Evaluation Tool- Avionics Ver I.xls
XLS spreadsheet 106 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Master Agreement AZ|CTR060716
- Contract number
- CTR060716
- Issued by
- Arizona
About this file
This document is an evaluation tool for a solicitation (BPM004504) related to an Avionics contract, specifically for Hangar One. The evaluation summary provides a detailed scoring breakdown of a proposal, with total possible points of 1000 across methodology, cost/pricing, and experience and capacity categories. The document appears to be an internal assessment of a vendor's capabilities for avionics work, with a focus on government and law enforcement aircraft operations.
The contract involves avionics services with a labor rate of $125 per hour on a cost-plus 15% basis. The vendor (Hangar One) submitted a proposal that scored 840 out of 1000 possible points, with full points in methodology (147/210), maximum points in cost/pricing (400/400), and a strong score in experience and capacity (293/390). Key evaluation criteria included FAA certifications, aircraft avionics experience, ability to provide wiring diagrams, conformance with performance requirements, and demonstrating experience with government agency aircraft completions. The vendor exceeded expectations by providing 28 examples of aircraft avionics experience when only 5 were requested.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
Evaluation Summary
| EVALUATION | ||||||
| Solicitation No. BPM004504 | Avionics | Hangar One | ||||
| 1000 | Combined Total Score | 840 | 0 | |||
| 210 | Methodology Total | 147 | 0 | |||
| 210 | Written Narrative | Meets | 147 | 0 | ||
| Offer to provide sufficient information on how they will perform the the Avionics work outlined in the Scope, including support for multiple agencies, required certifications, delivery of all required documentation, experience with the listed aircraft. Proposal to include suppliers’ ability to respond to high priority requests. (Scope 5.4 | Will comply with all requirements outlines in the Scope | |||||
| 400 | Cost/Pricing Total | 400 | ||||
| 390 | Experience and Capacity Total | 293 | 0 | |||
| 65 | Exceeds | 65 | 0 | |||
| 1 | Please provide example of previous experience Avionics work experience with law enforcement and government operations aircraft completions. (2.1) | Provided reference sheet listing 28 examples of aircraft Avionics experience with a large diversity of govt agencies. (only 5 examples were requested) | ||||
| 65 | Meets | 46 | 0 | |||
| 2 | Please provide certifications for: FAA certified repair station (under part 145) and or authorized Textron Aviation Service capable of returning aircraft/airframe to service. Please provide examples of work performed on Exhibit I listed aircraft. (five to ten examples will be adequate) (3.3) | Provided certificate | ||||
| 0 | Exceeds | 0 | Exceeds | 0 | ||
| 65 | Meets | 46 | 0 | |||
| 3 | Please describe the process that will be utilized to provide new and rebuilt airworthy aircraft avionics. (3.12 & 3.13). | Will provide FAA form 8130-3 for airworthiness | ||||
| 65 | Meets | 46 | 0 | |||
| 4 | Please describe the process that will be utilized to ensure Brand Names specified in the Scope will be adhered to. (2.4) | Brand names will be provided as requested. | ||||
| 65 | Meets | 46 | 0 | |||
| 5 | Please describe the process that will be utilized to provide customized wiring diagrams and provide examples of wiring diagrams. (4.1) | Will supply AutoCAD wiring diagrams | ||||
| 65 | Meets | 46 | 0 | |||
| 6 | Please describe the process that will be used to ensure conformance with all Performance Requirements. (7.0) | Will comply with performace requirements for section 7.0 | ||||
| 0 | 0 | |||||
| 0 | 0 | |||||
| 0 | 0 | |||||
| Meets = The response meets the requirement(s) outlined in the RFP. | ||||||
| Does Not Meet = The response fails to address the requirement(s) of the RFP or fails to provide any experience related to the requirement(s) of the RFP or elements of the proposal are unacceptable to the state. | ||||||
| Exceeds | Exceeds = The response fully addresses the requirement(s) of the RFP but also provides superior experience, a creative/innovative approach, or an exceptional solution. | |||||
| Meets | ||||||
| No Adm Actions | ||||||
| One Adm Issue | ||||||
| Two Adm Issues | ||||||
| Three Adm Issues | ||||||
| Four Issues or Term. | ||||||
| No Referral Reassigned | ||||||
| <2 Referrals Reassigned | ||||||
| >2 Referrals Reassigned |
Rates
| Bids | |||
| Offerors | Total labor Charges | Total Material Charges | Total Cost |
| Hangar One | $125 hr | Cost Plus 15% | |
| Lowest Bid | |||
| Scoring Formula = Lowest Bid/Proposed Bid x 400 |
Total Score
| Offeror | Method | Cost | Experience | Total Score |
| Possible Points | 210 | 400 | 390 | 1000 |
| Hangar One | 147 | 400 | 293 | 840 |
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| Note: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .