RFP_Evaluation Criteria.docx
DOCX document 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Budget and Forecasting Software Solution
- Solicitation number
- MSU-RFP-2027-0872
- Issued by
- Gallatin County, Montana
About this file
This is an RFP Evaluation Criteria document for Montana State University's Budget and Forecasting Software Solution procurement (RFP MSU-RFP-2027-0872). The evaluation will assess proposals using a total of 1,000 points distributed across multiple criteria categories. Proposals are due December 8, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. MST, with questions due by November 10, 2026. The procurement seeks a turnkey, web-based budgeting and forecasting solution with higher education-specific functionality for the university's four-campus system. The contract term and renewal options are not specified in this evaluation criteria document.
The evaluation framework allocates 800 points (80%) to scope of project criteria, including mandatory requirements (pass/fail), ability to exceed requirements (300 points), implementation plan (150 points), training and documentation (100 points), acceptance plan criteria (50 points), process improvement services (50 points), maintenance and support (50 points), technical and data privacy requirements (pass/fail), sample reports (50 points), and implementation of solution (50 points). References, financial stability, and litigation history are evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Cost proposals receive 200 points (20%) of the total score, with the lowest cost receiving maximum points and all other proposals scored proportionally based on cost relationship to the lowest offer. Responses scoring 59% or less fail evaluation, and any proposal receiving a "fail" on individual criteria may result in disqualification. No set-aside is indicated for this procurement.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 2 Cost Proposal .docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft Contract.docx | DOCX document | |
| Data Security Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| Technical Specifications.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1452724-event.pdf | ||
| University Contract Addendum to be applied to any supplier agreement utilized.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Scope of Project (2).docx | DOCX document | |
| Standard Terms and Conditions.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
ATTACHMENT 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA
3.0 BASIS OF EVALUATION
The evaluator/evaluation committee will review and evaluate the offers according to the following criteria based on a total number of 1000 points.
The References, Resumes/Company Profile and Experience, Ability to Meet Supply Specifications, Method of Providing Services, and Financial Stability portions of the offer will be evaluated based on the following Scoring Guide or on a pass/fail basis as indicated, with any offeror receiving a "fail" eliminated from further consideration. The Cost Proposal will be evaluated based on the formula set forth below.
Any response that fails to achieve a passing score per the prerequisites will be eliminated from further consideration. A "fail" for any individual evaluation criterion may result in proposal disqualification at the discretion of the procurement officer.
SCORING GUIDE
In awarding points to the evaluation criteria, the evaluator/evaluation committee will consider the following guidelines:
Superior Response (90-100%): A superior response is a highly comprehensive, excellent reply that meets all of the requirements of the RFP. In addition, the response may cover areas not originally addressed within the RFP and/or include additional information and recommendations that would prove both valuable and beneficial to the department.
Good Response (75-89%): A good response meets all the requirements of the RFP and demonstrates in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the project, with no deficiencies noted.
Fair Response (60-74%): A fair response minimally meets most requirements set forth in the RFP. The offeror demonstrates some ability to comply with guidelines and requirements of the project, but knowledge of the subject matter is limited.
Failed Response (59% or less): A failed response does not meet the requirements set forth in the RFP. The offeror has not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the subject matter.
3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Scope of Project 80% of points for a possible 800 points Category Point Value
| A. | Ability to Meet Mandatory Requirements | Pass / Fail | |
| B. | Ability to Exceed Mandatory/Meet Preferred Requirements | 300 | |
| B. | Implementation Plan | 150 |
C. Training and Documentation 100
| D. | Acceptance Plan Criteria and Process | 50 |
| E. | Process Improvement Services | 50 |
| F. | Maintenance and Support | 50 |
| G. | Technical and Data Privacy Requirements | Pass / Fail |
| H. | Sample Reports | 50 |
| I. | Implementations of Solution | 50 |
References Category Point Value
| A. | References | Pass / Fail |
| B., | Financial Stability | Pass / Fail |
| C. | Outstanding or Previous Litigation | Pass / Fail |
Cost Proposal 20% of points for a possible 200 points Category Point Value
A. Cost Proposal 200
Lowest overall cost receives the maximum allotted points. All other proposals receive a percentage of the points available based on their cost relationship to the lowest. Example: Total possible points for cost are 30. Offeror A's cost is $20,000. Offeror B's cost is $30,000. Offeror A would receive 30 points, Offeror B would receive 20 points ($20,000/$30,000) = 67% x 30 points = 20).
Lowest Responsive Offer Total Cost x Number of available points = Award Points This Offeror's Total Cost
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .