6-Attachment D Evaluator Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- CS27-106
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
Evaluation Score Sheet Summary
This file is an evaluator score sheet for a Request for Statements of Qualifications (RFSQ) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing, conducted by the Governor's Office of Economic Development for an independent consultant position supporting a Regionally Significant Development Zone. The procurement seeks qualified design professional service providers and consultants under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15, with contract awards based on technical merit rather than price considerations. The engagement is structured as an evaluation process where the highest-ranked vendor will be selected to negotiate a contract with compensation determined to be fair and reasonable, with provisions to proceed to the next highest-ranked vendor if negotiations fail. The contract term is not to exceed five years.
The evaluation utilizes a 700-point scoring system distributed across four technical criteria: Vendor Qualifications (250 points), Scope of Services (250 points), Project Timeline (100 points), and Project Budget (100 points). Responsive proposals are assessed against specified evaluation criteria outlined in the Technical Criteria document, with the attached evaluation score sheet establishing the relative weight assigned to each criterion. Pricing information is not to be included in qualification submissions, as compensation will be determined through post-award negotiations based on fair and reasonable value determinations and alignment with contract requirements and deliverables.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Attachment C Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work.pdf | ||
| 3-Attachment A Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document |
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
Instructions
| Instructions for Interactive Scoresheet |
| Description: The interactive scoresheet is designed as a tool to help the evaluation committee organize the minimum mandatory requirements and the scoreable technical criteria that will be used in the RFP. The scoresheet will be filled out in phases and upon completion will become the scoresheet that is published with the RFP and eventually used to score the offers. Data should be entered in shaded cells only. This scoresheet may need to be modified, such as adding more rows and adjusting formulas accordingly, to meet the needs of your RFP. |
| Identify Important Criteria |
| 1. Begin by making a list of all criteria that is important to the eventual solution. The list can be done on the Interactive Scoresheet or any other program you are comfortable with, pen and paper included. The initial list should be a brainstorm. Consider items that would be important later in the life of the solution. For example, compatibility with existing technology, maintenance, service, scaleability, enterprise solutions, emerging technologies, etc. |
| Prioritize Important Criteria |
| 2. When you feel the list is fairly comprehensive, begin to organize the list. You may choose to organize similar items into subcategories, but most importantly, prioritize the criteria by what is most important. |
| Identify "Pass - Fail" Criteria |
| 3. Once you have identified all the criteria and their relative importance, consider which items are mandatory and can be scored with either a "Pass", meaning it meets the criteria, or "Fail", meaning it does not meet the criteria. These criteria can be used for Minimum Mandatory Requirements and an initial evaluation. |
| Insert Minimum Mandatory Requirements |
| 4. Taking the list of criteria, put the Minimum Mandatory requirements in the section labeled "Minimum Mandatory Requirements". You can add lines by clicking on row 20 to highlight the row, right-clicking, and selecting Insert Row. Follow this procedure for any additional lines needed. You will have to fix row numbering and formatting if you insert additional rows. |
| Insert Technical Criteria |
| 5. Copy Scoreable Technical Criteria items into the apprpriate section. You can add lines by clicking on row 46 to highlight the row, Right-clicking, and selecting Insert Row. Follow this procedure for any additional lines needed. You will have to fix row numbering and formatting if you insert additional rows. |
| Develop the RFP Scope of Work |
| 6. It is now time to begin writing the "Detailed Scope of Work" and "Proposal Requirements and Company Qualifications" sections of the RFP. The "Detailed Scope of Work" section is designed to describe each task as carefully and with as much detail as possible. If appropriately done, it will produce responsive Proposals and ease the task of managing the project/contract. |
| Ensure All Scorable Criteria is Included in RFP |
| 7. The "Proposal Requirements and Company Qualifications" section should spell out all of the items on the "Score Sheet". Begin with the "Minimum Mandatory" items and how the offeror will respond and meet the minimums. For example, if the scoresheet says, "Meets minimum wireless technology", this section will state what the minimum wireless technology is, and if necessary, how the offeror will demonstrate compliance. This could be done by stating in the response that the Offeror complies or providing some kind of documentation to establish compliance. |
| Identify RFP Page Numbers or Section Numbers for all Scoreable Criteria |
| 8. As you address each one of the "Minimum Mandatory" and "Scoreable Technical Criteria", put the section and page number of the criteria explanation on the "Score Sheet" in the cells provided. |
| Identify Weights for All Scorable Criteria |
| 9. Enter a weight for each "Scoreable Technical Criteria" in column J. The weight is used to identify the importance of the criteria to the project/contract. The weighting should clearly identify the priority of the "Scoreable Technical Criteria". For example, if you have the criteria "The solution should be blue to match our new furniture" and "The solution will sync with our legacy software", and one is more important than the other, you would identify that by the numbers assigned in the "Criteria Weight" column. For example, you could give weight assignments like the following: 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 1 and 4, or 1 and 6. Don't worry about assigning points. Just worry about the relative importance of each of the criteria against each other. This is important because if you weight one criteria of lesser importance the same as the most important criteria, then you could get a substandard solution. |
| Identify Required Minimum Technical Percentage |
| 10. Enter the technical score minimum threshhold that has to be met to be considered for award. |
| Identify Cost Percentage |
| 11. The last thing to consider before posting the Score Sheet is the percentage amount that will be used in scoring of the cost portion of the response. Cost has to equal a minimum of 30%. Please fill in the cell labeled "Percent of Total" at this time. |
| Filling out the RFP Score Sheet |
| 12. When it is time to score the evaluations, first make a copy of the "Score Sheet" tab by right-clicking on the tab and selecting Move or Copy. There is a check box for Make a Copy and you can select where in the workbook you would like the page to be located. Make a sheet for every offer you will be evaluating. |
| Evaluate Proposals |
| 13. Now is the time to evaluate the offers. First evaluate whether the offer meets each of the Minimum Mandatory Requirements. Use the drop down menu that appears in the cell for "Evaluation" when you click in the cell. If any of the Minimum Mandatory Requirements are not met, you do not need to continue your evaluation. |
| Proposals Passing Minimum Mandatory Requirements |
| 14. For all offers that pass the Minimum Mandatory Requirements, proceed to the Scoreable Technical Criteria. Using the requirements written in the RFP and identified on the Score Sheet, evaluate each criteria on a scale of 1 - 5. The scale is included on the Score Sheet for your reference. When it is time to make an award recommendation, you will need to put together a Justification Statement. You will have the information you need if you fill these sections out while performing the evaluation. |
| Scoresheet Summary |
| 15. The "Scoresheet Summary" tab may be used to make the evaluation score sheet that will be used at the Award Determination meeting. All committee members will have an opportunity to review scores before finalizing the technical scores. Some formulas can be used to facilitate this process, but those can only be written after it has been determined how many offers will be evaluated. For help on this please contact your Purchasing Agent. |
| Bonfire Posting |
| 16. The "U3P Posting" tab illustrates the format to use for the scoresheet summary posted in U3P when the award is made. The Purchasing Agent will complete this information from the Scoresheet Summary grand totals. Firms that have been disqualified will not be included in the U3P Posting document. |
Score Sheet
| TITLE OF PROJECT: Consultant for Development Zone Evaluation | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION # CS27-106 | ||||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||
| DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft and should not be returned to the Division of Purchasing. Please return this document to the evaluation committee chairperson | ||||||||||
| This document is not subject to GRAMA pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R33-7-702(2). | ||||||||||
| 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 | |||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Vendor Qualifications: Mandatory Techncial Expertise and Conflict of Interest | 1.A.B | 50 | 35.7% | 250.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2 | Scope of Services: Financial and Tax Evaluation, Regional Impact Assessment, Objective Verifcation by Zone Type, and Criteria Considerations for RSDZ's. | 2. A.B.C.D. | 50 | 35.7% | 250.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 3 | Project Timeline | 3 | 20 | 14.3% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 4 | Project Budget | 4 | 20 | 14.3% | 100.00 | 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 | 0.00 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .