563-26_Score_Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Competitive Selection OH|DOT56326-1
- Contract number
- DOT56326-1
- Issued by
- Ohio
About this file
This document is a technical proposal scoring sheet for a state and local contract, specifically an indefinite delivery vehicle for transit-related technical assistance services. The evaluation involves three vendors: Alliance Transportation Group, LLC; Michael Baker International Inc; and RLS & Associates Inc. The procurement appears to be for the state of Ohio, with proposals being evaluated against a minimum technical score of 240 points across multiple criteria including vendor qualifications, work requirements, staffing plans, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation.
The contract involves technical assistance projects with an emphasis on transit-related services. Each vendor submitted a total price, with RLS & Associates offering the lowest at $786,526.71, Michael Baker International at $1,087,328.36, and Alliance Transportation Group at $3,702,428.61. The scoring methodology calculates a "Cost Per Quality Point" to determine the most competitive bid, with Michael Baker International scoring the highest technical points at 312 and having the second-lowest cost per quality point at $3,485.03. The evaluation considered factors such as prior experience, understanding of work, responsiveness to scope, personnel qualifications, and DBE participation. All three vendors met the minimum technical score requirement, making them eligible for contract consideration.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 563-26.pdf | ||
| OTAP_563-26_final__Proposal_I__II__III_sections_RLS_Team.pdf | ||
| 563pricing_OTAP_563-26_RLS_Team.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| OTAP_563-26_RLS_Team_Forms_Combined.pdf | ||
| Affirmation_and_Disclosure_Form_2025_-_RLS_Signed__1_.pdf | ||
| Signature.pdf | ||
| OTAP_563-26RLS_Team_Combined_Resumes.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
Alliance
| Vendor | Alliance Transportation Group, LLC | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| VENDOR QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with technical assistance projects, with emphasis on a wide variety of transit related projects as demonstrated in Exhibit 1 | 4 | 32 | |||
| 2 | Does the vendors proposal clearly express an understanding of the work to be completed. | 4 | 24 | |||
| 3 | Responsiveness to the Scope of Work as identified in Exhibit 1 | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Clarity of proposal and work | 4 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | Section Subtotals | 48 | 72 | 0 | ||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 5 | 40 | |||
| 6 | Resumes including identification of Project Manager | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Access of respondent’s resources and personnel too DOT/local public entities. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 8 | Availability and responsiveness of proposer’s resources and personnel. | 5 | 40 | |||
| DBE Response | Section Subtotals | 0 | 136 | 0 | ||
| 9 | Evidence of meaningful DBE participation either from the prime consultant and/or any subconsultants | 2 | 16 | |||
| 10 | All DBE firms included their appropriate DBE certification from Ohio with the proposal | 2 | 16 | |||
| Section Subtotals | 0 | 32 | 0 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 48 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 240 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 288 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 240 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $3,702,428.61 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 288 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $12,855.65 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Michael Baker
| Vendor | Michael Baker International Inc | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| VENDOR QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with technical assistance projects, with emphasis on a wide variety of transit related projects as demonstrated in Exhibit 1 | 4 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Does the vendors proposal clearly express an understanding of the work to be completed. | 4 | 32 | |||
| 3 | Responsiveness to the Scope of Work as identified in Exhibit 1 | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Clarity of proposal and work | 4 | 32 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | Section Subtotals | 0 | 104 | 40 | ||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 5 | 40 | |||
| 6 | Resumes including identification of Project Manager | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Access of respondent’s resources and personnel too DOT/local public entities. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 8 | Availability and responsiveness of proposer’s resources and personnel. | 5 | 40 | |||
| DBE Response | Section Subtotals | 0 | 136 | 0 | ||
| 9 | Evidence of meaningful DBE participation either from the prime consultant and/or any subconsultants | 2 | 16 | |||
| 10 | All DBE firms included their appropriate DBE certification from Ohio with the proposal | 2 | 16 | |||
| Section Subtotals | 0 | 32 | 0 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 272 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 40 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 312 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 240 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $1,087,328.36 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 312 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $3,485.03 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
RLS
| Vendor | RLS & Associates Inc | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weighting | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| VENDOR QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with technical assistance projects, with emphasis on a wide variety of transit related projects as demonstrated in Exhibit 1 | 4 | 32 | |||
| 2 | Does the vendors proposal clearly express an understanding of the work to be completed. | 4 | 32 | |||
| 3 | Responsiveness to the Scope of Work as identified in Exhibit 1 | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Clarity of proposal and work | 4 | 32 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | Section Subtotals | 0 | 136 | 0 | ||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 5 | 40 | |||
| 6 | Resumes including identification of Project Manager | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Access of respondent’s resources and personnel too DOT/local public entities. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 8 | Availability and responsiveness of proposer’s resources and personnel. | 5 | 40 | |||
| DBE Response | Section Subtotals | 0 | 136 | 0 | ||
| 9 | Evidence of meaningful DBE participation either from the prime consultant and/or any subconsultants | 2 | 16 | |||
| 10 | All DBE firms included their appropriate DBE certification from Ohio with the proposal | 2 | 0 | |||
| Section Subtotals | 0 | 16 | 0 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 288 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 288 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 240 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $786,526.71 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 288 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $2,731.00 | ||||
| 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 .