25-P-00309_Road_Constuction_Emulsions_Prime_&_Tack_(Bid_Discount)_Review_Sheet.pdf

PDF 263 KB Posted

Attached to
Road Construction Emulsions Prime & Tack (Bid Discount)
Solicitation number
25-P-00309
Issued by
Hillsborough County, Florida

About this file

The document is a Solicitation Review Checklist completed by a buyer named Inger Welch on 8/2/25, designed to comprehensively review and validate the details of an Invitation to Bid (ITB). The checklist systematically evaluates multiple aspects of the solicitation document, including scope/specification details, compliance with regulations, mandatory requirements, timeline of events, cost/pricing schedules, quality standards, contract terms, and document consistency. Key review areas include ensuring the scope is detailed, avoiding vague language, confirming appropriate insurance provisions, verifying consistent terminology, and checking that the document promotes open and fair competition.

The checklist includes specific checks for potential issues such as "Ban the Box" references, city and vendor responsibilities, and document formatting consistency. It covers critical elements like mandatory requirements capture, timeline reasonableness, cost accounting for various elements (labor, materials, mobilization), quality standards enforcement, and contract term clarity. The document is designed as a thorough pre-publication review to minimize potential ambiguities, legal risks, or competitive barriers in the solicitation process, with sections for both buyer and peer reviewer to validate different aspects of the procurement document.

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

I V

Solicitation Review Checklist

Buyer Name=�------------- Peer Reviewer Name: ______________ _ Date:_

Buyer

□ □ NIA

□ □ N.fA

□ □ NIA

□ □ N/A

□ □ NIA

_______________ Date:

ITBs

Scope/specification provided by end-user is detailed and covers all necessary aspects of good/service.

The document avoids use of vague words, scope, and specifications.

Solicitation complies with all relevant regulations, laws, polic.fes (federal grant guidelines, awardee licensing requirements, etc.), and federal provisions are included (if applicable).

Appropriate sheltered market solicitation (SMS), bid discount, ban the box, etc. overlay is consistent throughout or removed if not applicable.

Mandatory requirements are clearly defined and captured in bidder's checklist (such as licensin�, certifications, years of experience - references, etc.).

Timeline of events is reasonable and justified (newspaper ad., Q&A period, pre-bid, site visit, acquiring insurance certificates, bid opening, etc.).

Pre-bid and site visit information is clearly defined and consistent throughout document, and if mandatory, is justified and reasonable. Management approval in writing is required for solicitations where a mandatory pre-bid and/or site visit has historically never been required.

Date of management approval:

Cost/pricing schedules, bid sheets, etc. are consistent with scope/specification and adequately account for things such as labor, materials, mobilization, freight, optional items, ongoing maintenance, licensing, etc.

Quality standards (if any) are clearly defined and enforceable, such as ISO certifications or industry-specific quality control measures.

The term of award is clearly defined, including options to renew, is realistic, and in-line with industry standards/norms - term is multi-year where possible. If one-time purchase, it is clearly identified as such and consistent throughout document.

Insurance provisions have been added/removed as appropriate.

Acronyms are spelled out in the following format ·n first mention: American Water Works Association ("AWWA"); subsequent menfons use acronym, e.g., AWWA.

Capitalized terms are defined in the document, and capitalization of terms is used consistently throughout document Use of terms are consistent throughout document, e.g., bidder, offerer, contractor, etc. and are not used interchangeably. Definitions of such are included.

Sizeable blank spaces in the document have been clearly identified as being intentionally left blank in order to avoid causing confusion and leading readers to believe information may have been cut off.

"Ban the Box" (Bidder's Criminal History) references have been taken out - Ban the Box is only applicable to procurements >$1 00k The City's responsibilities and roles vs. vendor's responsibilities and roles are clearly stated

D O N/A and outlined, avoiding any vagueness, ambiguity, and contradiction.

THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN CHECKED FOR CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY WITHIN THE DOCUMENT:•

□ AttachmenUExhibit sequencing

□ Paragraph justification and indentation

□ Font type

□ Font size

□ Font color □ Paragraph/Section numbering

The document has been reviewed from a supplier's perspective to ensure it is not a restrictive document that can give the perception of collusion or undermining open and fair competition.

Peer

D

□ □ NIA

The document is coherent and follows a logical sequence; avoids redundancy or dividing/addressing a single topic/content/deliverable/etc. among multiple sections, requiring users to jump back and forth within the document to identify scope/specs., submittal requirements, etc.

RFPs, RFQs, etc.

In Addition to Above

Evaluation criteria captures technical and quali,tative requirements.

Cost structure/pricing schedule clearly defines compensation such as fixed-price, time and materials, cost reimbursable, milestone, progress payments, etc.

There are no contradictions or duplications in the instructions for proposal format, including required sections/documentation (executive summary, technical approach, qualifications, references, etc.).

The document has taken negotiation, BAFO, and clarification into account and if applicable, have been clearly defined in the document. If COT Agreement or PO only, this is clearly stated in the document.

The table of contents is accurate and documents all sections, attachments, appendices, exhibits, etc. in the solicitation.

D

D

Peer Reviewer Name:
Buyer Name: Inger Welch
Date: 8/2/25
Check Box1: Yes
Check Box2: Off
Check Box3: Yes
Check Box4: Yes
Check Box5: Yes
Check Box6: Off
Check Box7: Yes
Check Box8: Yes
Check Box9: Off
Check Box10: Off
Check Box11: Yes
Check Box12: Yes
Check Box13: Yes
Check Box14: Off
Check Box15: Yes
Check Box16: Yes
Check Box17: Off
Check Box18: Yes
Check Box19: Yes
Check Box20: Yes
Check Box21: Yes
Check Box22: Yes
Check Box23: Yes
Check Box24: Off
Check Box25: Yes
Check Box26: Off
Check Box27: Off
Check Box28: Off
Check Box29: Off
Check Box30: Off
Check Box31: Off
Check Box32: Off
Check Box33: Off
Check Box34: Off
Check Box35: Off
Check Box36: Off
Check Box37: Off
Check Box38: Off
Check Box39: Off
Check Box40: Off
Check Box41: Off
Check Box42: Off
Check Box43: Yes
Check Box44: Off
Check Box45: Off
Check Box46: Off
Check Box47: Off
Check Box48: Off
Check Box49: Off
Check Box50: Off
Check Box51: Off
Check Box52: Off
Check Box53: Off
Check Box54: Off
Check Box55: Off
Check Box56: Yes
Check Box62: Yes
Check Box63: Yes
Check Box64: Yes
Check Box65: Yes
Check Box66: Yes

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .