7-Attachment E - Evaluators Scoresheet - AA27-100.xls
XLS spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AA27-100
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This file is an Evaluators Scoresheet for the State of Utah Division of Purchasing's RFP AA27-100 for Transportation, Commercial, and Area Lighting Fixtures. The RFP seeks to establish multiple contracts to supply lighting fixtures to the State of Utah and eligible users through a competitive evaluation process. The procurement employs a two-stage evaluation methodology in which vendors must first achieve a minimum score on their technical proposal to advance to the cost proposal stage. Final contract awards will be made to vendors who meet both the technical threshold and the overall RFP score threshold. The resulting contract will have a five-year term with guaranteed percentage discounts maintained throughout the contract period and an administrative fee of 0.75%.
The scoresheet serves as the evaluation tool for assessing vendor proposals against predetermined criteria and scoring standards. As a cost-plus-technical evaluation, vendors' technical scores will be combined with their cost proposal scores to determine final rankings and award eligibility. This dual-threshold approach ensures that only qualified vendors offering competitively priced solutions are selected for the multiple contract awards.
View the file
Other files
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
| Attachment E - RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||
| AA27-100 | |||||||
| Transportation, Commercial, and Area Lighting Fixtures | |||||||
| 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 must upload Attachment C - Cost Sheet (Completed) | Prerequisite | |||||
| 2 | Vendor must upload Attachment D - Completed Responses to Technical Criteria | Prerequisite | |||||
| 3 | |||||||
| 4 | |||||||
| 5 | |||||||
| 6 | |||||||
| 0 | |||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | BABA Compliance & Manufacturing Workflow | |||||||
| a | Process for ensuring Build America, Buy America compliance, origin tracking, and domestic certification. | Attachment - D | 50 | 31.3% | 250.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 2 | Product Offerings & Cooperative Flexibility | |||||||
| a | Portfolio breadth across lighting categories for all eligible users. | Attachment - D | 25 | 15.6% | 125.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 5 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| b | Compliance with UDOT roadway specs (Type A/B, BUG ratings, photometrics). | Attachment - D | 25 | 15.6% | 125.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 3 | Supply Chain, Packaging, & Delivery Guarantee | 0.0% | ||||||
| a | Supply chain capabilities guaranteeing 8-week delivery statewide and individual unit labeling/packaging processes. | Attachment - D | 30 | 18.8% | 150.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 4 | Warranty, Replacement, & Support | |||||||
| a | 10-year transportation / 5-year commercial warranty execution process. | Attachment - D | 30 | 18.8% | 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% | 800.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||
| Attachment - D | 60% | 480.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||
| Cost | RFP Section | Highest Discount Offered | Your Proposed Discount | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||
| Attachment - C | 20% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| *The points assigned to each Vendor's cost proposal will be based on the lowest total proposed price for the Market Basket in Attachment C. The Vendor with the lowest Total Proposed Market Basket Price will receive 100% of the cost points (200 points). All other Vendors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on the formula: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Market Basket Price / Vendor's Proposed Market Basket Price). | ||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 80% | 800.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 20% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| The Vendor must receive a minimum of 480 technical points with a combined(Technical + Cost points) total of 550 points in order to receive an award. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .