5-Attachment C Scoresheet COOP.xls
XLS spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- TR26-1
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This document is an evaluation scoresheet for a Consultant for Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) procurement by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing, specifically for the Office of Lieutenant Governor and County Clerks Offices. The solicitation (TR26-1) seeks a consultant to develop Continuity of Operations Plans, with an evaluation process that scores proposals across four key technical criteria: Firm Qualifications and Experience (40%), Understanding of the Project (25%), Key Personnel Qualifications (10%), and Project Approach and Methodology (25%). The maximum possible score is 500 points, with scores ranging from 0 (fail) to 5 (excellent).
The procurement will be conducted under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15 for Design Professional Service Providers and Consultants, with the intent to select the highest-ranked vendor for contract negotiation. Pricing is explicitly not to be included in the qualifications submission. The state will negotiate compensation deemed fair and reasonable, with the option to proceed to the next highest-ranked vendor if an agreement cannot be reached with the top-ranked proposer. The evaluation scoresheet provides a structured method for assessing potential consultants' capabilities in developing comprehensive COOP plans for governmental administrative entities.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 2-Att A Agency Contract Terms and Condition GS.docx.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Attachment B SOW COOP.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
scoresheet
| Consultant for Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) | |||||
| SOLICITATION # TR26-1 | |||||
| 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 = 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 | ||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Firm Qualifications and Experience: Offeror must provide relevant experience, past performance, and reputation of the firm, particularly in areas related to governmental administration and elections. Provide client references. | 40 | 40.0% | 200.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Understanding of the Project: Offeror must provide demonstrated comprehension of the OLG and County Clerks Offices' COOP planning needs and objectives. Must demonstrate you can meet the scope of work. | 25 | 25.0% | 125.00 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Key Personnel Qualifications: Offeror must provide experience, expertise, and certifications of the proposed project team. | 10 | 10.0% | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Project Approach and Methodology: Offeror must provide project approach and methodology which demonstrates soundness, clarity, and effectiveness of the proposed approach, including project management and stakeholder engagement. | 25 | 25.0% | 125.00 | 0.00 |
| 100.0% | 500.00 | 0.00 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .