4-Attachment D - Scoresheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Agency of Record – Outbound Campaigns
- Solicitation number
- GN27-101
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This scoresheet is an evaluation document used by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) to assess qualifications for an Agency of Record position focused on outbound marketing campaigns. The procurement seeks a Design Professional Service Provider and Consultant to establish a proof of concept with measurable metrics for outbound marketing and communications designed to attract investment and economic opportunity to Utah. The contract is structured as a one-year engagement under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15, with the highest-ranked vendor selected to negotiate final contract terms. The evaluation process follows a qualifications-based selection methodology where vendors are ranked competitively, and if negotiations with the top-ranked firm are unsuccessful regarding fair and reasonable compensation and contract requirements, the state may proceed with negotiations with the next highest-ranked vendor.
The procurement explicitly requires that vendors not include pricing information in their qualifications submissions, indicating that compensation will be negotiated separately after vendor selection based on fair and reasonable pricing standards. No specific information regarding set-asides, incumbent vendors, funding sources, or contract renewal options is detailed in this scoresheet document. The evaluation criteria and scoring methodology contained in this attachment would be used to objectively rank all submitted qualifications and identify the vendor best positioned to support GOED's outbound economic development marketing initiatives.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Attachment A - Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (16).docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 5-Attachment B - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment C - Techinical Criteria.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
Score Sheet
| Agency of Record – Large Outbound Campaigns | ||||||
| SOLICITATION #GN27-101 | ||||||
| RFSQ 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 due 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 | |||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||
| 1 | Vendor must have the ability to travel to Salt Lake City, Utah | |||||
| 2 | Vendor must agree to an interview with the selection committee (ideally in person, or virtually) | |||||
| 3 | Vendor must submit any client-initiated litigation, arbitration, or legal proceedings | |||||
| 4 | Statement of Qualifications is limited to 10 pages. Vendor understands that additional pages and/or textual links will not be reviewed or scored. | |||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Project and Deliverables Outline | 30 | 25.0% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |
| 2 | Project Schedule and Timeline | 30 | 25.0% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |
| 3 | Agency Background | 30 | 25.0% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |
| 4 | Previous Work Examples | 30 | 25.0% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |
| 100.0% | 600.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| 70% | 420.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Presentation on the Proposed Plan | 80 | 66.7% | 400.00 | 0.00 | |
| 66.7% | 400.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| 70% | 280.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 600.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 400.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .