3-Attachment C scoresheet.xls

XLS spreadsheet 29 KB Posted

Attached to
Municipal Advisor
Solicitation number
TR26-5
Issued by
Utah

About this file

This document is an evaluation scoresheet for a Municipal Advisor solicitation (TR26-5) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing. The solicitation seeks to retain a qualified Municipal Advisor firm for a 5-year contract, with the intent to select a vendor through a qualifications-based selection process under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15. The scoresheet outlines four primary technical evaluation criteria: Firm Safety, Soundness & Regulatory Compliance (20%), Personnel (40%), Firm's Experience (40%), and References (10%), with a total possible score of 1000 points.

The procurement is structured to award a professional services contract to the highest-ranked vendor, with negotiations to follow for fair and reasonable compensation. Notably, pricing is explicitly not to be included in the qualifications submission. If the highest-ranked vendor cannot reach agreement on contract requirements, the state may proceed to negotiate with the next highest-ranked vendor. The evaluation methodology uses a 0-5 point scale, with 0 representing a failed proposal and 5 representing an excellent proposal that exceeds all requirements, allowing for a nuanced assessment of vendor qualifications.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
5-Attachment A TCs.docx DOCX document
1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf PDF
4-Attachment B SOW.docx DOCX document
6-Attachment D technicalcriteria.docx DOCX document
2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf 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

Score Sheet

MUNICIPAL ADVISOR
SOLICITATION #TR26-5
EVALUATION SCORESHEET
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
Scoreable Technical CriteriaEvaluator Score (0-5)Criteria Weight% of Tech CriteriaPoints PossiblePoints

Earned

1Firm Safety, Soundness & Regulatory Compliance2010.0%100.00.0
2Personnel8040.0%400.00.0
3Firm’s Experience8040.0%400.00.0
4References2010.0%100.00.0
100.0%1000.00.0

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