3-Attachment 4 - Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 283 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SLCI26080
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is a score sheet for a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by Salt Lake City Corporation for Privacy Consulting Services (Solicitation #SLCI26080). The score sheet establishes the evaluation framework for competitive proposals, with scoring mechanisms across three primary stages. Stage 1 consists of mandatory pass/fail requirements including certification of ethics compliance, disclosure of conflicts of interest, demonstration of five years of relevant experience in privacy law and Utah privacy guidance, and identification of a team member with a law degree and both Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPM) and CIPP-US certifications. Applicants must also disclose any use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology and provide detailed information regarding GenAI systems, including model names, applications, product descriptions, use cases, information domains, update procedures, and bias detection safeguards.
Stage 2 evaluates technical and policy criteria using a 0-5 scoring scale, with technical criteria weighted at 70 percent of total points (630 points possible) across four categories: qualifications (150 points), approach to scope of work (175 points), understanding of Real Time Crime Center and public safety privacy risks (150 points), and knowledge transfer and training (125 points). Policy criteria account for 5 percent of total points (30 points possible) and address sustainability, disadvantaged business enterprise participation, apprenticeships, and local small business considerations. Stage 3 applies a cost evaluation worth 30 percent of total points (270 points possible), with the lowest-cost proposer receiving the maximum 270 points and remaining proposers scored proportionally based on their blended hourly rates relative to the lowest proposal. A minimum threshold of 60 percent (378 points) of technical evaluation points is required for advancement, with total evaluation points calculated at 900 points across all categories.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 6-Attachment 2 - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment 3 - Cost Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 4-Attachment 1 - Sample Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Confidential+and+Proprietary+Info+Declaration+Form.pdf | ||
| 2-SLCI26080.docx | DOCX document |
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 Sheet
| Privacy Consulting Services | ||||||||
| SOLICITATION # SLCI26080 | ||||||||
| Attachment 4 - Score Sheet | ||||||||
| Score will be assigned as follows: | ||||||||
| 0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed du to missing information. | ||||||||
| Firm Name: | 1 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information. | |||||||
| 2 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner. | ||||||||
| Evaluator: | 3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner. | |||||||
| 4 = Good, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP and in some respects exceeds them. | ||||||||
| Date: | 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP. | |||||||
| Stage 1: Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||||
| 1 | City Ethics Requirement. | |||||||
| 2 | Offeror certifies that Offeror has included a statement that identifies any conflicts or potential conflict of interest that might arise during the Agreement. If no conflicts are identified or expected, respond with “None”. | |||||||
| 3 | Offeror certifies that Offeror's proposed team has five (5) years experience or similar experience related to to the work described in Attachment 2: Scope of Work including Utah privacy law and guidance. | |||||||
| 4 | Offeror certifies that the proposed team has a member with a law degree who is a Certified Information Privacy Manage (CIPM) and Certified Information Privacy Professional- United States (CIPP-US). | |||||||
| 5 | Offeror shall indicate if Offeror and/or Offeror’s subcontractor(s) will be using or offering GenAI technology, model(s), service(s), or system(s)s. | |||||||
| 1. | If yes, provide the following information below details regarding the GenAI system(s). Failure to provide details regarding the GenAI system(s) may result in disqualification. | |||||||
| a. | GenAI Model Name (including LLM Version, all model names/owners for the solution or offering) | |||||||
| b. | Applications/Product Owner (GenAI powered or driven) | |||||||
| c. | Product Description | |||||||
| d. | Use Case(s) | |||||||
| e. | Intended Information Domain | |||||||
| f. | Update procedure | |||||||
| g. | Bias Detection: Explain any measures or safeguards implemented to ensure the GenAI system is not adversely affecting decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice. | |||||||
| 0 | ||||||||
| Stage 2: Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Qualifications. | 0 | 30 | 25.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |
| 2 | Approach to Scope of Work. | 0 | 35 | 29.2% | 175.0 | 0.0 | |
| 3 | Understanding of Real Time Crime Center and Public Safety Privacy Risks | 0 | 30 | 25.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |
| 4 | Knowledge Transfer and Training | 0 | 25 | 20.8% | 125.0 | 0.0 | |
| Scorable Technical Criteria Total | 100.0% | 600.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Stage 2: Policy Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Available Points | Possible Points | Points Earned | |||
| 1 | Sustainability | 0 | 1.25% | 7.50 | 0.00 | ||
| 2 | Disadvantaged business enterprise | 0 | 1.25% | 7.50 | 0.00 | ||
| 3 | Apprenticeships | 0 | 1.25% | 7.50 | 0.00 | ||
| 4 | Local Small Business | 0 | 1.25% | 7.50 | 0.00 | ||
| Policy Criteria Total | 5.00% | 30.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Possible Points | Points Earned | ||||||
| Total Technical Points | 100.00% | 630.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Required Evaluation Criteria Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| RFP | 60% | 378.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Stage 3: Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| RFP | $0.00 | $0.00 | 30% | 270.00 | 0.0 | ||
| * The Offeror with the lowest blended hourly rate will receive 270 points. All other Offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their blended hourly rate is than the total lowest blended hourly rate. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Blended Hourly Rate/Proposed Blended Hourly Rate). | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70% | 630.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 30% | 270.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 900.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .