4-JH26-39 Score Sheet Information Only.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- JH26-39 Kenilworth Mine Fire Project
- Solicitation number
- JH26-39
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) evaluation scoresheet for the Kenilworth Mine Fire Project (JH26-39), issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. The procurement seeks qualified professional engineering services to evaluate an abandoned mine project area, assess associated public safety and environmental hazards, and develop reclamation designs to mitigate those hazards. The contract term is five years, with all deliverables due by October 1, 2027. The RFSQ is being conducted under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15 for the purchase of Design Professional Service Providers and Consultants, and the vendor with the highest-ranking statement of qualifications will be selected to negotiate a contract.
The scoresheet establishes evaluation criteria across two potential scoring frameworks addressing field investigations, cultural and historic surveys, engineering and design, bid-ready construction specifications, construction management, mapping and GIS services, and examples of previous work. Evaluators will assign scores on a scale of 0 to 5, with a total possible score of 680 points under the first framework or 630 points under the alternative framework. Pricing information is not to be submitted with qualifications; compensation will be determined through negotiation at a rate the procurement officer deems fair and reasonable. If the highest-ranked vendor cannot reach agreement on contract terms and compensation, the state may proceed with negotiations with the second or third highest-ranked vendors in succession.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Kenilworth Mine Fire RFSQ Master.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS.docx | DOCX document | |
| 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
JH26-39 Score Sheet
| RFSQ EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||
| Kenilworth Mine Fire Project | ||||
| #JH26-39 | ||||
| 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 | RFSQ Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||
| Utah Professional Engineering (PE) License in Civil or Mining Engineering | B.11 |
Scoreable Technical Criteria RFSQ Section Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned 1 Field Investigations
1.a. STATEMENT and technical approach show an understanding of OWNER’s goals.
1.b. STATEMENT shows direct experience and expertise with underground coal fires and site investigation. Understanding of safe and effective surface and subsurface exploration methods and ability to accurately delineate fire areas, subsidence, or related features.
| 1.c. Staff qualifications | Scope of Work B.4 | 27 | 20% | 135.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 2 | Cultural/Historic Survey and Reports: |
2.a. STATEMENT shows an understanding of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process as it applies to abandoned mine work in Utah.
2.b. Lead Archaeologist has experience or demonstrated ability to work satisfactorily with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and federal land management agency archaeologists.
| 2.c. Staff qualifications | Scope of Work B.5 | 14 | 10% | 70.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 3 | Engineering and Design: |
3.a. STATEMENT shows understanding of prudent engineering design for fire abatement in underground coal seam environments.
3.b. STATEMENT demonstrates the capability of VENDOR to submit multiple design options, clearly stating potential benefits and drawbacks of each.
| 3.c. Staff Qualifications | Scope of Work B.6 | 27 | 20% | 135.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 4 | Bid-Ready Construction Specifications |
4.a. STATEMENT shows the ability to produce bid-ready specification packages that adhere to OWNER template/requirements.
4.b. 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.d. Staff Qualifications | Scope of Work B.7 | 18 | 13% | 90.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 5 | Construction Management |
5.a. STATEMENT demonstrates expertise in on-site supervision of the implementation of submitted designs, including the ability to make adjustments as construction progresses.
5.b. STATEMENT shows VENDOR has demonstrated success in completing projects within the initial time and cost constraints.
| 5.c. Staff qualifications. | Scope of Work B.8, B.9 | 18 | 13% | 90.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 6 | Mapping, Surveying, and GIS Services: |
5.a. STATEMENT demonstrates an understanding of the Scope of Work in relation to mapping and GIS.
5.b. STATEMENT demonstrates direct experience and expertise in mapping, GIS, and ESRI ArcGIS Pro.
| 5.c. Staff Qualifications | Scope of Work B.4, B.5, B.6, B.7 | 14 | 10% | 70.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 7 | Examples of previous work |
6.a. STATEMENT includes examples of fire abatement work, field investigation forms, maps, etc., cultural evaluation, and hazard assessments. 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.
| 6.b. Example of problem resolution demonstrates responsiveness to client requirements. | Request for Statement of Qualifications | 18 | 13% | 90.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 136 | 100% | 680.0 | 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.
Split
| RFSQ EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||
| [Projectname] 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
| Field Investigations | Scope of Work B.4 | 26 | 21% | ||
| a. STATEMENT and technical approach show an understanding of OWNER‘s goals. | 8 | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. STATEMENT shows direct experience and expertise with abandoned mine inventory and site investigation. Understanding of a variety of abandoned mine reclamation technologies with knowledge of the limitations and advantages of each. Exhibits an understanding of cultural resources, legal concerns/needs and their technical ramifications. | 9 | 45.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 9 | 45.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 2. Cultural/Historic Survey and Reports | Scope of Work B.5 | 11 | 9% | ||
| 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. | 3 | 15.0 | 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. | 4 | 20.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 4 | 20.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 3. Engineering and Design | Scope of Work B.6 | 26 | 21% | ||
| a. STATEMENT shows the ability to research and accurately determine surface and mineral ownership of each site and access route, including both patented and unpatented claims. | 8 | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. Direct experience and expertise in land ownership and records research, particularly with mineral claim records. | 9 | 45.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 9 | 45.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 4. Engineering and Design | Scope of Work B.8 | 20 | 16% | ||
| a. STATEMENT demonstrates direct experience and expertise in design and engineering of abandoned mine reclamation projects. Ability to adapt closure methods to site-specific access and geotechnical conditions, as well as biological and cultural resource conflict avoidance. | 10 | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 10 | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 5. Bid Ready Construction Specifications | Scope of Work B.9 | 14 | 11% | ||
| a. STATEMENT demonstrates the ability to produce bid-ready specification packages that adhere to OWNER’s template and requirements. | 7 | 35.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 7 | 35.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 6. Mapping, Surveying, and GIS Services | Scope of Work B.4.3, B.4.7, B.5, B.7, B.9.6 | 15 | 12% | ||
| a. STATEMENT shows an understanding of the SCOPE OF WORK in relation to mapping and GIS. | 5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| b. Direct experience and expertise in mapping and GIS. | 5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| c. Qualifications of staff assigned to this task. | 5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 7. Examples of previous work | Request for Statement of Qualifications | 14 | 11% | ||
| a. Examples of previous work such as investigation reports, maps, etc., cultural evaluation, hazard assessment, and earthwork designs show VENDOR’s capability to perform the 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 | ||
| 126 | 100% | 630.0 | 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 .