Attachment 3 Evaluation Criteria Wraps.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- MSU-RFP-25-13
- Issued by
- Montana
About this file
This document is an Evaluation Criteria attachment for a Montana State University (MSU) solicitation for wraps, visual aesthetics, and signage services. The procurement seeks a contractor to provide comprehensive design, fabrication, and installation services for vehicle wraps, wall wraps, window wraps, and related visual communication materials. The evaluation process involves a total of 1,000 possible points distributed across several key categories: Section 3 (Scope of Project) at 300 points, Section 4 (Offeror Qualifications) at 400 points, and Cost Proposal at 300 points, with an additional potential 50 bonus points for Equal Pay for Montana Women compliance.
The evaluation methodology employs a detailed scoring guide with four performance tiers: Superior Response (90-100%), Good Response (75-89%), Fair Response (60-74%), and Failed Response (59% or less). Cost proposals will be scored comparatively, with the lowest overall cost receiving maximum points and other proposals receiving proportional points. Key evaluation components include mandatory and preferred requirements, electronic portfolio of past projects, company experience, customer service assessment, and hourly rates for installation and design work. The solicitation also includes pass/fail categories for references, litigation history, and mandatory requirements, with any "fail" potentially resulting in proposal disqualification.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 1 Scope of Project .docx | DOCX document | |
| 1286249-event.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 Cost Proposal .docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft Contract Wraps Vehicles Walls and Windows.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
ATTACHMENT 3: EVALUATION PROCESS
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 1000 points.
The General Requirements, References, Portfolio of Past Projects, Outstanding or Previous Litigation, Resumes/Company Profile and Experience, and Equal Pay for Montana Women, 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 requirements of Section 2.4.5 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
| References | Pass/ Fail | |
| Category | Point Value |
| A. | References | Pass/Fail |
| (Complete Contact Information Provided) |
| Section 3: Scope of Project | 30% of points for a possible 300 points | |
| Category | Point Value |
| A. | Mandatory Requirements | Pass/Fail |
| B. | Preferred Requirements | 300 |
| Section 4: Offeror Qualifications | 40% of points for a possible 400 points | |
| Category | Point Value |
| A. | Electronic Portfolio of Past Projects | 200 |
| B. | Company Experience | 200 |
| C. | Customer Service | Pass/Fail |
| Outstanding or Previous Litigation | Pass/Fail | |
| Category | Point Value |
A. Outstanding or Previous Litigation Pass/Fail
| Cost Proposal | 30% of points for a possible 300 points | |
| Category | Point Value |
| A. | Installation Hourly Rate | 100 |
| B. | Design Work Hourly Rate | 50 |
| C. | Sample Wrap Projects | 150 |
| BONUS POINTS | 50 points | |
| Equal Pay for Montana Women | 50 |
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 300. Offeror A's cost is $20,000. Offeror B's cost is $30,000. Offeror A would receive 300 points, Offeror B would receive 200 points ($20,000/$30,000) = 67% x 300 points = 200).
Lowest Responsive Offer Total Cost x Number of available points = Award Points This Offeror's Total Cost
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .