2025 COC AE Proposal Scoring Matrix.pdf
PDF 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- A&E RFQ KCC - College of Cosmetology
- Solicitation number
- S-P18002-00014317
- Issued by
- Jackson County, Oregon
About this file
This document appears to be an evaluation scoresheet for a competitive bidding process involving six firms: BBT, PIVOT, Integrus, TVA, Varitone, and ORW. The scoresheet contains detailed scoring across six evaluation categories: Proposal Submission Requirement Instruction (5 points), Firm Description (15 points), Experience on Similar Projects (25 points), Overall Project Approach (15 points), Approach to Schedule and Availability (15 points), Experience in Klamath (15 points), and References (10 points). Six individual evaluators scored each firm across these categories.
The total scoring reveals BBT as the highest-scoring firm with 562 points, followed closely by ORW with 541 points. PIVOT ranked third with 532 points, while TVA and Integrus scored 469 and 467 points respectively, with Varitone scoring the lowest at 452 points. The scoring suggests a competitive procurement process with relatively close performance across multiple evaluation dimensions. The detailed scoring matrix allows for granular comparison of each firm's strengths and weaknesses across different evaluation criteria, providing a comprehensive assessment of the competing proposals.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2025COC - RFQ DOC FINAL COMBINED~1.pdf | ||
| Bid Tab~19.pdf | ||
| KCC RFQ 2025 COC Addendum.pdf | ||
| 2025 COC RFQ Addendum 2.pdf | ||
| 2025 COC - Notice of Intent to Award Design RFQ.pdf |
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Average Average Average Average Average Average Average BBT 5 5 5 5 5 3 4.7 14 15 15 14 15 15 14.7 20 23 25 20 23 23 22.3 14 15 15 15 15 14 14.7 14 15 15 15 13 14 14.3 15 15 15 15 15 13 14.7 10 10 10 10 10 10.0 562 PIVOT 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 14 15 13 15 15 14 14.3 20 25 18 20 12 20 19.2 13 15 15 15 15 14 14.5 13 13 12 15 12 13 13.0 14 15 13 15 15 14 14.3 10 10 10 10 10 10.0 532 Integrus 4 3 5 3 5 3 3.8 13 10 13 13 15 13 12.8 24 20 22 18 15 20 19.8 13 13 15 13 15 13 13.7 15 12 14 14 12 13 13.3 10 5 7 10 5 8 7.5 10 10 10 5 6 8.2 467 TVA 5 3 5 3 5 3 4.0 11 13 12 15 15 11 12.8 20 20 18 20 12 20 18.3 10 12 12 8 15 12 11.5 13 13 15 8 15 13 12.8 12 13 12 15 5 13 11.7 10 10 8 6 8 8.4 469 Varitone 4 3 5 2 5 3 3.7 12 13 8 14 15 13 12.5 15 20 15 17 18 20 17.5 10 13 8 15 15 14 12.5 12 13 7 15 12 13 12.0 8 10 7 13 8 12 9.7 10 10 10 5 10 9.0 452 ORW 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.8 12 15 15 15 15 14 14.3 15 23 20 22 25 23 21.3 12 13 8 15 15 14 12.8 15 15 12 15 15 13 14.2 12 15 15 15 15 14 14.3 10 10 10 10 10 10.0 541 Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 total
BBT 92 98 90 94 96 92 562
PIVOT 89 98 76 95 84 90 532
Integrus 89 73 76 81 72 76 467
TVA 81 84 74 77 73 80 469
Varitone 71 82 50 86 78 85 452
ORW 81 96 75 97 100 92 541
NB 1
DR 2
MH 3
KD 4
RH 5
MM 6
Proposal submission requirement instruction
(5) Firm Description (15) Experience on Similar
Projects (25) Overall Project Approach (15)
Approach to Schedule and Avialability (15)
Experience in Klamath
(15) References (10)
Individual Score sheet
Average
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .