Attachment 1.pdf
PDF 73 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Printing of Natural Events Calendar
- Solicitation number
- 300000249315061
- Issued by
- Missouri
About this file
This is an evaluation criteria document for a state and local contract opportunity with the Missouri Department of Conservation for the printing of 43,000 Natural Events Calendars. The evaluation framework allocates 200 total points across three categories: Cost Proposal (90 points), Technical Proposal (110 points), and Quality of Sample (80 points). The Technical Proposal evaluation includes assessment of the vendor's Overall Relevant Vendor Experience (30 points). Bidders are required to submit previous experience documentation and samples prior to the closing date, with evaluation based on defined adjectival rating categories ranging from Distinctive to Unsatisfactory.
The scoring methodology uses a five-tier rating system applied to both sample quality and prior experience assessments. Quality of Sample scores range from 80 points (Distinctive) to 0 points (Unsatisfactory), with intermediate ratings of Superior (70 points), Satisfactory (55 points), and Marginal (40 points). Overall Relevant Experience is similarly rated with point values of 30 (Distinctive), 25 (Superior), 20 (Satisfactory), 15 (Marginal), and 0 (Unsatisfactory). The criteria emphasize that vendors failing to respond to any evaluation element will receive an Unsatisfactory rating for that corresponding element. Past performance assessment focuses on the recency and relevance of prior work, scope alignment, complexity match, and reference verification of delivery quality and performance against stated requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| MDC 0000000213SL_SUPPLIER.pdf |
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
ATTACHMENT 1
Category Element Points COST PROPOSAL 90 points TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 110 points Quality of Sample 80 points Overall Relevant Vendor Experience 30 points TOTAL 200 points
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
As explained in Section 4.5, proposals will be evaluated using the weighting of factors found in that section.
Scoring of Sample:
The Department will assess the Sample based upon the adjectival categories in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Rating Definition Distinctive Quality of sample exceeds the requirements in a way that promises significant benefits to the Department.
Superior Quality of Sample meets all requirements; quality is beyond the stated requirements; no material weaknesses; high confidence in the quality of work.
Satisfactory Quality of Sample meets all requirements; Quality of Sample has no significant weaknesses; reasonable confidence in the quality of work.
Marginal Quality of Sample has one or more significant weaknesses; moderate confidence in the quality of work.
Unsatisfactory Quality of Sample has several significant weaknesses; little or no confidence in the quality of work.
The adjectival rating for the specific elements of the Quality of Sample will have the point values as shown in Table 2:
TABLE 2
Distinctive Superior Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
Quality of Sample
80 70 55 40 0
Scoring of Prior Experience
The Department will assess the Vendor’s Prior Experience based upon the adjectival categories in Table 3:
TABLE 3
CASE STUDY/REFERENCE
Rating Definition Distinctive Past performance was recent and involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required in this IFB.
Reference indicated past performance significantly exceeded overall requirements and expectations; delivered significant and/or innovative impact.
Superior Past performance was recent involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required in the IFB. Reference indicated past performance exceeded requirements on some dimensions.
Satisfactory Past performance was relatively recent and involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required in the IFB.
Reference indicated past performance met minimum requirements.
Marginal Past performance met requirements, but only after significant extra effort, significant delay, significant scope revisions were found necessary, and/or other adverse factors.
Unsatisfactory Past performance is not relevant to the requirements in the IFB, or resulted in failed project/work due to mainly to the fault of the vendor.
The adjectival rating for each Past Performance Reference Case Study will have a point value as shown in Table 6:
TABLE 4
Distinctive Superior Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Overall Relevant Experience
30 25 20 15 0
NOTE: In the event the vendor fails to respond to any of the evaluation elements identified in Evaluation and Award Process Section, the vendor may receive an “Unsatisfactory” rating for the corresponding evaluation element.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .