5-Score-Sheet for Informational Purposes Only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NC27-6
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for the NC27-6 Southwest Regional Long-Range Recreation Planning RFP issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and conducted by the Division of Outdoor Recreation. The contract is designed to assist in the development of a comprehensive long-range recreation plan for the Southern Region of Utah and will result in a single contract award to the responsive and responsible vendor with the highest evaluation score. The anticipated contract term is five years, with vendor pricing guaranteed for the first 12 months and all future price increases requiring market research documentation and agency approval on a 12-month basis.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a 1,000-point total scoring structure consisting of 750 technical evaluation points and 250 cost evaluation points. Technical scoring is weighted across three criteria: Experience and Qualifications (50 points, 33.3% weight), Proposed Methodology (40 points, 26.7% weight), and Portfolio and Examples of Similar Work (60 points, 40% weight). Mandatory requirements include demonstrated experience conducting stakeholder engagement at the regional level with federal land managers, state, local, and tribal governments, and experience completing recreation-related data analysis and existing conditions reports. A minimum technical score threshold of 525 points (70% of total technical points) is required to be considered responsive. Cost points are calculated using a lowest-price comparison formula, with the lowest-priced proposal receiving 100% of available cost points and all other proposals receiving proportional points based on their price differential.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Attachment A Agency Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Attachment D Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment C Cost Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 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
Score Sheet
| Southern Regional Long-Range Recreation Planning | ||||||||||||||||||||
| NC27-6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator: | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Date: | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||||||
| 1 | Must have experience conducting stakeholder engagement at the regional level (federal land managers, state, local, and tribal governments). | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Must experience completing recreation related data analysis and existing conditions reports. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Experience and Qualifications | 50 | 33.3% | 250.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 2 | Proposed Methodology | 40 | 26.7% | 200.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 3 | Portfolio and Examples of similar work | 60 | 40.0% | 300.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 750.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | ||||||||||||
| 70% | 525.0 | ||||||||||||||
| * 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). | |||||||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Points Possible | ||||||||||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 750.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 250.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 1,000.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .