RFP_32110-30325_SWC_303_EMMS_Evaluation_Model.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 102 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP 32110-30325 Release 2
- Issued by
- Davidson County, Tennessee
About this file
This is a Cost Proposal document for the State of Tennessee's Request for Proposal (RFP) #32110-30325 for Equipment Maintenance Management Services (SWC 303). The RFP solicits proposals for maintenance services across three equipment categories: Office Equipment, Laboratory/Medical Equipment, and Electronic/Communications Equipment, with a historical state spend of $2,516,413.57. The proposal requires respondents to submit detailed pricing with minimum discounts for two tiers of service and includes specific Service Level Agreement (SLA) requirements, mandating that Tier 1 SLA must be at least 85%, Tier 2 SLA between 0-15%, and Rejected SLA between 0-5%, with all three levels summing to 100%.
The cost proposal instructions specify that all monetary amounts must be in U.S. currency with two decimal places, and the proposal must remain valid for 120 days after opening. The evaluation factors are for assessment purposes only and do not guarantee any volume of work or purchases. Respondents must complete blue-shaded cells, enter minimum discounts for each tier, and provide SLA percentages. The state reserves the right to determine equipment scope and will calculate the final evaluation score using a formula that compares the lowest evaluation cost amount across all proposals, with a maximum section score of 40 points. The proposal emphasizes that the state is not obligated to request specific work amounts from the contractor during the contract period.
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
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
1. Cost Proposal
State of Tennessee
RFP #32110-30325
SWC 303 Equipment Maintenance Management Services Attachment 6.3. Cost Proposal
| Instructions |
| The Cost Proposal, detailed below, shall indicate the proposed price for goods or services defined in the Scope of Services of the RFP Attachment 6.6., Pro Forma Contract and for the entire contract period. The Cost Proposal shall remain valid for at least one hundred twenty (120) days subsequent to the date of the Cost Proposal opening and thereafter in accordance with any contract resulting from this RFP. All monetary amounts shall be in U.S. currency and limited to two (2) places to the right of the decimal point. |
The Evaluation Factor associated with each cost item is for evaluation purposes only. The evaluation factors do NOT and should NOT be construed as any type of volume guarantee or minimum purchase quantity. The evaluation factors shall NOT create rights, interests, or claims of entitlement in the Respondent.
Notwithstanding the cost items herein, pursuant to the Pro Forma Contract section C.1. (refer to RFP Attachment 6.6.), "The State is under no obligation to request work from the Contractor in any specific dollar amounts or to request any work at all from the Contractor during any period of this Contract.”
| - Respondents are required to fill in all cells shaded in "Blue". |
| - The Historical State Spend provided in Column "E" are for evaluation purposes only and are not guaranteed. |
| - For any questions about this evaluation model, please contact Category Specialist below: |
| Contact : Taylor Dozier |
| Phone: 615-532-0400 |
| Email: Taylor.Dozier@tn.gov |
| - Respondent must: |
| Enter minimum discount for each tier in Column C and Column D. Minimum discount cannot contain more than two decimal places. |
| Enter Service Level Agreements for each tier in Cells "I43", "I44", "I45". |
| Complete and sign the Required Signature page on Tab 2. |
| - Constraints: |
| Tier 1 SLA ("I43") is to be greater than or equal to 85%. Tier 1 SLA is a minimum percent. |
| Tier 2 SLA ("I44") is to be between 0% - 15%, inclusive. Tier 2 SLA is a maximum percent. |
| Rejected SLA ("I45") is to be between 0% - 5%, inclusive. Rejected SLA is a maximum percent. |
| All three levels of Service Level Agreements must sum to 100%. |
| - Explanation of Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Tier Discounts: |
| Respondent is to enter SLA and Tier Discounts as required in the solicitation. The SLAs entered by the Respondent will become part of the Respondent's contract if the Respondent is awarded the contract. The State will expect the Respondent to meet or exceed SLAs as required in the solicitation. Tier 1 SLA (Cell "I43") states the Respondent agrees to honor the Tier 1 Minimum Discount (Cell "C52") at the percent the Respondent inputs into the SLA Tier 1 cell ("I43"). For example, if a Respondent offers a 40% Tier 1 Discount and inputs 90% into Tier 1 SLA, then the State will expect the Respondent to honor the 40% minimum discount at least on 90% of the equipment accepted into the program. If the Respondent offers a 10% Tier 2 Discount and inputs 9% into Tier 2 SLA, then the State will expect the Respondent to honor the 10% discount at most 9% of the time. If a Respondent inputs 1% into Rejected SLA, then the State will expect that no more than 1% of the equipment evaluated for inclusion in the program will be rejected by Respondent during performance of resulting contract. The mentioned scenarios are provided as examples and should not be construed to represent expected percentages. Only equipment considered within the scope of the contract will be considered when evaluating rejected and Tier 2 levels. The State reserves the right to determine what equipment fits into the scope of the contract. |
| Respondent Information | Service Level Agreement Percentages | |
| Respondent Name: | Tier 1 (Minimum): | |
| Your Name: | Tier 2 (Maximum): | |
| Email: | Rejected (Maximum): | |
| Phone: | Total (must = 100): | 0% |
| Equipment Category | Tier 1 Minimum Discount | Tier 2 Minimum Discount | State Use Only | ||||
| Tier 2 Minimum Discount | Historical State Spend | Evaluation Tier 1 | Evaluation Tier 2 | Evaluation Rejected | Evaluation Total |
| Office Equipment | $ 14,234.50 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 |
| Laboratory/Medical Equipment | $ 2,501,256.07 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 |
| Electronic/Communications Equipment | $ 923.00 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 | $ - 0 |
| $ 2,516,413.57 | Total Proposed Cost | $ - 0 | |||
| Average Discount | 100.00% |
| Formulas and Definitions: | |||
| Historical State Spend - Historical spend for State agencies per Equipment Category | |||
| Evaluation Tier 1 = (1-Tier 1 Minimum Discount) times Evaluation Cost times SLA % for Tier 1 | |||
| Evaluation Tier 2 = (1-Tier 2 Minimum Discount) times Evaluation Cost times SLA % for Tier 2 | |||
| Evaluation Rejected = Evaluation Cost times SLA % for Rejected | |||
| Evaluation Total - Sum of Evaluation Tier 1, Evaluation Tier 2 and Evaluation Rejected (Column F + G + H) | |||
| Total Evaluation Score = Sum of all Evaluation Totals. This will be the final number for evaluation purposes. | |||
| STATE USE ONLY | |||
| EVALUATION COST AMOUNT (sum of evaluation costs above): | |||
| The Solicitation Coordinator will use this sum and the formula below to calculate the Cost Proposal Score. Numbers rounded to two (2) places to the right of the decimal point will be standard for calculations. | |||
| lowest evaluation cost amount from all proposals | x 40 | = SCORE: | |
| evaluation cost amount being evaluated | (maximum section score) | ||
| State Use – Solicitation Coordinator Signature, Printed Name & Date: |
2. Required Signature
State of Tennessee
RFP #32110-30325
SWC 303 Equipment Maintenance Management Services
This Cost Proposal must be signed, in the space below, by an individual empowered to bind the Respondent to the provisions of this RFP and any contract awarded pursuant to it. If said individual is not the President or Chief Executive Officer, this document must attach evidence showing the individual’s authority to legally bind the Respondent.
| RESPONDENT SIGNATURE: |
| PRINTED NAME & TITLE: |
| DATE: |
RESPONDENT LEGAL ENTITY NAME:
image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .