the NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement |
| 90 |
| 4. Billing and Purchases |
| 190 |
| 5. Return Policy and Warranties |
| 100 |
| 6. Technology & Storage of Electronic Data |
| 100 |
| Stage 3 Total: |
| 700 |
Attachment C1, Score Sheet states the relative weights that will be given to each evaluation criterion. The individual evaluator scores will be added together and averaged to determine the Offeror’s Technical Points Earned.
Offerors that achieve a minimum score threshold of 490 (70% of technical points) will proceed to Stage 4: Cost Proposal evaluation. Offerors with a score of less than the minimum required technical points will be deemed non-responsive and ineligible for further consideration.
Stage 4: Cost Evaluation. Cost Proposals for proposals not rejected following the evaluation of the Technical Criteria will be evaluated.
The contents of Attachment I, Cost Proposal will be scored as follows:
PROPOSED COSTS
| Cost Item |
| Lowest Cost |
| Offeror’s Proposal |
| Cost Points Possible |
| Offeror’s Cost Points Earned |
| Minimum Discount % Off Evaluation |
| Highest Minimum Discount |
| Offeror’s Discount |
| 250 |
| Market Basket Evaluation |
| Lowest Average Cost |
| Offeror’s Cost |
| 50 |
| Total: |
| 300 |
1. Discount % Off Evaluation In this portion of the Cost Evaluation, there are 250 points available. The proposed Minimum Discount Percentage (%) Off will be compared against other Offerors’ Minimum Discount % Off. The highest discount % will be used as a baseline to assign the available cost points to the other Offerors.
The formula for calculating cost points earned for Minimum Discount % Off is:
The Lead State reserves the right to modify this formula and/or assign a nominal value to “0” cost values if application of the formula results in an error, negative numbers, or an unreasonably skewed distribution of points.
2. Market Basket Evaluation In this portion of the Cost Evaluation, there are 50 points available. The proposed “Average Cost with Discount Applied” will be compared against the other Offerors’ “Average Cost with Discount Applied.” The lowest Average Cost with Discount Applied will be used as a baseline to assign the available cost points to the other Offerors.
The formula for calculating cost points earned for Market Basket Evaluation is:
The Lead State reserves the right to exclude line items in Attachment I, Cost Proposal to allow an equal comparison between Offerors. The Lead State reserves the right to modify this formula and/or assign a nominal value to “0” cost values if application of the formula results in an error, negative numbers, or an unreasonably skewed distribution of points.
At the Lead State’s discretion, points earned in the Cost Proposal evaluation may be normalized and scaled to award the Offeror earning the highest cost points the maximum number of cost points possible.
Cost Proposals may also be subject to an independent review for reasonableness and best value by the Lead State. Costs determined not to be reasonable or best-value by the Lead State, including any cost to which Offeror’s proposed markup or discount is to be applied, may result in all or part of Offeror’s proposal being rejected, notwithstanding the results of the Cost Proposal evaluation.
Evaluation Summary
| Stage |
| Total Points Possible |
| Offeror’s Total Points Earned |
| Technical Criteria Evaluation |
| 700 |
| Cost Evaluation (Minimum Discount % Off + Market Basket Evaluation) |
| 300 |
| Total: |
| 1000 |
Award Selection All Offerors earning a minimum of 600 points combined from the Technical Criteria Evaluation and Cost Evaluation will be eligible for a Master Agreement award. The proposal of any Offeror not earning the minimum of 600 points combined from the Technical Criteria Evaluation and Cost Evaluation will be rejected.
Prior to the announcement of awards and execution of Master Agreements, the Lead State will present an award recommendation to NASPO ValuePoint for approval of the proposed awards.
Following the approval of NASPO ValuePoint, the Lead State will issue an intent-to-award announcement on its electronic procurement system. Subsequent to the posting of the Notice of Intent of Award, the Lead State will begin formalizing the NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement(s). The Lead State reserves the right during contract negotiation of the Master Agreement(s) to adjust terms and conditions that would not (in the Lead State’s judgment) have a material effect on price, schedule, scope of work, or risk to the Lead State and Participating Entities, with materiality defined in terms of the effect on the evaluation and award. The Lead State reserves the right to accept contract or pricing changes that are more favorable to the Lead State throughout the contract term.
Page 2 of 9 – Attachment [X], RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Attachment C, RFP EVALUATION PLAN image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .