6-Attach L - Scoring Sheet Ground Loop.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- TB2637-WGL
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is a scoring sheet for a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD) in conjunction with McKinstry for ground source heat exchanger installation at Whittier Elementary School, located at 1600 S 300 E, Salt Lake City, Utah. The project scope encompasses the installation of a ground loop bore field outside the building, including drilling, earthwork, and ground loop system piping, while mechanical retrofit work inside the building will be procured through a separate RFP. Vendors responding to solicitation TB2637-WGL must submit proposals addressing mandatory requirements including business licensing, contractor licensing, bonding statements, insurance requirements, safety and health performance, and completion of the McKinstry Prequalification Application.
The scoring sheet establishes evaluation criteria weighted across six technical categories totaling 100 possible points: Vendor Qualifications and Relevant Company Experience (40 points), Project Team qualifications and experience (20 points), Past Performance and References with three to five project references from the last five years (15 points), Management Plan addressing communication and coordination with the School District, McKinstry, and subcontractors (15 points), Safety Record including EMR metrics below 1.0 and OSHA citations review (10 points), and Alignment between Scope Narrative and Cost presented (10 points). A minimum score of 70 points (70 percent) is required to advance in the evaluation process. Scoring ranges from 0 (Fail) to 10 (Excellent), with 7 representing a passing score that addresses all requirements with sufficient support and detail.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
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
| Attachment L - Score Sheet |
| Whittier Elementary HVAC Electrification, Ground Loop |
| SOLICITATION # TB2637-WGL |
| Score will be assigned as follows: | |
| 0 = Fail, the SOQ does not answer or address the requirement | |
| Firm Name: | 1-4 = Unsatisfactory, the SOQ has major gaps in addressing some or all of the requirements of the RFSQ or has serious deficiencies in support or detail for multiple requirements. |
| 5-6 = Substandard, the proposal does not address all of the requirements or criteria in the RFSQ or does not provide sufficient support or detail to address all of them. | |
| Evaluator: | 7 = Pass, the proposal addresses all requirements with sufficient support and detail for each requirement. |
| 8 = Good, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with ample support and detail for each requirement. | |
| Date: | 9 = Great, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with abundant support and detail for each requirement. |
| 10 = Excellent, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with exceptional support and detail for each requirement. |
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | Business License and Contractor’s License as Required by DOPL | |
| 2 | Bonding Statement | |
| 3 | Insurance Requirement | |
| 4 | Safety and Health Performance | |
| 5 | McKinstry Prequalification Application Completed |
Scoreable Technical Criteria Evaluator Score (1-10) Criteria Weight Points Possible Points Earned
| 1 | Vendor Qualifications and Relevant Company Experience: Provide a brief description of your company’s historical background, the scope and nature of construction routinely provided by your company on projects of the size and scope identified in the RFP, especially as it relates to schools and other education facilities. | 4 | 40 | 0 | |||
| 2 | Project Team : This area of evaluation will consider the individual qualifications and working experience of the individual project team members. This category includes the technical qualifications and work experience of the key personnel assigned to the project and experience of the team working on previous projects to achieve the project objectives. | ||||||
| 2 | 20 | 0 | |||||
| 3 | Past Performance and References: Vendors shall provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references for projects of comparable scope, magnitude, and clientele. References should demonstrate the vendor’s capacity to perform successfully on similar projects for projects which have been completed within the last 5 years. |
| Evaluation criteria: Similarity and strength of portfolio compared to SLCSD and overall comments and other information obtained from provided references. | 1.5 | 15 | 0 | ||
| 4 | Management Plan: This area of evaluation will consider the working relationship the Vendor will maintain with the School District, McKinstry, and drillers or other subcontractors. Please describe your approach to maintaining clear and updated communications between these entities. A special emphasis shall be placed on the working relationship between the vendor, drilling professional, and the McKinstry superintendent during all construction operations. |
| Evaluation Criteria: Project team's familiarity working with energy service companies providing guaranteed energy savings performance contracting, strength of accountability structure, and success in navigating relationships between District and contracted drilling professionals. | 1.5 | 15 | 0 | ||
| 5 | Safety Record EMR/ OSHA: Vendor shall provide their Worker’s Compensation Interstate Experience Modification Rate (EMR) for the last three years. Our target is an EMR below 1.0, RIR of less than 5.0, and DART below 2.0. Any citations in the past 3 years are also requested for review. We collaborate with subcontracting partners outside of these parameters at times under corrective action plans and work together to plan and improve the focus on safety. These requirements are also identified in Section 2.2, Article D. |
Evaluation Criteria: Demonstration of the above requested safety metrics and any additional information provided on standard safe work practices followed by the Vendor.
| 1 | 10 | 0 | ||
| 100 | 0.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| 70% | 70.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
6 Alignment between Scope Narrative and Cost presented (10 points)
Evaluation Criteria: The costs provided in the bid shall be evaluated against the scope narrative provided in the Tier 1 scoring to verify alignment between the Vendor’s price and their stated inclusions, equipment, alternates, VE suggestions, project team, and general conditions. Assumptions or exclusions are limited, explicit, and consistent with the Scope Narrative. 1 10 0
Sheet1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .