About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for a road salt procurement issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing. The procurement seeks bulk road salt supplies through a Request for Proposal (RFP) that may result in multiple awards. The contract term is five years, with vendors required to guarantee pricing for a minimum of one year. Vendors must demonstrate the capability to produce a minimum of 1,000 tons of salt per month to meet mandatory requirements.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a 700-point technical scoring component distributed across four criteria: Experience and Capability (150 points, 21.4% weight), Ordering and Delivery (200 points, 28.6% weight), Quality Control (200 points, 28.6% weight), and Customer Service (150 points, 21.4% weight). A minimum technical score of 455 points (65% of technical points) is required for proposal advancement. Cost evaluation comprises 300 of the total 1,000 evaluation points, with awards determined by lowest proposed price using a proportional scoring formula. The State of Utah will apply an administrative fee of 0.75% to the contract. Scoring uses a standardized scale from zero (fail) to five (excellent), with evaluators assessing whether proposals adequately address RFP requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 6-ATT D TechCriteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Statewide RFP.pdf | ||
| 8-ATT F QPL.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 9-ATT G Guidance Doc.pdf | ||
| 3-Cooperative-Contract-GoodsServices-Combined-9.16.2024 (30).docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-ATT B SOW.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-ATT C Cost.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
| Road Salt | ||||||||||
| DL26-8 | ||||||||||
| 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 | Vendor has submitted a completed Technical Response | |||||||||
| 2 | Vendor has submitted a completed Cost Sheet | |||||||||
| 3 | Vendor is producing a minimum of 1,000 tons of salt per month | |||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Experience and Capability | 30 | 21.4% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Ordering and Delivery | 40 | 28.6% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | Quality Control | 40 | 28.6% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 4 | Customer Service | 30 | 21.4% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 100.0% | 700.00 | 0.00 | 455.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 65% | 455.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 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). | Other cost evaluation methods may be used as long as they are within Procurement Code/Rule. Ensure the method for awarding points is clearly stated on the score sheeet and within the solicitation documents. | |||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 700.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 300.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .