4-Attachment D ScoreSheet India.xls
XLS spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- India Trade and PR Representation
- Solicitation number
- TR26-18
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for a Request for Statements of Qualifications (RFSQ) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing through the Governor's Office of Economic Development for India Trade and Public Relations Representation services. The contract seeks a qualified vendor to provide trade and public relations representation services promoting Utah tourism and economic development in India over a five-year term. The selected vendor must demonstrate ability to travel to the United States, maintain offices with an account manager in India, provide consumer and travel trade media public relations experience, possess tourism industry experience, and submit proposals not exceeding forty pages. Mandatory requirements include offeror travel capability, India-based office infrastructure, public relations expertise, travel trade experience in tourism environments, and willingness to participate in selection committee interviews either in person or virtually.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a total of 500 possible points divided between technical proposal evaluation (350 points) and interview evaluation (150 points), with a minimum threshold of 70 percent or 245 points required on technical criteria to advance to interviews. Technical evaluation criteria include public relations experience, consumer awareness experience, social media experience, travel trade experience, dedicated account manager qualifications, Utah and U.S. product knowledge, ability to demonstrate return on investment aligned with the state's mission and goals, and submission of a marketing plan for promoting Utah in 2026-2027 in India with an $80,000 marketing budget. Interview evaluation focuses on the offeror's ability to address committee questions and explain how the proposed plan accomplishes return on investment and state goals. The vendor achieving the highest overall ranking will be selected to negotiate contract terms at fair and reasonable compensation rates; if negotiations fail, the state may proceed with the next-ranked vendor. Pricing information is excluded from initial qualifications submissions.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 6-Attachment B SOW India.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Attachment A TermsConditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 5-Attachment C TechnicalCriteria India.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
| India Trade and PR Representation | ||
| 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 | Offeror must have the ability to travel to the United States |
Offeror must have offices/an account manager based in the primary market Offeror must have public relations experience (consumer and travel trade media) Offeror must have experience working with the travel trade in a tourism environment Offeror must agree to an interview with the selection committee (either in person or virtually) Offeror must submit a proposal that does not exceed the maximum of forty pages/slides
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | ||||||||
| 1 | Public Relations Experience | 6.25 | 8.9% | 31.25 | 0.00 | ||||
| 1 | Consumer Awareness Experiences | 6.25 | 8.9% | 31.25 | 0.00 | ||||
| 1 | Social Media Experience | 6.25 | 8.9% | 31.25 | 0.00 | ||||
| 1 | Travel Trade Experience | 6.25 | 8.9% | 31.25 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2 | Dedicated account manager | 8 | 11.4% | 40.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2 | Utah and US Product Knowledge | 7 | 10.0% | 35.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 3 | Ability to demonstrate ROI, UOT mission, and goals | 15 | 21.4% | 75.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 3 | A marketing plan that includes the promotion of Utah in 2026-2027 in India and a marketing budget of $80,000 | 15 | 21.4% | 75.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 100.0% | 350.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 70% | 245.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||||
| Scoreable Interview Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | ||||||||
| 1 | Ability to address questions outlined by the committee and how the proposed plan accomplishes ROI, UOT mission, and goal | 30 | 42.9% | 150.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 42.9% | 150.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 350.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Interview Points | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 500.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Cost will be negotiated with the highest ranking offeror |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .