5-AS27-124 Score Sheet - Informational Only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 62 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AS27-124
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for the State of Utah Division of Purchasing, conducted by the Division of Drinking Water, for an Emerging Contaminants Technical Assistant Provider contract. The scoresheet is designed to evaluate up to 20 vendors based on a weighted technical scoring system and cost proposal analysis. The anticipated contract award will be made to a single responsive and responsible vendor with the highest overall score, with a contract term of five years and a requirement that vendors guarantee pricing for one year.
The evaluation framework allocates 700 points to technical criteria and 300 points to cost, totaling 1,000 possible points. Technical evaluation is divided into three weighted categories: Personnel Experience (60 points, 42.9% of technical criteria), Project Approach (20 points, 14.3%), and Vendor Capacity (60 points, 42.9%), with a minimum technical score threshold of 490 points required for consideration. Cost points are calculated using a formula whereby the vendor with the lowest proposed price receives 100% of the 300 cost points, and all other vendors receive points proportional to how their price compares to the lowest bid. The scoresheet provides for evaluation by up to five evaluators who assign scores ranging from 0 (Fail) to 5 (Excellent) across defined criteria, with three mandatory requirements that vendors must meet: certification of ability to meet the scope of work, submission of a technical response, and submission of a cost proposal.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (18).docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment D - Service Log Template Informational Only.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 7-2026 Attachment C EC TA Provider - Cost Proposal Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment E_FinancialInformation_ToDetermineDisadvantagedStatus_11062024.xlsm | XLSM spreadsheet | |
| 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
Score Sheet
| Emerging Contaminants Technical Assistant Provider | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SOLICITATION # (to be inserted by the Division of Purchasing) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator: | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Date: | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||||||
| 1 | Vendor MUST certify they can meet the scope of work | Att B | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Vendor MUST upload a Technical Response | Att B | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Vendor MUST upload a cost proposal | Att B | ||||||||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Personnel Experience | Att B | 60 | 42.9% | 300.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Project Approach | Att B | 20 | 14.3% | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Vendor Capacity | Att B | 60 | 42.9% | 300.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 700.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | |||||||||||||
| 70% | 490.0 | ||||||||||||||
| * Purchasing will use the following cost formula: The points assigned to each offerors cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. The offeror with the lowest Proposed Price will receive 100% of the price points. All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their Proposed Price is than the Lowest Proposed Price. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). | |||||||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Points Possible | ||||||||||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 700.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 300.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 1,000.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| Emerging Contaminants Technical Assistant Provider | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Signatures: | Date: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T | |
| 1 | Vendor MUST certify they can meet the scope of work | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Vendor MUST upload a Technical Response | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Vendor MUST upload a cost proposal | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight | Technical Scores | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T |
| Criteria #1 - Personnel Experience | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 60.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 300) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #2 - Project Approach | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #3 - Vendor Capacity | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 60.0 | Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 300) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 700) Minimum Threshold = 490 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total Cost Points | Cost Scores | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T |
| Cost | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 300.0 | Cost Points | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Score Summary | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T | |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible = 700) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total Cost Points (Total Possible = 300) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 1000) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .