578-26_Score_Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Competitive Selection OH|DOT57826-1
- Contract number
- DOT57826-1
- Issued by
- Ohio
About this file
The document is a 578-26 Score Sheet for a state and local contract, specifically an evaluation of marketing and communication services proposals for the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). The scoring sheet includes technical evaluations for 18 different vendors, including Creative Marketing Resources, Inc., Fahlgren Mortine LLC, ForeSight Communications, Heart and Hunter Inc, Murphyepson Inc, Paul Werth Associates Inc, Voice of your customer LLC, and others. The evaluation process assesses vendors across multiple criteria including prior experience with marketing campaigns, public sector clients, stakeholder engagement, website development, staff qualifications, and proposed work plans.
The contract appears to be an indefinite delivery vehicle for marketing and communication services, with a minimum technical score requirement of 215 points. Vendors were scored on weighted criteria across work requirements, proposer qualifications, staffing plans, and proposed work approaches. Some vendors like Creative Marketing Resources, Fahlgren Mortine, ForeSight Communications, Heart and Hunter Inc, Murphyepson Inc, and Sevell + Kropp, Inc. exceeded the minimum technical score and qualified for cost proposal review. The final vendor selection will be based on the lowest cost per quality point, with submitted total prices ranging from $99,000 to $318,896.70. Vendors scoring below 215 points were disqualified from further consideration, and their cost proposals were not opened.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 251002_ME_ODOT_Transit_Technical_Proposal_2.pdf | ||
| 578-26.pdf | ||
| _578-26_Pricing_Document__578Pricing__1_.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Signature.pdf | ||
| _578-26_Marketing_Support__Affirmation_and_Disclosure.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
578-26
| Vendor | American Structurepoint 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 30 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 30 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 214 |
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 | 214 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet1
| Vendor | Blueprint Creative 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 12 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 18 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 30 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 214 |
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 | 214 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet2
| Vendor | BrennSys Technology 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 30 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 30 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 214 |
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 | 214 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet3
| Vendor | Creative Marketing Resources, 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 50 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 12 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 12 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 168 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 50 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 230 |
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 | $218,329.64 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 230 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $949.26 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet4
| Vendor | DCC Marketing, 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 12 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 30 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 42 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 168 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 210 |
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 | 210 | ||||
| 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 | Fahlgren Mortine 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 50 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 20 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 168 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 70 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 238 |
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 | $215,730.18 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 238 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $906.43 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet6
| Vendor | ForeSight Communications | |||||
| 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 20 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 50 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 168 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 70 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 238 |
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 | $198,510.62 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 238 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $834.08 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet7
| Vendor | Heart and Hunter 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 20 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 208 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 20 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 228 |
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 | $318,896.70 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 228 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $1,398.67 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet8
| Vendor | InVerve Marketing, Incorporated | |||||
| 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 30 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 30 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 214 |
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 | 214 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet9
| Vendor | Marquee Creatives | |||||
| 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 12 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 30 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 42 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 168 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 210 |
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 | 210 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet10
| Vendor | Murphyepson 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 50 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 50 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 144 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 100 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 244 |
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 | $100,206.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 244 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $410.68 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet11
| Vendor | Origo Branding Company 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 30 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 30 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 214 |
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 | 214 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet12
| Vendor | Paul Werth 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 224 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| 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 | $171,043.20 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 224 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $763.59 | ||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet13
| Vendor | Recess Creative, 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 30 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 30 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 214 |
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 | 214 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet14
| Vendor | Robles Designs | |||||
| 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 36 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 36 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 176 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 212 |
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 | 212 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet15
| Vendor | Sevell + Kropp, 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 50 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 50 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 144 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 100 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 244 |
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 |
tc={B338F309-8A1E-444F-8AEF-0284B5BE72E5}: [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:
| Non-responsive. Vendor didn’t fill out pricing page correctly or complete. | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 244 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Non-responsive. Vendor didn’t fill out pricing page correctly or complete.
Sheet16
| Vendor | Traci Jones Design, 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 30 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 30 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 184 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 214 |
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 | 214 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet17
| Vendor | Vendi Advertising 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 36 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 36 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 176 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| Grand Total Score | 212 |
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 | 212 | ||||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $0.00 | |||||
| The Technical Proposal with the lowest Cost per Quality point will be recommended for award of the contract. |
Sheet18
| Vendor | Voice of your customer 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 marketing campaigns, marketing strategy, event planning, and branding. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 2 | Prior experience with public sector clients. | 2 | 16 | |||
| 3 | Prior experience with stakeholder engagement. | 5 | 40 | |||
| 4 | Prior experience with website development. | 3 | 24 | |||
| STAFFING PLAN | ||||||
| 5 | Qualifications of personnel – (education, experience, and training). Resumes including identification of Contract Manager. | 6 | 48 | |||
| 6 | Proposer’s staff plan connects qualified staff to each individual task and is appropriately staffed for expertise and experience. | 2 | 16 | |||
| PROPOSED WORK PLAN | ||||||
| 7 | The proposer has provided a clear and detailed response in terms of approach to transit agency and ODOT as clients and desired contract outcomes. | 5 | 40 | |||
| Column Subtotal of Partially Meets Points | 0 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Meets Points | 224 | |||||
| Column Subtotal of Exceeds Points | 0 | |||||
| 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 | $99,000.00 | /Grand Total Techincal Score | 224 | ||
| Cost Per Quality Point: | $441.96 | ||||
| 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 .