6-Score-Sheet for informational purposes only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NC27-105
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation NC27-105, a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Natural Resources Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO). The procurement seeks strategic communications, facilitation, and community engagement services to inform policies related to natural resources and public lands. The contract term is five years, and the RFSQ is conducted under Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a Part 15 for the purchase of Design Professional Service Providers and Consultants. The scoresheet establishes evaluation criteria across four technical categories: Experience (weighted at 60 percent, 300 points), Community Engagement Strategies (40 percent, 200 points), Communication Approach (20 percent, 100 points), and Reports (20 percent, 100 points), for a total of 700 scoreable points. Evaluators assign scores ranging from 0 (Fail) to 5 (Excellent) based on proposal compliance and quality relative to RFP requirements. The scoresheet provides columns for evaluation of ten potential vendors (Vendors A through J).
Pricing information is not to be included in vendor submissions during the qualification phase. Award will be made to the highest-scoring qualified vendor based on the evaluation committee's scoring, with contract compensation to be determined through negotiation at rates the procurement officer deems fair and reasonable. Should negotiations fail with the highest-ranking vendor, the procurement officer may proceed sequentially with the second- and third-highest scoring vendors. If fair and reasonable compensation cannot be agreed upon with any of the top-ranked vendors, the procurement unit may select additional design professionals and continue discussions until an agreement is reached.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment B Scope of Work .docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment C 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
| Natural Resources and Public Lands Communications | |||||||||||||||||
| SOLICITATION NC27-105 | |||||||||||||||||
| RFSQ 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 | ||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFSQ 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 | Experience | 60 | 42.9% | 300.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Community Engagement Strategies | 40 | 28.6% | 200.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Communication Approach | 20 | 14.3% | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Reports | 20 | 14.3% | 100.00 | 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 | |||
| 700.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 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 .