5-Attachment E - Scoresheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- GN26-22
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for the H.B. 250 Retirement Plan Exchange Platform Administrator solicitation (GN26-22), issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Office of State Treasurer. The RFP seeks a single vendor to establish, administer, and maintain a secure, publicly accessible Retirement Plan Exchange in accordance with Utah Code Section 67-4-23. The contract term is five years, with the vendor required to guarantee pricing throughout this period.
The scoresheet establishes a comprehensive evaluation framework with 500 total technical points distributed across eight scoreable criteria: Executive Summary (25 points, 5%), Organizational Experience and Expertise (75 points, 15%), Technical Approach & Platform Design (100 points, 20%), Provider Marketplace Management & Oversight (75 points, 15%), Data Security, Reporting & Compliance (75 points, 15%), Implementation Timeline & Project Management (50 points, 10%), Fee Schedule and Revenue Sources (50 points, 10%), and Adoption Strategy & Marketplace Viability (50 points, 10%). Vendors must also satisfy six mandatory requirements certifying their ability to meet deliverables, operate without fiduciary status, meet statutory deadlines, maintain provider neutrality, operate on a self-sustaining financial model, and comply with applicable laws. A minimum threshold of 350 technical points (70%) is required for advancement. Cost evaluation will be scored separately, with the lowest-cost proposal receiving 100% of cost points and other proposals scored proportionally using the formula: Cost Points × (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). The evaluation uses a five-point scale ranging from Fail (0) to Excellent (5), with the highest-scoring responsive and responsible vendor selected for award.
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
| H.B. 250 Retirement Plan Exchange Platform Administrator | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION #GN26-22 | ||||||||||
| 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 certifies it can meet the requirements and deliverables as stated in the Scope of Work. | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | ||||||||
| 2 | Vendor certifies it does not intend to act as a plan provider or fiduciary | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | ||||||||
| 3 | Vendor certifies it will deploy the Exchange platform and initiate provider onboarding prior to or on statutory deadlines | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | ||||||||
| 4 | Vendor certifies it will maintain neutrality among participating providers | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | ||||||||
| 5 | Vendor certifies that the proposed Exchange will operate as a self-sustaining model without ongoing state funding | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | ||||||||
| 6 | Vendor certifies it will comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | ||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| A | Executive Summary | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 5 | 5.0% | 25.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| B | Organizational Experience and Expertise | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 15 | 15.0% | 75.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| C | Technical Approach & Platform Design | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 20 | 20.0% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| D | Provider Marketplace Management & Oversight | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 15 | 15.0% | 75.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| E | Data Security, Reporting & Compliance | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 15 | 15.0% | 75.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| F | Implementation Timeline & Project Management | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 10 | 10.0% | 50.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| G | Fee Schedule, Revenue Sources, and Responible Parties for Payment | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 10 | 10.0% | 50.00 | 0.00 | 3.0 | |||
| H | Adoption Strategy & Marketplace Viability | Attachment D - Technical Criteria | 10 | 10.0% | 50.00 | |||||
| 100.0% | 500.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 70% | 350.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||||
| * 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). | Other cost evaluation methods may be used as long as they are within Procurement Code/Rule. Ensure the method for awarding points is clearly stated on the score sheeet and within the solicitation documents. | |||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 500.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .