572-26_Score_Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Competitive Selection OH|DOT57226-1
- Contract number
- DOT57226-1
- Issued by
- Ohio
About this file
The document is a score sheet for a state and local contract evaluation, specifically a solicitation numbered 572-26, involving the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and multiple transportation planning and consulting firms. The vendors evaluated include Alfred Benesch & Company, Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning, KFH Group Inc, Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates, RLS & Associates Inc, Toole Design Group LLC, and Transystems Corporation of Ohio.
The contract appears to be an indefinite delivery vehicle for transit-related consulting services, with vendors scored on criteria including outreach and stakeholder engagement, data-driven planning, financial planning, transit policy analysis, and service recommendations. The technical evaluation uses a weighted scoring system with point ranges from 0 to 10 across eight key evaluation categories. Vendors were required to achieve a minimum technical score of 215 points. Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates scored the highest at 246 points and had the lowest cost per quality point at $1,217.67, while RLS & Associates and Toole Design Group did not meet the minimum technical threshold. The total submitted prices ranged from $286,958 to $451,874, with the recommendation for contract award based on the lowest cost per quality point.
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
572-26
| Vendor | Alfred Benesch & Company | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with outreach and stakeholder engagement. | 3 | 18 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with data driven planning. | 4 | 40 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with financial planning | 3 | 30 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with transit policy analysis and development. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 5 | Prior experience with transit service analysis and recommendations. | 2 | 16 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 6 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 3 | 24 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 8 | The vendor has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 6 | 48 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 18 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 136 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 70 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 224 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 215 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $325,108.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 224 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $1,451.38 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet1
| Vendor | Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning, Inc | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with outreach and stakeholder engagement. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with data driven planning. | 4 | 40 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with financial planning | 3 | 24 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with transit policy analysis and development. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 5 | Prior experience with transit service analysis and recommendations. | 2 | 16 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 6 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 3 | 24 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 8 | The vendor has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 6 | 48 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 40 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 224 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 215 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $451,874.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 224 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $2,017.29 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet2
| Vendor | KFH Group Inc | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with outreach and stakeholder engagement. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with data driven planning. | 4 | 32 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with financial planning | 3 | 24 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with transit policy analysis and development. | 2 | 20 | |||
| 5 | Prior experience with transit service analysis and recommendations. | 2 | 16 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 6 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 3 | 30 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 8 | The vendor has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 6 | 48 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 176 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 50 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 226 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 215 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | 286958 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 226 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $1,269.73 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet3
| Vendor | Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with outreach and stakeholder engagement. | 3 | 30 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with data driven planning. | 4 | 32 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with financial planning | 3 | 18 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with transit policy analysis and development. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 5 | Prior experience with transit service analysis and recommendations. | 2 | 20 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 6 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 4 | 40 | |||
| 7 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 3 | 30 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 8 | The vendor has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 6 | 60 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 18 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 48 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 180 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 246 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 215 points?
| YES | X | No | |||
| (If No, Vendor's Cost Propsal will NOT be opened.) | |||||
| Cost Per Quality Point | |||||
| Vendors Total Submitted Price | $299,547.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 246 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $1,217.67 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet4
| Vendor | RLS & Associates Inc | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with outreach and stakeholder engagement. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with data driven planning. | 4 | 24 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with financial planning | 3 | 18 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with transit policy analysis and development. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 5 | Prior experience with transit service analysis and recommendations. | 2 | 16 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 6 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 3 | 24 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 8 | The vendor has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 6 | 48 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 42 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 160 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 202 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 215 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 | 202 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet5
| Vendor | Toole Design Group LLC | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with outreach and stakeholder engagement. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with data driven planning. | 4 | 32 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with financial planning | 3 | 18 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with transit policy analysis and development. | 2 | 12 | |||
| 5 | Prior experience with transit service analysis and recommendations. | 2 | 16 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 6 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 3 | 18 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 8 | The vendor has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 6 | 48 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 48 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 152 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 200 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 215 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 | 200 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet6
| Vendor | Transystems Corporation of Ohio | |||||
| Item # | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Doesn't Meet 0 | Partially Meets 6 | Meets 8 | Exceeds 10 |
| WORK REQUIREMENTS | ||||||
| PROPOSER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||
| 1 | Prior experience with outreach and stakeholder engagement. | 3 | 24 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with data driven planning. | 4 | 24 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with financial planning | 3 | 18 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with transit policy analysis and development. | 2 | 12 | |||
| 5 | Prior experience with transit service analysis and recommendations. | 2 | 12 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 6 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training) | 4 | 32 | |||
| 7 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 3 | 18 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 8 | The vendor has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 6 | 48 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 84 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 104 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 188 |
Based upon the Grand Total Technical Score earned, does the vendor’s proposal meet or exceed the minimum Technical score of 215 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 | 188 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| 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 .