4-Attachment 4 - Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 279 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Salt Lake City Corporation Request for Proposals SLCI26092 Agenda and Minutes Software RFP
- Solicitation number
- SLCI26092
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This document is a Score Sheet for a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by Salt Lake City Corporation for agenda and minutes software (Solicitation #SLCI26092). The RFP seeks qualified vendors to provide a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution that is cloud-based with data hosted in the United States. Prospective offerors must demonstrate at least three successfully completed implementations of similar or larger scope and provide evidence of experience serving similar industry organizations through client qualifications and references. Vendors must also disclose any use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technology and provide detailed information regarding GenAI models, applications, use cases, and bias detection safeguards, with failure to provide such details potentially resulting in disqualification.
The evaluation process consists of four stages with a total possible score of 1,200 points, weighted as follows: technical evaluation at 58 percent (700 points), interview and demonstration at 17 percent (200 points), and cost at 25 percent (300 points). The technical criteria evaluated include qualifications and financial strength (15 percent), proposed staff and staffing approach (20 percent), proposed system description (25 percent), implementation approach (25 percent), software maintenance and support services (25 percent), API approach (10 percent), code management (10 percent), and cyber security incident response (10 percent). Minimum mandatory requirements include City Ethics compliance, SaaS and cloud-based solution certification, successful prior implementations, submission of all required attachments, and GenAI technology disclosure. Offerors must achieve at least 65 percent of technical points (455 points) and 60 percent of interview points (120 points) to advance in the evaluation process. The vendor with the lowest total cost receives the full 300 cost points, with all other vendors receiving cost points on a proportional basis relative to the lowest proposed price.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-SLCI26092.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Attachment 3 - Cost Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 3-Attachment 2 - Functional and Technical Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 1-Attachment 1 - Sample Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment 5 - Terms and Conditions Airport.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Confidential+and+Proprietary+Info+Declaration+Form (1) (2).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
| Agenda and Minutes Software Request for Proposals | |||||||||
| SOLICITATION # SLCI26092 | |||||||||
| Attachment 4 - 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 is a SaaS solution. | ||||||||
| 3 | Offeror certifies that Offeror’s proposed solution must be cloud based and data must be hosted in the United States of America. | ||||||||
| 4 | Offeror certifies that Offeror must have successfully completed at least three (3) 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. | ||||||||
| 5 | Offeror shall upload all required documents labelled as follows: 1. | RFP Response | |||||||
| 2. | Attachment 2 - Functional and Technical Requirements | ||||||||
| 3. | Attachment 3 - Cost Proposal | ||||||||
| 4. | Attachment 6 - SOC 2 Report | ||||||||
| 6. | Attachment 7 - Test Scripts | ||||||||
| 7. | Attachment 8 - Training Course Lists | ||||||||
| 8. | Attachment 9 - Training Guides | ||||||||
| 9. | Attachment 10 - Service Level Agreement | ||||||||
| 10. | Attachment 11 - Release Notes | ||||||||
| 6 | 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 system 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 | 14.3% | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| 2 | Proposed Staff Members and Staffing Approach | 0 | 20 | 14.3% | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| 3 | Proposed System 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 | 3.6% | 25.0 | 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 | 65% | 455.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Stage 3: Interview and Demonstration | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||
| Interview and Demonstration | RFP | 0 | 40 | 200.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Required Interview Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | |||
| RFP | 60% | 120.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Stage 4: 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 total 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 total cost is than the total lowest 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 | 58% | 700.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Interview and Demonstration Points | 17% | 200.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 25% | 300.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,200.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .