5-SLCi26006 Attachment 4 Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 280 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SLCi26006
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
Based on the provided file, this appears to be a score sheet for the Salt Lake City Request for Proposals (RFP) SLCi26006 for Insurance Broker Services. The document is a scoring evaluation template for proposals submitted by potential insurance broker service providers. While the specific details of the scoring criteria are not fully visible in the current context, the associated contract opportunity indicates that Salt Lake City Corporation is seeking competitive sealed proposals from qualified offerors to provide comprehensive insurance broker services for the city.
The contract opportunity is specific to the state of Utah, with Salt Lake City Corporation as the primary soliciting agency. The RFP suggests a competitive selection process where proposing firms will be evaluated using a structured scoring mechanism. Without access to the full score sheet details, the key evaluation components likely include factors such as vendor qualifications, proposed service approach, experience, pricing, and overall responsiveness to the city's insurance brokerage needs. The scoring sheet will be a critical tool in objectively assessing and comparing the submitted proposals to determine the most suitable insurance broker services provider.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-SLCi26006 Attachment 1 Sample Agreement.pdf | ||
| 2-SLCi26006.pdf | ||
| 4-SLCi26006 Attachment 3 Cost Proposal Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 1-Confidential+and+Proprietary+Info+Declaration+Form.pdf | ||
| 6-SLCi26006 Attachment 2 Scope of Work.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
| Insurance Broker Services | |||||||
| SOLICITATION # SLCI26006 | |||||||
| Attachment 4 - Score Sheet | |||||||
| 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 du 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. | ||||||
| Stage 1: Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||
| 1 | Compliance with City Ethics Requirement. | RFP | |||||
| 2 | Offeror certifies their team has a minimum of 5 years providing services to a municipal government agencies | RFP | |||||
| 3 | Offeror certifies they will comply with and maintain all insurance requirements in Attachment 1, Sample Agreement | RFP | |||||
| 0 | |||||||
| Stage 2: Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Statemdent of Qualifications. | 10 | 8.7% | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 2 | Proposed staff and qualifications | 10 | 8.7% | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 3 | A statement of understanding and proposed approach to the services requested | 40 | 34.8% | 200.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 4 | List of insurance partners in portfolio | 5 | 4.3% | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 5 | Expertise in compliance w/regulatory requirements/Federal & State laws | 15 | 13.0% | 75.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 6 | Identification of any work that would be subcontracted | 15 | 13.0% | 75.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 7 | Identify any risks associated with the services requested and mitigation | 5 | 4.3% | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 8 | Identify any special knowledge or skills provided by offeror | 10 | 8.7% | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 9 | Identify/recommend any additional services or products | 5 | 4.3% | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Scorable Technical Criteria Total | 100.0% | 575.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Possible Points | Points Earned | ||||||
| Total Technical Points | 100.00% | 575.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Required Evaluation Criteria Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| RFP | 70% | 402.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Stage 3: Interviews | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||
| Interviews | RFP | 35 | 175.00 | 0.0 | |||
| Required Interview Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | |||
| RFP | 70% | 122.5 | 0.0 | ||||
| Stage 4: Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| RFP | $0.00 | $0.00 | 25% | 250.00 | 0.0 | ||
| * The Offeror with the lowest total cost will receive 250 points. All other Offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their total cost is than the total lowest cost. 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 | 57.5% | 575.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Interview Points | 17.5% | 175.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 25% | 250.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .