6-Part 15 score sheet for informational purposes only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NC26-80
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
Summary
This is a Request for Statements of Qualifications (RFSQ) score sheet for the State of Utah Division of Purchasing, conducted by the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, for technical consulting services in environmental science, engineering, and radiation safety. The procurement seeks to establish a contract with design professional service providers and consultants under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15. The contract term is five years, and the evaluation process will rank vendors based on qualifications submissions, with the highest-ranked vendor selected to negotiate contract terms. If negotiations with the top-ranked vendor are unsuccessful regarding fair and reasonable compensation and contract requirements, the state reserves the right to proceed with negotiations with subsequent highest-ranked vendors.
Pricing information is not to be included in qualifications submissions, as compensation will be determined through post-award negotiations based on fair and reasonable standards. The procurement is structured as a consultant and professional services contract rather than a traditional competitive bid, allowing for vendor ranking and selective negotiation. No specific set-asides, incumbent information, or funding amounts are detailed in this score sheet document, which is noted as being for informational purposes only regarding the evaluation methodology.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4-Attachment C Scoring Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 3-Attachment B – Scope of Work 2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 5-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (1).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
| Technical Consulting: Environmental, Scientific, and Engineering | ||||||||||
| NC26-80 | ||||||||||
| 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 | Past Projects | 20 | 10.0% | 100.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Difficult or Complex Project example | 20 | 10.0% | 100.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | Communication | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 4 | Staff Experience and Professional Licenses | 60 | 30.0% | 300.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 5 | Firm Experience | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 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 .