5-JK26-22 Scoresheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- LSTA Five-Year Plan
- Solicitation number
- JK26-22
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation #JK26-22, an RFSQ issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Cultural and Community Engagement Professional Services division to procure consulting services for the development of Utah State Library's LSTA Five-Year Plan. The contract is a one-year engagement to develop the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) strategic plan. No pricing information is included in proposal submissions, as compensation will be negotiated separately according to Part 15 of the Utah Procurement Code with the highest-ranked vendor.
The scoresheet establishes evaluation criteria divided into mandatory requirements and technical scoring categories. Four mandatory requirements must be met on a pass/fail basis: the offeror's acknowledgment that they may not exceed the Statement of Work budget, their certification that they will not bid on the new LSTA plan they help develop, and their attestation of no conflicts of interest with the State Libraries of Utah. Technical evaluation comprises two primary scoreable criteria, each weighted at 50 percent of the total 700 available points: demonstrated ability to meet the Scope of Work with examples of past work and understanding of Utah State Library and NSLAPR mission, and qualifications and expertise of proposed staff including direct experience with similar projects and prior work with state library agencies. Proposals must achieve a minimum of 70 percent of technical points (490 points) to advance. The evaluation uses a six-point scale (0-5), with scores of 0 representing failure to address requirements and 5 representing proposals that exceed all requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (13).docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 6-2023-2027 fiveyearevaluationguidelines.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work.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
| LSTA 5 Year Plan Evaluation | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION #JK26-22 | ||||||||||
| RFSQ EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||
| DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft and should not be returned to the Division of Purchasing. Please return this document to the evaluation committee chairperson | ||||||||||
| This document is not subject to GRAMA pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R33-7-702(2). | ||||||||||
| 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 | Offeror's understands they may not exceed budget listed in the SOW. | |||||||||
| 2 | Offeror acknowledges the awarded consultant will not be allowed to bid on the new LSTA plan in which they help develop. | |||||||||
| 3 | Offeror certifies they have no conflicts of interest in working with the State Libraries of Utah. | |||||||||
| 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 | Demonstrated ability to meet the SOW, including examples of past work, understanding of USL and NSLAPR mission, realisitic allocation of hours for each element, and comprehensiveness of completed propopsal. | 70 | 50.0% | 350.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Please describe the qualification and expertise of staff proposed for the project including: direct experience of staff in similar projects, demonstrated ability to reach target audience, and proposed organization of staff for successful project completion, previous experience working with a state library agency and/or other type of state agency. | 70 | 50.0% | 350.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 4 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 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% | 700.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 70% | 490.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||||
| *Cost will be negotiated according to Part 15 of the Utah Procurement Code. | ||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 700.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 700.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .