6-Attachment 6 - Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 280 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Salt Lake City Request for Proposals SLCI26082 Citywide Cashiering and Point of Sale Solution
- Solicitation number
- SLCI26082
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is a score sheet for a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah, for a citywide cashiering and point of sale solution (SLCI26082), excluding the Department of Airports and the Department of Public Utilities. The evaluation process consists of four stages: Stage 1 requires offerors to meet seven mandatory minimum requirements, including certification that the proposed solution is a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) offering hosted by the offeror or through an external party, integration capability with Chase Paymentech, the ability to apply and collect credit card surcharges, experience implementing solutions for multi-divisional entities with separate POS systems, and submission of required attachments including technical architecture diagrams, SOC 2 reports, PCI audit reports, test scripts, training materials, and service level agreements. Additionally, offerors must disclose any use of Generative AI technology and provide detailed information regarding such systems, including model names, applications, use cases, and bias detection measures.
The technical evaluation in Stage 2 is weighted at 74 percent of total points (1,400 points possible) and assesses seven criteria: qualifications and financial strength (125 points), implementation team and staffing (100 points), proposed solution description (250 points with a minimum required average of 3 points), technical architecture requirements (250 points), implementation and go-live procedures (300 points with a minimum required average of 3 points), support and maintenance including SLAs (225 points), and reporting and analytics capabilities (150 points). Offerors must achieve at least 70 percent of technical points (980 points) to advance. Stage 3 consists of an interview and demonstration weighted at 11 percent (200 points possible) with a 70 percent minimum threshold of 140 points required. Stage 4 awards cost points at 16 percent of total evaluation (300 points possible), with the lowest-cost offeror receiving full cost points and other offerors receiving points proportional to their cost relative to the lowest bid.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 8-SLCI26082 - Amended 2.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Confidential+and+Proprietary+Info+Declaration+Form.pdf | ||
| 2-Attachment 1 - Sample Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Attachment 3 - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment 7 - System Diagram.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment 2 - Introduction and Background.docx | DOCX document | |
| 9-Attachment 5 - Cost Sheet - Amended 3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 7-Attachment 4 - Technical Architecture and IMS Requirements - Amended.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
| Citywide Cashiering and Point of Sale Solution | |||||||||
| SOLICITATION # SLCI26082 | |||||||||
| Attachment 6 - Score Sheet | |||||||||
| 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 du 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. | ||||||||
| Stage 1: Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||||
| 1 | City Ethics Requirement. | ||||||||
| 2 | Offeror certifies that Offeror’s proposed Solution is a SaaS solution. Offeror certifies that Offeror’s proposed Solution is hosted by Offeror hosted or Offeror provides hosting through an external party. | ||||||||
| 3 | Offeror certifies that Offeror’s proposed Solution can apply and collect a credit card surcharge on behalf of the City. | ||||||||
| 4 | Offeror certifies that Offeror has experience implementing a successful solution to an entity with multiple transactions from different divisions with separate POS systems and equipment. | ||||||||
| 5 | Offeror certifies that Offeror’s proposed Solution integrates with City’s existing merchant services provider (Chase Paymentech). | ||||||||
| 6 | Offeror shall upload all required attachments: | ||||||||
| 1. | Attachment 8 - RFP Response | ||||||||
| 2. | Attachment 9 - Technical Architecture and IMS Requirements | ||||||||
| 3. | Attachment 10 - Cost Sheet | ||||||||
| 4. | Attachment 11 - SOC 2 Report | ||||||||
| 5. | Attachment 12 - PCI Audit Report | ||||||||
| 6. | Attachment 13 - Architecture diagrams, PCI scope diagrams, integration diagrams, shared responsibility matrix, logical and physical network diagrams as further described in Attachment 4 - Technical Architecture and IMS Requirements. | ||||||||
| 7. | Attachment 14 - Test Scripts | ||||||||
| 8. | Attachment 15 - Training Course Lists | ||||||||
| 9. | Attachment 16 - Training Guides | ||||||||
| 10. | Attachment 17 - Sample Invoices and Billing Statements | ||||||||
| 11. | Attachment 18 – Service Level Agreement | ||||||||
| 7 | Offeror shall indicate if Offeror and/or Offeror’s subcontractor(s) will be using or offering GenAI technology, model(s), service(s), or system(s)s. | ||||||||
| 1. | If yes, provide the following information below details regarding the GenAI system(s). Failure to provide details regarding the GenAI system(s) may result in disqualification. | ||||||||
| a. | GenAI Model Name (including LLM Version, all model names/owners for the system or offering) | ||||||||
| b. | Applications/Product Owner (GenAI powered or driven) | ||||||||
| c. | Product Description | ||||||||
| d. | Use Case(s) | ||||||||
| e. | Intended Information Domain | ||||||||
| f. | Update procedure | ||||||||
| g. | Bias Detection: Explain any measures or safeguards implemented to ensure the GenAI system is not adversely affecting decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice. | ||||||||
| 0 | |||||||||
| Stage 2: Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required Average Points per Technical Category | ||||||||
| 1 | Qualifications, Financial Strength, Company Structure, and Customer Base | 0 | 25 | 8.9% | 125.0 | 0.0 | N/A | ||
| 2 | Implementation Team and Staffing Plan | 0 | 20 | 7.1% | 100.0 | 0.0 | N/A | ||
| 3 | Proposed Solution Description | 0 | 50 | 17.9% | 250.0 | 0.0 | 3 | ||
| 4 | Technical Architecture and IMS Requirements | 0 | 50 | 17.9% | 250.0 | 0.0 | N/A | ||
| 5 | Implementation, Migration and Go Live | 0 | 60 | 21.4% | 300.0 | 0.0 | 3 | ||
| 6 | Support, Maintenance, and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) | 0 | 45 | 16.1% | 225.0 | 0.0 | N/A | ||
| 7 | Reporting, Analytics, and Reconciliation | 0 | 30 | 10.7% | 150.0 | 0.0 | N/A | ||
| Scorable Technical Criteria Total | 100.0% | 1400.0 | 0.0 | N/A | |||||
| Possible Points | Points Earned | ||||||||
| Total Technical Points | 100.00% | 1400.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| Required Evaluation Criteria Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |||
| RFP | 70% | 980.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||
| Stage 3: Interview and Demonstration | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Interview and Demonstration | RFP | 0 | 40 | 200.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Required Interview Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | |||||
| RFP | 70% | 140.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Stage 4: Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||
| RFP | $0.00 | $0.00 | 30% | 300.00 | 0.0 | ||||
| The Offeror with the lowest total cost will receive 300 points, or 100% of the total cost points. All other Offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their total cost is than the total lowest cost. 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 | 74% | 1,400.00 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Interview and Demonstration Points | 11% | 200.00 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 16% | 300.00 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,900.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .