The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Score Sheet
| Attachment D - RFSQ Evaluation ScoreSheet |
| Geothermal Assessment and System Design |
| SOLICITATION # TB2624-GDP |
| Score will be assigned as follows: |
| 0 = Fail, the SOQ does not answer or address the requirement |
| Vendor Name: | 1-4 = Unsatisfactory, the SOQ has major gaps in addressing some or all of the requirements of the RFSQ or has serious deficiencies in support or detail for multiple requirements. |
| 5-6 = Substandard, the proposal does not address all of the requirements or criteria in the RFSQ or does not provide sufficient support or detail to address all of them. |
| Evaluator: | 7 = Pass, the proposal addresses all requirements with sufficient support and detail for each requirement. |
| 8 = Good, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with ample support and detail for each requirement. |
| Date: | 9 = Great, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with abundant support and detail for each requirement. |
| 10 = Excellent, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with exceptional support and detail for each requirement. |
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) |
| 1 | Business License and Contractor’s License as Required by DOPL | |
| 2 | Insurance Requirement | |
| 3 | McKinstry Pre-Qualification Application | |
| 4 | Safety and Health Performance | |
| 5 | Page Limit Requirement | |
Scoreable Technical Criteria Evaluator Score (0-10) Criteria Weight Points Possible Points Earned 1A Vendor Qualifications and Relevant Company Experience: Provide a brief description of your company’s historical background, the scope and nature of construction routinely provided by your company on projects of the size and scope identified in part 2.1 above, especially as it relates to schools and other education facilities.
| Closed Loop Qualifications and Relevant Experience Score: 200 of 400 Points | | | 20 | 200 | 0 | | | |
| 1B | Open Loop Qualifications and Relevant Experience Score: 200 of 400 Points | | | | 20 | 200 | 0 |
| 2 | Project Team : This area of evaluation will consider the individual qualifications and working experience of the individual project team members. This category includes the technical qualifications and work experience of the key personnel assigned to the project and experience of the team working on previous projects to achieve the project objectives. | | | | | | |
| For full description of evaluation criteria pursuant to this criteria please refer to section 2.4A. | | | 20 | 200 | 0 |
| 3 | Past Performance and References: Vendors shall provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references for projects of comparable scope, magnitude, and clientele. References should demonstrate the vendor’s capacity to perform successfully on similar projects for projects which have been completed within the last 5 years. | | | |
| Evaluation criteria: Similarity and strength of portfolio compared to SLCSD and overall comments and other information obtained from provided references. | | | 15 | 150 | 0 |
| 4 | Management Plan: This area of evaluation will consider the working relationship the Vendor will maintain with the School District, McKinstry, and drillers or other subcontractors. Please describe your approach to maintaining clear and updated communications between these entities. A special emphasis shall be placed on the working relationship between the vendor, drilling professional, and the McKinstry superintendent during all drilling operations. | | | |
| Evaluation Criteria: Project team's familiarity working with energy service companies providing guaranteed energy savings performance contracting, strength of accountability structure, and success in navigating relationships between District and contracted drilling professionals. | | | 15 | 150 | 0 |
| 5 | Safety Record EMR/ OSHA: Vendor shall provide their Worker’s Compensation Interstate Experience Modification Rate (EMR) for the last three years. Our target is an EMR below 1.0, RIR of less than 5.0, and DART below 2.0. Any citations in the past 3 years are also requested for review. We collaborate with subcontracting partners outside of these parameters at times under corrective action plans and work together to plan and improve the focus on safety. These requirements are also identified in Section 2.2, Article D. | | | |
Evaluation Criteria: Demonstration of the above requested safety metrics and any additional information provided on standard safe work practices followed by the Vendor.
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| 70% | 700.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | |