7-Interactive Scoresheet - RR27-102 - Amended.xls
XLS spreadsheet 93 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Easement Management System (RR27-102)
- Solicitation number
- RR27-102
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for the Easement Management System (RR27-102) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Veteran & Military Affairs (VMA) conducting procurement unit. The scoresheet establishes the evaluation framework for a single contract award to develop and implement an Easement Management System as detailed in the Scope of Work (Attachment C). The evaluation process consists of three stages: Stage 1 involves an initial review to ensure proposals meet four Minimum Mandatory Requirements, including agreement to specifications, compliance with data security regulations, demonstration of government agency experience in easement management, and understanding of GovRamp requirements; Stage 2 comprises technical proposal evaluation against six criteria (Company History, Product Features, Monitoring & Compliance, Acquisition & Funding, Project Management, and Ongoing Maintenance & Support) totaling 600 points; and Stage 3 involves individual demonstrations for qualifying offerors lasting no more than one hour, evaluated on three criteria (Geospatial Capability & Asset Inventory Management, Temporal Monitoring/Field Workflows/ESRI Integration, and Funding/Tracking/Reporting & Dashboards) totaling 200 points. Proposals must achieve a minimum threshold of 420 points in Stage 2 to advance to Stage 3.
The evaluation scoresheet allocates 60 percent of total evaluation points (600 of 1,000) to technical criteria, 20 percent (200 of 1,000) to demonstration stage evaluation, and 20 percent (200 of 1,000) to cost evaluation. Cost points are awarded based on a formula in which the lowest-priced offeror receives 100 percent of available cost points, with all other offerors receiving proportional points calculated as (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price) × Cost Points. Proposals must meet the minimum demo stage threshold of 140 points (70 percent of 200 available points) to remain in contention. The scoresheet template accommodates evaluation by four evaluators across up to 20 offerors (Offerors A through T), with final award determination based on the highest grand total score, with a maximum of 1,000 possible points. The document provides signature lines for four evaluators and includes columns for tracking mandatory requirements compliance and individual scoring across all evaluation stages.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Attachment C - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Attachment B - IT-Terms-and-Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 3-Attachment A - Standard Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-Attachment D - Technical Criteria amended 2.0.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment E - Demo Criteria and Scoring.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
| Easement Management Solution | |||||||
| RR27-102 | |||||||
| 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 | Offeror MUST agree to specifications and requirements in the Scope of Work | Attachment D | |||||
| 2 | System must comply with all relevant data security regulations. | Attachment D | |||||
| 3 | Vendor must demonstrate experience in developing solutions for government agencies, particularly in the field of easement management. | Attachment D | |||||
| 4 | Offeror affirms understanding of GovRamp Requirements as listed in Attachment C – Scope of Work. | Attachment D | |||||
| 0 | |||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Company History | Attachment D | 20 | 16.7% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2 | Product Features | Attachment D | 20 | 16.7% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 3 | Monitoring & Compliance | Attachment D | 20 | 16.7% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 4 | Acquisition & Funding | Attachment D | 20 | 16.7% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 5 | Project Management | Attachment D | 20 | 16.7% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 6 | Ongoing Maintenance & Support | Attachment D | 20 | 16.7% | 100.00 | 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% | 600.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| Attachment D | 70% | 420.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||||
| Demo Stage Scorabel Criteria | ||||||||||
| Demonstrations of product capabilities not exceeding one hour, allowing the state to view each solution separately | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 7 | Geospatial Capability & Asset Inventory Management | Attachment E | 15 | 37.5% | 75.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 8 | Temporal Monitoring, Field Workflows & ESRI Intregration | Attachment E | 15 | 37.5% | 75.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 9 | Funding, Tracking, Reporting & Dashboards | Attachment E | 10 | 25.0% | 50.00 | 0.00 | ||
| 100.0% | 200.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| Required Demo Stage Threshold & Summary | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Points Possible | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| Attachment E | 70% | 140.0 | 0.0 | 200 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||
| Stage 4 | 20% | 200.0 | 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 | 60% | 600.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Demo Points | 20% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 20% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| RR27-102 Easement Management Solution | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Signatures: | Date: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T | |
| 1 | Offeror MUST agree to specifications and requirements in the Scope of Work | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | System must comply with all relevant data security regulations. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Vendor must demonstrate experience in developing solutions for government agencies, particularly in the field of easement management. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Offeror affirms understanding of GovRamp Requirements as listed in Attachment C – Scope of Work. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T |
| Criteria #1 - Company History | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #2 - Product Features | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #3 - Monitoring & Compliance | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #4 - Acquisition & Funding | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #5 - Project Management | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Criteria #6 - Ongoing Maintenance & Support | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #6 - Total Points (Total Possible 100) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 600) Minimum Threshold = 420 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total Demo Points | Demo Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | ||||||||||||
| Demo Criteria #1 - Geospatial Capability & Asset Inventory Management | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| 15.0 | Demo Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 75) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Demo Criteria #2 - Temporal Monitoring, Field Workflows & Esri Integration | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| 15.0 | Demo Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 75) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| Demo Criteria #3 - Funding Tracking, Reporting & Dashboards | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| 10.0 | Demo Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 50) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| 200.0 | Demo Points |
(Total Possible Points = 200)
| Mininum Threshold = 140) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||||
| Total Cost Points | Cost Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T | ||
| Cost | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 200.0 | Cost Points | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| Score Summary | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | Offeror H | Offeror I | Offeror J | Offeror K | Offeror L | Offeror M | Offeror N | Offeror O | Offeror P | Offeror Q | Offeror R | Offeror S | Offeror T | |||
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible = 600) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Total Demo Points (Total Possible = 200) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||||
| Total Cost Points (Total Possible = 200) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 1,000) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .