3-UCA Inspection RFP Scoring Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 10 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GJ27-1 UCA Windy Ridge Communications Site Power and Grounding Inspection Services UCA-RFP-2026-WR-INSP
- Solicitation number
- GJ27-1
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
UCA Windy Ridge Communications Site Power and Grounding Inspection Services – RFP Scoring Sheet
This is a Master Score Sheet for a Request for Proposal issued by the Utah Communications Authority (UCA) for site power, grounding, surge, and lightning inspection and analysis services at the Windy Ridge communications facility (Solicitation No. UCA-RFP-2026-WR-INSP). The RFP solicits inspection and analysis services for communications infrastructure, with submissions due by July 17, 2026, no later than 10:00 AM MT via U3P, and questions due by July 13, 2026, no later than 2:00 PM MT directed to Chris Hughes at chughes@uca911.org. The evaluation process includes six technical criteria worth a combined 500 points and an integrated cost proposal worth 500 points, for a maximum total score of 1,000 points. Technical evaluation criteria include: Firm Experience & Professional Qualifications (100 points), Comparable Project Experience & References (120 points), Inspection Methodology, Instrumentation & Standards (80 points), Grounding & Bonding Evaluation Approach (60 points), Report Quality & Example of Work (40 points), and Schedule, Coordination & Remote-Site Logistics (40 points). A technical subtotal minimum threshold of 350 points (70 percent) must be achieved to remain under consideration.
The cost proposal is evaluated on an integrated basis per Utah Code Section 63G-6a-707(7)(b) waiver, assessing total all-in fixed pricing for value, schedule realism, mobilization burden, and scope completeness on the same 0-5 scale as technical criteria. Offerors must include Utah Professional Engineers in responsible charge and demonstrate familiarity with L3 Harris T4618 Revision F specifications, NEC/NFPA 70, NFPA 780, and IEEE 519 standards. The evaluation criteria emphasize remote high-elevation site access capabilities, calibrated instrumentation including fall-of-potential and bonding-impedance measurements, and delivery of Professional Engineer-stamped reports with prioritized actionable recommendations. The scoring sheet accommodates evaluation of up to five competing offerors (Offeror A through E).
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-UCA Windy Ridge Inspection RFP v2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-ATTACHMENT I - GROUNDING EXAMPLE.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
Master Score Sheet
| UTAH COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY | |||||||
| RFP — Site Power, Grounding, Surge & Lightning Inspection and Analysis | Windy Ridge | Solicitation No. UCA-RFP-2026-WR-INSP | |||||||
| Master Score Sheet — Individual Evaluator | |||||||
| Evaluator name: | Date: | ||||||
| Score each criterion 0–5: 5 = Exceptional / substantially exceeds • 4 = Strong / notable strengths • 3 = Acceptable / meets • 2 = Marginal / significant weaknesses • 1 = Poor / deficient • 0 = Non-responsive. Cost is scored on the SAME 0–5 scale (integrated per the §63G-6a-707(7)(b) waiver). Weighted points = (Score ÷ 5) × Weight. | |||||||
| Max | Criterion (enter raw 0–5 score per Offeror) | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | |
| 100 | Criterion 1 — Firm Experience & Professional Qualifications (Utah PE in responsible charge; firm credentials, licensing & insurance capability) | ||||||
| 100 | Criterion 2 — Comparable Project Experience & References (≥3 power / grounding / surge / lightning assessments at communications or mission-critical sites, past 5 yrs) | ||||||
| 120 | Criterion 3 — Inspection Methodology, Instrumentation & Standards (NEC/NFPA 70, NFPA 780, IEEE 519; calibrated instruments; fall-of-potential, THD, bonding-impedance measurement plan) | ||||||
| 80 | Criterion 4 — Grounding & Bonding Evaluation Approach — L3 Harris T4618 Rev F Familiarity (single-point ground, ground ring, master/RF bus bars, tower & line grounding; cf. Attachment I example) | ||||||
| 60 | Criterion 5 — Report Quality & Example of Work (clarity, prioritized actionable recommendations, PE-stamped deliverable) | ||||||
| 40 | Criterion 6 — Schedule, Coordination & Remote-Site Logistics (remote high-elevation access; timeline to deliver report after notice to proceed) | ||||||
| 500 | Cost Proposal — Integrated per §63G-6a-707(7)(b) Waiver (total all-in fixed price assessed for value, schedule realism, mobilization burden & scope completeness) | ||||||
| Weighted Points = (Raw Score ÷ 5) × Weight | |||||||
| Max | Criterion | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | |
| 100 | Criterion 1 | ||||||
| 100 | Criterion 2 | ||||||
| 120 | Criterion 3 | ||||||
| 80 | Criterion 4 | ||||||
| 60 | Criterion 5 | ||||||
| 40 | Criterion 6 | ||||||
| 500 | Cost Proposal | ||||||
| Technical Subtotal (max 500) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Cost Points (max 500) | |||||||
| TOTAL SCORE (max 1,000) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Technical ≥ 350 (70% gate)? | BELOW GATE | BELOW GATE | BELOW GATE | BELOW GATE | BELOW GATE | ||
| Written justification / notes by Offeror: | |||||||
| • Offeror A: | |||||||
| • Offeror B: | |||||||
| • Offeror C: | |||||||
| • Offeror D: | |||||||
| • Offeror E: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .