4-JH26-13 Score Sheet if for informational purposes only.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- JH26-13
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This document is an evaluation scoresheet for the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, specifically for the Price Tunnels 2025 Project. The Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) seeks professional engineering services to evaluate an abandoned mine project area, assess public safety and environmental hazards, and develop reclamation designs to mitigate those hazards. The contract is structured for a 5-year term, with all deliverables due by December 31, 2027. The procurement process will follow Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15, with the highest-ranking vendor selected to negotiate a contract at fair and reasonable compensation.
The scoresheet details a comprehensive evaluation methodology with seven technical criteria categories, including field investigation, cultural/historic survey, engineering and design, construction specifications, construction oversight, mapping/surveying, and examples of previous work. Each category is weighted and scored on a 0-5 scale, with 0 representing a failure to meet requirements and 5 representing excellence. Notably, pricing is not to be included in the submission, and the selection will be based solely on the qualifications and technical merits of the vendor's statement. The procurement officer has a structured process for selecting and negotiating with vendors, with the ability to move to the next highest-ranked vendor if fair terms cannot be reached with the top-ranked respondent.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (1).docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Price Tunnels RFSQ .pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.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
Split
| RFSQ EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||
| PRICE TUNNELS PROJECT | |||
| Score will be assigned as follows: | |||
| 0 = Fail: the STATEMENT fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to missing information | |||
| Offerer: | 1 = Poor: the STATEMENT inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information | ||
| 2 = Unsatisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in an unsatisfactory manner | |||
| Evaluator: | 3 = Satisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in a minimum satisfactory manner | ||
| 4 = Good: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST and in some respects exceeds them | |||
| Date: | 5 = Excellent: the STATEMENT addresses and exceeds all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST | ||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||
| Quality and suitability of STATEMENT |
Scoreable Technical Criteria RFSQ Section Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned
| 1. Field Investigation | Scope of Work B.4 | 36 | 25% | 0.0 | |
| a. STATEMENT and technical approach show an understanding of OWNER‘s goals. | 10 | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. STATEMENT shows direct experience and expertise with investigation of abandoned mine sites and retained water with potentially high head pressure. Exhibits an understanding of a variety of abandoned mine reclamation and water control technologies with knowledge of the limitations and advantages of each. Exhibits an understanding of cultural resources and their legal and technical ramifications. | 10 | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Technical approach to field investigation, as defined in the Scope of Work, shows a sound understanding of OWNER’s needs and the nature of the project area. | 10 | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| d. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 6 | 30.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 2. Cultural/Historic Survey and Reports | Scope of Work B.5 | 14 | 10% | 0.0 | |
| a. STATEMENT shows an understanding of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation process as it applies to abandoned mine closure work in Utah. | 5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. Lead Archaeologist has experience with historic archaeology and mining. STATEMENT demonstrates ability to work satisfactorily with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and federal land management agency archaeologists. | 5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 4 | 20.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 3. Engineering and Design | Scope of Work B.4, B.6 | 36 | 25% | 0.0 | |
| a. Technical approach to engineering and design work as defined in the Scope of Work evidences a sound understanding of OWNER’s needs and the nature of the project area. | 13 | 65.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. STATEMENT demonstrates direct experience and expertise in design and engineering of abandoned mine reclamation projects, particularly flooded adit and bulkhead design. | 13 | 65.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 10 | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 4. Bid Ready Construction Specifications | Scope of Work B.7 | 14 | 10% | 0.0 | |
| a. STATEMENT demonstrates experience and expertise in preparing construction specifications and design drawings | 5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. STATEMENT demonstrates direct field experience with mine closure construction. | 5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Technical approach to development of specifications as defined in the Scope of Work shows a sound understanding of OWNER’s needs and the nature of the project area. | 4 | 20.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 5. Construction Oversight | Scope of Work B.8 | 22 | 15% | 0.0 | |
| a. STATEMENT demonstrates an understanding of the Scope of Work in relation to construction oversight. | 8 | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. STATEMENT demonstrates direct experience and expertise in construction oversight with engineering support during the construction phase. | 8 | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 6 | 30.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 6. Mapping, Surveying, and GIS Services | Scope of Work B.4.1, B.4.2, B.5, B.6, B.7 | 7 | 5% | 0.0 | |
| a. STATEMENT shows an understanding of the SCOPE OF WORK in relation to mapping and GIS. | 3 | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. Direct experience and expertise in mapping and GIS. | 2 | 10.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 2 | 10.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 7. Examples of previous work | Request for Statement of Qualifications | 14 | 10% | 0.0 | |
| a. STATEMENT includes examples of mine water investigation work, adit stabilization, and engineering and design of water control structures. Also includes examples of work such as hazard assessment, construction specifications, design drawings, etc. Samples show capability to perform required WORK at the highest quality level. Product quality and media are compatible with OWNER’s needs and hardware and software capabilities. | 7 | 35.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. Provide an example of previous work in related tasks where the client identified problems and how VENDOR resolved the issues. | 7 | 35.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 143 | 100% | 715.0 | 0.0 |
The procurement officer shall award a contract to the qualified professional whose statement of qualifications was awarded the highest score under Subsection 63G-6a-1503(4) by the evaluation committee, at compensation that the procurement officer determines, in writing, to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit. If the procurement officer is unable to agree to a satisfactory contract with the highest scoring professional, at a price the procurement officer determines to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit, the procurement officer shall: (a) formally terminate discussions with that design professional; and (b) undertake discussions with the second highest scoring, qualified design professional. If the procurement officer is unable to agree to a satisfactory contract with the second highest scoring professional, at a price the procurement officer determines to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit, the procurement officer shall: (a) formally terminate discussions with that design professional; and (b) undertake discussions with the third highest scoring, qualified design professional. If the procurement officer is unable to award a contract at a fair and reasonable price to any of the highest scoring design professionals, the procurement officer shall: (a) select additional design professionals; and (b) continue discussions in accordance with the part until an agreement is reached.
Rating Scale
| 0 = Fail: the STATEMENT fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to missing information |
| 1 = Poor: the STATEMENT inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information |
| 2 = Unsatisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in an unsatisfactory manner |
| 3 = Satisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in a minimum satisfactory manner |
| 4 = Good: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST and in some respects exceeds them |
| 5 = Excellent: the STATEMENT addresses and exceeds all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST |
| 0 = Fail: the STATEMENT fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to missing information |
| 1 = Poor: the STATEMENT inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information |
| 2 = Unsatisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses the requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in an unsatisfactory manner |
| 3 = Satisfactory: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST in a minimum satisfactory manner |
| 4 = Good: the STATEMENT addresses all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST and in some respects exceeds them |
| 5 = Excellent: the STATEMENT addresses and exceeds all requirements or criteria described in the REQUEST |
| In these descriptions, "addresses the requirements" means the VENDOR's qualificiations, approach, and understanding match the requirements of the project. |
| 0 = No response, no experience; not qualified |
| 1 = Minimal or inadequate experience; not qualified |
| 2 |
| 3 = Moderate experience; qualified |
| 4 |
| 5 = Extensive experience; highly qualified |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .