A11+-+Technical+Proposal+Evaluation+Worksheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 303-25-003
- Issued by
- Pembina County, North Dakota
About this file
This is a Technical Proposal Evaluation Worksheet for RFP 303-25-003, Asbestos Abatement at the Devils Lake Central Middle School, administered by the State of North Dakota Procurement Office. The worksheet serves as the standardized evaluation instrument for the Evaluation Committee to assess responsive proposals against established criteria. The document provides comprehensive instructions for evaluation committee members, including the requirement to read all proposals twice—first for general understanding and subsequently for detailed scoring with documentation of questions requiring clarification. Evaluators must demonstrate clear understanding of RFP requirements and evaluation criteria before commencing the assessment process. The technical proposal evaluation comprises two primary criteria: Scope of Work Strategy, weighted at 40 points, and Experience and Qualifications, weighted at 30 points, for a total technical proposal evaluation score of 70 points.
The evaluation worksheet establishes a five-tier rating scale for scoring, ranging from zero points (None—Not addressed or response of no value) to the maximum points allowed per criterion (Excellent—Total applicability). The Scope of Work Strategy criterion evaluates proposal completeness, project management methods, remediation strategy including innovative techniques, subcontracting approach, and identified risks or concerns. The Experience and Qualifications criterion assesses the offeror's demonstration of minimum experience requirements, firm establishment in the field, project team organization with work breakdown and estimated hours, resume quality, and subcontractor or joint venture qualifications. Cost proposals are evaluated separately by the Procurement Officer or selected evaluators after technical evaluation is complete, with evaluation scores subject to adjustment following committee discussions, clarifications, demonstrations, reference checks, and best and final offer submissions.
View the file
Other files
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
Instructions
| ATTACHMENT 11 - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET |
| INSTRUCTIONS |
Proposals that are determined to be responsive to the requirements of the RFP will be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee using the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP. For assistance with RFP evaluations, contact the State Procurement Office at infospo@nd.gov or 701-328-2740.
1. If a group evaluation is conducted, the Evaluation Committee will produce one worksheet that summarizes the comments and scores. If individual scores are being compiled, each member of the Evaluation Committee will prepare an evaluation worksheet with their comments and scores.
2. Evaluation Committee members must read the Request for Proposal and have a clear understanding of the requirements and evaluation criteria before attempting to evaluate proposals.
3. It is recommented, that Evaluators read all proposals twice. First, read all proposals for a general understanding without scoring. Next, read proposals with the intent to complete the evaluation worksheet which includes taking notes and documenting any questions/clarification needed.
4. Each evaluation criterion is assigned a specific number of points. The questions under each evaluation criterion help Evaluators measure the quality of the Offeror’s response. Do not assign points to individual questions, instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion.
5. Evaluators will assign an initial score for each evaluation criterion and provide comments to support scoring..
6. Evaluation documents become an open record upon award.
RATING SCALE FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SCORING
The rating scale provided is intended to help Evaluators perform evaluations. Evaluators are exercising independent judgement so variation in scoring is normal. However, the Procurement Officer may question scoring that appears to be unsupported. Evaluators may assign any value for a given evaluation area from 0 to the maximum number of points allowed per evaluation criterion. A zero value typically constitutes no response or an inability of the Offeror to meet the criteria. In contrast, the maximum value should constitute a high standard of meeting the criteria. For example: “Experience and Qualifications” is an evaluation area weighted at 20% of the total possible points on a 100 Point Scale, so any value between 0 and 20 points can be awarded. An example of the rating scale is below:
| Example Rating Scale (20 POINT Maximum) | |
| Point Value | Explanation |
| 0-4 | None - Not addressed or response of no value |
| 5-8 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 9-12 | Good - Some applicability |
| 13-16 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 17-20 | Excellent - Total applicability |
COST PROPOSAL
Cost proposals are normally scored by the Procurement Officer or selected evaluators, and cost proposals are given to the Evaluation Committee after technical proposals have been evaluated. Prompt payment discounts are not considered in evaluating cost.
ADJUSTMENT OF INITIAL EVALUATION SCORES
After the initial scoring, the Evaluation Committee should meet to discuss proposals and identify areas where clarification or more information is needed. Evaluation scores may be adjusted as a result of discussions with offerors, clarifications, demonstrations, presentations, reference check results, Best and Final Offers, and further due diligence within the evaluation process.
Scope of Work Strategy
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET |
| Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring |
| RFP Number and Title | 303-25-003 ~ Asbestos Abatement at the Devils Lake Central Middle School |
| Offeror | Offeror Name |
| Date | |
| Evaluator Name | |
| Evaluator's point total for Scope of Work Strategy |
| A. Scope of Work Strategy | |
| Forty (40) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion | |
| Rating Scale | |
| Point Value | Explanation |
| 0 - 8 | None - Not addressed or response of no value |
| 9 – 16 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 17 – 24 | Good - Some applicability |
| 25 – 32 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 33 – 40 | Excellent - Total applicability |
| Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. | |
| Questions | Comments |
| 1. How well has the Offeror followed the proposal preparation instructions? Does the proposal contain all the requested information? | |
| 2. Has the Offeror identified any additional directives that apply to the contract? | |
| 3. Has the Offeror described their project management methods to accomplish the work on time? | |
| 4. How well has the Offeror described their strategy for accomplishing the Scope of Work requirements? What are the strengths of the proposed strategy? | |
| 5. Has the Offeror identified any specific expectations from the State not currently provided in the RFP? | |
| 6. Does the Offeror adequately described their strategy for remediation of the site? Are there any innovative techniques proposed by the Offeror? | |
| 7. Does the Offeror provide information for how they will subcontract out work which they are unable to perform? | |
| 8. Are there aspects of the proposed Scope of Work strategy that are of concern or that require clarification or further information? | |
| 9. Has Offeror identified any potential risk, issues, or problems? |
Experience & Qualifications
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET |
| Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring |
| RFP Number and Title | 303-25-003 ~ Asbestos Abatement at the Devils Lake Central Middle School |
| Offeror | Offeror Name |
| Date | 31-Dec-99 |
| Evaluator Name | 0 |
| Evaluator's point total for Experience and Qualifications |
| B. Experience and Qualifications | |
| Thirty (30) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion | |
| Rating Scale | |
| Point Value | Explanation |
| 0 - 6 | None - Not addressed or response of no value |
| 7 - 12 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 13 - 18 | Good - Some applicability |
| 19 - 24 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 25 - 30 | Excellent - Total applicability |
| Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. | |
| Questions | Comments |
| 1. If the RFP required a minimum amount of experience or qualifications, has the Offeror provided information to demonstrate meeting these requirements? Does the offeror exceed the minimum experience or qualifications? | |
| 2. Has the Offeror provided information to demonstrate the firm is well established in this field? | |
| 3. How extensive is the firm’s experience in this type of work? How well does the information about other projects demonstrate the firm’s experience related to this RFP? | |
| 4. If references were required, did the references provide information to verify the satisfactory performance of the Offeror? Did references identify any areas of concern or any particular strengths of the Offeror? | |
| 5. Has the Offeror provided information about the organization of the project team and proposed work project team members will perform, and estimated hours? Does the proposed project team and work breakdown seem appropriate to accomplish the requirements of the RFP? | |
| 6. Are resumes complete and do they demonstrate education and experience that would be desirable for individuals engaged in the work the RFP requires? | |
| 7. If a subcontractor will perform work on the project or joint venture is proposed, has the Offeror provided the requested information? How extensive is the experience and qualifications of the subcontractor or other party of the joint venture? |
Evaluation Score
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET | |||
| Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring | |||
| RFP Number and Title | 303-25-003 ~ Asbestos Abatement at the Devils Lake Central Middle School | ||
| Offeror | Offeror Name | ||
| Date | 31-Dec-99 | ||
| Evaluator Name | 12/31/99 | ||
| Vendor Evaluation Score | |||
| Criterion | Maximum Points by Category | Score | |
| A. Scope of Work Strategy | 40 | 0 | |
| B. Experience and Qualifications | 30 | 0 | |
| Technical Proposal Evaluation Total Score | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .