5-Attachment 4 - Score Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SLCI26086
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is a scoring sheet for a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by Salt Lake City Corporation for Investment Adviser Services (SLCI26086). The evaluation process consists of four stages: Stage 1 requires offerors to meet mandatory minimum requirements including Salt Lake City ethics compliance, conflict-of-interest disclosure, certification by the Utah Securities Division, listing on the Utah Money Management Council's Certified Investment Adviser list, provision of SEC Form ADV Part II, confirmation that all fees are inclusive of trade execution, accounting, compliance, risk and performance reporting, and disclosure of any use of generative artificial intelligence technology with detailed specifications if applicable. Stage 2 involves evaluation of scoreable technical criteria weighted as follows: Organization (10.7%), Qualifications (10.7%), Personnel (14.3%), Assets Under Management (14.3%), Reporting Capabilities (7.1%), Investment Approach (17.9%), Research (7.1%), Compliance Procedures and Quality Control (10.7%), and Fee Approach (7.1%), with a maximum of 700 technical points available and a required threshold of 70 percent or 490 points to proceed. Stage 3 includes interviews worth a maximum of 200 points with a 70 percent minimum threshold of 140 points required.
Stage 4 evaluates cost, with the offeror proposing the lowest blended basis points percentage receiving the full 230 cost points, and all other offerors receiving proportional cost points based on their percentage differential from the lowest rate. The final evaluation combines technical points (62 percent weighting, 700 points), interview points (18 percent weighting, 200 points), and cost points (20 percent weighting, 230 points) for a total possible evaluation score of 1,130 points. Scoring criteria apply a five-point scale where 0 represents failure to address requirements, 1 indicates poor addressing of requirements, 2 represents unsatisfactory addressing, 3 represents satisfactory minimum addressing, 4 represents good addressing with some exceeding of requirements, and 5 represents excellent addressing that exceeds all requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Attachment 3 - Cost Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 6-SLCI26086.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Attachment 2 - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Confidential+and+Proprietary+Info+Declaration+Form.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment 1 - Sample Agreement.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
| Investment Adviser Services |
| SOLICITATION # SLCI26086 |
| Attachment 4 - Score Sheet |
| 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 du 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. |
| Stage 1: Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||
| 1 | City Ethics Requirement. | |||
| 2 | Offeror certifies that Offeror has included a statement that identifies any conflicts or potential conflict of interest that might arise during the Agreement. If no conflicts are identified or expected, respond with “None”. | |||
| 3 | Offeror must be certified by the Securities Division of Utah Department of Commerce and shall upload its certificate from the Utah Division of Commerce. | |||
| 4 | Offeror certifies and shall provide a copy that Offeror is listed on the Utah Money Management Council’s current Certified Investment Adviser’s list. | |||
| 5 | Offeror certifies that if awarded, Offeror will be required to provide a copy of Offeror’s SEC Form ADV, Part II, as on file with the SEC. | |||
| 6 | Offeror certifies that fees are all inclusive and include the following: trade execution fees, integrated accounting, compliance, risk, and performance reporting, all transaction fees, and management and advisory fees. | |||
| 7 | Offeror shall indicate if Offeror and/or Offeror’s subcontractor(s) will be using or offering GenAI technology, model(s), service(s), or system(s)s. | |||
| 1. | If yes, provide the following information below details regarding the GenAI system(s). Failure to provide details regarding the GenAI system(s) may result in disqualification. | |||
| a. | GenAI Model Name (including LLM Version, all model names/owners for the solution or offering) | |||
| b. | Applications/Product Owner (GenAI powered or driven) | |||
| c. | Product Description | |||
| d. | Use Case(s) | |||
| e. | Intended Information Domain | |||
| f. | Update procedure | |||
| g. | Bias Detection: Explain any measures or safeguards implemented to ensure the GenAI system is not adversely affecting decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice. |
Stage 2: Scoreable Technical Criteria Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned
| 1 | Organization. | 0 | 15 | 10.7% | 75.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | Qualifications. | 0 | 15 | 10.7% | 75.0 | 0.0 |
| 3 | Personnel. | 0 | 20 | 14.3% | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| 4 | Assets Under Management. | 0 | 20 | 14.3% | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| 5 | Reporting Capabilities. | 0 | 10 | 7.1% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| 6 | Approach. | |||||
| 6.1 | Investment Approach. | 0 | 25 | 17.9% | 125.0 | 0.0 |
| 6.2 | Research. | 0 | 10 | 7.1% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| 6.3 | Compliance Procedures and Quality Control. | 0 | 15 | 10.7% | 75.0 | 0.0 |
| 6.4 | Fee Approach. | 0 | 10 | 7.1% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| Scorable Technical Criteria Total | 100.0% | 700.0 | 0.0 |
| Possible Points | Points Earned | ||
| Total Technical Points | 100.00% | 700.00 | 0.00 |
| Required Evaluation Criteria Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| RFP | 70% | 490.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Stage 3: Interviews | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| Interviews. | RFP | 0 | 200.0 | 0.0 |
| Required Interview Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned |
| RFP | 70% | 140.0 | 0.0 |
| Stage 4: Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| RFP | $0.00 | $0.00 | 230.00 | 0.0 | ||
| * The Offeror with the lowest blended basis points percentage will receive 230 points. All other Offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their blended basis points rate is than the total lowest blended basis points percentage. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Blended Basis Points Percentage/Proposed Blended Basis Points Percentage). |
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 62% | 700.00 | 0.0 |
| Total Interview Points | 18% | 200.00 | 0.0 |
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 20% | 230.00 | 0.0 |
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,130.0 | 0.0 |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .