536-26_Score_Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Competitive Selection OH|DOT53626-1
- Contract number
- DOT53626-1
- Issued by
- Ohio
About this file
The document is a score sheet for a state or local government contract evaluation, comparing technical proposals from six vendors: Applied Research Associates, Inc., Environmental Solutions, Polygon Solutions, RetroTekUSA Inc, SEADS Technology, and Spy Pond Partners, LLC. The scoring sheet appears to be for a competitive solicitation with a minimum technical score threshold of 1000 points, evaluating vendors across five key work requirement criteria related to data analysis and pavement marking.
The contract appears to involve technical services focused on data analysis, statistical modeling, and machine learning for producing degradation curves, with an emphasis on pavement marking analysis. Vendors were evaluated on their ability to clean and analyze data, demonstrate statistical and machine learning expertise, and effectively communicate findings. Pricing varied significantly, with submitted prices ranging from $46,155.27 to $145,000.00. The evaluation method calculated a "Cost Per Quality Point" to determine the most advantageous proposal, with Spy Pond Partners, LLC offering the lowest cost per quality point at $45.32 and achieving the highest technical score of 1,450 points. Only vendors meeting or exceeding 1,000 technical points were eligible to have their cost proposals considered.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| P25412_ODOT_Degradation_Analysis.pdf | ||
| Affirmation_and_Disclosure_Form_ESI.pdf | ||
| 536-26.pdf | ||
| Cost_Proposal_ESI.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Signature.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 | Applied Research Associates, Inc. | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet | |||
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||||
| 2 | Meets 5 | Exceeds 7 | ||||
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| 1 | Provide examples of conducting at least 3 projects that demonstrate experience in cleaning and analyzing data for change over time, and producing results and recommendations from that analysis | 75 | 525 | |||
| 2 | Provide examples of previous experience working on at least 2 projects that directly involve pavement marking analysis | 50 | 350 | |||
| 3 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different statistical modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 350 | |||
| 4 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different machine learning modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 250 | |||
| 5 | Provided 2 examples of reports or visualizations conveying findings to stakeholders | 25 | 125 |
GRAND TOTAL SCORE: 1600
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 1000 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $103,500.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 1600 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $64.69 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet2
| Vendor | ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS & | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet | |||
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||||
| 2 | Meets 5 | Exceeds 7 | ||||
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| 1 | Provide examples of conducting at least 3 projects that demonstrate experience in cleaning and analyzing data for change over time, and producing results and recommendations from that analysis | 75 | 375 | |||
| 2 | Provide examples of previous experience working on at least 2 projects that directly involve pavement marking analysis | 50 | 0 | |||
| 3 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different statistical modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 350 | |||
| 4 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different machine learning modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 250 | |||
| 5 | Provided 2 examples of reports or visualizations conveying findings to stakeholders | 25 | 175 |
GRAND TOTAL SCORE: 1150
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 1000 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $46,155.27 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 1150 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $40.14 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet3
| Vendor | Polygon Solutions | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet | |||
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||||
| 2 | Meets 5 | Exceeds 7 | ||||
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| 1 | Provide examples of conducting at least 3 projects that demonstrate experience in cleaning and analyzing data for change over time, and producing results and recommendations from that analysis | 75 | 375 | |||
| 2 | Provide examples of previous experience working on at least 2 projects that directly involve pavement marking analysis | 50 | 100 | |||
| 3 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different statistical modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 100 | |||
| 4 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different machine learning modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 100 | |||
| 5 | Provided 2 examples of reports or visualizations conveying findings to stakeholders | 25 | 50 |
GRAND TOTAL SCORE: 725
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 1000 points?
| YES | No | X | ||||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | ||||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | ||||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 725 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet4
| Vendor | RetroTekUSA Inc | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet | |||
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||||
| 2 | Meets 5 | Exceeds 7 | ||||
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| 1 | Provide examples of conducting at least 3 projects that demonstrate experience in cleaning and analyzing data for change over time, and producing results and recommendations from that analysis | 75 | 375 | |||
| 2 | Provide examples of previous experience working on at least 2 projects that directly involve pavement marking analysis | 50 | 350 | |||
| 3 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different statistical modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 0 | |||
| 4 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different machine learning modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 250 | |||
| 5 | Provided 2 examples of reports or visualizations conveying findings to stakeholders | 25 | 175 |
GRAND TOTAL SCORE: 1150
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 1000 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $145,000.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 1150 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $126.09 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet5
| Vendor | SEADS Technology | |||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet | |
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||
| 2 | Meets 5 | Exceeds 7 | ||
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||
| 1 | Provide examples of conducting at least 3 projects that demonstrate experience in cleaning and analyzing data for change over time, and producing results and recommendations from that analysis | 75 | 0 | |
| 2 | Provide examples of previous experience working on at least 2 projects that directly involve pavement marking analysis | 50 | 0 | |
| 3 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different statistical modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 0 | |
| 4 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different machine learning modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 0 | |
| 5 | Provided 2 examples of reports or visualizations conveying findings to stakeholders | 25 | 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 1000 points?
| YES | No | X | ||||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | ||||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | ||||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | /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. |
Sheet6
| Vendor | Spy Pond Partners, LLC | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet | |||
| 0 | Partially Meets | |||||
| 2 | Meets 5 | Exceeds 7 | ||||
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| 1 | Provide examples of conducting at least 3 projects that demonstrate experience in cleaning and analyzing data for change over time, and producing results and recommendations from that analysis | 75 | 525 | |||
| 2 | Provide examples of previous experience working on at least 2 projects that directly involve pavement marking analysis | 50 | 250 | |||
| 3 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different statistical modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 250 | |||
| 4 | Demonstrate expertise in at least 2 different machine learning modeling methods relevant to producing degradation curves | 50 | 250 | |||
| 5 | Provided 2 examples of reports or visualizations conveying findings to stakeholders | 25 | 175 |
GRAND TOTAL SCORE: 1450
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 1000 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $65,720.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 1450 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $45.32 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .