520-26_Score_Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Competitive Selection OH|DOT52026-1
- Contract number
- DOT52026-1
- Issued by
- Ohio
About this file
The document is a score sheet for an ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation) Request for Proposal (RFP) evaluating vendor proposals for water and wastewater system management services. Two vendors were assessed: Kleinfelder, Inc. and Pattison Aerator Repair, LLC, with the evaluation focusing on organizational experience, staff capabilities, and scope of services across multiple evaluation criteria.
Kleinfelder, Inc. successfully met the technical requirements, scoring 336 points out of a minimum threshold of 310, with a total submitted price of $2,925,408.00. This translates to a cost per quality point of $8,706.57. In contrast, Pattison Aerator Repair, LLC did not meet mandatory requirements, specifically failing to demonstrate 10 years of large-scale multi-site management and operation of water and wastewater systems. As a result, Kleinfelder, Inc. appears to be the recommended vendor for the contract, which involves managing regulated water and wastewater systems across multiple sites, with detailed operational plans, licensing requirements, and comprehensive service specifications.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmation_and_Disclosure_Form__11_.pdf | ||
| 520-26_Pricing_Final_2025-10-10__2_.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| KWT_520-26_ODOT_Water_Wastewater_O_M_Technical_Proposal.pdf | ||
| Signature.pdf | ||
| 520-26.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
Sheet1
| Vendor | Kleinfelder, Inc. | |||||
| Item | Evaluation Criteria | RFP SEC. REF. | Weight | Doesn't Meet | ||
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||||
| 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 | ||||
| EXPERIENCE & VENDOR QUALIFICATIONS | ||||||
| ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE & CAPABILITIES | ||||||
| 1 | The vendor has provided a description of the organization size, structure, and capability of meeting project qualifications. | 2.3 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 2 | The vendor has provided samples of at least three (3), but no more than four (4) similarly sized projects completed in the past five (5) years that demonstrate expertise in large scale, multi-site management and operation of regulated water and wastewater systems. | 2.3 | 5 | 40 | ||
| 3 | The vendor has provided a description of their project management model for large projects that may be performed under this contract | 2.3 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 4 | The vendor has included names and contact information for at least three (3) entities for which they have performed similar scale projects in the last five (5) years, with a sample or description of each project included. | 2.3 | 3 | 24 | ||
| STAFF EXPERIENCE & CAPABILITIES | ||||||
| In this section, the vendor must have identified the individual(s) who will fulfill each of these roles and must have clearly demonstrated that each identified individual has the required education and experience to fulfill his/her assigned position and, if applicable, explained the methodology that has been or will be utilized in carrying out responsibilities under the contract. | ||||||
| 5 | The vendor has identified by position and by name, the leadership staff considered key to the project's success (at a minimum, key staff identified must include a Contract Administrator). The vendor has included a Table of Organization and a chart showing the number of hours devoted to the project by vendor or subcontractor staff. In addition, specified the administrative personnel who will be assigned to this project and provided the percentage of time devoted to the project by leadership and key staff. | 2.4 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 6 | The vendor has documented that lead staff member assigned to the project has at least ten (10) years of experience in large scale, multi-site management and operation of regulated water and wastewater systems. | 2.4 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 7 | The vendor has documented that additional staff each have at least five (5) years’ experience in management and operation of regulated water and wastewater systems. | 2.4 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 8 | The vendor has included resumes of key staff expected to work on the project, education and experience of staff in key positions, based on documentation presented and discussed in the vendor proposal. | 2.4 | 2 | 16 | ||
| Item | Evaluation Criteria | RFP SEC. REF. | Weight | Doesn't Meet | ||
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||||
| 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 | ||||
| SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SPECIFICATIONS | ||||||
| In this section, the vendor must select one or more representative site(s) for each type of system covered by the proposal and provide the items below in detail for the evaluation team to comprehend the methodology that has been or will be utilized in carrying out responsibilities under the contract. | ||||||
| 9 | The vendor has provided the minimum operator licensing requirements for each representative system, the proposed operator, and proposed back up operator(s). | 1.7.3.1 |
1.7.4.1 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 10 | The vendor has provided sample operational plans that clearly detail the required activities for proper operation and maintenance of each of the systems covered by the proposal. | 1.7.3.2 |
1.7.4.2 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 11 | The vendor has provided the minimum service requirements for each representative system. | 1.7.3.3 |
1.7.4.3 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | 24 | ||
| 12 | The vendor has provided actual sampling and testing requirements for ODOT facilities that are representative of each type of system covered by the proposal. | 1.7.3.4 |
1.7.4.4 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | 24 | |||||
| 13 | The vendor has provided enough information and examples to fully explain the capability of their proposed CMMS system | 1.7.9 | 2 | 12 | |||
| 14 | The vendor has provided all applicable liability and workers compensation insurance certificates | 1.8.15 | 2 | 12 | |||
| 15 | The vendor has provided alternative service suggestions that may differ from the minimum requirements of the proposal and the benefit to ODOT of these suggestions | 2.5 | 2 | 16 | |||
| Column Subtotal of "Partially Meets" points | 24 | ||||||
| Column Subtotal of "Meets" points | 312 | ||||||
| Column Subtotal of "Exceeds" points | 0 | ||||||
| GRAND TOTAL SCORE: | 336 |
| Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 310 points? | |||||
| X | |||||
| YES | No | ||||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $2,925,408.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 336 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $8,706.57 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet2
| Vendor | Pattison Aerator Repair, LLC | ||||
| Item | Evaluation Criteria | RFP SEC. REF. | Weight | Doesn't Meet | |
| 0 | Partially Meets | ||||
| 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 | |||
| EXPERIENCE & VENDOR QUALIFICATIONS | |||||
| ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE & CAPABILITIES | |||||
| 1 | The vendor has provided a description of the organization size, structure, and capability of meeting project qualifications. | 2.3 | 3 | ||
| 2 | The vendor has provided samples of at least three (3), but no more than four (4) similarly sized projects completed in the past five (5) years that demonstrate expertise in large scale, multi-site management and operation of regulated water and wastewater systems. | 2.3 | 5 | ||
| 3 | The vendor has provided a description of their project management model for large projects that may be performed under this contract | 2.3 | 3 | ||
| 4 | The vendor has included names and contact information for at least three (3) entities for which they have performed similar scale projects in the last five (5) years, with a sample or description of each project included. | 2.3 | 3 | ||
| STAFF EXPERIENCE & CAPABILITIES | |||||
| In this section, the vendor must have identified the individual(s) who will fulfill each of these roles and must have clearly demonstrated that each identified individual has the required education and experience to fulfill his/her assigned position and, if applicable, explained the methodology that has been or will be utilized in carrying out responsibilities under the contract. | |||||
| 5 | The vendor has identified by position and by name, the leadership staff considered key to the project's success (at a minimum, key staff identified must include a Contract Administrator). The vendor has included a Table of Organization and a chart showing the number of hours devoted to the project by vendor or subcontractor staff. In addition, specified the administrative personnel who will be assigned to this project and provided the percentage of time devoted to the project by leadership and key staff. | 2.4 | 3 | ||
| 6 | The vendor has documented that lead staff member assigned to the project has at least ten (10) years of experience in large scale, multi-site management and operation of regulated water and wastewater systems. | 2.4 | 3 | ||
| 7 | The vendor has documented that additional staff each have at least five (5) years’ experience in management and operation of regulated water and wastewater systems. | 2.4 | 3 | ||
| 8 | The vendor has included resumes of key staff expected to work on the project, education and experience of staff in key positions, based on documentation presented and discussed in the vendor proposal. | 2.4 | 2 | ||
| Item | Evaluation Criteria | RFP SEC. REF. | Weight | Doesn't Meet | |
| 0 | Partially Meets | ||||
| 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 | |||
| SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SPECIFICATIONS | |||||
| In this section, the vendor must select one or more representative site(s) for each type of system covered by the proposal and provide the items below in detail for the evaluation team to comprehend the methodology that has been or will be utilized in carrying out responsibilities under the contract. | |||||
| 9 | The vendor has provided the minimum operator licensing requirements for each representative system, the proposed operator, and proposed back up operator(s). | 1.7.3.1 |
1.7.4.1 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | ||
| 10 | The vendor has provided sample operational plans that clearly detail the required activities for proper operation and maintenance of each of the systems covered by the proposal. | 1.7.3.2 |
1.7.4.2 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | ||
| 11 | The vendor has provided the minimum service requirements for each representative system. | 1.7.3.3 |
1.7.4.3 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | ||
| 12 | The vendor has provided actual sampling and testing requirements for ODOT facilities that are representative of each type of system covered by the proposal. | 1.7.3.4 |
1.7.4.4 1.7.5
| 1.7.6 | 3 | ||||||
| 13 | The vendor has provided enough information and examples to fully explain the capability of their proposed CMMS system | 1.7.9 | 2 | ||||
| 14 | The vendor has provided all applicable liability and workers compensation insurance certificates | 1.8.15 | 2 | ||||
| 15 | The vendor has provided alternative service suggestions that may differ from the minimum requirements of the proposal and the benefit to ODOT of these suggestions | 2.5 | 2 | ||||
| Column Subtotal of "Partially Meets" points | 0 | ||||||
| Column Subtotal of "Meets" points | 0 | ||||||
| Column Subtotal of "Exceeds" points | 0 | ||||||
| GRAND TOTAL SCORE: | 0 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 310 points?
| YES | No | ||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price |
tc={FE705D63-9F02-47A4-9198-D6BD7CDBFB77}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
| Did not meet Mandatory Requirements. Number 3 - 10 years of large scale multi-site management and operation of water and waste water management. | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 0 | |
| Cost Per Quality Point: | ERROR:#DIV/0! | ||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Did not meet Mandatory Requirements. Number 3 - 10 years of large scale multi-site management and operation of water and waste water management.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .