Evaluation Score Card - Meters~1.doc
DOC document 81 KB Posted
- 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 .