5-TB2648-FA - Attachment C - RFSQ Evaluation Scoresheet.pdf
PDF 116 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- TB2648-FA
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is an RFSQ Evaluation Scoresheet for Financial Advisor Services provided by the Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD) in Utah. The solicitation (TB2648-FA) seeks qualified registered municipal advisor financial firms to provide comprehensive financial advisory services to the district. The evaluation scoresheet establishes a structured assessment framework with a total of 1,000 points available across multiple technical criteria categories, including company experience and qualifications of key personnel, references, availability for interviews, experience with K-12 public schools, approach to scope of work and requirements, approach to providing general financial advisor services to public entities, ability to advise on construction and real estate matters, approach to creating efficient presentations and materials, approach to bonding-related services, and value-added services. Vendors must achieve a minimum threshold of 750 points (75 percent) to pass the evaluation, with mandatory requirements including professional and business licenses and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
The evaluation scoresheet employs a weighted point system with individual criteria weighted between 2.5 and 20 percent of technical points. Evaluators assign scores on a scale from 0 to 10, with detailed scoring guidance provided: 0 indicates failure to address requirements; 1-4 represents unsatisfactory proposals with major gaps; 5-7 indicates substandard proposals lacking sufficient detail; 7.5 represents passing proposals addressing all requirements; and 8-10 represents good, great, and excellent proposals with increasing levels of support and detail. Half-point increments are permitted at the evaluation committee's discretion. The document is marked as draft and is not subject to public disclosure pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R33-7-702(2), with all questions regarding the solicitation required to be submitted through the Bonfire system.
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 will be assigned as follows:
RFP
Section
Evaluation (Pass/Fail)
1 2.2 2 2.2 3 2.2 4 2.2 5 2.2
RFP
Section
Evaluator Score (0-10)
Criteria Weight
% of Tech Criteria
Points Possible Points Earned
1 2.3 1a 2.3 15 7.5% 75 0 1b 2.3 40 20.0% 200 0 2 2.3
2a 2.3 30 15.0% 150 0 2b 2.3 30 15.0% 150 0
2c 2.3 15 7.5% 75 0 2d 2.3 25 12.5% 125 0 3 2.3 35 17.5% 175 0 4 2.3 5 2.5% 25 0 5 2.3 5 2.5% 25 0
100% 1000 0
RFP
Section Min Percent
Min Points Required
Points Earned
Percent Earned Evaluation
4.2 75% 750 0 0
Professional and Business License Requirement
- Qualifications of key personnel assigned to SLCSD
General Contractor - Scoreable Technical Criteria
- Qualifications and history of company
Minimum Mandatory Requirements
SOLICITATION # TB2648-FA
DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft and should not be returned to the Purchasing Department. 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).
FINANCIAL ADVISOR SERVICES
RFSQ EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Vendor Name:
Evaluator:
Date:
Company Experience and Qualification of Key Personnel
References
Availability for Interviews
Confidentiality Agreement
- Approach to creating efficient and informative presentations and/or printed materials to SLCSD stakeholders
- Ability to advise on construction, real estate, and other similar matters
Page Limitation Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Required Evaluation Point Threshold
Approach to Scope of Work and Requirements 0.0%
- Approach to providing general financial advisor services to public entites
Experience with K-12 Public Schools Value-Added Services
- Approach to providing services related to bonding
8 = Good, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with ample support and detail for each requirement.
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.
NOTE: the evaluation committee may also utilize half points (i.e. 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc) where it deems appropriate
0 = Fail, the proposal does not answer or address the requirement
1-4 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal has major gaps in addressing some or all of the requirements of the RFP or has serious deficiencies in support or detail for multiple requirements.
5-7 = Substandard, the proposal does not address all of the requirements or criteria in the RFP or does not provide sufficient support or detail to address all of them.
7.5 = Pass, the proposal addresses all requirements with sufficient support and detail for each requirement.
Score Sheet
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .