Evaluator Scores - Summary Page.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 11 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-R20549-00010400
- Issued by
- Lane County, Oregon
About this file
This is an Evaluator Scores Summary document from a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP 20240020) conducted by Lane Transit District (LTD) in Lane County, Oregon for Transit Vehicle Camera Replacement services. The evaluation process assessed four vendors across multiple criteria including proposers' examples of relevant past voiceover projects, key personnel qualifications, equity lens considerations, and price evaluation. An optional virtual pre-proposal meeting was scheduled for May 23, 2024, with Phase 1 proposals due by June 20, 2024. The RFP sought qualified contractors to provide comprehensive services including purchase, delivery, installation, training, and maintenance of new transit vehicle camera systems for LTD's fleet.
Four vendors submitted proposals for evaluation: Idea Translations, Lazar Translating & Interpreting, LinguaLinx, and Verbio. Each vendor was scored by four independent evaluators across the established criteria. Idea Translations achieved an average score of 16.45 points, Lazar Translating & Interpreting scored 16.5 points, LinguaLinx scored 14.5 points, and Verbio scored 11.45 points. Lazar Translating & Interpreting and Idea Translations emerged as the top-ranked candidates based on cumulative evaluation scores. The RFP documents do not explicitly specify set-aside designations, minority business enterprise requirements, disadvantaged business enterprise preferences, incumbent vendors, current camera system infrastructure, or specific budget allocations for the replacement project.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP 20240020 Phase 1 - Transit Vehicle Camera Replacement - Notice.pdf |
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
Summary Page
| Vendor | Evaluators | Proposer's examples on relevant past voiceover projects | Proposer's key persons qualifications | Proposer's equity lens | Proposer's price evaluation | Total Points |
| Idea Translations | Evaluator 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4.7 | 14.7 |
| Evaluator 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4.7 | 14.7 | |
| Evaluator 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4.7 | 17.7 | |
| Evaluator 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 4.7 | 18.7 | |
| 16.45 | ||||||
| Lazar Translating & Interpreting | Evaluator 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 17 |
| Evaluator 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 14 | |
| Evaluator 3 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 18 | |
| Evaluator 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 17 | |
| 16.5 | ||||||
| LinguaLinx | Evaluator 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 13 |
| Evaluator 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 15 | |
| Evaluator 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 18 | |
| Evaluator 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 12 | |
| 14.5 | ||||||
| Verbio | Evaluator 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 0.2 | 12.2 |
| Evaluator 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0.2 | 8.2 | |
| Evaluator 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0.2 | 13.2 | |
| Evaluator 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0.2 | 12.2 | |
| 11.45 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .