Attachment 3 Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 87 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- MSU-RFP-26-14
- Issued by
- Jefferson County, Montana
About this file
This document is an Evaluation Criteria attachment for Montana State University Northern's Request for Proposal for a comprehensive feasibility study on developing an undergraduate meat processing program. The RFP opened on March 9, 2026 at 2:00 PM MDT and closes on April 21, 2026 at 2:00 PM MDT, with questions due by March 24, 2026. The feasibility study comprises three phases: Phase I analyzing market-based return on training in Montana, Phase II assessing local student interest, and Phase III conducting benchmarking and best practices analysis. The contract is awarded on a fixed-price basis with payment terms of Net 30, and all associated costs including travel must be fully disclosed in proposals.
The evaluation committee will score proposals on a total of 500 points distributed across multiple categories. The Scope of Project and Mandatory Requirements section accounts for 400 points (250 for scope and 150 for mandatory requirements including offeror qualifications and previous feasibility study experience), with evaluation on a pass/fail basis using a scoring guide that rates responses as Superior (90-100%), Good (75-89%), Fair (60-74%), or Failed (59% or less). The Cost Proposal category is worth 100 points, with the lowest cost receiving maximum points and all other proposals receiving points proportional to their cost relationship to the lowest bid. Additionally, offerors who demonstrate compliance with Montana Executive Order No. 12-2016 regarding equal pay for Montana women receive a 5 percent bonus worth 50 points. Offerors must demonstrate prior feasibility study experience within the last three years supported by minimum three professional references, and the University may request audited financial statements to confirm financial stability.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1370213-event.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Scope of Project.pdf | ||
| DRAFT Contract for MSU-RFP-26-14 MSUN.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 Cost Proposal.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 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA
3.0 Basis of Evaluation
The evaluator/evaluation committee will review and evaluate the offers according to the following criteria based on a total number of 500 points.
The Resumes/Company Profile and Experience, Ability to Meet Supply Specifications, and Method of Providing Services Stability portions of the offer will be evaluated based on the following Scoring Guide or on a pass/fail basis as indicated, with any Offeror receiving a "fail" eliminated from further consideration. The Cost Proposal will be evaluated based on the formula set forth below.
Any response that fails to achieve a passing score per the prerequisites will be eliminated from further consideration. A "fail" for any individual evaluation criterion may result in proposal disqualification at the discretion of the procurement officer.
SCORING GUIDE
In awarding points to the evaluation criteria, the evaluator/evaluation committee will consider the following guidelines:
Superior Response (90-100%): A superior response is a highly comprehensive, excellent reply that meets all of the requirements of the RFP. In addition, the response may cover areas not originally addressed within the RFP and/or include additional information and recommendations that would prove both valuable and beneficial to the department.
Good Response (75-89%): A good response meets all the requirements of the RFP and demonstrates in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the project, with no deficiencies noted.
Fair Response (60-74%): A fair response minimally meets most requirements set forth in the RFP. The offeror demonstrates some ability to comply with guidelines and requirements of the project, but knowledge of the subject matter is limited.
Failed Response (59% or less): A failed response does not meet the requirements set forth in the RFP. The offeror has not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the subject matter.
3.1 Evaluation Criteria
Scope of Project and Mandatory Requirements Pass/Fail
Category Point Value
A. Scope of Project 250 Phase I: Market-Based Return on Training in Montana Phase II: Local Student Interest Phase III: Benchmarking and Best Practices B. Mandatory Requirements 150
a. Offeror Qualifications
b. Previous Feasibility Study Experience
c. Other
Cost Proposal
A. Cost Proposal 100
Lowest overall cost receives the maximum allotted points. All other proposals receive a percentage of the points available based on their cost relationship to the lowest. Example: Total possible points for cost are 100. Offeror A's cost is $20,000. Offeror B's cost is $30,000. Offeror A would receive 100 points, Offeror B would receive ($20,000/$30,000) = 67% x 100 points = 66.67).
Lowest Responsive Offer Total Cost x Number of available points = Award Points This Offeror's Total Cost
Bonus Points
A. Equal Pay for MT Women 50
| SCORING GUIDE |
| 3.1 Evaluation Criteria |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .