Attachment 4 Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 120 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- MSU-RFP-26-05
- Issued by
- Gallatin County, Montana
About this file
This is an evaluation criteria document for Montana State University's Request for Proposal 26-05 for internet service infrastructure on its Bozeman campus. The RFP seeks a service provider to deliver a minimum of 100 GB/s network capacity comprising both Internet2 and commodity Internet services with redundant Wide Area Networking paths. Proposals are due by December 30, 2025, at 12:00 AM MST, with prospective offerors required to submit questions by November 25, 2025. The service provider must achieve full operational and testing readiness by May 14, 2026, and enable peering services to other Montana State University campuses and public entities at no additional cost. The contract term is not explicitly specified in the evaluation criteria document but may be extended at the University's discretion.
The evaluation will be conducted on a total of 1,000 points, with Resumes/Company Profile and Experience comprising 40% (400 points), Ability to Meet Supply Specifications evaluated on a pass/fail basis, and Cost Proposal comprising 20% (200 points). Within the experience category, offerors must demonstrate financial stability and uptime runtime capability (200 points) and provide a Service Level Agreement (400 points), all evaluated against a scoring guide using superior, good, fair, and failed response categories. Cost will be calculated using a formula whereby the lowest responsive offer receives maximum points, with all other proposals receiving a proportional percentage based on their cost relationship to the lowest bid. Bonus points of up to 50 are available for compliance with Montana's Equal Pay for Women initiative. All responses failing to achieve a passing score in prerequisite categories will be eliminated from consideration, and offerors must submit audited financial statements from the preceding three years to demonstrate financial stability.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 2 Scope of Project.pdf | ||
| 1349224-event.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Draft Contract.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 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
SECTION 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 1,000 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
Resumes/Company Profile and Experience 40% of points for a possible 400 points
Category eMACS Question Point Value
A. Reference Question 2.1 Response Pass/Fail B. Financial Stability Question 2.5 Response Pass/Fail B. Uptime Runtime Question 2.2 Response 200 C. Service Level Agreement Question 2.2 Response 400
Ability to Meet Supply Specifications Pass/Fail
A. Ability to Meet Mandatory Specifications Question 2.2 Response Pass/Fail B. Ability to Meet Preferred Specifications Question 2.3 Response. 200
Cost Proposal 20% of points for a possible 200 points
A. Cost Proposal Question 2.6 Response 200
Bonus Points 0% of points for a possible 50 points
A. Equal Pay for MT Women Question 1.9 Response 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 200. Offeror A's cost is $20,000. Offeror B's cost is $30,000. Offeror A would receive 200 points, Offeror B would receive 133.33 points ($20,000/$30,000) = 67% x 200 points = 133.33).
Lowest Responsive Offer Total Cost x Number of available points = Award Points This Offeror's Total Cost
| SCORING GUIDE |
| 3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .