6-Part 15 score sheet for informational purposes only.xls

XLS spreadsheet 61 KB Posted

Attached to
NC26-71 Great Salt Lake Wetland Infrastructure Projects
Solicitation number
NC26-71
Issued by
Utah

About this file

This file is a Part 15 score sheet for informational purposes related to a Request for Statements of Qualifications (RFSQ) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing in conjunction with the Wildlife Professional Services unit for wetland infrastructure projects. The procurement seeks Design Professional Service Providers and Consultants to perform wetland infrastructure improvements on state Division of Wildlife Waterfowl Management Areas (WMAs) under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15. The contract term is five years, and vendors should note that pricing information should not be included in their qualifications submissions.

The evaluation methodology outlined in the score sheet ranks vendors based on their qualifications, with the highest-ranked vendor selected for contract negotiation at fair and reasonable compensation rates to be determined during negotiations. If acceptable terms cannot be reached with the top-ranked vendor, the state reserves the right to proceed with negotiations with the next highest-ranked vendor in sequence. This evaluation approach prioritizes vendor qualifications and capabilities over pricing in the initial selection phase, consistent with the informational nature of the score sheet designed to guide potential respondents through the evaluation criteria and process.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
5-Attachment B Scope-of-Work.docx DOCX document
2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf PDF
4-Attachment C Scoring Criteria.docx DOCX document
1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf PDF
3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS.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

Great Salt Lake Wetland Infrastructure Projects
NC26-71
RFSQ 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 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
Scoreable Technical CriteriaRFP SectionEvaluator Score (0-5)Criteria Weight% of Tech CriteriaPoints PossiblePoints
EarnedMinimum Required
1Project Experience10050.0%500.000.00
2Project Coordination4020.0%200.000.00
3Personnel Experience6030.0%300.000.00
100.0%1000.000.000.00
The procurement officer shall award a contract to the qualified professional whose statement of qualifications was awarded the highest score under Subsection 63G-60a-1503(4) by the evaluation committee, at compensation that the procurement officer determines, in writing, to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit. If the procurement officer is unable to agree to a satisfactory contract with the highest scoring professional, at a price the procurement officer determines to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit, the procurement officer shall: (a) formally terminate discussions with that design professional; and (b) undertake discussions with the second highest scoring, qualified design professional. If the procurement officer is unable to agree to a satisfactory contract with the highest scoring professional, at a price the procurement officer determines to be fair and reasonable to the procurement unit, the procurement officer shall: (a) formally terminate discussions with that design professional; and (b) undertake discussions with the third highest scoring, qualified design professional. If the procurement officer is unable to award a contract at a fair and reasonable price to any of the highest scoring design professionals, the procurement officer shall: (a) select additional design professionals; and (b) continue discussions in accordance with the part until an agreement is reached.

Scoresheet Summary

XX##### Solicitation Name Scoresheet Summary
Instructions:
Enter the solicitation number and name.
Enter each Offeror name.
Enter the Criteria name for each category.
Enter the Weight in column B that corresponds to the Criteria Weight on the Score Sheet tab column J for each criterion.
Enter the Total Possible Points for each Criterion, Cost Points, and Score Summary section.
Mandatory Minimum Requirements: Evaluate each offer and enter pass or fail
Ensure that the number of evaluator lines matches the number of evaluators.
Offers not meeting the Minimum Mandatory Requirements will not be evaluated further.
Ensure that the Total Average Score formula includes all of the evaluator line items.
Technical Scores: Enter each evaluator score for each offer.
Signatures:Date:
Evaluator 1__________________
Evaluator 2__________________
Evaluator 3__________________
Evaluator 4__________________
Evaluator 5__________________
Offeror AOfferor BOfferor COfferor DOfferor EOfferor FOfferor GOfferor HOfferor IOfferor JOfferor KOfferor LOfferor MOfferor NOfferor OOfferor POfferor QOfferor ROfferor SOfferor T
WeightTechnical ScoresOfferor AOfferor BOfferor COfferor DOfferor EOfferor FOfferor GOfferor HOfferor IOfferor JOfferor KOfferor LOfferor MOfferor NOfferor OOfferor POfferor QOfferor ROfferor SOfferor T
Criteria #1
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #2
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #3
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #4
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #5
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #6
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #6 - Total Points (Total Possible XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #7
Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #7 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Total Technical Points0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Score SummaryOfferor AOfferor BOfferor COfferor DOfferor EOfferor FOfferor GOfferor HOfferor IOfferor JOfferor KOfferor LOfferor MOfferor NOfferor OOfferor POfferor QOfferor ROfferor SOfferor T
Total Technical Points (Total Possible = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Grand Total Points (Total Possible = XX)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .