7-KL27-104 Interactive Scoresheet (Informational Only).xls
XLS spreadsheet 74 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Urinalysis Laboratory Equipment
- Solicitation number
- KL27-104
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an interactive RFP evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation KL27-104 Urinalysis Laboratory Equipment, administered by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Department of Corrections. The RFP seeks to procure urinalysis laboratory equipment according to the detailed scope of work specified in Attachment D, with the contract award anticipated to go to the responsive and responsible vendor achieving the highest evaluation score. The evaluation process follows a two-stage methodology: Stage 1 involves an initial review to eliminate non-responsive proposals and those failing to meet five mandatory minimum requirements, including completion of a site visit sign-up sheet, mandatory attendance at a site visit, adherence to all specifications in the scope of work, supply of all required reagents within five days of order receipt, and testing sensitivity equal to or exceeding National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) standards. Stage 2 comprises technical evaluation by a committee scoring proposals across six criteria: Training (150 points), Service/Maintenance (200 points), Installation (150 points), Work History (50 points), Subcontractor Compliance (150 points), and Software System (100 points), for a total of 800 technical points possible.
Offerors must achieve a minimum threshold score of 560 technical points to advance to the final cost proposal evaluation stage; proposals scoring below this threshold are deemed non-responsive and eliminated from consideration. The scoresheet accommodates evaluation of up to twenty offerors (Offeror A through Offeror T) and utilizes a standardized scoring scale from 0 (Fail) to 5 (Excellent) applied by five evaluators per criterion. Cost evaluation awards 200 points possible, calculated using a comparative formula whereby the lowest-cost proposal receives 100 percent of cost points and all other proposals receive points proportional to the ratio of the lowest proposed price to their proposed price. The total evaluation combines technical and cost scores for a maximum possible 1,000 points, determining the final award recommendation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 9-Attachment D - Scope of Work1.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment C - UDC-Standard-Terms-and-Conditions-Agency-Contract (8).docx | DOCX document | |
| 12-KL27-104 Interactive Scoresheet (Informational Only).xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| 5-Attachment F - Cost Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 4-Att.-B-Agency-IT-Terms-and-Conditions (6).docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (18).docx | DOCX document | |
| 11-Attachment E - Minimum Mandatory Requirements and Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-CUCF UA Lab Layout.pdf | ||
| 10-Site Visit Signup Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf |
Show all 11
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
| Urinalysis Laboratory Equipment | |||||||
| SOLICITATION # KL27-104 | |||||||
| 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 | Site Visit Sign-Up Sheet | Attachment D | |||||
| 2 | Offeror MUST attend mandatory site visit | Attachment D | |||||
| 3 | Offeror MUST adhere to all specifications and requirements found in Attachment C - Scope of Work | Attachment D | |||||
| 4 | Offeror’s must supply all reagents listed in scope of work within five (5) days of receipt of order. | Attachment D | |||||
| 5 | Testing sensitivity for all drugs must be equal to or surpass National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) standards | Attachment D | |||||
| 0 | |||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Training | Attachment D | 30 | 18.8% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |
| 2 | Service/Maintenance | Attachment D | 40 | 25.0% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |
| 3 | Installation | Attachment D | 30 | 18.8% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |
| 4 | Work History | Attachment D | 10 | 6.3% | 50.00 | 0.00 | |
| 5 | Subcontractor Compliance | Attachment D | 30 | 18.8% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |
| 6 | Software System | Attachment D | 20 | 12.5% | 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% | 800.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | |
| Attachment D | 70% | 560.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| Attachment D | 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). | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 800.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 200.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| KL27-104 Urinalysis Laboratory Equipment Scoresheet Summary | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Signatures: | Date: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | __________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | Site Visit Sign-Up Sheet | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Offeror MUST attend mandatory site visit | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Offeror’s must adhere to all specifications and requirements found in Attachment C - Scope of Work | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Offeror’s must supply all reagents listed in scope of work within five (5) days of receipt of order. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Testing sensitivity for all drugs must be equal to or surpass National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) standards | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 - Training | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | |
| 30.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 150) | 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 - Service/Maintenance | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | |
| 40.0 | Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 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 |
| Criteria #3 - Installation | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | |
| 30.0 | Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 150) | 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 - Work History | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | |
| Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 50) | 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 - Subcontractor Compliance | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | |
| Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 150) | 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 - Software System | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | |
| 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 = 800) Minimum Threshold = 560 | 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 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 = 800) | 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 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 = 1000) | 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 .