Attachment+3+-+Proposal+Evaluation+Worksheet.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted Dec 17, 2025

Attached to: Days of our Legacy
Solicitation number: 110.7-25-084
Issued by: North Dakota

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 19, 2025

This is a Proposal Evaluation Worksheet for the State of North Dakota's "Days of Our Legacy" solicitation (RFP 110.7-25-084), which seeks proposals for website creation and data management services. The document outlines the technical evaluation criteria and scoring methodology that will be applied by the evaluation committee to assess responsive proposals submitted by offerors. The solicitation is divided into two categories: Category A addressing Website Creation and Category B addressing Data Management, with each category evaluated independently using the same evaluation framework.

The evaluation worksheet establishes a four-section scoring structure with a maximum of 85 technical points distributed across Information Technology Solution (50 points), Enterprise Specifications (10 points), Product Support (10 points), and Experience and Qualifications (15 points). Evaluators must assess offeror responses against specific criteria questions within each section, awarding a total score per criterion using the provided rating scales rather than scoring individual questions. The worksheet includes conflict-of-interest attestation requirements per N.D.A.C. 4-12-04-04, mandates that cost proposals be withheld from the evaluation committee until technical evaluation is complete, and provides detailed rating scale guidance to ensure consistency across evaluators. Key evaluation areas include alignment with state IT needs, licensing options, professional services, project management, deliverables and scheduling, risk management frameworks, ADA compliance, location of work requirements, enterprise IT standards alignment, data control, security and FedRAMP certification where applicable, warranty and technical support offerings, training provisions, maintenance and upgrade capabilities, firm experience exceeding mandatory requirements, team qualifications, subcontractor or joint venture capabilities, and reference performance verification.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Attachment+5+-+ND-State-Brand-Guidelines.pdf	PDF	Dec 17, 2025
Attachment+2+-+Cost+Proposal.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 17, 2025
Attachment+4+-+Technology+Contract.docx	DOCX document	Dec 17, 2025
Days+of+our+Legacy+RFP.docx	DOCX document	Dec 17, 2025
Attachment+6+-+Invest.+Holdings+sample.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 17, 2025
Attachment+1+-+Scope+of+Work.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 17, 2025

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Category A - Website Creation

PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

The proposal evaluation worksheet will to be used by evaluators in scoring responsive technical proposals. STATE has assigned evaluation criterion and a relative weight. The evaluation worksheet used in the evaluation process is 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 for questions below and provide an initial score for each criterion.

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 (http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/4-12-04.pdf). An evaluator who submits a proposal evaluation worksheet confirms no conflict of interest exists with the offeror being evaluated.

RATING SCALE FOR ASSESSING OFFEROR RESPONSES: 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 criterion 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.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET - CATEGORY A
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING
RFP Number and Title	110.7-25-084 - DAYS OF OUR LEGACY
Name of Offeror
Name of Evaluator
Date
SECTION A: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION
FIFTY (50) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion.

RATING SCALE
POINT VALUE	EXPLANATION
0 - 10	None - Not addressed or response of no value
11 - 20	Fair - Limited applicability
21 - 30	Good - Some applicability
31 - 40	Very Good - Substantial applicability
41 - 50	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 IT SOLUTION Category A - Website Creation/Management needs of the STATE?
2. How well does the proposed licensing/subscription options meet the needs of the STATE?
3. How well do the proposed professional services align with the needs of the STATE and demonstrate a good understanding of the scope required for this project?
4. How well does the response to project management align with the needs of the STATE? Has the offeror demonstrated a good understanding of the scope required for this project?
5. Evaluate the offeror’s response to the contract schedule / deliverables. 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?
6. Have any changes to the Technology Contract been proposed and if so, how well do they align with the needs of the STATE? Have any additional agreements been proposed for incorporation and how well does it meet the needs of the STATE?
7. How well does the Risk Mangement Framework of the proposed solution meet the needs of the STATE?
8. Evaluate how effectively the Offeror's solution meets ADA compliance requirements of the STATE?
9. How well does the offeror respond to the Location of Work requirement?
10. How well do any value-added features meet the needs of the STATE?
SECTION B: ENTERPRISE SPECIFICATIONS
TEN (10) 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 - 2	Fair - Limited applicability
3 - 5	Good - Some applicability
6 - 8	Very Good - Substantial applicability
9 - 10	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 align with the STATE’s enterprise IT standards?
2. How well does the proposed solution meet the needs of the STATE from an architectural standpoint? Also consider the detailed diagram and transparency of the solution.
3. How well does the solution meet the data needs and control of the STATE?
4. How well does the artificial intelligence offered with the solution meet the needs of the STATE?
5. How well does the security associated with the solution meet the needs of the STATE? If required, is the solution FedRAMP certified?
6. How well does the hosting offering meet the needs of the STATE?

SECTION C: PRODUCT SUPPORT
TEN (10) 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 - 2	Fair - Limited applicability
3 - 5	Good - Some applicability
6 - 8	Very Good - Substantial applicability
9 - 10	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 warranty offering meet the needs of the STATE?
2. How well does the technical support offering meet the needs of the STATE?
3. How well does the training offering meet the needs of the STATE?
4. How well does the maintenance and upgrade offering meet the needs of the STATE?
5. How well does the customer service and Account/Contract representative support offering meet the needs of the STATE?
SECTION D: EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
FIFTEEN (15) 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 - 3	Fair - Limited applicability
4 - 7	Good - Some applicability
8 - 11	Very Good - Substantial applicability
12 - 15	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 firm exceed the mandatory experience requirement and is there alignment to the needs of the STATE?
2. How well does the overall experience of the firm completing similar projects and number of years in business align with the needs of the STATE? If any subcontractors are being proposed, how well does their experience align with the needs of the STATE?
3. How well does the proposed project team experience and education meet the needs of the STATE? How well does the organization chart support the team and the needs of this RFP?
4. If a subcontractor shall perform work on the project or joint venture is proposed, how well does the project team measure up to the evaluation used for the offeror?
5. How well did the offeror and if applicable, subcontractor, perform based on the reference responses and was the work performed similar to what is needed for this project?
OFFEROR EVALUATION SCORE
CRITERION	MAX POINTS	SCORE
A. IT Solution	50	0
B. Enterprise Specifications	10	0
C. Product Support	10	0
D. Experience and Qualifications	15	0
TOTAL TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE		0

Category B - Data Management

PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

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.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET - CATEGORY B
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING
RFP Number and Title	110.7-25-084 - DAYS OF OUR LEGACY
Name of Offeror
Name of Evaluator
Date
SECTION A: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION
FIFTY (50) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion.

RATING SCALE
POINT VALUE	EXPLANATION
0 - 10	None - Not addressed or response of no value
11 - 20	Fair - Limited applicability
21 - 30	Good - Some applicability
31 - 40	Very Good - Substantial applicability
41 - 50	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 IT SOLUTION Category B - Data Management needs of the STATE?
2. How well does the proposed licensing/subscription options meet the needs of the STATE?
3. How well do the proposed professional services align with the needs of the STATE and demonstrate a good understanding of the scope required for this project?
4. How well does the response to project management align with the needs of the STATE? Has the offeror demonstrated a good understanding of the scope required for this project?
5. Evaluate the offeror’s response to the contract schedule / deliverables. 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?
6. Have any changes to the Technology Contract been proposed and if so, how well do they align with the needs of the STATE? Have any additional agreements been proposed for incorporation and how well does it meet the needs of the STATE?
7. How well does the Risk Mangement Framework of the proposed solution meet the needs of the STATE?
8. Evaluate how effectively the Offeror's solution meets ADA compliance requirements of the STATE?
9. How well does the offeror respond to the Location of Work requirement?
10. How well do any value-added features meet the needs of the STATE?
SECTION B: ENTERPRISE SPECIFICATIONS
TEN (10) 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 - 2	Fair - Limited applicability
3 - 5	Good - Some applicability
6 - 8	Very Good - Substantial applicability
9 - 10	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 align with the STATE’s enterprise IT standards?
2. How well does the proposed solution meet the needs of the STATE from an architectural standpoint? Also consider the detailed diagram and transparency of the solution.
3. How well does the solution meet the data needs and control of the STATE?
4. How well does the artificial intelligence offered with the solution meet the needs of the STATE?
5. How well does the security associated with the solution meet the needs of the STATE? If required, is the solution FedRAMP certified?
6. How well does the hosting offering meet the needs of the STATE?

SECTION C: PRODUCT SUPPORT
TEN (10) 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 - 2	Fair - Limited applicability
3 - 5	Good - Some applicability
6 - 8	Very Good - Substantial applicability
9 - 10	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 warranty offering meet the needs of the STATE?
2. How well does the technical support offering meet the needs of the STATE?
3. How well does the training offering meet the needs of the STATE?
4. How well does the maintenance and upgrade offering meet the needs of the STATE?
5. How well does the customer service and Account/Contract representative support offering meet the needs of the STATE?
SECTION D: EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
FIFTEEN (15) 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 - 3	Fair - Limited applicability
4 - 7	Good - Some applicability
8 - 11	Very Good - Substantial applicability
12 - 15	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 firm exceed the mandatory experience requirement and is there alignment to the needs of the STATE?
2. How well does the overall experience of the firm completing similar projects and number of years in business align with the needs of the STATE? If any subcontractors are being proposed, how well does their experience align with the needs of the STATE?
3. How well does the proposed project team experience and education meet the needs of the STATE? How well does the organization chart support the team and the needs of this RFP?
4. If a subcontractor shall perform work on the project or joint venture is proposed, how well does the project team measure up to the evaluation used for the offeror?
5. How well did the offeror and if applicable, subcontractor, perform based on the reference responses and was the work performed similar to what is needed for this project?
OFFEROR EVALUATION SCORE
CRITERION	MAX POINTS	SCORE
A. IT Solution	50	0
B. Enterprise Specifications	10	0
C. Product Support	10	0
D. Experience and Qualifications	15	0
TOTAL TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE		0

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Dec 19, 2025.