7-Score-Sheet for Informational Purposes Only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NC27-5
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a scoring sheet document for the State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation's Request for Proposal (RFP) NC27-5 for Northern Utah Regional Long-Range Recreation Planning. The procurement seeks a single vendor to assist in developing a comprehensive long-range recreation plan for Utah's Northern Region. The contract has a five-year term, with pricing guaranteed for the initial 12-month period. The scoring sheet appears designed to evaluate and rank responsive and responsible vendor proposals, with the contract award going to the vendor achieving the highest justified score in accordance with Utah procurement code requirements.
The pricing structure requires vendors to guarantee their initial 12-month rates, with any future price increases subject to submission of market research documentation and agency approval, with each subsequent increase guaranteed for an additional 12-month period. The scoring methodology outlined in this sheet serves as the evaluation mechanism to determine the most qualified vendor among competing bidders, ensuring transparent and standardized assessment of proposal quality and value across all submitted responses.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 6-Attachment D Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Attachment A Agency Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment C Cost Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5-Attachment B Scope of Work.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
| Northern Utah Regional Long-Range Recreation Planning | ||||||||||||||||||||
| NC27-5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluator: | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Date: | 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |||||||||
| 1 | Must have experience conducting stakeholder engagement at the regional level (federal land managers, state, local, and tribal governments). | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Must experience completing recreation related data analysis and existing conditions reports. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D | Vendor E | Vendor F | Vendor G | Vendor H | Vendor I | Vendor J | |||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Earned | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Points |
Earned
| 1 | Experience and Qualifications | 50 | 33.3% | 250.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 2 | Proposed Methodology | 40 | 26.7% | 200.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 3 | Portfolio and Examples of similar work | 60 | 40.0% | 300.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 750.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | ||||||||||||
| 70% | 525.0 | ||||||||||||||
| * 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 | Points Possible | ||||||||||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 750.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 250.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 1,000.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .