6-AS26-51 Score sheet - Informational Only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 63 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AS26-51 Phycology Taxonomy
- Solicitation number
- AS26-51
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation AS26-51 Phycology Taxonomy issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing in conjunction with the State of Utah Division of Water Quality. The procurement seeks a single contract award to provide expertise in identifying and enumerating organisms from periphyton, phytoplankton, and potentially zooplankton samples. The contract term is five years, with vendors required to guarantee their pricing throughout the entire contract period.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a total of 1,000 possible points distributed across technical and cost criteria. Technical evaluation comprises 70 percent of the total score (700 points) and is assessed across three primary criteria: ability to meet all work elements as described in the scope of work (40 percent weight, 200 points), ability to ensure data comparability (40 percent weight, 200 points), and qualifications, experience, and letters of reference (60 percent weight, 300 points). A minimum mandatory requirement stipulates that vendors must possess phycology expertise specific to organism identification and enumeration. Cost evaluation comprises 30 percent of the total score (300 points), with points assigned based on a comparative formula wherein the lowest-priced proposal receives 100 percent of cost points and all other proposals receive proportional points based on their price relative to the lowest bid. Proposals must achieve a minimum threshold of 490 technical points (70 percent of 700 possible points) to be considered responsive. The scoresheet accommodates evaluation by up to five evaluators and provides evaluation categories for up to twenty offerors.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Attachment C - Cost Proposal Form Quantity Phycology2026 (1).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work Phycology2026.pdf | ||
| 5-Attachment D Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (24) (1).docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.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
Score Sheet
| Phycology Taxonomy | |||||||
| SOLICITATION #AS26-51 | |||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||
| Score will be assigned as follows: | |||||||
| 0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information | |||||||
| Firm Name: | 1 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information | ||||||
| 2 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner | |||||||
| Evaluator: | 3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner | ||||||
| 4 = Good, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP and in some respects exceeds them | |||||||
| Date: | 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | ||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||
| 1 | Vendor MUST have phycology expertise to identify and enumerate organisms from periphyton, phytoplankton, and potentially zooplankton samples. | ||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Ability to meet all the work elements as described in Attachment B. | 40 | 28.6% | 200.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 2 | Ability to ensure data comparability | 40 | 28.6% | 200.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 3 | Qualifications, experience, and letters of reference. | 60 | 42.9% | 300.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 100.0% | 700.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| 70% | 490.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| 300.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| * Purchasing will use the following cost formula: The points assigned to each offerors cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. The offeror with the lowest Proposed Price will receive 100% of the price points. All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their Proposed Price is than the Lowest Proposed Price. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70% | 700.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 30% | 300.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| AS26-51 Phycology Taxonomy | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Signatures: | Date: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T | |
| 1 | Vendor MUST have phycology expertise to identify and enumerate organisms from periphyton, phytoplankton, and potentially zooplankton samples. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T |
| Criteria #1 Ability to meet all work elements described in scope of work | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 40.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 200) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #2 Ability to ensure data comparability | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 40.0 | Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 200) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #3 - Qualifications, experience, and references | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 60.0 | Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 300) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 700) Minimum Threshold = 490 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total Cost Points | Cost Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T |
| Cost | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 300.0 | Cost Points | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Score Summary | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T | |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible = 700) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total Cost Points (Total Possible = 300) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 1000) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .