6-Interactive-Score-Sheet-for informational purposes only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 47 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NC27-123
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP Evaluation Scoresheet for Solicitation #NC27-123 issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing, with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office of the Utah Department of Natural Resources (PLPCO) as the conducting procurement units. The RFP seeks a single contract award to develop a Conservation Agreement and Strategy (CAS) for Wilson's Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) within saline lake habitats. The contract period of performance is 12 months for completion of the scope of work, with the contract issued for 18 months to accommodate final invoicing, administrative closeout, and logistics. Vendors must guarantee their pricing for the entire contract period.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes three mandatory pass/fail requirements: vendors must have previous experience developing species conservation or recovery plans, conservation agreements, conservation strategies, habitat conservation plans, Species Status Assessments, or comparable conservation planning documents; vendors must have experience working with multiple agencies, organizations, and stakeholders on complex natural resource conservation projects; and vendors must have availability to complete the project within the 12-month contract period. The scoresheet allocates 850 total technical points across five weighted criteria: Project Understanding and Project Approach (40 points, 23.5%), Experience and Ability of Consultant Staff (40 points, 23.5%), Relevant Experience (50 points, 29.4%), Schedule (30 points, 17.6%), and Location Accessibility (10 points, 5.9%). Cost evaluation comprises 150 points, with the lowest proposed price receiving 100% of cost points and other offerors receiving points based on the ratio of lowest price to their proposed price. The required minimum technical point threshold is 510 points (60% of 850 total technical points). The total possible evaluation score is 1,000 points.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Attachment C - Cost Sheet - list costs.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment D Technical Criteria.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
Score Sheet
| Wilson's Phalarope Conservation Agreement and Strategy Development | ||||||||||||
| SOLICITATION #NC27-123 | ||||||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||||
| Evaluator: | 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 | ||||||||||||
| Date: | 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 | ||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||||
| 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | ||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | Vendor Must have previous experience developing species conservation or recovery plans, conservation agreements, conservation strategies, habitat conservation plans, Species Status Assessments, or other comparable conservation planning documents. | |||||||||||
| 2 | Vendor Must have Experience working with multiple agencies, organizations, and stakeholders on complex natural resource conservation |
projects.
| 3 | Vendor Must have availability to complete the project within the 12-month contract period. | |||||||||||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Project Understanding and Project Approach | 40 | 23.5% | 200.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 2 | Experience and Ability of Consultant Staff | 40 | 23.5% | 200.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 3 | Relevant Experience | 50 | 29.4% | 250.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 4 | Schedule | 30 | 17.6% | 150.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 5 | Location Accessibility | 10 | 5.9% | 50.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 850.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | ||||||||||||
| 60% | 510.0 | ||||||||||||||
| * 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 | Points Possible | ||||||||||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 850.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 150.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 1,000.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .