5-Attachment E - Interactive-Score-Sheeet - MH26-2 - Tax Consulting for Clean Energy Tax Credits.xls
XLS spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- MH26-2
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP Evaluation Scoresheet for Solicitation #MH26-2 issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing for Tax Consulting for Clean Energy Tax Credits. The procurement seeks to establish a contract for tax consulting services related to clean energy tax credits, with the potential for multiple awards. The contract term is 12 years, and vendors must guarantee their pricing for a minimum of one year. Specific response dates, due dates, site visits, and bidder conference details are not included in this scoresheet document.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes scoring criteria weighted as follows: General Firm and Personnel Qualifications (31.3% of technical score), Service-Specific Methodology and Experience (31.3%), Data Security and Compliance (15.6%), and Legal Services and Audit Defense (21.9%). Technical proposals are weighted at 80 percent of the total evaluation score (800 points maximum), while cost proposals are weighted at 20 percent (200 points maximum). To receive an award, vendors must achieve a minimum of 480 technical points and a combined technical and cost point total of at least 550 points. Cost evaluation will be determined by comparing each vendor's proposed price to the lowest bidder using a proportional formula. An administrative fee of 0.50 percent applies. Vendors must submit Attachment C (Cost Sheet) and Attachment D (Completed Responses to Technical Criteria) as mandatory prerequisites for proposal evaluation.
View the file
Other files
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
| Tax Consulting for Clean Energy Tax Credits | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION #MH26-2 | ||||||||||
| RFP 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 | |||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||||
| 1 | Vendor must upload Attachment C - Cost Sheet (Completed) | Prerequisite | ||||||||
| 2 | Vendor must upload Attachment D - Completed Responses to Technical Criteria. | Prerequisite | ||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | General Firm and Personnel Qualifications | Attachment - D | 50 | 31.3% | 250.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2 | Service-Specific Methodology and Experience | Attachment - D | 50 | 31.3% | 250.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 3 | Data Security and Compliance | Attachment - D | 25 | 15.6% | 125.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 4 | Legal Services and Audit Defense | Attachment - D | 35 | 21.9% | 175.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 5 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 6 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 7 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 8 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 9 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 10 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 11 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 12 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 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% | 800.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| Attachment - D | 60% | 480.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Attachment - C | 20% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| * Purchasing will use the following cost formula: The points assigned to each Vendor's cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. The Vendor with the lowest Proposed Price will receive 100% of the price points. All other Vendors 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 | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 80% | 800.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 20% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| The Vendor must receive a minimum of 480 technical points with a combined(Technical + Cost points) total of 550 points in order to receive an award. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .