Exhibit_I_PROCUREMENT_SUMMARY.pdf
PDF 203 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Western Destin Dune Vegetation Project-FEMA
- Solicitation number
- ITB TDD 62-26
- Issued by
- Okaloosa County, Florida
About this file
This is a Procurement Memorandum form related to a Western Destin Dune Vegetation Project in Okaloosa County, Florida, a FEMA-funded initiative. The Board of County Commissioners of Okaloosa County is seeking contractors to provide labor, materials, equipment, and perform all operations related to dune vegetation, sand fencing, signage, and post and rope installation in accordance with construction drawings and specifications. The document serves as a template for documenting the procurement method, justification for contractor selection, and evaluation criteria, though the specific response dates, due dates, site visits, bidder conferences, award dates, and contract term details are not populated in this version of the form.
The memorandum includes sections for documenting pricing analysis, competitive range determinations, and price reasonableness verification through comparison to independent estimates and variance between offerors. The form provides space for identifying the method of procurement (competitive bid, competitive RFP, sole source, or small/micro purchase), the rationale for the selected contract type, evaluation results, responsibility and responsiveness checks, and any change orders. Funding source documentation and board approval requirements are also included, with provisions for attaching meeting minutes. The document does not contain populated information regarding specific pricing, set-asides, incumbent contractors, or funding amounts in this preliminary memorandum form.
View the file
Other files
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
PROCUREMENT MEMORANDUM
Date: _________________ Completed by: _________________ PO / Contract No. _________________ Source of Funding: _________________
Micro Purchase: _________________ A&E Services: _________________ Small Purchase: _________________ Competitive Bid: _________________ Competitive RFP: _________________ Sole Source: _________________
Yes/ No _________ # of Sources ________
Accepted contractor's proposed pricing:
Negotiated Price (attached memorandum)
Other:
The price offered by the supplier was within ___ % of the independent estimate, and variance between the offerors constituted a range of ____ . The competitive range was determined to be from $ ________ Pricing discrepancies between the offers was attributed to ________________________________ Other sources/data used to affirm price reasonableness were ________________________________
EXHIBIT I: PROCUREMENT SUMMARY
Method of Procurement
Adequate # of Sources Solicited?
Justification if Non-Competitive:
Reason for the Procurement
Contract Type:_________________________________________________________________________________ Rationale for contract type:_________________________________________________________________________
Reason for Contractor selection or rejection:
Lowest responsive, responsible bidder: _______________________________________________________________ Evaluation results were:
Basis for Contract Price
Cost / Price Analysis: ___________________________________________________________
EXPLAIN:
Evaluation of Options, if any:
Exercise of Options, if any:
Award Date of contract award: _________________________________ Board Approval (Attach Meeting Minutes):
Summary of Responsibility and Responsiveness Checks
Change Orders Identify each and summarize reason for change, dates, cost analysis, time impact, and modification number.
Table 1
| PROCUREMENT MEMORANDUM: |
| Completed by: |
| undefined: |
| Source of Funding: |
| 1: |
| 2: |
| 3: |
| undefined_2: |
| Competitive Bid 1: |
| Competitive Bid 2: |
| Yes No: |
| of Sources: |
| Justification if NonCompetitive 1: |
| Justification if NonCompetitive 2: |
| Reason for the Procurement: |
| Contract Type: |
| Rationale for contract type: |
| Reason for Contractor selection or rejection: |
| Lowest responsive responsible bidder: |
| Evaluation results were 1: |
| Evaluation results were 2: |
| undefined_3: |
| 1_2: |
| 2_2: |
| offerors constituted a range of: |
| The competitive range was determined to be from: |
| Pricing discrepancies between the offers was attributed to: |
| Other sourcesdata used to affirm price reasonableness were: |
| undefined_4: |
| undefined_5: |
| undefined_6: |
| undefined_7: |
| Board Approval Attach Meeting Minutes: |
| Text7: |
| Text1: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .