7-Score-Sheet-NC26-56 For Informational Purposes Only.xls
XLS spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NC26-56 Golf Carts for State Parks
- Solicitation number
- NC26-56
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation #NC26-56 issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of State Parks to procure golf carts for rough terrain courses. The solicitation will result in a single contract award to the responsive and responsible vendor with the highest evaluation score. The contract term is five years, with vendor pricing guaranteed for the initial 12 months. Future price increases must be accompanied by market research and require agency approval, with each subsequent increase guaranteed for one year.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a 1,300-point total scoring framework consisting of 1,000 technical points and 300 cost points. Technical evaluation criteria include compliance with minimum specifications and technical requirements (250 points, 25% weight), product lifecycle and operational value (250 points, 25% weight), warranty, maintenance, and service support (200 points, 20% weight), delivery, lead time, and order fulfillment (150 points, 15% weight), and vendor experience and qualifications (150 points, 15% weight). A minimum technical point threshold of 600 points (60% of technical points) is required for proposal evaluation. Cost points are allocated using a formula whereby the lowest-priced offeror receives 100% of the 300 cost points, with all other offerors receiving a proportional percentage based on their pricing relative to the lowest proposal. Minimum mandatory requirements include verification that proposed golf carts meet specifications in Attachment B, vendor agreement to provide delivery, setup, and training within specified timelines, compliance with a minimum two-year warranty on parts and labor, commitment to specified customer service levels, legal authorization to conduct business in Utah, and submission of an offerings list.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment C - Cost Proposal Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment D Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (5).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
| Golf Carts for State Parks | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION #NC26-56 | ||||||||||
| 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 | Proposed golf carts meet or exceed all minimum specifications outlined in Attachment B of this RFP (technical, performance, and safety requirements). | |||||||||
| 2 | Vendor agrees to provide delivery, setup, and training for park staff within the timelines outlined in Attachment B. | |||||||||
| 3 | Vendor agrees to warranty and maintenance requirements (minimum two years on parts and labor). | |||||||||
| 4 | Vendor agrees to provide customer service as described in Attachment B. | |||||||||
| 5 | Vendor is legally authorized to conduct business in the State of Utah. | |||||||||
| 6 | Must upload list of offerings - consider putting this in requirement page. | |||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Compliance with Minimum Specifications & Technical Requirements | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Product Lifecycle and Operational Value | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | Warranty, Maintenance, and Service Support | 40 | 20.0% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 4 | Delivery, Lead Time, and Order Fulfillment | 30 | 15.0% | 150.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 5 | Vendor Experience and Qualifications | 30 | 15.0% | 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% | 1000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 60% | 600.0 | 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). | ||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 300.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 1,300.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .