4-Attachment 3 - Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 277 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Salt Lake City Request for Proposals SLCI26089 Customer Identity Verification and Credit Check Services
- Solicitation number
- SLCI26089
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is a score sheet for Salt Lake City Corporation's Request for Proposals SLCI26089 for Customer Identity Verification and Credit Check Services. The evaluation process consists of three stages: a mandatory minimum requirements evaluation (pass/fail), a scoreable technical criteria evaluation, and a cost evaluation. The mandatory requirements include compliance with City ethics requirements, certification that the proposed solution is cloud-based with data hosted in the United States, evidence of at least five successful operational system implementations of similar or larger scope, submission of all required attachments, and disclosure of any Generative AI technology being used, including detailed information about AI models, applications, use cases, and bias detection measures.
The technical evaluation comprises eight scoreable criteria weighted as follows: Qualifications, Financial Strength, Customer Base, and Company Structure (15% weight, 75 points); Proposed Staff Members and Staffing Approach (20% weight, 100 points); Proposed Solution Description (25% weight, 125 points); Implementation Approach (25% weight, 125 points); Software Maintenance and Support Services (25% weight, 125 points); API Approach (10% weight, 50 points); Code Management (10% weight, 50 points); and Cyber Security Incident Response (10% weight, 50 points), for a total of 700 technical points. A minimum score of 420 points (60% of technical points) is required for evaluation. The cost evaluation represents 30% of the total score (300 points), with the lowest proposed monthly subscription cost receiving the full 300 points, while other proposals receive points based on the ratio of the lowest cost to their proposed cost. The total evaluation is weighted 70% technical (700 points) and 30% cost (300 points), for a maximum of 1,000 total points.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Attachment 2 - Cost Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-SLCI26089.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Attachment 1 - Sample Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Confidential+and+Proprietary+Info+Declaration+Form.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
| Customer Identity Verification and Credit Check Services | ||||||||
| SOLICITATION # SLCI26089 | ||||||||
| Attachment 3 - 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’s proposed solution must be cloud based and data must be hosted in the United States. | |||||||
| 3 | Offeror certifies that Offeror must have successfully completed at least five (5) operational system implementations of similar or larger size and scope. Proposals must provide evidence of demonstrated successful experience in providing these services to similar industry organizations, as evidenced by client qualifications and references. | |||||||
| 4 | Offeror shall upload all required attachments. | |||||||
| 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, Financial Strength, Customer Base, and Company Structure | 0 | 15 | 10.7% | 75.0 | 0.0 | |
| 2 | Proposed Staff Members and Staffing Approach | 0 | 20 | 14.3% | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| 3 | Proposed Solution Description | 0 | 25 | 17.9% | 125.0 | 0.0 | |
| 4 | Implementation Approach | 0 | 25 | 17.9% | 125.0 | 0.0 | |
| 5 | Software Maintenance and Support Services | 0 | 25 | 17.9% | 125.0 | 0.0 | |
| 6 | API Approach | 0 | 10 | 7.1% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |
| 7 | Code Management | 0 | 10 | 7.1% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |
| 8 | Cyber Security Incident Response | 0 | 10 | 7.1% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |
| Scorable Technical Criteria Total | 100.0% | 700.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Possible Points | Points Earned | ||||||
| Total Technical Points | 100.00% | 700.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Required Evaluation Criteria Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| RFP | 60% | 420.0 | 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% | 300.00 | 0.0 | ||
| The Offeror with the lowest monthly subscription cost will receive 300 points, or 100% of the total cost points. All other Offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their monthly subscription cost is than the lowest monthly subscription cost. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70% | 700.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 30% | 300.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .