2019 Montague Plains Bee Study Bid Evaluation Form - Caljouw.xls
XLS spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DFW-2019-031 Bee Surveys Montague Plains
- Solicitation number
- BD-19-1046-DFW-FW104-36294
- Issued by
- Franklin County, New Bedford City, Massachusetts
About this file
The document is a Bid Evaluation Form for the 2019 Montague Plains Bee Study contract opportunity issued by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. The contract seeks proposals to sample bee populations throughout the active 2019 bee season at the Montague Plains Wildlife Management Area located in Montague, Massachusetts within Franklin County. The evaluation form reviews proposals on criteria such as completeness, contractor experience, project scope and methods, budget, and total costs. Two reviewers, Caren Caljouw and VHB, provided scores for the proposals, with Caljouw's review resulting in a total score of 50 points and VHB's review resulting in a total score of 45 points.
The contract opportunity has a total proposed cost that meets the Division's expectations. There are no specifics provided on pricing terms, set asides, incumbents, funding requirements or sources, or contract term and renewal options.
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
Milam
| Evaluation Form for Proposals Montague Plains Bee Study 2019 | |
| Reviewer: Caren Caljouw | |
| Evaluation Criteria : | Score |
| Is the proposal complete? Are all the required sections included? | 10 |
| (Complete = 10 pts; Missing 1 section = 5 pts; Missing more than 1 section = 0 pts) | |
| Appears complete based on RFQ but somewhat disjointed narrative | |
| Is the proposed contractor adequately experienced in similar projects in Massachusetts? | 10 |
| Extensive documented experience = 10 pts; Some documented experience = 5 pts; No demonstarted experience = 0 pts) | |
| Extensive experience in MA and specific study area | |
| Are the project scope and methods adequate / will DFW meet our project goals? | 10 |
| (Clear and appropriate = 10 pts; Vague or questionable = 5 pts; Incomplete = 0 pts) | |
| Adequate | |
| Is the budget understandable and complete? | 10 |
| (Complete, no questions remaining = 10 pts; Questions remain but low significance = 5 pts; | |
| Incomplete, substantial questions remain = 0 pts) | |
| Does the total cost for the proposed products meet our expectations? | 10 |
| (Meets or exceeds = 10 pts; Cost higher than expectations = 5 pts; Cost prohibitive = 0 pts) | |
| Total Point Score | 50 |
| Reviewer: Caren Caljouw | |
| Title: Prescribed Fire Program Manager | |
| Date: March 22, 2019 |
VHB
| Evaluation Form for Proposals Montague Plains Bee Study 2019 | |
| Evaluation Criteria : | Score |
| Is the proposal complete? Are all the required sections included? | 10 |
| (Complete = 10 pts; Missing 1 section = 5 pts; Missing more than 1 section = 0 pts) | |
| written proposal | 5 |
| Is the proposed contractor adequately experienced in similar projects in Massachusetts? | |
| Extensive documented experience = 10 pts; Some documented experience = 5 pts; No demonstarted experience = 0 pts) | |
| Some experience with these sampling techniques but not extensive experience and knowledge. | |
| Are the project scope and methods adequate / will DFW meet our project goals? | 10 |
| (Clear and appropriate = 10 pts; Vague or questionable = 5 pts; Incomplete = 0 pts) | |
| Is the budget understandable and complete? | 10 |
| (Complete, no questions remaining = 10 pts; Questions remain but low significance = 5 pts; | |
| Incomplete, substantial questions remain = 0 pts) | |
| Does the total cost for the proposed products meet our expectations? | 10 |
| (Meets or exceeds = 10 pts; Cost higher than expectations = 5 pts; Cost prohibitive = 0 pts) | |
| Meets | |
| Total Point Score | 45 |
| Reviewer: Caren Caljouw | |
| Title: Prescribed Fire Manager/Fire Ecologist | |
| Date: March 20, 2019 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .