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 | ||
| 4-Attachment B SOW.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment D technicalcriteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.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 Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Firm Safety, Soundness & Regulatory Compliance | 20 | 10.0% | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | Personnel | 80 | 40.0% | 400.0 | 0.0 |
| 3 | Firm’s Experience | 80 | 40.0% | 400.0 | 0.0 |
| 4 | References | 20 | 10.0% | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| 100.0% | 1000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .