4-09. Sample Score Sheet- NEMA TS 2.doc
DOC document 81 KB Posted
- Attached to
- UDOT RFP- NEMA Signal Cabinets
- Solicitation number
- UDOT260266MP
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a proposal evaluation score sheet for a Request for Proposals issued by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Procurement Services for NEMA TS-2 Type 1 traffic signal control modular cabinet assemblies. The RFP seeks qualified manufacturers to supply Size 5, Size 6, and Size 6 Stretch (extended height) cabinets for signalized intersections throughout Utah. UDOT anticipates issuing multiple contract awards from this solicitation. Prospective contractors must demonstrate compliance with Utah Department of Transportation standards and specifications. The evaluation process is structured in three stages: Stage 1 assesses mandatory minimum requirements on a pass/fail basis, Stage 2 involves detailed technical evaluation of proposal submissions, and Stage 3 evaluates cost proposals competitively.
The evaluation criteria establish that responding firms must demonstrate a minimum of five years of signal cabinet manufacturing experience and verifiable deployment of at least 100 NEMA TS2 signal cabinets across five or more different U.S. states or major municipalities within the past five years to proceed past the mandatory minimum requirements phase. Technical evaluation is weighted at 70 points possible, focusing on demonstrated deployments across multiple jurisdictions and documented ability to meet the scope of work requirements. Cost evaluation accounts for 30 points possible, with the lowest-cost proposal receiving maximum points and all other proposals receiving proportional points based on the ratio of their cost to the lowest proposed cost. The total possible evaluation score is 200 points, combining both technical (100 points) and cost (100 points) components after mandatory requirement verification.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-07. Submittal Form- Attachment A- Standard Terms and Conditions- Yes No.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-06. Submittal Form- Business Confidentiality- Yes No.doc | DOC document | |
| 8-05. Submittal Form- Vendor Setup Form.pdf | ||
| 9-01. RFP General Information.doc | DOC document | |
| 10-09. Sample Score Sheet- ATC.doc | DOC document | |
| 6-02. Attachment B - Scope of Work- NEMA TS 2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-03. Attachment C - Scope of Work- ATC.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-04. Submittal Form- Attachment D - Cost Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5-08. Submittal Form- Certifications- Yes No.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
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Traffic Cabinets- NEMA TS 2 Proposal Evaluation Score Sheet
Firm Name:
Evaluator:
Date:
Stage 1: Determination of Responsiveness (Pass/Fail):
| Mandatory Minimum Requirements |
| Pass |
| Fail |
| Notes |
1. Minimum five years of signal cabinet manufacturing experience.
2. Verifiable deployment of at least 100 NEMA TS2 signal cabinets from a minimum of five (5) different U.S. states or major municipalities over the last five years.
Responses that fail in any of the above will not proceed on to the Technical Evaluation Stage.
Stage 2: Detailed Technical Evaluation (Scored):
Technical Evaluation
| EVALUATION CRITERIA |
| Points Possible |
| Score |
(1 - 5)
| Weight |
| Points |
1. Demonstrated verifiable deployment of cabinets in various States and/or Municipalities.
| · reference from one municipality or state transportation agency from Five (5) different U.S. states. |
| 20 points |
X 4
2. Demonstrated ability to meet the provisions outlined within Attachment B Scope of Work and Requirements
| · documentation demonstrating ability to provide cabinets as requested |
| 50 points |
X 10
Total Technical Evaluation Points (70 points possible)
Stage 3: Cost Proposal Evaluation (Scored):
Cost Evaluation
| Evaluation Criteria |
| Points Possible |
| Points |
| · per Submittal Form- Attachment D Cost Proposal |
| 30 points |
| *Inserted by UDOT Procurement |
Total Cost Evaluation Points (30 points possible)
TOTAL EVALUATION POINTS (100 POINTS POSSIBLE)
Evaluation of Cost Proposals: The offeror with the lowest total cost will receive the maximum available Cost points. All other offerors will receive points as determined by the ratio* of their cost to the lowest offered cost. Final cost scores will be calculated based on the following:
*Ratio Calculation: Points assigned to each offeror’s Cost Proposal will be based on the Lowest Proposed Cost. The offeror with the Lowest Proposed Cost will receive 100% of the cost points.
All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their proposed cost is than the Lowest Proposed Cost.
The formula to compute the points is: (Lowest Proposer's Cost / Other Proposer's Cost) x 100
SOLICITATION CRITERIA SCORE SUMMARY
| Final Selection Criteria |
| Max. Score Available |
| Stage 1: Mandatory Minimum Requirement |
| Pass/Fail |
| Stage 2: Technical Proposal |
| 100 |
| Stage 3: Cost Proposal |
| 100 |
| Total Solicitation Points Possible |
| 200 |
Scoring:
(a) Five points (Excellent): The proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP.
(b) Four points (Good): The proposal addresses all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP and, in some respects, exceeds them.
(c) Three points (Satisfactory): The proposal addresses all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner.
(d) Two points (Unsatisfactory): The proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner; or
(e) One point (Poor): The proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information; or
(f) Zero (Fail): The proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information.
Score Sheet
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .