6-Scoresheet Interviews NC26-53 For Informational Purposes Only.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 76 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NC26-53 HB 48 Lot Assessment Database
- Solicitation number
- NC26-53
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This RFP Evaluation Scoresheet for Solicitation NC26-53 is used by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and the Forestry, Fire, & State Lands department to assess proposals for a software tool package designed to assist in implementing lot assessments for high wildfire risk properties and facilitate data sharing. The contract is anticipated to result in a single award to the responsive and responsible vendor with the highest evaluation score, with a contract term of five years. Vendors must guarantee pricing for the first year of the contract.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a comprehensive scoring framework totaling 1,650 possible points, with technical evaluation comprising 58 percent (950 points), virtual interview and demonstration comprising 24 percent (400 points), and cost evaluation comprising 18 percent (300 points). Mandatory requirements include demonstrated experience building software for wildfire structure assessments and implementation of databases using GovRamp infrastructure, or willingness to obtain GovRamp approval. Technical criteria are weighted toward the Statement of Qualifications (68.4 percent of technical points) and Work Plan and Timeline for Deliverables (31.6 percent of technical points), with a minimum required threshold of 70 percent (665 points) for technical evaluation and 80 percent (320 points) for the interview and demonstration phase. Cost points are awarded based on the lowest proposed price formula, where the lowest bidder receives 100 percent of cost points and other offerors receive proportional points calculated by dividing the lowest price by their proposed price and multiplying by the total cost points available.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Attachment C Scope of Work.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 3-Attachment D Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 8-Att.-B-Agency-IT-Terms-and-Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Attachment E Cost Proposal Form - 5 year plan.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 7-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (2).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
Scoresheet
| HB 48 Lot Assessment Database | |
| SOLICITATION #NC26-53 | |
| RFP 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 due 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 |
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | Must have experience building software for wildfire structure assessments | Proposal Date | |
| 2 | Have you implemented databases using GovRamp infrastructure in current or past software solutions, and If your software if not currently GovRamp approved are you willing to get it GovRamp approved? | Proposal Date |
Scoreable Technical Criteria RFP Section Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned
| 1 | Statement of Qualifications | Att. D | 130 | 68.4% | 650.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Work Plan and Timeline for Deliverables | Att. D | 60 | 31.6% | 300.00 | 0.00 |
| 100.0% | 950.00 | 0.00 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| Att D | 70% | 665.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
Scoreable Technical Criteria RFP Section Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned 3 Virtual Interview/Demo Att D 80 50.0% 400.00 0.00
| Required Interview/ Demo Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| Att D | 80% | 320.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| Att D | 30% | 300.0 | 0.0 |
* 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 | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 58% | 950.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Virtual Interview/Demo | 24% | 400.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 18% | 300.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,650.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .