6-Part 15 score sheet for informational purposes only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NC26-81
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Part 15 evaluation score sheet for a Request for Statements of Qualifications (RFSQ) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing, conducted by the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). The procurement seeks a qualified vendor to provide laboratory services for analyzing soil and groundwater samples for both radiological and conventional chemical analysis under a five-year contract term. This is a qualifications-based selection process conducted under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15, which governs the selection of design professional service providers and consultants. The vendor receiving the highest evaluation ranking will be invited to negotiate a contract with compensation terms to be determined as fair and reasonable. Should negotiations fail with the top-ranked vendor, the state reserves the right to proceed with negotiations with the next highest-ranked vendor in sequence.
Vendors were explicitly instructed not to include pricing information in their qualifications submissions, as the compensation will be negotiated separately based on fair and reasonable standards following vendor selection. The evaluation score sheet serves as the standardized tool for assessing and ranking competing qualifications submissions. No specific response deadlines, site visit requirements, or bidders' conferences are detailed in the file provided.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Attachment C Scoring Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Services.doc | DOC document | |
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Quotes Part 8 PS SP.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf |
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
| Laboratory Services for Environmental Samples | ||||||||||
| NC26-81 | ||||||||||
| 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 Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Lab Capabilities and Method Alignment | 60 | 30.0% | 300.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Quality Assurance/Quality Control | 60 | 30.0% | 300.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | Licensing and Conflict Status | 20 | 10.0% | 100.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 4 | Project Management and Turnaround Time | 60 | 30.0% | 300.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 100.0% | 1000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 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. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .