9-TJ26-12 Evaluation Score Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 78 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Digital Asset Management System
- Solicitation number
- TJ26-12
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for a Digital Asset Management System solicitation (TJ26-12) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and conducted by the Utah Division of Archives and Records Service. The procurement seeks a single vendor to provide a comprehensive digital asset management system capable of storing, managing, and providing access to various archival file types including TIFF, JPEG2000, PDF, PDF/A, PNG, video formats (MOV, AVI, MPEG4), and audio formats (WAV, AIFF, FLAC). The evaluation process consists of four sequential phases: mandatory minimum requirements verification, technical criteria evaluation worth 750 points, vendor demonstrations worth 200 points, and cost evaluation worth 175 points, with vendors required to achieve minimum thresholds at each phase to advance. The contract term is five years.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes specific scoring criteria across five technical categories: Asset Management (30 points), Usability (30 points), Privacy and Security (30 points), Metadata Management (30 points), and Reporting and References (30 points), each weighted at 20 percent of the total technical score. Vendors must achieve a minimum of 525 points (70 percent) in the technical evaluation phase and 130 points (65 percent) in the demonstration phase to advance to cost evaluation. Cost points, totaling 175 of the 1,125 possible points (16 percent), are allocated using a formula where the lowest bidder receives maximum cost points and other bidders receive proportional points based on their price relative to the lowest proposed price. Key mandatory requirements include hosting data and code in the United States, demonstrating experience with state governments and archives, providing training and customer support, and submitting responses in specified sections with separate cost proposals.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 8-Attachment B - Scope-of-Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (3).docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment C - Cost Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 4-Mandatory Minimum Requirements and Technical Criteria May2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Demonstration scoring criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-IT-Terms-and-Conditions.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
Evaluation Criteria
| #REF! | |
| DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - STATE OF UTAH ARCHIVES | |
| SOLICITATION # TJ26-12 | |
| 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 du 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 host and access data and development code/application in the United States. | |||||
| PASS | ||||||
| 2 | Offeror must understand and experience working with state governments, archives, and/or special collection libraries. | PASS | ||||
| 3 | Offeror must provide training opportunities, installation support, and ongoing customer service. | PASS | ||||
| 4 | ||||||
| Offeror must upload their response to the five(5) sections of the Scoreable Technical Criteria proposal in the Question Section. | PASS | |||||
| 5 | Offeror must upload, as a separate attachment, their cost proposal in the Cost Proposal questions section. | PASS | ||||
| Proceed to Scoring |
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | |||
| Earned | Minimum Required | ||||||||
| 1 | Asset Management |
● Configurable to store a variety of archival file types including TIFF, JPEG2000, PDF and PDF/A, PNG, MOTION, MOV, AVI, MPEG4, WAV, AIFF, FLAC
● Ensures synchronization of data across cloud environments
● Automatically creates derivatives
| ● Provides automated persistent unique identifiers | 30 | 20.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 2 | Usability | |||||||
| ● | Includes tools for collaborative work, version control, commenting, and approval workflows | |||||||
| ● | Integrable with Archives' current collections management system, APPX/AXAEM. | |||||||
| ● | Integrability with Archives' storage environments: Google Drive, AWS S3 glacier storage | |||||||
| ● | Remote accessibility | |||||||
| ● | Front-end web server | |||||||
| ● | Robust search and discovery capabilities | 30 | 20.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||
| 3 | Privacy | |||||||
| ● | Secure transfer of data while at rest and in-transit, regardless of the transfer method - must support PII and HIPAA compliance | |||||||
| ● | Controlled access settings and security compliance, including data encryption and PII recognition | |||||||
| ● | SSL Capable | |||||||
| ● | Must be compatible with SAML 2.0 for Single Sign On authentication. | 30 | 20.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||
| 4 | Metadata | |||||||
| ● | Pulls technical metadata and supports customizable metadata schemas | |||||||
| ● | Retains integrity of technical metadata upon import and export | |||||||
| ● | Bulk description utility | 30 | 20.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||
| 5 | Reporting |
● Provide a minimum of two references from three different archives customers. (6 references in total). References that are owned by the offeror do not qualify for this requirement.
● Offers reporting functions for key performance indicators
● Must provide system documentation and data dictionaries.
| ● Produces file manifests for ingested assets | 30 | 20.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 100.0% | 750.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| 70% | 525.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Scoreable Technical Criteria - Demonstrations | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| The demonstration will be a total of 2 hours. 90 minutes for demonstration and questions. Only vendors that pass the minimum technical threshold will present their demo. | ||||||||||
| 1 | Demonstration | 40 | 26.7% | 200.00 | 0.00 | 130.0 | ||||
| 26.7% | 200.00 | 0.00 | 130.00 |
| Required Technical Demonstration Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| Demos | 65% | 130.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | ||
| Only the vendors that pass the minimum technical demonstration threshold will move to the cost portion. | ||||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| Cost | 16% | 175.0 | 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 | 67% | 750.00 | |
| Total Demo Points | 18% | 200.00 | |
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 16% | 175.00 | |
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,125.00 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .