Attachment+1+Proposal+Evaluation.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- School Data Migration State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 201-2025-1000-1
- Issued by
- Burleigh County, North Dakota
About this file
This document is a Proposal Evaluation Worksheet for RFP Number 201-2025-1000-1 for a School Data Migration project, involving a state government procurement process. The request for proposal seeks a comprehensive data migration solution, with evaluators using a structured scoring methodology across four key criteria: Professional Services (20 points), Project Management (20 points), Contract Deliverables & Estimated Schedule (20 points), and Experience and Qualifications (20 points). The evaluation process involves a detailed assessment of technical capabilities, project understanding, delivery capacity, and vendor experience, with a particular preference for vendors with student information system knowledge, especially PowerSchool expertise.
The evaluation worksheet provides a nuanced scoring approach, allowing evaluators to rate proposals from 0-20 points in each category, with specific emphasis on technical compatibility, data extraction capabilities, project management approach, deliverable understanding, and vendor qualifications. The procurement appears focused on selecting a vendor to assist with statewide data migration, with evaluators considering factors such as technical support services, licensing options, customer inquiry handling, quality assurance, reporting capabilities, and references. The process includes a conflict of interest declaration for evaluators and aims to select a vendor that demonstrates comprehensive understanding of the project's scope and technical requirements.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 201-2025-1000-+Data+Migration+RFP.pdf | ||
| Attachment+2+Data+Migration+Contract.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment+3+Cost+Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP+amendment+1.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET
| The proposal evaluation worksheet will to be used by evaluators in scoring responsive technical proposals. STATE has assigned each evaluation criterion and the relative weight. The following tab is the worksheet used in the evaluation process and will be included in the procurement file. |
| INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATORS: STATE has assigned each evaluation criterion a specific number of points. The questions under each evaluated area help you measure the quality of the offeror’s response. Do not assign points to individual questions: instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. Make a brief comment and give the initial score of the proposal evaluation worksheet. |
| CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Each evaluator must review the list of offerors submitting proposals and determine if they or any immediate family members have a conflict of interest with regard to an offeror, in accordance with N.D.A.C. § 4-12-04-04. By signature on a proposal evaluation worksheet, evaluator is confirming no conflict of Interest exists with the offeror being evaluated. N.D.A.C. § 4-12-04-04 Link - http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/4-12-04.pdf |
| EVALUATION WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATORS: RATING SCALE: STATE intends this rating scale to establish guidelines within that range to ensure members of the RFP evaluation committee perform their evaluation with consistency. You may assign any value for a given criteria from 0 to the maximum number of points. A zero value typically constitutes no response or an inability of the offeror to meet the criterion. In contrast, the maximum value should constitute a high standard of meeting the criterion |
EXAMPLE: “Experience and Qualifications” is an evaluation criterion receiving a maximum of 20 possible points. The rating scale would be as follows:
| EXAMPLE RATING SCALE (20 POINT Maximum) | |
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION |
| 0 | None - Not addressed or response of no value |
| 1 - 5 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 6 - 10 | Good - Some applicability |
| 11 - 15 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 16 - 20 | Excellent - Total applicability |
| COST PROPOSAL: Offerors are required to submit cost proposals as directed in the RFP. The pricing will not be disclosed to the evaluation committee until after the initial evaluation of proposals is completed. |
Evaluation Worksheet
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET | |
| TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING | |
| RFP Number and Title | 201-2025-1000-1 School Data Migration |
| Name of Offeror | |
| Name of Evaluator | |
| Date |
| OFFEROR SCORE | ||
| CRITERION | MAX POINTS | SCORE |
| A. Professional Services | ||
| 20 | ||
| B. Project Management | 20 | |
| C. Contract Deliverables & Estimated Schedule | 20 | |
| D. Experience and Qualifications | 20 | |
| TOTAL TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE | 0 |
| SECTION A: Professional Services | ||
| TWENTY (20) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion. | ||
| RATING SCALE | ||
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION | |
| 0 | None - Not addressed or response of no value | |
| 1 - 5 | Fair - Limited applicability | |
| 6 - 10 | Good - Some applicability | |
| 11 - 15 | Very Good - Substantial applicability | |
| 16 - 20 | 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 does the proposed product and/or service meet the technical and functional requirements to meet the requirements of the RFP? | ||
| 2. How well does the proposed product and/or services meet the STATE’s need for assistance with data extraction? | ||
| 3. Has the offeror offered any value-added functionality, products, services, or upgrades as part of the proposal that demonstrates added value? | ||
| 4. Is the proposed product and/or service compatible with the STATE’s technology standards, and/or shall it interface with existing technology if required? | ||
| 5. Evaluation of the software licensing options available to the STATE? | ||
| 6. Do the offeror’s strategies raise any issues or add risk to the STATE? | ||
| 7. Has the offeror proposed services that align with the requirements and demonstrate a good understanding of the scope required for this project? | ||
| 8. What technical support services are included with the contract? | ||
| 9. What are the benefits or drawbacks to the offeror's proposed assistance with extraction efforts or performance of the extraction on behalf of LEAs? | ||
| 10. How well has the offeror identified its plan for handling customer inquiries and response time to inquiries? |
| SECTION B: Project Management | ||
| TWENTY (20) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion. | ||
| RATING SCALE | ||
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION | |
| 0 | None - Not addressed or response of no value | |
| 1 - 5 | Fair - Limited applicability | |
| 6 - 10 | Good - Some applicability | |
| 11 - 15 | Very Good - Substantial applicability | |
| 16 - 20 | 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. Has the offeror proposed project management services that align with the requirements and demonstrate a good understanding of the scope required for this project? | ||
| 2. Does the offeror’s response demonstrate a good understanding of the quality assurance requirements? | ||
| 3. Does the proposed product and/or service meet applicable industry standards and required certifications? |
| SECTION C: Contract Deliverables & Estimated Schedule | ||
| TWENTY (20) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion. | ||
| RATING SCALE | ||
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION | |
| 0 | None - Not addressed or response of no value | |
| 1 - 5 | Fair - Limited applicability | |
| 6 - 10 | Good - Some applicability | |
| 11 - 15 | Very Good - Substantial applicability | |
| 16 - 20 | 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. Does the offeror’s response demonstrate a good understanding of the deliverables and schedule, and the capacity to achieve the deliverables based on a mutually agreed upon schedule? | ||
| 2. Has the offeror demonstrated in its proposal the capability and willingness to provide those reporting requirements? | ||
| 3. Extent of changes proposed to the contract? | ||
| SECTION D: EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS | ||
| TWENTY (20) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion. | ||
| RATING SCALE | ||
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION | |
| 0 | None - Not addressed or response of no value | |
| 1 - 5 | Fair - Limited applicability | |
| 6 - 10 | Good - Some applicability | |
| 11 - 15 | Very Good - Substantial applicability | |
| 16 - 20 | 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. Has the firm demonstrated experience in completing similar (statewide) projects on time and within budget within the previous five years? | ||
| 2. Are resumes complete and do they demonstrate backgrounds that would be desirable for individuals engaged in the work the RFP requires? | ||
| 3. How extensive is the experience of the fim in working with sensitive data transfers from one large solution to another? Preference will be given to offerors with student information system knowledge and experience, particularly PowerSchool. | ||
| 4. If a subcontractor shall perform work on the project, how well does it measure up to the evaluation used for the offeror? | ||
| 5. Did the three references required provide information to verify the satisfactory performance of the offeror? | ||
| 6. Has the offeror proposed a suitable account representative in support of this contract? |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .