9-26TH01P5 Attachment H RFP Evaluation Scoresheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 66 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Classroom Management Software
- Solicitation number
- 26TH01P5
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
The file is an evaluation scoresheet for a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by Jordan School District (JSD) in Utah, specifically for Classroom Management Software. The RFP seeks to establish contract(s) with qualified vendors to provide comprehensive classroom management technology solutions for the district. The procurement is conducted in accordance with the State of Utah Procurement Code and Utah Administrative Rules, with the primary goal of selecting a software solution that meets the district's educational technology needs.
While the specific evaluation scoresheet details are not fully visible in the provided document, the RFP is structured to assess potential vendors based on predetermined criteria that likely include factors such as technical capabilities, pricing, implementation support, training, and overall solution effectiveness. The procurement is open to qualified vendors who can demonstrate their ability to provide a robust classroom management software platform that supports the educational objectives of Jordan School District. The RFP process ensures a competitive and transparent selection method to identify the most suitable vendor for the district's technological requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
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 H | ||||||||
| Classroom Management Software | ||||||||
| SOLICITATION # 26TH01P5 | ||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||
| DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft. Please return this document to the evaluation committee chairperson | ||||||||
| This document is not subject to GRAMA pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R33-7-702(2). | ||||||||
| 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) | ||||||
| A | Experience and References | 2.1 | ||||||
| B | Existing Program Capability | 2.1 | ||||||
| C | Page Limitation | 2.1 | ||||||
| D | Compliance with Public Contract Boycott Restrictions | 2.1 | ||||||
| E | Compliance with FERPA / Sign JSD's DPA | 2.1 | ||||||
| 0 | ||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| Software Requirements | ||||||||
| A1 | Web-based software, work on multiple devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A2 | All supported methods of rostering students | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A3 | How teachers and students will authenticate w/system | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A4 | Teachers have whole class control | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A5 | Teachers able to blacklist/whitelist websites | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A6 | Teachers communicate w/students via text messages | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A7 | Create ability-level groups and black/whitelist websites | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A8 | Allows tab limits | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A9 | Pushes specific URLs from teachers to student devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A10 | Create screenshots of student devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A11 | Individual student usage reports/timelines use history | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A12 | Track all tabs and windows on student devices | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A13 | Leveled admin access, district and building | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A14 | Allows teachers to close student tabs remotely | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| A15 | Create individual classrooms for monitoring | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Training and Technical Support | ||||||||
| B1 | In person/online training materials | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| B2 | Ongoing professional development during contract | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| B3 | Technical support for software | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| B4 | How student & teacher data will be protected | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| B5 | Process to upload student information | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| B6 | Cybersecurity initiatives/process for data breach | 3.2 | 8 | 4.76% | 40.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 100.0% | 840.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||
| 5.1 | 70% | 588.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||
| Presentations | RFP Section | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 5.1 | 13.88% | 200.0 | ||||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||
| 5.1 | 27.78% | 400.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Cost Formula: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price) | ||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 58.33% | 840.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Presentation Points | 13.88% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 27.78% | 400.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,440.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Without presentations | 1,240.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .