The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORING
ASTM Type I and Type III Pure Water System Replacement — RFP SRC000467 Evaluator: __________________________________ Offeror: __________________________________ Date: __________________________ Evaluation stage: Technical (separate from cost) Evaluation Overview Review mandatory minimum requirements before scoring. Evaluate the Technical Proposal without cost information. Award points based on documented proposal evidence and the factor-specific rubric below. Cost proposals are evaluated separately using NDSU’s established cost-scoring formula. Do not include pricing in technical evaluator materials.
| Component |
| Maximum Points |
| Score |
| Cost Proposal (separate evaluation) |
| 20 |
Technical Evaluation — 80 Points General scoring method: Select the performance level best supported by the proposal. Within each band, assign a whole-number score reflecting completeness, quality, substantiation, risk and relevance. Record the rationale for each score. Do not award points for merely promising to meet a mandatory minimum.
1. Technical Compliance & Minimum Requirements — 20 Points Demonstrated compliance with required ASTM Type I/III water quality, production, storage, flow/pressure, controls and all mandatory requirements.
| Performance level |
| Point range |
| Factor-specific scoring anchor |
| Excellent |
| 17–20 |
| Fully demonstrated, well supported and exceeds key performance needs |
| Good |
| 13–16 |
| Meets requirements with complete and convincing evidence |
| Adequate |
| 9–12 |
| Meets most requirements but evidence/clarity has minor gaps |
| Limited |
| 1–8 |
| Significant gaps or unsupported compliance claims |
| Deficient |
| 0–0 |
| Fails to demonstrate core requirements or has material deficiencies |
Points awarded: ______ / 20 Evaluator comments/evidence: __________________________________________
2. Experience & Qualifications — 10 Points Comparable high-purity water projects; qualifications of firm and assigned personnel; documented references and relevant experience. Ten years of applicable experience is a mandatory minimum.
| Performance level |
| Point range |
| Factor-specific scoring anchor |
| Excellent |
| 8–10 |
| Extensive directly comparable experience and strong documented team/references |
| Good |
| 6–7 |
| Solid relevant experience and qualified team |
| Adequate |
| 4–5 |
| Adequate experience with minor weaknesses |
| Limited |
| 1–3 |
| Limited comparable evidence or notable concerns |
| Deficient |
| 0–0 |
| Unsubstantiated qualifications or significant deficiencies |
Points awarded: ______ / 10 Evaluator comments/evidence: __________________________________________
3. Proposed System & Technical Approach — 15 Points System design, treatment strategy, reliability, redundancy, maintainability, controls, monitoring and compatibility with NDSU facilities.
| Performance level |
| Point range |
| Factor-specific scoring anchor |
| Excellent |
| 13–15 |
| Excellent integrated approach, low technical risk, strong supporting documentation |
| Good |
| 10–12 |
| Sound, well-supported design meeting operational needs |
| Adequate |
| 7–9 |
| Generally suitable with minor design or documentation gaps |
| Limited |
| 1–6 |
| Notable weaknesses or implementation risks |
| Deficient |
| 0–0 |
| Inadequate or unsupported proposed approach |
Points awarded: ______ / 15 Evaluator comments/evidence: __________________________________________
4. Implementation Timeline & Water-Service Downtime — 15 Points Evaluate proposed total calendar days from award to final acceptance, anticipated outage/changeover duration, milestone realism, critical-path dependencies, and strategies to minimize disruption. Consider NDSU-contractor coordination and schedule credibility.
| Performance level |
| Point range |
| Factor-specific scoring anchor |
| Excellent |
| 13–15 |
| Shortest credible schedule and minimal downtime, with detailed achievable milestones and strong mitigation |
| Good |
| 10–12 |
| Competitive realistic schedule and low downtime, well substantiated |
| Adequate |
| 7–9 |
| Acceptable schedule/downtime with some uncertainties |
| Limited |
| 1–6 |
| Long or weakly supported schedule, or material disruption concerns |
| Deficient |
| 0–0 |
| No usable timeline or unrealistic/unsubstantiated schedule |
Points awarded: ______ / 15 Evaluator comments/evidence: __________________________________________
5. Installation, Startup & Commissioning — 5 Points Vendor installation supervision, coordination with Owner contractors, factory testing, startup, commissioning, performance verification and acceptance.
| Performance level |
| Point range |
| Factor-specific scoring anchor |
| Excellent |
| 4–5 |
| Detailed, coordinated, low-risk execution plan |
| Good |
| 3–3 |
| Clear and feasible plan with appropriate responsibilities |
| Adequate |
| 2–2 |
| Adequate plan with minor omissions |
| Limited |
| 1–1 |
| Incomplete plan or notable coordination gaps |
| Deficient |
| 0–0 |
| Material deficiencies in execution approach |
Points awarded: ______ / 5 Evaluator comments/evidence: __________________________________________
6. Service & Support — 10 Points Qualified local/regional service resources, response times, critical parts availability, remote support and maintenance approach.
| Performance level |
| Point range |
| Factor-specific scoring anchor |
| Excellent |
| 8–10 |
| Excellent demonstrated service coverage, responsiveness and parts support |
| Good |
| 6–7 |
| Strong documented support capability |
| Adequate |
| 4–5 |
| Adequate support with some limitations |
| Limited |
| 1–3 |
| Limited resources or uncertain response/parts availability |
| Deficient |
| 0–0 |
| Insufficient or unsubstantiated service support |
Points awarded: ______ / 10 Evaluator comments/evidence: __________________________________________
7. Warranty, Training & Documentation — 5 Points Warranty coverage, training plan, O&M manuals, as-built documentation and turnover materials.
| Performance level |
| Point range |
| Factor-specific scoring anchor |
| Excellent |
| 4–5 |
| Comprehensive coverage, training and deliverables beyond minimum |
| Good |
| 3–3 |
| Complete and clearly documented provisions |
| Adequate |
| 2–2 |
| Adequate provisions with minor gaps |
| Limited |
| 1–1 |
| Weak or unclear provisions |
| Deficient |
| 0–0 |
| Material omissions or inadequate provisions |
Points awarded: ______ / 5 Evaluator comments/evidence: __________________________________________ Technical Score Summary
| Evaluation factor |
| Maximum |
| Score |
| 1. Technical Compliance & Minimum Requirements |
| 20 |
| 2. Experience & Qualifications |
| 10 |
| 3. Proposed System & Technical Approach |
| 15 |
| 4. Implementation Timeline & Water-Service Downtime |
| 15 |
| 5. Installation, Startup & Commissioning |
| 5 |
| 7. Warranty, Training & Documentation |
| 5 |
Minimum Requirements / Compliance Review Mandatory RFP requirements, including the minimum ten (10) years of applicable experience, must be reviewed separately from point scoring. A failure to meet a mandatory minimum must be handled according to the RFP and applicable procurement procedures; technical points do not waive mandatory requirements.
Mandatory compliance review: ☐ Meets minimums ☐ Requires clarification/review ☐ Does not meet minimums Notes / exceptions: ___________________________________________________________________________