4-JH26-48 Score Sheet for Information Purposes only.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- JH26-48
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) JH26-48 issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and conducted by the State of Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. The solicitation seeks qualified design professional service providers to perform orphan well equipment decommissioning, disposal of related wastes, surface restoration to original grade, and reseeding of well locations. The contract is structured as a five-year engagement awarded to the highest-ranked qualified vendor based on evaluation of qualifications statements. No specific response deadline, due date, site visit requirements, or bidder's conference information is provided in this scoresheet document.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes 19 scoreable technical criteria weighted across 1,000 total possible points, with scoring ranges from 0 (Fail) to 5 (Excellent). Key evaluation areas include equipment availability for surface restoration and decommissioning (6% combined weight), equipment yard locations in Utah, workforce qualifications and experience, supervision and language proficiency (12.5% combined), equipment maintenance and support protocols (2.6% combined), surface restoration methodology and grade determination (7.5%), contamination and fluid management processes (15%), safety metrics and confined space entry procedures (14%), and experience with oil well location restoration and prior work with the Utah Department of Natural Resources (25% combined weight). Per Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15, the procurement officer shall award a contract at fair and reasonable compensation to the highest-scoring qualified professional, with provisions to negotiate sequentially with lower-ranked vendors if agreement cannot be reached with the highest scorer. No pricing information is to be included in qualification statements submitted by vendors.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment C Scoreable Technical Criteria.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 6-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (1).docx | DOCX document | |
| 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
JH26-48 Score Sheet
| Orphan Well Equipment Decommissioning and Surface Restoration | ||||||
| SOLICITATION # JH26-48 | ||||||
| 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 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner | |||||
| 2 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | ||||||
| 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 | |||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFSQ Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | What equipment does your company have available for surface restoration activities? | Att C | 6 | 3.0% | 30.00 | 0.00 | |
| 2 | What equipment does your company have available for surface equipment decommissioning activities? | Att C | 6 | 3.0% | 30.00 | 0.00 | |
| 3 | What is the location of your equipment yards in Utah? | Att C | 8 | 4.0% | 40.00 | 0.00 | |
| 4 | What is the average length of employment of employees with your company? | Att C | 5 | 2.5% | 25.00 | 0.00 | |
| 5 | What is the typical avg experience level of your crews/operators? | Att C | 5 | 2.5% | 25.00 | 0.00 | |
| 6 | What is the level of supervision provided for each operator and level of experience required to reach this level of supervision? | Att C | 5 | 2.5% | 25.00 | 0.00 | |
| 7 | Are crews/operators fluent English speakers? If not, is there always a competent interpreter on location? | Att C | 5 | 2.5% | 25.00 | 0.00 | |
| 8 | When equipment is working on remote locations, how is support provided for mechanical breakdowns? | Att C | 2.5 | 1.3% | 12.50 | 0.00 | |
| 9 | In the event of an equipment breakdown that cannot be repaired in the field, is there available replacement equipment? | Att C | 2.5 | 1.3% | 12.50 | 0.00 | |
| 10 | How does your company manage equipment maintenance schedules? If logs are available, please provide three examples for three different types of equipment. | Att C | 5 | 2.5% | 25.00 | 0.00 | |
| 11 | How is original grade determined for completion of surface restoration activities? | Att C | 15 | 7.5% | 75.00 | 0.00 | |
| 12 | What is your process for managing scrap value or used equipment value of decommisioned equipement? | Att C | 15 | 7.5% | 75.00 | 0.00 | |
| 13 | How is contaminated soil managed? | Att C | 15 | 7.5% | 75.00 | 0.00 | |
| 14 | How are tank spoils and other fluids in equipment on location managed? | Att C | 15 | 7.5% | 75.00 | 0.00 | |
| 15 | What are your primary safety metrics and 5 year trends? | Att C | 12 | 6.00% | 60.00 | 0.00 | |
| 16 | What is your company's process when there is a significant safety event on a location? | Att C | 12 | 6.00% | 60.00 | 0.00 | |
| 17 | What is your company's process for managing confined space entries for things such as cleaning tank bottoms or accessing subsurface valve cellars? | Att C | 16 | 8.0% | 80.00 | 0.00 | JH |
| 18 | How many oil well locations has your company restored in the last five years? | Att C | 25 | 12.5% | 125.00 | 0.00 | |
| 19 | Has your company performed work for the Utah Department of Natural Resources in the last ten years? If so, please provide a project list. | Att C | 25 | 12.5% | 125.00 | 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% | 1000.00 | 0.00 |
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.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .