Evaluation Score Card - Meters~1.doc

DOC document 81 KB Posted

Attached to
DFSNF-WTO Announcement for Hazardous Materials Meters and Detectors
Solicitation number
BD-18-1021-DFS-DFS01-19744
Issued by
Middlesex County, Massachusetts

About this file

The document is an Evaluation Score Card for a Request for Response (RFR) issued by the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services for Hazardous Materials Detection Meters, Products, Services, Training and Technical Support. The RFR seeks to create a qualified list of vendors to provide these products and services. The evaluation criteria include the bidder's references, company narrative, pricing for products and services, warranty periods, and supplier diversity program plan. The contract opportunity is a State and Local procurement under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. The RFR requires bidders to meet various eligibility criteria, submit a complete response package, and be scored on the defined evaluation criteria. Pricing is evaluated based on product discounts, hourly service rates, calibration charges, and prompt pay discounts. The supplier diversity program plan is also a scored component, with higher commitment levels earning more points.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Documents Required Upon Award~3.zip ZIP file
SDP Plan Form 2~2.docx DOCX document
Non Collusion Form~14.doc DOC document
WTO Intent to Post Notification 2018 Hazmat Meters~1.docx DOCX document
Business Reference Form~7.doc DOC document
Signatory Form~6.doc DOC document
PromptPayDiscount~6.doc DOC document
Bidder Response Sheet - Meters.docx DOCX document
SDP Plan Form 1~2.docx DOCX document
Meter RFR 2018~1.doc DOC document
DFS Meter List 2017.docx DOCX document
Show all 11

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

DEPARTMENT OF FIRE SERVICES

Evaluation Score Card, #DFS-Meters-2018

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DETECTION METERS

PRODUCTS, SERVICES, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Bidder: ___________________________________

Evaluator: _______________________________________

Eligibility Criteria: To be eligible for review, the Response must be complete and must meet all of the minimum requirements outlined in the RFR. The intent of the RFR is to create a qualified list of vendors. The Response has been screened as follows:

· Bidder has submitted the Bidder’s Response Sheet

· Bidder complies with FOB Stow payment terms in accordance with Section 6.2, Section 8.2 and Section 8.5.

· Bidder has submitted a Company narrative

· Bidder has submitted their employee proof of certification for service work

· Bidder has submitted the Business Reference Form

· Bidder has submitted the Contractor Authorized Signatory Form

· Bidder has submitted a completed and signed Prompt Payment Discount Form

· Bidder has submitted a signed Certificate of Non-Collusion

· Bidder has submitted a Supplier Diversity Program Plan Form #1

· Bidder has submitted completed and signed Supplier Diversity Program Plan Form #2 Eligibility Screening:

· Response package is complete and is eligible for further review by the committee.

· Response package is incomplete or otherwise not eligible for further review by the committee.

Procurement Department

Date

CRITERIA
Scale

SCORE

(0-3)

COMMENTS

References (From reference form)

Business References
The evaluator will score 1 for each satisfactory reference and 0 for each unsatisfactory reference.

Weight

X 2

Total Weighted Score

COMPANY NARRATIVE

Years in Business Selling Meters
Less than 3 years = 0, 3 to 5 years = 1,

6 to 8 years = 2, more than 8 years = 3

Years Providing Service/Calibrations
Less than 3 years = 0, 3 to 5 years = 1,

6 to 8 years = 2, more than 8 years = 3

Number of Certified Technicians
None = 0, 1 to 2 = 1, 3 to 4 = 2, more than 4 = 3
In-House Service/Use of Subcontractors
In-House = 3, Use of Subcontractors = 1

Subtotal

Weight

X 4

Total Weighted Score

Pricing: PRODUCT DISCOUNT, Hourly Rate for Service (from Price List and attachment A) & PPD

Parts, Equipment, Accessories
Discount > 10% = 3 points

5% to 10% = 2 points < 5% = 1 point, No discount = 0

If bidder offers multiple discounts, an average will be used

Hourly Rate for repairs/service
< $90.00 per hour = 3, $90.01 to $120.00 = 2,

$120.01 to $150.00 per hour = 1, > $150.01 per hour = 0

If bidder offers multiple rates for various positions, an average will be used

Calibration Charge
< $100.00 per unit = 3, $100.00 to $200.00 = 2,

$200.01 to $300.00 = 1, over $300.00 = 0

If bidder offers multiple calibration charges, an average will be used

Prompt Pay Discount
No discount = 0, < 1% = 1

1% to < 2% = 2, 2% or higher = 3

Weight

X 4

Total Weighted Score

WARRANTY PERIOD (From ATTACHMENT A)

Warranty for Parts, Equipment, Accessories
> 12 months = 3

12 months = 2

3 months to < 12 months = 1

< 90 days = 0

Warranty for Service
> 9 months = 3

6 months to 9 months = 2

1 months to < 6 months = 1

< 30 days = 0

Subtotal

Weight

X 1

Total Weighted Score

SUPPLIER DIVERSITY Program PLan (From SDP Form)

Supplier Diversity Program
SDP Commitment Level: Excellent: >6% = 15 points, Good: 4-5%=12 points, 2-3%=9 points, 1-2%=6 points, Fair: <1% = 3 points.

Total available points = 108 x 10% = 11 points or more for SDP commitment. DFS will give bidder up to 15 points.

TOTOAL SCORE

Evaluator’s Final Score:

Score

Signature

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this award process. Please read each response carefully. The evaluation criteria below are taken directly from the RFR. Set your standards high in the course of your review. The first task is to determine if the Respondent has demonstrated an ability to provide the services and fully understands the RFR requirements. You must review the RFR carefully prior to evaluating the responses.

Score 0 If the Respondent does not address a criteria sought by the RFR.

Score 1 If the Respondent’s discussion of the criteria or information provided is poor.

Score 2 If the Respondent’s discussion or information indicates a clear understanding of the criteria and addresses it.

Score 3 If the Respondent’s discussion of the criteria or information provided excels.

To ensure the integrity of the process, you are reminded that you may not communicate directly with any of the Respondents. Additionally, if during your review you determine that you have had or currently have a professional or personal relationship with any Respondent, you must bring this to the attention of Fiscal Affairs and your supervisor immediately. Failure to follow these guidelines may result in our failure to award the contract and may result in significant disciplinary or legal action.

Evaluator’s Final Score:

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .